Urinalysis, Part 2

We started a conversation yesterday on the use of urine by medieval Western European physicians to determine health. I thought today we'd go into exactly how the urine was an indicator of health.

Examining sediment in the urine was one case, which was described yesterday in a paragraph from Giles Corbeil's (fl.1200) poem De urinis. Later elaborations on this suggest the urine would settle into layers of different colors. A large layer on top could indicate a problem with the head. Som sediments indicated kidney stones.

Smell and taste were also ways to examine urine. Smell was obvious, but taste was also used at times; sweetness was an indication of diabetes.

Visual examination was the first and most common method, and was the reason why a glass flask became the symbol in illustrations of a physician. Hippocrates (c.460–375 BCE) started the business of the look of urine having significance. He felt it was the output of all four humors of the body, could indicate which was deficient or superabundant, and could be used to predict the progress of a disease.

White or pale yellow urine was healthy, but black or foul-smelling urine predicted an increase in disease. White sediment meant the illness would be long but not fatal. Completely colorless urine was the sign of a disease of the brain (these days it means excess hydration with water).

If there were bubbles in the urine, long-term kidney disease was the cause. The modern term proteinuria is now used for this condition, denoting protein in the urine and indicating damaged kidneys.

In the circular diagram above (found in the 14th-century manuscript Bodleian Library MS Savile 39), we see the "color codes" for urine. They range from the pale urine of decent health to the reddish-gold denoting healthy digestion to the dark flasks of impending death.

Urine travels in containers, and could be collected and sent to a physician or an expert urologist if you had none nearby. Isaac Judaeus, an expert on urology, criticized this idea; he believed diagnosis without seeing the patient in person was pointless.

Tomorrow we'll discuss the punishment for urinal malpractice, and look at a couple urinalysis patients.

Urinalysis, Part 1

Last post mentioned that a medieval illustrator indicated a physician by showing him holding a flask. There was a very specific substance in that flask, and it wasn't blood; it was urine. Blood's color rarely looked different from person to person or ailment to ailment, but urine could be different in many ways.

I talked about a book all about urine a few years ago, but let's get into some more detail now.

Medieval physicians saw at least 20 different visual cues in urine when assessing a patient's health. This was such a common practice in Western Europe that William of Rubruck, writing about his travels in the Mongol Empire for Louis IX of France, mentions his surprise that their physicians didn't examine urine.

Let's look at some of the statements made by Giles Corbeil (fl.1200) in his 352-verse De urinis, written for students about uroscopy. He starts with the basics:

The physician who wishes to be considered an expert judge of urine must consider with care the following things: what sort, what it is, what is in it, how much, how often, where, when, age, nature, sex, exercise, anger, diet, anxiety, hunger, movement, baths, ointment, drink.

He explains what healthy urine looks like; it seems the flask of urine is swirled and then sediment is allowed to settle:

Color, consistency, duration, form, and place are the determining characteristics of urinary sediment. The color should be white, the consistency continuous, the form conical, the place the bottom of the vessel, and the duration marked. If the sediment is all these – white, continuous, lasting, conical – digestion will be good, virtue strong, and natural action will flourish with a triple activity: it whitens, it cleanses, and it condenses, concentrates, and unites.

The smart physician could also predict death from urine:

A very limited quantity of urine, passed with difficulty, livid and oily, foreshadows death. Urine tinged green indicates jaundice, spasm, severe fever, and finally death.

We'll look at more methods of diagnosis tomorrow, as well as some specific cases.

Blood & Health

We've been talking about blood as food, and some recipes using blood in cooking, but now let's talk about health-related blood.

Blood was considered one of four "humors" that were the key to health and personality. I wrote about these humors before. When the four humors were in balance, health was maintained.

Hippocrates would have it that "The people who have red blood are friendly. They joke and laugh about their bodies, and they are rose tinted, slightly red, and have pretty skin." The adjective sanguine to denote a person who was optimistic or notably positive in their outlook starts in the Middle Ages. The word comes from Old French sanguin(e) "blood red," from Latin sanguineus "of blood," from sanguis, "blood."

The other humors were yellow bile, phlegm, and black bile, but blood was the easiest one to see. Galen believed that blood carried the pneuma, the spirit, which accounted for its red color. Blood was associated with the element of air, and an excess of blood was thought to be responsible for inflammation, fever, and aggression.

To rid a suffering person of excess blood, phlebotomy, the practice of opening a vein and letting blood out, was developed. Ancient Egypt and the 5th-century BCE time of Hippocrates used bloodletting to help patients heal from illness. Just as menstruation was believed to purge women of "bad humors," bloodletting became a common technique.

In 1163, Pope Alexander III decided it was inappropriate for monks and priests to shed blood (repeated at the Fourth Lateran Council), so their time as practitioners of the medical techniques came to an end. Clergy could still be physicians, but not surgeons.

Medieval art symbolized a physician with a man holding up a flask. That flask, however, was not filled with blood.What it was filled with, and how it was used to diagnose illness, we'll discuss next time.

Blood Recipes

We talked yesterday about preparing and preserving blood for culinary use, now let's look at some more specific uses in medieval cuisine. Today we actually discuss some recipes using blood. (For the record, I never have and never intend to make any of these.)

Viking Blood Bread

At an archaeological site in Sweden, a piece of bread was discovered that was found to have blood in the mix. In the book An Early Meal by Daniel Serra and Hanna Tunberg, you will find a hypothetical version of the recipe that produced the "blood bread."

Take 2 cups fresh blood (strained to remove clots), 1 cup sourdough starter, 1.5 cups water, 1-2 tbsp honey, and roughly 6 cups whole wheat or barley flour. (No salt is needed: blood is already salty, which you know if you've ever split your lip).

Then, stir the sourdough and honey into the blood. Combine the mixture with the flour and water, kneading until smooth and slightly sticky. Let the dough rise for about 90 minutes to 2 hours until doubled. Shape into loaves, allow to rest, and bake at 425°F (220° C) for 25 to 30 minutes. [link]

Galantine (Blood sauce)

Galantine is a word used for different recipes, and not all use blood, but here's one that makes dark sauce for roasted meats.

Along with fresh blood, take red wine or verjuice (the juice of unripe grapes or apples), spices like cinnamon or cloves, and stale breadcrumbs. Combine the red wine or verjuice with shallots (or garlic) and the drippings from the roasted meat. Simmer over low heat, then stir in the breadcrumbs and blood to thicken (remember not to let the blood boil, lest it curdle as was mentioned yesterday). Pour over roasted meat and serve.

A little more on blood tomorrow, and then we'll find another topic, I promise.

Blood as Food

There's a scene early in The Name of the Rose involving barrels of pigs' blood. It was autumn, and time to slaughter the pigs, but of course you wouldn't want to waste the blood.

You could not, however, just let the blood pour into a container and sit, because it coagulates quickly and becomes unusable. If you intend to try any recipes using fresh blood, remember that you must immediately stir the fresh blood constantly while it cools (if you've ever made a hollandaise, you'll know how tedious this can be).

Vinegar or wine could also be added to the blood. The acidity in them lowered the pH and slowed bacterial growth, keeping the blood smooth. (Consider this site if you want modern pointers on this process.) None of this is unusual for cultures that used every part of an animal. Blood was a rich source of protein as well as flavoring.

As for the actual use of the preserved blood? It acts as a binder, and could be used to give texture to a broth. It could also thicken a sauce, but blood curdles when heated, so it would be stirred into a sauce just before serving.

Casual reading about life in the Middle Ages will often turn up references to black pudding, made with pork sausage, pigs' blood, and suet. Blood sausage was made by combining blood with oatmeal, suet, breadcrumbs, and spices, then stuffed into casings (cleaned-out intestine), and allowed to cool and "set." Once parboiled then chilled, they could last awhile before being eaten. (The picture here comes from this site with a detailed recipe.)

Tomorrow I'll share some recipes from different medieval cultures.

Lincoln's Shame

One of the most famous cases of anti-semitism took place in Lincoln in 1255.

On 31 July 1255, a nine-year-old named Hugh disappeared in Lincoln. A month later, on 29 August, his body was discovered in a well. The search for the murderer was on, and attention turned to the segment of society that was often blamed for criminal acts: Jews.

John of Lexington, brother to the Bishop of Lincoln, imprisoned a local Jew named Copin, accusing him of the murder and offering him amnesty from execution in exchange for a confession. John supposedly convinced King Henry III to this amnesty deal, even though there was no evidence that Copin actually committed the deed. Henry arrived in Lincoln a month after the arrest of Copin. He ordered Copin executed, and then had 90 randomly selected Jews arrested and taken to the Tower of London for an investigation and trial about the murder. Eighteen of the Jews refused to participate in the trial, claiming it was a sham, and were hanged for their refusal.

As for the remaining Jews: a Dominican friar helped free one, John, who had converted to Christianity. The remainder were condemned to execution, but Dominicans—no doubt understanding that it was highly unlikely that there was actual guilt involved—pleaded for their lives and they were released.

Matthew Paris created a colorful, detailed, and wholly fictitious scene about the death:

This year [1255] about the feast of the apostles Peter and Paul [27 July], the Jews of Lincoln stole a boy called Hugh, who was about eight years old. After shutting him up in a secret chamber, where they fed him on milk and other childish food, they sent to almost all the cities of England in which there were Jews, and summoned some of their sect from each city to be present at a sacrifice to take place at Lincoln, in contumely and insult of Jesus Christ. For, as they said, they had a boy concealed for the purpose of being crucified; so a great number of them assembled at Lincoln, and then they appointed a Jew of Lincoln judge, to take the place of Pilate, by whose sentence, and with the concurrence of all, the boy was subjected to various tortures. They scourged him till the blood flowed, they crowned him with thorns, mocked him, and spat upon him; each of them also pierced him with a knife, and they made him drink gall, and scoffed at him with blasphemous insults, and kept gnashing their teeth and calling him Jesus, the false prophet. And after tormenting him in diverse ways they crucified him, and pierced him to the heart with a spear. When the boy was dead, they took the body down from the cross, and for some reason disemboweled it; it is said for the purpose of their magic arts.

There had been previous "martyrs" whose deaths had been blamed on Jews, but the case of Hugh had royal involvement which elevated it to legendary status. A shrine was built at Lincoln Cathedral to the little martyr and "little saint," drawing visitors and donations. This may well have been Lexington's motivation for turning the child's death into a martyrdom at Jewish hands, acting on his brother's behalf, to increase traffic and money to Lincoln.

This was a case of "blood libel," and the notion that Jews stole children for unholy rituals exists even in the 21st century. The idea that blood is mixed with matzo persists in some quarters.

On the other hand, the Middle Ages was not squeamish about using blood in cooking. Maybe we should take a look at that tomorrow.

Medieval Lincoln

The Lindum Colonia fell into decline after the departure of Roman Legions from Britain, but remained a viable community with a church dedicated to St. Paul. In fact, it became its own kingdom, the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Lindsey. Its presence on the east coast made it a landing spot for generations of Angles.

It had about a dozen and a half kings until it was absorbed into the Kingdom of Mercia in the 8th century. We have only a series of names for them, and none can be verified. There is a curious note about one of them, however. Jacob Grimm, the linguist and philologist older brother of Wilhelm of Brothers Grimm fame, claimed that the 7th century saint Benedict Biscop was the son of one of those kings, named Beda Bubbing.

By the 10th century, Lincoln was thriving to the point where it had its own mint. Archaeological evidence shows new timber-framed houses being erected in parts of the town deserted since Roman times. Lincoln expanded greatly with the arrival of the Danes. Two years after the arrival of William the Conqueror Lincoln Castle was being built.

By the middle of the 12th century Lincoln was one of the most prosperous towns in England. A weavers guild in 1130 was producing woolen cloth to export to Flanders; especially valuable were cloths died scarlet and green. (Note that Robin Hood is sometimes referred to as wearing Lincoln green.)

One of the reasons Lincoln became prosperous was no doubt being home to one of the five main Jewish communities in England at the time. The Jewish community was mentioned as early as 1154. Unfortunately, the antisemitism that led to the Massacre at York in 1190 spread to Lincoln. The Jewish community was protected by taking refuge with royal officials, but their houses were plundered.

In 1255, an even graver anti-Jewish incident took place, involving blood libel. I'll remind you of that story tomorrow.

Lincoln Colony

After 1066 there was more fighting to do. Once William the Conqueror took over England, he had to go about the island defeating various resistance groups. Part of his strategy was to build castles and fortresses from which his people could control rebellions and manage the counties for him.

Lincoln Castle was built on top of a previous Roman fortress. The name "Lincoln" comes from the Roman  Lindum Colonia, founded during the reign of Nero or later, and garrisoned originally by the Ninth Legion. The Lindum part of the colony's name was probably from an earlier Briton name, "lindon" meaning pool or lake.

The castle is unique in England (but for one other) in that it has two mottes as part of its defenses. (The illustration shows the remains of a Roman wall in Lincoln.) Lincoln had a very sophisticated water supply, fed by a spring in the northeast and run through ceramic pipes that ranged from 7.5" in diameter to 4". The spring itself is in a lower elevation, so there must have been some structure (long since vanished) that raised the water up about 70 feet to create enough pressure to let it flow into and throughout the town. There was also a Roman bath house.

Lincoln Colony also became known for its pottery production. It produced something called Dales ware in the 3rd and 4th centuries that has been found widely distributed across northern Britain. Dales ware is a brown-gray color with a distinctive wide rim, distinguished also by the addition of shell fragments into the clay. Dales-type jars were used as funerary urns in Roman York.

More on medieval Lincoln tomorrow.

Aaron of Lincoln

In the pipe rolls (the records of royal finances in Medieval England) for 1166 is a mention of £616 12s 8d owed to Aaron of Lincoln by King Henry II, who borrowed from him for projects in nine counties.

Aaron was born about 1123 in Lincoln, although it is thought that he spent part of his early life in France. Later he owned a plot of land near Lincoln Castle which is probably where his house was. A building called the Norman House in Lincoln (seen here)—probably the oldest stone dwelling in England—was once (but no more) believed to have been Aaron's house.

He became a financier, working through different agents and a partner, Isaac son of Josce. He built up a financial base for himself that is believed to have surpassed the wealth of the king, making him the wealthiest individual in England.

Much of his wealth came from the repayment of loans he made for the building or renovation of abbeys and monasteries. Nine Cistercian abbeys were built on money borrowed from Aaron, as well as Peterborough Abbey, Lincoln Minster, and the Abbey of St. Albans.

When he died in 1186, Henry II claimed that his estate reverted to the Crown by escheat (a legal move that transfers to the Crown the estate of a person who dies without heirs; recall the recent post about David of Oxford trying to get an heir). The Crown therefore inherited all Aaron's debts, and was able to collect on them. The cash that Aaron was holding at the time of his death was immediately sent to France to be used in Henry's wars against Philip Augustus. (Unfortunately, the ship carrying the money sank in the English Channel.) His debts were so numerous and so large that a separate division was created in the Exchequer solely to deal with Aaron's finances.

It was called Aaron's Exchequer and existed for 15 years while the Crown collected on his debts and assumed the money into the royal coffers. Even then, an amount of about £7,500 was still outstanding. There was one change made in the debt process after Aaron's death: interest stopped accruing, since Christians did not indulge in usury.

At one point, Aaron had made a deal with the abbot of Meaux to drop a debt from 1800 marks to 1260 marks. After Aaron's death, the Crown discovered the original paperwork on the 1800 marks and demanded the difference of 540 marks from the abbey! Still, there was plenty of money involved: 430 separate debts to smaller barons and knights amounted to £15,000, now to be collected by the king.

The Massacre of Jews at York was brought about by a man who was heavily indebted to Aaron and wanted to destroy the records of his debt. By this time Henry's son Richard was king. Richard created the separate Exchequer of the Jews afterward.

But now for something completely different: tomorrow let's talk about Lincoln, and the castle therein.

The Archa System

The Exchequer of the Jews was created in 1194 by King Richard I of England in order to keep track of all records of debts owed to Jewish moneylenders (as well as possessions and property of every Jew in England). The reason was not only to give the Crown an accurate account of what Jews held (and could be exploited), but also to prevent unscrupulous debtors from trying to avoid repayment by criminally destroying records.

The method of keeping the records secure was explained here. It included a system of multiple keys needed to unseal and examine the records, and a committee of equal members of Christians and Jews.

It was not feasible, however, to expect all records to maintain accuracy if they were kept in a central location like Winchester (the London seat of the Crown's administration). A system of archæ, or chests, was arranged around England so that records could be kept up-to-date more easily. They could always be summoned to Winchester for examination (such as the Oxford archa brought to London—along with his wife—after the death of David of Oxford).

Each archa had three locks and required three keys to be opened so that there could not easily be any attempt at tampering. Richard did not trust these archæ to be kept by the Jews, so he had them stored in royal castles or major monasteries. The Tower of London kept one which was later moved to the Royal Exchequer. Oxford had one in its castle on the west end of town. We recently talked about the Jewish presence in Oxford, and the wealthy David of Oxford. There were 26 locations for archæ around England, in places such as Bristol, Canterbury, Norwich, Worcester, and York.

Any loan made by a Jewish moneylender was recorded on a chirograph. A chirograph was a document in duplicate or triplicate or even quadruplicate. In the case of the exchequer of the Jews, it was a document with the terms of the loan written out three times. The parchment was then cut into three; one copy went to the lender, one to the debtor, and the third copy kept in the archa.

This system worked from 1194 until 1290, when Edward I expelled all Jews from England, claiming all their property for himself.

Curiously, there was an exchequer specifically for a certain Jewish moneylender; yes, for just one man. Tomorrow I'll tell you about Aaron's Exchequer.

Keeping Track of Jewish Debts

The catalyst for the 1189 tragedy in York after the coronation of King Richard I was three men who wanted to criminally erase the debts they owed to the Jewish moneylender Aaron of York. Richard Malbysse, Robert de Turnham, and Robert de Gant instigated the massacre in order to destroy the records of their debts and avoid paying them. (By the way, "Malbysse" may have been a real surname but more likely the nickname that has come down to us. William of Newburgh, a historian who was alive at the time of the massacre, referred to Richard as Ricardus vero agnomine Mala Bestia, homo audacissimus. ("Richard truly named Evil Beast, the most audacious man.")

Richard, like kings of England before and after him, understood the financial value of keeping Jews safe under the Crown's protection. He created the Exchequer of the Jews (Scaccarium Judaeorum), an institution separate from the Royal Exchequer, designed to keep track of debts so that the incentive to free oneself from repaying money by destroying the records was no longer an option. And since this repository of financial records was being created, why not include anything and everything owed to and owned by Jews?

Following is part of the actual (translated) decree (ellipses and emphasis are mine):

All the debts, pledges, mortgages, lands, houses, rents, and possessions of the Jews shall be registered. The Jew who shall conceal any of these shall forfeit to the King his body and the thing concealed, and likewise all his possessions and chattels, ..., and there shall be appointed two lawyers that are Christians and two lawyers that are Jews, and two legal registrars, and before them and the clerks of William of the Church of St. Mary's and William of Chimilli, shall their contracts be made.

And charters shall be made of their contracts by way of indenture. And one part of the indenture shall remain with the Jew, sealed with the seal of him, to whom the money is lent, and the other part shall remain in the common chest: wherein there shall be three locks and keys, whereof the two Christians shall keep one key, and the two Jews another, and the clerks of William of the Church of St. Mary and of William of Chimilli shall keep the third. And moreover, there shall be three seals to it, and those who keep the seals shall put the seals thereto. 

... For every charter there shall be three pence paid, one moiety thereof by the Jews and the other moiety by him to whom the money is lent; whereof the two writers shall have two pence and the keeper of the roll the third. 

And from henceforth no contract shall be made with, nor payment made to, the Jews, nor any alteration made in the charters, except before the said persons or the greater part of them, if all of them cannot be present. And the aforesaid two Christians shall have one roll of the debts or receipts of the payments which from henceforth are to be made to the Jews, and the two Jews one and the keeper of the roll one.

Moreover every Jew shall swear on his Roll, that all his debts and pledges and rents, and all his goods and his possessions, he shall cause to be enrolled, and that he shall conceal nothing as is aforesaid. And if he shall know that anyone shall conceal anything he shall secretly reveal it to the justices sent to them, and that they shall detect, and shew unto them all falsifiers or forgers of the charters and clippers of money, where or when they shall know them, and likewise all false charters.

The three sets of locks and keys reduced the chance of tampering, since the chest holding the official documents could only be opened if all three possessors of the keys were present.

There were two major benefits to this decree: one to the Crown, and one to the Jewish population. The Crown would have records of every transaction and could use them to tax the Jews involved. The Jewish moneylenders also benefitted, because any debtor wishing to accuse the moneylender of unfairness, or who tried to get out of repayment, now had to deal with a moneylender with the full weight of the Royal Exchequer behind him.

An additional benefit to the Crown was that the death of a moneylender without heirs meant a faithful accounting of all the moneylender was owed was known and therefore could be collected ... by the Crown, of course. Note the recent posts on David of Oxford, who was so in need of an heir that he divorced one wife precipitously, and how his second wife was put in the Tower while his accounts were examined after his death, until everything was settled.

Documents from this office are extant for 1219-20, 1244, 1253, and 1266-87. (In 1290, all Jews were expelled from England by Edward I, or forced to convert, which forced many into the Domus Conversorum.)

It would be inefficient to have every record kept in a single vault in Winchester. There were Jews and moneylenders all over England. I'll talk a little more about the organization of the Exchequer tomorrow. 

Licoricia of Winchester

Licoricia of Winchester, the second wife of David of Oxford (one of the wealthiest financiers in England in the 13th century), was a successful businesswoman herself. Her first husband, Abraham son of Isaac, was an extremely wealthy moneylender. She took over his business after his death, first appearing in records in 1234.

In 1242 she married David of Oxford, who had recently been involved in scandal because he divorced his first wife, Muriel, without her consent, which was contrary to Jewish practice. King Henry III had to step in and forbid anyone from interfering with David's choice of wife.

She bore David a son, but David died two years after their marriage. Since the kings of England were able to claim one-third of the decedent's estate, Henry had all the records of his debts brought to Winchester for examination. He also had Licoricia brought to London and imprisoned in the Tower to prevent her from trying to interfere with the accounting process. Once the accounting was complete, she was offered the chance to buy back all of his debt records so she could continue the business for the sum of 5000 marks (1 mark=2/3 of a pound). That was an enormous sum; in today's value it would be well over $2,000,000 dollars. She gladly paid it, knowing that she would more than make up for it.

She became a frequent visitor to the court of King Henry when he was in Winchester. David had been one of his favorite sources of money, and she now filled that role. She had Henry's ear and support. In 1253, the heir of Sir Thomas of Charlecote took her to court because she retained his father's estate due to his debts. Unfortunately for the plaintiff, Henry had given Licoricia permission to retain the estate. Eventually the court ruled in the plaintiff's favor, but Henry intervened and limited her fine to one half a mark.

In another court incident, Licoricia was accused of stealing a gold ring that she had been given by another woman moneylender, Belia of Bedford, to hand to Henry as a gift. The ring went missing and Licoricia was accused by Ivetta, a neighbor, of stealing it for herself. Licoricia had another sojourn in the Tower while the investigation went on. Eventually, she was exonerated when the ring was discovered in the possession of Ivetta.

Her name and activities appear in the records of the Jewish Exchequer for years, but in 1277 disaster struck. Licoricia's daughter, Belia, found Licoricia and her Christian maid, Alice of Bicton, stabbed to death in Licoricia's home. A large sum of money was missing from the home. The investigation seemed more interested in tracking the money than finding a culprit. Suspicions did not turn into accusations, and no one was tried for the murder.

In 2022, a statue of Licoricia and her son by David, Asher, was erected in Jewry Street in Winchester. She is the subject of a book.

The Jewish Exchequer has been mentioned in this post and previous one, and I should probably explain what it was and why it existed, and the horrible incident that led to it.

David's Wives

When David of Oxford declared that he was divorced from his wife, Muriel, little did he know the furor it would cause. In Jewish law, a wife must consent to a divorce, which Muriel did not do. She reached out to relatives, who contacted the beth din (rabbinical court) in France, who authorized an ad hoc beth din in England. That group of three told David he was still married. David turned to an authority he was certain would help: the king.

King Henry III benefitted from David's vast wealth and ability to organize special taxes from Jews, so was inclined to keep David happy. Henry forbade anyone from interfering with David's choice of wife. So David had his freedom. This was taking place in 1242. David settled Muriel in a house he owned around the corner from St. Aldate's, and went looking for another wife. He found one in Licoricia of Winchester. (The illustration shows Muriel's post-divorce house in the red box.)

Licoricia had been married before. Her first husband, Abraham son of Isaac, had died, and she was living in Winchester with their three sons, Isaac, Benedict, and Lumbard, and a daughter, Belia. Licoricia had money, and as early as the 1230s there are records of her lending money. By the time David was looking for another wife—one with a proven track record of fertility—she was one of the richest Jews in Winchester.

They were married, and she became pregnant with a son, named Asher after David's father. She also helped expand David's money-lending business with her own resources.

Sadly, David died in February 1244. Because he was one of the wealthiest Jews in England, and because English law allowed the king to claim one-third of all his assets, the king wanted a full accounting of David's worth. All records of his debtors across the country were taken to the Jewish Exchequer in London to be examined.

Also taken to London was Licoricia herself, and imprisoned in the Tower. To prevent this savvy businesswoman from interfering in the assessment process, or attempting to hide any assets, Henry had her confined until the process was complete. Once Henry's people were done, he charged Licoricia 5000 marks (a mark was two-thirds of a pound) to purchase all of David's debts so that she could continue to collect on them. David's house in Oxford plus all its contents were claimed by the king to benefit the Domus Conversorum, the House of Converts created by Henry in 1232 to support Jews who converted to Christianity.

Licoricia had no trouble paying the 5000 marks (equivalent in today's buying power to over two million dollars), because she knew she would be able to make plenty from continuing the moneylending business, which is exactly what she did. She was a very capable woman, and we'll give her her own entry next time.

David of Oxford

Asher of Lincoln had a son, David, who married a local woman, Muriel, and at some point moved to Oxford, where he lived in a house on St. Aldate's (now site of the Oxford Town Hall), where Oxford Jews congregated their homes. (The illustration is by an 18th-century artist, Jonathan Skelton.)

David was one of the wealthiest Anglo-Jewish financiers of the 13th century. He was one of six wealthy Jews engaged by King Henry III to collect the tallage, the special tax the Crown often imposed on Jews to raise funds quickly for royal projects.

The Close Rolls in England were an administrative record of every letter and order issued with the authority of the Crown behind it. There is an entry from Winchester for 27 August, 1242:

For David of Oxford: The King to Masters Moses of London, Aaron of Canterbury, and Jacob of [Oxford], Jews, greeting. We do hereby forbid you to hold henceforth any plea concerning David Jew of Oxford and Muriel who was wife of the same; nor under any circumstances are you to distrain him either to take or to keep that wife or any other. Know for certainly that if you do otherwise, you will incur grave punishment therefore.

In short, the king forbade anyone (and those three in particular) from acting with any authority on the current issue of David and Muriel "who was wife of the same." Note the italics. David divorced Muriel, presumably because they were childless and he wanted a son to whom he could leave his fortune. Jewish law forbade divorcing a wife without her consent. Muriel (we assume) did not consent, and appealed for help.

She appealed to her family in Lincoln. Peytevin the Great, who had his own synagogue, appealed to the beth din (rabbinical court) in France (the rabbis of France were considered very authoritative). The word from France seemed to be that David acted improperly and must take Muriel back. An ad hoc beth din was assembled in Oxford of three men to ratify this decision and present it to David. We know who these men were because of another entry in the Close Rolls on the same date. I share the relevant part here:

... Moreover, Peytevin of Lincoln, Muriel who was the wife of David of Oxford, Benedict f. (son of) Peytevin of Lincoln, Vaalyn', and Moses de Barbun', Jews, are to appear before the aforesaid Archbishop and others of the King's council on the octave of St Michael, wheresoever they shall be in England, to show cause why they sent to France to the Jews of France to hold a chapter on the Jews of England. And the said justices are enjoined not to permit David of Oxford to be constrained to take or to keep any wife save of his own desire.

David, seeing the decision to overturn his divorce, obviously turned to the authority that could override the English Jews and give David what he wanted, the man who relied on David for ready money, King Henry III.

Tomorrow I'll tell you how it turned out, what happened to Muriel, and why David's second wife was imprisoned in the Tower of London.

Moses of Oxford

Moses of Oxford was one of the most prominent scholars and legal minds in Anglo-Jewry of the 13th century. Born in Oxford to a four-generation family of rabbis, he married into another prominent family. He had five children.

Two of his children—Elijah Menachem of London and Berachiah of Lincoln—became rabbis in England. Another son, Jacob, sold a property to Walton de Merton that became part of Merton College. Another son, Hagin, became treasurer for Richard of Cornwall and was chief rabbi of England until his death in 1280.

Moses was referred to in some documents as abir ha-olam ("the mighty one of the world"), attesting to his reputation as a scholar. One of his writings was Darchei ha-Nikud ve-ha-Neginot ("The Ways of Vowels and Accents") on the proper way to chant the Torah.

His legal decisions often disagreed with others, showing the differences that could develop between communities of Jews in different geographical locations. Moses felt it was okay to eat on Shabbat between the afternoon and evening prayer, while the tradition in France was to eat before the afternoon prayer and not after. Another question raised was whether it was permissible to allow an apostate to divorce without the wife's knowledge. Isaac be Peretz of Northampton said it was not permissible. Moses said it was fine, since a wife would benefit from no longer being married to an apostate.

Speaking of divorce, there was a particular divorce case at the time that has actually been studied quite extensively by modern historians and scholars. I keep running across it in my research, and it's time to see how it turned out and what the fuss was about. Tomorrow we'll visit David of Oxford and Muriel and Licoricia. See you then.

The Jews in Oxford

Just as London had a Jewish presence after the arrival of William and the Norman French, Oxford started to see a significant Jewish population about 10 years after the 1066 conquest. Living mostly around what was called the Great Jewry in the southern part of the city (now St. Aldate's), they held many important positions.

Their synagogue came later. An English Jew, Copin of Worcester, bought a building that belonged to a nearby priory for the purposes of making a synagogue. Extant no longer, the building was originally taken over by Balliol College.

After 1190 and the disaster at Clifford's Tower, King Richard allowed Jews to have a cemetery outside of London. It was established in Oxford, but had to be moved in 1231 when Henry III gave the land to St. John the Baptist Hospital. The place it was moved to is now the Oxford University Botanic Garden, and only a plaque remains there to acknowledge the cemetery. (The illustration shows the first plaque, placed in 1931. A more informative plaque was created later and can be seen here.)

Besides being moneylenders, Jews in Oxford were also landlords. Up to 10% of early student housing is estimated to have been owned by Jews. Lombard Hall, Moses Hall, and Jacob Hall were owned by Jews and rented to students.

Jews were not allowed to attend any of the Oxford colleges; that was reserved for Christians. But scholars consulted with Jews, one of whom was Moses of Oxford. Tomorrow we'll learn more about him.

Old Jewry

In the City of London there is a street still called Old Jewry, currently dominated mostly by financial offices. In 2001 the remains of a mikveh (ritual bath, requiring fresh flowing water) was discovered in the area, attesting to its former Jewish occupation. It would have been abandoned when the Jews were expelled in 1290 by King Edward I.

(The illustration shows Old Jewry on the Agas Map, a woodcut made of London probably in the 1560s. It shows Old Jewry [in yellow] linking Poultry Street to Gresham Street. The street is still called Old Jewry, as you can see in the illustration to this 2012 post.)

Although Jews could travel anywhere and any time, they likely came to England in larger numbers from Rouen after 1066, when William invited them to take up residence. By that time Jews were well-known as money-lenders, and William knew he would need money to finance his consolidation of his new country.

Because of their financial importance to the Crown, London Jews were given rights by some kings. William's son William Rufus even brought rabbis and priests together in London to debate religion, teasing his priests that if the Jews won then Rufus would convert.

After the suspicious death of Rufus, Henry I continued the royal policy of giving the Jews privileges unavailable to regular subjects. Jews were a valuable source of financial support; the king would occasionally tax them to raise money quickly. Henry issued a royal charter giving Jews certain protections and freedoms. Jews were given freedom of movement without having to pay the king's tolls, the right to be tried by their Jewish peers, and the right to swear on the Torah in a court of law.

Besides the mikveh, Jewry street also contained the Great Synagogue, which was closed in 1272 after the death of Henry III—who "supported" the Jews with his charity institution, the Domus Conversorum ("House of Converts") placed on the western edge of London far from Jewry, possibly to help prevent apostasy—and the rise to power of Edward I.

One of the other chief locations of Jews in England after they came from the continent in the 11th century was Oxford, and we'll look at their presence there tomorrow.

Ashkenazi and Sephardic and Mizrahi

The difference between different groups of Jews starts with the Jewish Diaspora, the displacement of Israelites outside of the Southern Levant. Because Jews traveled to various parts of the known world and inter-communication was not as easy as it is today, over time they developed their own customs, religious practices, language, foods, etc.

The three major ethnic divisions are the Ashkenazi, the Sephardic, and the Mizrahi. (Much of the following comes from chabad.org.)

The group most familiar to Western Europe and America is the Ashkenazi, the Jews who settled in France, Germany, and Eastern Europe. The Hebrew word "Ashkenaz" refers to Germany. Over time their language evolved to a blend of Hebrew with German and Slavic vocabulary; this language is what we call Yiddish.

The Sephardic Jews settled in the Iberian Peninsula ("Sepharad" refers to Spain). Their Hebrew was blended with Old Spanish and Portuguese into a dialect called Ladino.

Jews who migrated to the Middle East and North Africa are the Mizrahi. Living among Arabs, dialects associated with the Mizrahim are Judeo-Iranian, Judeo-Persian, and Neo-Aramaic.

Culinary tastes differ among the different ethnic groups. The Ashkenazi are associated with gefilte fish, matzo ball soup, and (after the European discovery of the Americas) potato kugel. During Passover, legumes and rice are forbidden. Sephardic Jews do not restrict these foods during Passover; their cuisine is more heavily spiced than Ashkenazi foods, and they have slow-cooked Sabbath stews. The Mizrahim also allow legumes and rice. Charoset, a sweet staple of Passover, is made from dried fruits, chiefly dates, and has a thick consistency for the Mizrahim. Among the Ashkenazi, charoset is made with apples and nuts, spiced with wine and cinnamon.

There are more profound differences. Sephardic Jews keep their Torah scrolls upright when reading. Ashkenazi lay them flat. Ashkenazi synagogues are arranged with seats facing forward; Sephardic synagogues arrange seating around a central reading table.

Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews tended to be more integrated into the local (largely Arabic or Muslim) culture, whereas in Christian territory Jews dealt with the constant tension of being distrusted by their neighbors, accused of crimes, and segregated into ghettos.

The origin of the word ghetto is disputed, but it seems likely that it comes from a Venetian decree in 1516 that Jews in the city must live in the Cannaregio district. The Cannaregio was where cannons were made, and the word "ghetto" means "foundry." But since that was the 16th century and a little late for a blog with "medieval" in its name, let's look at an earlier situation when Jews were settled in a specific part of town: the Old Jewry of London. See you next time.

Rashi's Writings

The first book printed in Hebrew with a date on it was printed in Italy and dated 18 February 1475. It was a commentary by Rashi on the Chumash (the first five books of the Bible, the Torah, as distinguished from a Torah scroll, which was made by hand on special parchment).

This commentary was completed late in his life (1040 - 1105), and may be a compilation of the lectures he offered at the yeshiva (college) he founded in Troyes. There is a recent phrase in social media: ELI5, which means "Explain Like I'm 5," asking the teacher to put something into very simple terms for easy understanding. Rashi's commentary has been described as so simple that a five-year-old could understand what he is saying.

His focus seemed to be on grammar and syntax, and he defined unusual Hebrew words to explain why that word was chosen over another and the nuances of word choice. He was careful to distinguish between the plain meaning of a word and the rabbinic interpretation of it.

Rashi also wrote the first (near-)comprehensive commentary on the Talmud (the primary source of Jewish law). Phrase by phrase, he went through 30 of the 39 tractates (organizational elements), explaining the meaning of the words and their result. To make things more comprehensive, he often used analogies to common knowledge of daily life, professions, or crafts. He also translated difficult Hebrew or Aramaic words into the local language, Norman French. This attention to vocabulary has given modern scholars insight into spoken French of the 11th century.

His commentaries became "instant classics." They were copied and spread far and wide and embraced by both Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews.

Near the end of his life he experienced the mass murders of Jews caused by the followers of the People's Crusade (the unofficial first phase of the First Crusade) as they traveled through Europe, fired up with pro-Christian sentiment and the fervor to free the Holy land from non-Christians. Rashi wrote several poems mourning the destruction. Three sons of his teacher, Isaac ben Eliezer Halevi, were killed during this time.

Rashi died at the age of 65 and was buried in Troyes. Although the location of his grave was noted, that information was lost over time. The Jewish cemetery land is now a public square in Troyes, and a monument to Rashi was erected by French Jews. There is a legend, however, that because of the prominence of his life and works—impossible to produce by an ordinary man in one lifetime—that he was so clearly inspired by the Shekinah, the Holy Spirit, that he did not die a natural death. Instead, he was assumed bodily into heaven like the prophet Elijah.

The fifth paragraph mentions that his commentaries were accepted by both Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews. What was the difference, and why did it exist? I'll explain that tomorrow.

Rashi

An exegete is someone who interprets a text, especially religious texts. One of the leading Jewish exegetes in the Middle Ages was Shlomo Yitzchaki (February 1040 - 13 Juluy 1105), "Shlomo the son of Yitzhak." He became known by the acronym Rashi, Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki (although other acronyms were employed).

Born an only child in Troyes in northern France, on his father's side he was said to be descended from Gamaliel, a teacher of Paul mentioned in the New Testament Acts of the Apostles. His father started his education when Rashi was five years old. His father died while Rashi was young, and the young man married at 17 and went to Worms.

At Worms he was privileged to study under two scholars who had been students of the prominent Gershom ben Judah: German rabbi Yaakov ben Yakar and French rabbi Isaac ben Eliezer Halevi (chief rabbi of Worms and a relative of Rashi). After Worms he went to Mainz where he studied under his maternal uncle, the rabbi of Mainz, Isaac ben Judah.

He returned to Troyes at 25 and joined the beth din, the rabbinical court, eventually becoming its head. He founded his own yeshiva (seminary).

His commentary on the Torah was said to be so clear and concise that beginners could understand it and more accomplished scholars could admire it.  Every edition of the Talmud since the 1520s includes Rashi's commentary. His commentary on the Tanakh (the five Books of Moses plus the Nevi'im (Books of the Prophets), and the 11 books of the Ketuvim ('Writings'), became widely studied for centuries.

His writings became so famous that legends sprang up about him. Before his birth, supposedly his father found a jewel and was approached by people who wanted to buy it to adorn a pagan idol. He agreed to take it with them to their land, but along the way had second thoughts and threw the jewel into the sea. The prophet Elijah appeared to him and prophesied that he would have a son "who would illuminate the world with his Torah knowledge."

When Rashi's mother was pregnant, she was walking down a narrow street when two carriages came toward her. With no room to get out of the way, she pressed herself against the wall, which created a depression to save her. The wall of the Worms Synagogue has a niche that is supposed to be this space.

Tomorrow we'll take a look at some of his writings, and another legend about his death.

Apostasy

"Apostasy" is the abandonment or renunciation of a religious (or political) belief. Yesterday's post on Canon 70 of the Fourth Lateran Council discussed the concern over Jews who converted to Christianity turning back to Judaism again.

First, let's address why Jews would convert to Christianity. Some did so to escape the oppressive taxation meted out by governments who used Jews as their purse because Jews were so often money-lenders. Another reason might be the opportunity to advance a political or professional career in fields where the Christian (or Islamic) authorities would not hire Jews. They might have wanted to get out of the ghetto, the place to which Jews were restricted, instead of living in the nicer parts of the city. And let's not omit the possibility of a real change of faith and acceptance of Christianity.

How were conversions received by those who "stayed behind"?

Rabbinic authorities debated whether those who converted were traitors to the faith or victims. Many conversions were victims, because they were coerced under threat of death. Forced baptisms also took place. This could lead to Marranos, so-called "crypto-Jews": individuals who lived publicly as Christians but secretly kept Jewish practices at home. The Spanish Inquisition went after Marranos and Moriscos (converted Muslims) with severe penalties for any who were not fully embracing Christianity and abandoning all facets of their former faith.

Sometimes agreeing to conversion to avoid death did not work because the Christians offering "salvation" were out for blood anyway. Some Jewish parents would kill their children and then themselves in order to avoid forced conversion.

The apostate who turned from Judaism to Christianity was in a strange state of limbo, being neither fish nor fowl. Former fellow Jews rejected him, and Christians still looked at him askance. If he wished to return to Judaism, his former neighbors still might feel awkward, but official rabbinical attitudes were different.

The rabbinic scholar Rashi (1040 - 1105; mentioned here) claimed a Jew remains a Jew regardless. A Jew who fell away from the faith could simply return to Jewish practices and be fine. Another, Gershom ben Judah (c.960 - 1040), forbade mistreating an apostate who returned to Judaism or even mentioning their past choices. This was different from Christian and Muslim attitudes toward those who left those faiths.

Rashi's pronouncements were so respected that he became legendary. Seriously: legends arose about him, even miracles performed while he was in the womb. Let's meet him next time.