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 nest 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.

Race and Ethnicity: Canon 70

After the past few entries concerning the anti-Jewish Canons of the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, we come finally to Canon 70, dealing with Jews who convert to Christianity but might change their minds at a later date:

Some, we understand, who voluntarily approached the waters of holy baptism, do not entirely cast off the old man that they may more perfectly put on the new one, because, retaining remnants of the former rite, they obscure by such a mixture the beauty of the Christian religion. But since it is written: "Accursed is the man that goeth on the two ways" (Ecclesiastes 2:14), and "a garment that is woven together of woolen and linen" (Deuteronomy 22:2) ought not to be put on, we decree that such persons be in every way restrained by the prelates from the observance of the former rite, that, having given themselves of their own free will to the Christian religion, salutary coercive action may preserve them in its observance, since not to know the way of the Lord is a lesser evil than to retrace one's steps after it is known.

Essentially, if a Jew has converted, it is important that bishops and others prevent them from being exposed to Jewish rites lest they turn away from Christianity. If not being a Christian was bad, then being Christian and deliberately abandoning it was even worse.

This was not the same as being a non-Christian in the first place, since "ignorance of the law was an excuse." If you had not been made Christian through lack of exposure (or coercion), you were simply non-Christian and living in error. But to deliberately turn away from a Christian life was a subversion of the social order according to the Justinian Code.

This was worse than being a heretic. A heretic was a Christian who erroneously believed certain points that were counter to the accepted tenets. A heretic was still a Christian, and persuasion (or coercion) could bring the "lost sheep" more fully into the fold.

An unrepentant apostate could be excommunicated, a way of saying "You want to quit? Well, then you're fired!"

Augustine of Hippo claimed that the "gift of perseverance" in Christian faith was a gift from God, and that an individual cannot know if God has granted them this gift. Without it, it was possible that a Christian might leave the faith.

How did Jews look at those of their faith who converted? Let's talk about that tomorrow.

Race and Ethnicity: Canon 69

The attempt to limit contact with Jews in public and keep their public authority diminished forced them to wind up being more crucial than ever to society as the money-lenders for which they were reviled.

Canon 69 of the Fourth Lateran Council decreed that Jews should be prevented from exerting any kind of political authority:

Since it is absurd that a blasphemer of Christ exercise authority over Christians, we on account of the boldness of transgressors renew in this general council what the Synod of Toledo wisely enacted in this matter, prohibiting Jews from being given preference in the matter of public offices, since in such capacity they are most troublesome to the Christians. But if anyone should commit such an office to them, let him, after previous warning, be restrained by such punishment as seems proper by the provincial synod which we command to be celebrated every year. The official, however, shall be denied the commercial and other intercourse of the Christians, till in the judgment of the bishop all that he acquired from the Christians from the time he assumed office be restored for the needs of the Christian poor, and the office that he irreverently assumed let him lose with shame. The same we extend also to pagans.

The Third Synod of Toledo in 589CE was organized by Bishop Leander of Seville who had worked to convert the Visigoths and King Reccared from Arianism to Roman Catholicism. It resulted in Visigothic Spain officially becoming part of the Roman Catholic Church. Its14th Canon forbade Jews to take Christian wives or concubines or slaves. Children from such a union were to be baptized. Jews were disqualified from any position that would give them authority over Christians. Christian slaves forced into following Jewish practices were to be freed.

Note that anyone who does hire or appoint a Jew to a position of authority where they make decisions that affect Christians is himself guilty and deserving of punishment. The Jew will be forced to return any material gain he had from Christians during the time in office, the value to be used for poor Christians.

(I apologize for "getting political," but I cannot help thinking of a current situation in the United States where immigrants are castigated for "taking jobs" from Americans, when the "crime"—if there is one—was committed by the business owners who, knowing the law, hired non-citizens in the first place. The workers suffer and the folk responsible are untouched.)

Denied the opportunity for many positions for which a Jew might have plenty of knowledge and skill—was this a reason why some Jews turned to lending money? If this was one profession that you were allowed and  Christians did not generally go for, why not become a money-lender, which in some ways gave you more power over Christians than any public office? There were, of course, other options for employment, as in becoming a scribe as depicted in the illustration above, showing Jewish scribes from a 1283 Spanish work.

In the later Middle Ages, even as Jews were looked on with suspicion if not outright hostility, Jews were sometime valued for the skills they possessed. It was not unknown for the wealthy and nobility to retain Jews as physicians.

The final Canon of the Fourth Lateran, number 70, was concerned with apostasy. We'll wrap this up next time.

Race and Ethnicity: Canon 68

Continuing our look at the final four Canons of the proceedings of the 1215 Fourth Lateran Council, we come to Canon 68, which wanted to make sure everyone knew who a Jew (or Muslim) was, so they could avoid them if desired.

In some provinces a difference in dress distinguishes the Jews or Saracens from the Christians, but in certain others such a confusion has grown up that they cannot be distinguished by any difference. Thus it happens at times that through error Christians have relations with the women of Jews or Saracens, and Jews and Saracens with Christian women. Therefore, that they may not, under pretext of error of this sort, excuse themselves in the future for the excesses of such prohibited intercourse, we decree that such Jews and Saracens of both sexes in every Christian province and at all times shall be marked off in the eyes of the public from other peoples through the character of their dress. Particularly, since it may be read in the writings of Moses, that this very law has been enjoined upon them.

"The writings of Moses" refers to Numbers 15:37-41, God's commandment to the Israelites to wear tassels with blue thread on the corners of their garments. Like tying a string around your finger to remember something, these tassels (called tzitzit) are supposed to be a reminder to keep all God's commandments.

The segregation of Jews was even more severe during important Christian Holy Days:

Moreover, during the last three days before Easter and especially on Good Friday, they shall not go forth in public at all, for the reason that some of them on these very days, as we hear, do not blush to go forth better dressed and are not afraid to mock the Christians who maintain the memory of the most holy Passion by wearing signs of mourning.

(Of course there would be times a Passover celebration would overlap Easter.)

This, however, we forbid most severely, that any one should presume at all to break forth in insult to the Redeemer. And since we ought not to ignore any insult to Him who blotted out our disgraceful deeds, we command that such impudent fellows be checked by the secular princes by imposing them proper punishment so that they shall not at all presume to blaspheme Him who was crucified for us.

Notice that this does not specify how Jews should be marked differently in their garments. This became in modern times the wearing of the yellow Star of David, a symbol of 20th century oppression in Germany specifically.

In 13th-century England, however, Henry III (who also gave Jews a way to "redeem" themselves) forced them to wear two rectangular patches of a pale color (the assumption is to resemble the tablets of Moses). Earlier, however, the 581CE Synod of Macon specified an oval badge in the center of their garment "the measure of one finger in width and one half a palm in height." In 16th-century Worms they were compelled to wear a yellow ring (illustration).

The next Canon further attempted to keep Jews segregated from others, as we'll see tomorrow.

Race and Ethnicity: Canon 67

Today we look specifically at the institutional racism against Jews established by Pope Innocent III in the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215. Of the 70 canons of the council proceedings, the final four were about Jews. It is worth looking at these in their entirety.

Canon 67 blames Jews for the poor planning of the Gentiles who became indebted to Jewish money-lenders and could not repay the debt. This is blamed on the ability of Jews to charge interest, called usury by the Church and considered sinful and un-Christian.

The more the Christians are restrained from the practice of usury, the more are they oppressed in this matter by the treachery of the Jews, so that in a short time they exhaust the resources of the Christians. Wishing, therefore, in this matter to protect the Christians against cruel oppression by the Jews, we ordain in this decree that if in the future under any pretext Jews extort from Christians oppressive and immoderate interest, the partnership of the Christians shall be denied them till they have made suitable satisfaction for their excesses. The Christians also, every appeal being set aside, shall, if necessary, be compelled by ecclesiastical censure to abstain from all commercial intercourse with them. We command the princes not to be hostile to the Christians on this account, but rather to strive to hinder the Jews from practicing such excesses. Lastly, we decree that the Jews be compelled by the same punishment (avoidance of commercial intercourse) to make satisfaction for the tithes and offerings due to the churches, which the Christians were accustomed to supply from their houses and other possessions before these properties, under whatever title, fell into the hands of the Jews, that thus the churches may be safeguarded against loss.

There were several reasons why usury was condemned in the Middle Ages.

Aristotle and Aquinas thought of money as "sterile" in that it was just a thing that did not reproduce or grow. Making money "grow" by charging a fee was considered unnatural and inappropriate.

A loan was not something one did to buy a car or get a mortgage: it was used in time of serious need. In this situation, making the desperate person pay back more when they are financially disadvantaged was considered to be taking advantage of someone at a vulnerable time in their life.

Paying interest was all about tying money to time, making money "worth more" simply because time has passed. Your money does not expand just because time goes by. Usury was seen as "selling time" or taking advantage of time, which was created by and managed by and belonged to God.

Also, quite simply, asking for more money back showed the sin of Avarice, and gaining more money than loaned out could lead to not needing to work, and therefore promote idleness/sloth.

We'll continue with the other canons tomorrow.

Race and Ethnicity, Part 3

Modern ideas of race and racism are largely based on skin color, but the Middle Ages saw many other factors. To quote (again) Regino of Prüm:

"Nor should it be forgotten that, just as different nations of people differ from one another in race [genus], customs [mores], language [lingua], and laws [leges], so the holy universal church spread throughout the whole world, although united in the unity of faith, nevertheless differs from one another in ecclesiastical customs."

There were other factors that distinguished "The Other" from oneself: religion, economic class, geographic origin, even clothing. The illustration you can see if you follow the link in the first paragraph uses a turban and bushy beard to indicate a man from Africa, not skin color.

It would be difficult to argue that religion was a prime factor in distinguishing race, and such a strong part of a cultural identity that those of other religions were a danger to the self and the body politic. Although using factors that indicate a different race did not necessarily lead to racism, religion as a factor led to outright hostility.

Of course the primary example of religion-based race leading to prominent racism is the Western European attitude toward Jews: 

...the periodic exterminations of Jews in Europe, the demand that they mark their bodies and the bodies of their children with a large visible badge, the herding of Jews into specific towns in England to monitor their livelihoods, and the vilification of Jews for supposedly possessing a fetid stench, a male menses, subhuman and bestial qualities, and a congenital need to ingest the blood of Christian children whom they tortured and crucified to death... [source]

For Western Europe, and particularly countries that wholly expelled Jews, religion was the deciding factor.

Jews were not the only religion that came under fire. Bernard of Clairvaux, asked to write a rule for the newly formed Knights of the Order of the Temple (Templars), proclaims that the killing of Muslims was not homicide by malicide, the killing of evil incarnate. The Crusades could be seen as a form of institutionalized racism.

The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 called by Pope Innocent III published Canon 68, cementing racist law against Jews. We'll look at the details and outcome tomorrow.

Race and Ethnicity, Part 2

Not everyone believed that race and ethnicity were purely a result of being descended from the sons of Noah. Some felt the natural world/environment played a part.

An Afro-Arab Islamic philosopher named Al-Jahiz (c.776 - 869) took on the issue of different skin colors in the 9th century. Living during the Abbasid Caliphate, he produced at least 140 books and essays, of which we still have 75 available. In one work, he wrote about the Zanj, a word used by Muslims to refer to the southeast coast of Africa and its inhabitants:

The Zanj say that God did not make them black to disfigure them; rather it is their environment that made them so. The best evidence of this is that there are black tribes among the Arabs, such as the Banu Sulaim bin Mansur, and that all the peoples settled in the Harra, besides the Banu Sulaim are black.

This sounds simplistic, but he further proves his point:

These tribes take slaves from among the Ashban to mind their flocks and for irrigation work, manual labor, and domestic service, and their wives from among the Byzantines; and yet it takes less than three generations for the Harra to give them all the complexion of the Banu Sulaim.

He extends this beyond human beings, and rejects the "Curse of Ham" hypothesis:

This Harra is such that the gazelles, ostriches, insects, wolves, foxes, sheep, asses, horses and birds that live there are all black. White and black are the results of environment, the natural properties of water and soil, distance from the sun, and intensity of heat. There is no question of metamorphosis, or of punishment, disfigurement or favor meted out by Allah.

A later Arab scholar, the sociologist Ibn Khaldun, decided that the hot climate of sub-Saharan Africa was the cause of black skin, not a religious myth.

The debate over genetics versus environment continued well into the 17th century at least. But in Medieval England, how were other people perceived and treated? As curiosities? As just more children of God? As dangerous outsiders? Let's look at some of the encounters and interactions between different people.

Race and Ethnicity, Part 1

What did medieval people think about different races? How did they distinguish one ethnic group from another? This question occurred to me when reading up on Regino of Prüm, who around 900CE wrote the following:

Nec non et illud sciendum, quod, sicut diversæ nationes populorum inter se discrepant genere moribus lingua legibus, ita sancta universalis æcclesia toto orbe terrarum diffusa, quamvis in unitate fidei coniungatur, tamen consuetudinibus æcclesiasticis ab invicem differt.

Nor should it be forgotten that, just as different nations of people differ from one another in race [genus], customs [mores], language [lingua], and laws [leges], so the holy universal church spread throughout the whole world, although united in the unity of faith, nevertheless differs from one another in ecclesiastical customs.

I became aware of the difference between citizen and denizen years ago while researching my first Chaucer novel (seen to your right). A citizen is, properly speaking, the inhabitant of his city; a denizen is a foreigner allowed to live in your city. There were, obviously, perceived differences in the locals versus those from elsewhere.

The Newberry Library in Chicago had a recent exhibition of historical art depicting race [link]. One of its points is that the Bible exposed everyone in the Middle Ages to the concept of different races:

...when many white Europeans lived alongside people of color. But even those who didn’t would have encountered many people of color in the Christian Bible, such as the Ethiopian wife of the patriarch Moses (Numbers 1: 21), the three "Wise Men” who brought gifts to the Christ Child (Matthew 2: 1-12), and the Ethiopian eunuch converted by the Apostle Philip (Acts 8: 26-40) [Figure 1]. Just like in real life, this diversity could cause tension, as acknowledged by the “black and beautiful” Bride in the Song of Songs, who recognizes that her skin sets her apart from other women in ancient Israel: “Do not think that I am dark because I have been burned by the sun, daughters of Jerusalem” (Song of Songs 1: 4-5). [link]

Thanks to the Bible, the European Middle Ages largely perceived all of humanity coming from a common ancestor, Noah, and his three sons. The descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japheth accounted for (respectively) the distinct Semitic (Asiatic), Hamitic (African), and Japhetic (Indo-European) peoples. The Curse of Ham [link] was supposed to account for the black skin of Africans, and Genesis 9:20-27 was used to justify black slavery.

There were, however, thinkers who hypothesized factors other than genetics, and we'll talk about that tomorrow.

Regino of Prüm

Although Charlemagne is a famous name, and we know a lot about him, his descendants and the events of the Carolingian era are not always well-documented. There are a handful of chronicles written by various people, as seen yesterday, and Regino of Prüm was one of those chroniclers.

We know for certain that he was a Benedictine—probably at Prüm (in modern Trier, Germany)—and became abbot of Prüm from 892 to 899. Later he was abbot of St. Martin's Abbey. He became abbot at Prüm when his predecessor resigned after a second of two devastating raids by Danes on the very wealthy abbey. He worked to restore the damage, but local hostilities made it difficult to get the attention of wealthy patrons.

He lost the position of abbot because Richarius, from a noble family, wanted the position for himself. Richarius was the brother of two counts, and had no royal title available, so looked for a way to give himself power and authority. He later became Bishop of Lieges.

Regino went to Trier where he was welcomed by Archbishop Radbod, whose attempts at reform were supported by Regino. Regino lived in Trier until his death in 915 and was buried in St. Maximin's Abbey (previously mentioned here). There is a monument to him in Prüm (see illustration).

Regino left us some manuscripts. One was a treatise on music in an attempt to improve liturgical singing, and a collection of chants. He also wrote Chronicon, an attempt at a universal history from the birth of Jesus to 906, focused mostly on the Carolingian Empire. We learn a lot about early Bulgarian history from his effort. One curious fact that comes from the Chronicon: Regino was the first to use Anno Domini ("Year of the Lord") to mark years in history, replacing Bede's Anno Mundi ("Year of the World"). Regino's history was used by Cosmas of Prague. Although the accuracy of the Chronicon has been disputed, it was printed in Mainz in 1521, edited and published in 1826 in Germany, again in 1890, and an English translation was published in 2009.

I want to mention something else Regino addressed in his writing, and use it to examine a new topic. Regino mentions that ethnicity has four different facets: : genus (origin, race), mores (customs, behavior), lingua (language), leges (law).

Tomorrow I want to look at medieval theories of race and ethnicity, and how they determined who was "other."

The Annals of St. Bertin

In Saint-Omer in France there was a Benedictine abbey called the Abbey of St. Bertin, founded in 638 and existing right up to the late 18th century. It was closed during the French Revolution, ordered demolished in 1830 (except for the tower), and then damaged due to World War II.

A record of several decades was found in the abbey. It is not assumed that it was written in the abbey. The current hypothesis is that the record was made in the court of Louis the Pious and continued during the reign of his son, Charles the Bald. Proposed authors are Prudential of Troyes, followed by Hincmar of Reims, who has been mentioned several times in this blog, such as here. The fact that the Annals (beginning with the year 830) end in 882 when Hincmar was forced to flee Reims in the face of a Viking invasion (and died) lends weight to this theory.

Although a mere 50 years of events, they are a primary source for happenings in the West Frankish territory and the time of King of West Francia, Charles the Bald. These Annales Bertiniani ("Annals of St. Bertin") are the source for yesterday's story of Pope Adrian II and his wife.

The Annals include papal letters and quotations from acts coming out of church councils. They deal largely with the relations (conflicts) between the Church and the Carolingians and with hostile actions from neighbors. They contain one of the earliest mentions of the Kievan Rus, men who accompanied emissaries from Constantinople. (Remember that the Rus were the source for the so-called Varangian Guard employed by Byzantine emperors.)

Situated as it was on the extreme northern edge of France, the Abbey was a target for invasions from the north. Scandinavian groups engaged in routine spring voyages for plunder. Abbeys and monasteries, known to be filled with unarmed men and donations, faced constant raids by these groups later called Vikings.

Other sources for the 9th century are the Annals of Xanten, the Annals of Fulda, and the Chronicle of Regino of Prüm, which overlaps Bertin and continues until 906. Regino is an interesting character, and we'll turn to him and his writings next.

Married Popes

Our discussion on clerical celibacy, and how Emperor Justinian decreed no bishop or higher position could be married, leads us to take a look at popes that were married.

The first, of course, was Peter, long before the mater of celibacy was ever raised in the early Church. Peter's mother-in-law gets mentioned in Mark 1:30, Luke 4:38, and Matthew 8:14–15 when Jesus enters the house where she is and heals her.

Pope Felix III (483 - 492) was the son of a priest and was married himself, though he was widowed before he became pope. He had two children, one of whom was a daughter whose son became Pope Gregory I (590 - 604).

Hormisdas was pope from 514 to 523. He was also widowed before becoming pope, but he had a son who became Pope Silverius I (536 - 537).

Pope John XVII (six months in 1003) was married (whether widowed  cannot find), and had three sons who became priests.

Pope Clement IV (1265 - 1268) was also widowed before he even entered the priesthood, inspired by his father who had done the same. Clement had two or three daughters, all of whom entered convents.

Pope Honorius IV (mentioned here) was also widowed before going into the priesthood, and had two sons.

But now we come to the pope who was married when he was pope. Adrian II was married to Stephania, a Roman noblewoman, before he entered Holy Orders. They had a daughter. Adrian was 75 when Pope Nicholas I died in November 867, and the cardinals chose the humble and devout Adrian as his successor. Adrian, out of humility and (likely) advanced age, tried to turn down the offer, which was wise.

Stephania and their daughter moved into the Lateran Palace with Adrian. Unfortunately, there were elements who did not want him to be pope. Stephania and their daughter were murdered in 868, and Adrian died on 14 December 872.

The story of Stephania's murder comes to us from a contemporary German account, the Annals of Saint Bertin. We'll see what we can find there next time.

Justinian and Celibacy

Byzantine Emperor Justinian I (527 - 565) took a keen interest in Christianity, and he had some thoughts on clerical celibacy. His Justinian code covered a wide rage of topics, including religion.

There were a few reasons for getting involved, one of which was economic. The early Church allowed children of priests to inherit their father's possessions, which included Church possessions. Justinian wanted to prevent Church property from being divided up or lost to secular figures.

The imperial decree was that married men and men with children could not become bishops:

This is why it is fitting to elect and ordain as bishops men who have neither children nor grandchildren, considering that it is not possible for a man subjected to the concerns of daily life, especially those that children bring to their parents, to apply all his zeal and spirit to divine liturgy and ecclesiastical matters. [Justinian's letter to Atrabius, Prefect of the Praetorium, March 1, 528]

Priests were not allowed to marry. Priests that were already married were required to practice sexual continence; that is, they were no longer allowed sexual activity with their wives (or anyone), but were to live with their wives "as a sister." (For the record, Justinian was married to Theodora from 525 until her death in 548, but they had no children.)

The Western Church allowed a married man to move up in the hierarchy so long as he vowed to be celibate, but Justinian allowed no such option for bishops, because they needed to be free from worldly concerns and irreproachable regarding sexual continence since they were in charge of much more than priests.

A code of laws must also include a way to enforce those laws, and punishment is the proper deterrent. In another letter, Justinian wrote:

Though the holy canons do not allow priests who are much loved by God or the very religious deacons and subdeacons to marry ..., we see that some of them despise the holy canons and beget children from the wives with whom, according to the priestly rule, they are not permitted to have relations. The only punishment for such an offense has always been dismissal from the priesthood…let such men be deposed from the priesthood and from the sacred ministry, .... Clearly, if such actions are forbidden by the holy canons, in the same way the crime must be stamped out according to our civil laws; besides the aforementioned penalty of deposition, we order that not even children previously considered legitimate be accounted as legitimate any longer,... [Justinian's letter to Julian, Prefect of the Praetorium, October 18, 530]

Not only did the priest get defrocked and become an outcast in society, his children also suffered from "the sins of the father." 

The Western Church had a slightly different view, and for a time did not want to  disrupt the sacrament of marriage that had been established by God. Tomorrow we'll look at the last married pope and his wife!