did not require extremely large sums of capital. Of 466 commenda contracts in the cartulary of Almaric, 11 percent had Jewish agents as either active partners or investors and out of the two contracts that had commendator partnerships, one of these was between a Jew and a Christian. The Jewish agent Bonanatus judeus filius Bonifilii and the Christian moneychanger Dulcianus de Sancto Victore gave a commenda contract for sulfur to three Jewish tractators in partnership. Bonanatus was also a tractator while Dulcianus was a witness to a contract, the commendator of which was a witness for Dulcianus and Bonanatus. Another Jewish merchant Mosse d’Accone entered into a contract with Petrus Cresteng, a Christian, in April 1248. From Mosse, Petrus took 40 capes from Metz worth £142.10d monete miscue, which were then transported to Sicily. Mosse then took 150 besants of millares from Petrus at a value of £45 monete miscue, which sailed to Bougie in the Maghreb. Mosse’s sons, Salomon and Joseph were also involved in commendae as both tractators and commendators.28
These were clearly fluid professions and most of the partnerships were devised on an informal rather than a permanent basis, with partnerships formed and dispensed with as needed. It was also the case that tractators, once they had accumulated enough capital, became commendators for a more settled existence. The Jewish tractators were, as Julie Mell points out, professional commercial agents but the values of the contracts they executed were moderate, “ranging from £100 to 10 shillings.” In Amalric’s cartulary, the contracts associated only with Jews averaged £17.4s per commenda, which was far below the entire average of £62, when Christians are included. As Mell concludes, Jewish tractators were active professionals in this business but they were of “modest means.”29
As shown, Jews and Christians interacted as partners and witnesses in commenda contracts. What is even more indicative of the business relationships between Jews and Christians is that Jewish commendators and tractators often chose Christian notaries and Latin contracts rather than a rabbinic contract (Heter Iska), which had stricter stipulations to avoid usury. The Jewish partners then had them drawn up in a municipal court instead of a rabbinic court (bet ←38 | 39→din). As a Christian court was used, Christians were witnesses and, in the case of a disagreement between the Jewish partners, they could be called on to give evidence. The experience of the Jews in Marseille is an important contrast to the experience of the Jews under Louis IX. If usury led to expulsion in the kingdom of France, there were other regions, such as Marseille, that were more amenable to anyone with capital to lend and invest.30
Before he left to head another costly crusade in 1270, Louis IX ordered the property of Jews to be seized if it had been gained through usury. This had a two-fold purpose. It satisfied the resentment and anger that many people held against moneylenders, especially those who charged high rates of interest, and it added to the king’s treasure, helping to fund his crusade campaign. The crusade never made it to the Holy Land but was instead diverted to North Africa by Charles of Anjou, the king’s brother, for his own political purposes. It was in Tunis that Louis died from dysentery at the age of fifty-six. When Louis’ son, Philip III (the Bold) took the throne in 1270, there was an easing of these anti-usury ordinances, although they continued to exist on the books. Contrary to his father, Philip acknowledged pawnbroking as a valid profession for Jews, bestowing the pawnbroker with legal rights. He was also lax in applying Louis’ stringent laws. Therefore, despite the prohibitions, by 1273, Jews were engaged in regular moneylending in the Ile-de-France due to the non-enforcement of anti-usury laws. Philip, it seems, was more concerned with the economic health of France than with the moral rights and wrongs of usury.31
Philip was not the only French ruler keen to harness capital for their own purposes. In the 1270s, Marseille was forced to recognize the suzerainty of Charles of Anjou, along with Arles, and Avignon. Under Charles, the city was incorporated into Provence and usurious transactions were restricted to twice a month with a general interest rate of 12 percent. After a revolt, he enacted harsh penalties against moneylenders but, in general, Charles’ lands were hospitable to their profession. Intrigued by the idea of profit, he set about encouraging trade and commerce, creating a royal monopoly on salt, mining for precious metals, and collecting fees for exempting people from the onerous Sicilian subventio generalis tax. Those exemptions, however, meant that the tax pool was smaller and so those left paying tax paid a greater amount. To promote trade and commerce, he gave protection to merchants attending fairs in Anjou and encouraged Jews and Italian Christians to develop credit. He also stipulated that Jews did not have to wear the insignia that had been ordered by the French king. With such policies, Florentines settled in his dominions as moneylenders and merchants under his protection so ←39 | 40→that by 1274, Italians had a monopoly in the profession of moneylending in his realm, lending Charles large sums of money in exchange for privileges.
Jews under Charles’ control were particularly involved in the economy of the Regno, which was comprised of the Kingdom of Sicily and parts of southern Italy. Sicilian Jews had a near monopoly on the dyeing trade while others acted as moneylenders under his protection like the Italians. Between Charles’ large number of indirect taxes and the monopolization of industries, the economic benefits fell on the few rather than the many. Still, he brought his expanding state under one administration operating with one set of laws. With this more competent and consistent government, the presence of Lombards to provide credit, and new connections in the Mediterranean, profits were robust, even though Charles’ expenditure was steep. This acceptance of usury was halted during the reign of his grandson, Robert I, who, in 1322, issued an edict against usurers. But by the middle of the century, the economic needs for loans outweighed moral concerns. Robert’s successor was his granddaughter Jeanne (Joanna or Giovanna) of Naples, who permitted a maximum interest payment of 10 percent. It was not an overwhelming victory for moneylenders, who valued their risk at rather more than 10–12 percent, but it was an indication that the tide was turning in the attitude towards usury.
* * *
In England, the tallaging of Jews increased during the twelfth century but became a less profitable form of revenue for the Crown as the community’s wealth declined, either because of the heavy taxation or loans that went unpaid. It may also be the case that income was hidden from the financially voracious monarch. Repeatedly denied taxes from parliament, Henry had become reliant on his sheriffs, foresters, and justices to bring in the necessary revenue and fines which were collected with growing oppression. In 1241–42, a massive tallage of 20,000 marks was imposed on the Jewish community. About half of the paid amount was provided by Aaron of York, David of Oxford, and Leo of York. This was followed up by a 60,000 tallage in 1244–45. In an effort to comply with the king’s demands for taxes, moneylenders called in their debts, such as the one contracted between John de Carun of Sherington and Elias le Eveske. In the early 1240s, John de Carun was in need of money after joining Henry III’s military expedition to Gascony. With the expense of his knighthood, the cost of military equipment, and the upkeep of his estate while he was overseas, he sought a loan from Elias, one of the most influential Jewish moneylenders in the thirteenth century. When Henry imposed ←40 | 41→his enormous tallage on the Jews, Elias, like other moneylenders, was obliged to seek repayment. After a judicial inquiry, that assessed his lands, John of Carun was ordered to pay an annual instalment of six marks to his creditor in repayment, much to the dissatisfaction of Elias. The debt was paid after the sale of thirty acres of John de Carun’s land. Some Jews sold off their loans with deep discounts. These were eagerly bought by wealther courtiers such as William de Valence and Richard of Cornwall who had their eyes on the land on which the loan was pledged. In this way, the estates of vulnerable landowners fell into the hands of the wealthy elite, causing resentment and hostility on the part of the debtors towards the Jewish moneylenders and the courtiers who benefitted from their distress.32
The discontent of the barons and knights of the shire over the transfer of land from debt-ridden nobility to their creditors,
