A Register of Debts Owed to Jews, Confiscated in 1349: What it Tells Us about Moneylending Practices

1 Jews in the County of Hainaut Between 1307 and 1349

The medieval County of Hainaut was situated in a region today straddling the border between Belgium and France. In the fourteenth century it formed part of the German Kingdom. Between 1280 and 1356 it was ruled by counts from the Avesnes dynasty and from then on, by members of the Wittelsbacher house, whose claim to the county was made via Margareta II of Avesnes (1345–1356), the second wife (and from 1347, the widow) of Emperor Louis IV. For all we know, Jews first arrived here in the wake of the 1306 expulsion from France^[3]; in fact their earliest appearance is in a number of short-term settlement charters dating from 1307^[4] and 1308. The scribe who registered the latter noted that the recipients took their abode in Mons.^[5] In September 1310 other Jews followed.^[6] From then on we have a steady trickle of information from the town’s account books^[7] and from other sources. It is hard to tell from where all the Jews in question came, but the date of their first arrival just after the expulsion of 1306 from France renders it likely that they came from there.^[8] Over the following decades, the comital account books also mention Jews in Vendegies (1319/20),^[9] Denain,^[10] Villers-en-Cauchies (1328)^[11] as well as in unspecified locations in the châtellenie of Bouchain (1329)^[12] and elsewhere in the county (1334).^[13] It is possible that the increase in the numbers of Jewish individuals was related to a second expulsion from France in 1322: one year later, eight Jewish households are recorded in the citizens’ roll of Mons.^[14]

By the 1330s the Jewish community of Hainaut had reached a respectable size, as can be seen from a collective charter of April 1337. Twenty-five Jewish men and women are named, together with at least eight additional family members, not counting Lion’s children, married and unmarried (tous les enfans dou dit Lion mariés et non mariés). Together these Jews paid an annual tax of 200 florins.^[15] Jewish settlements can now be found in Ath, Binche, Crespin, Dourlers, Forest, Maroilles, Mecquignies, Mons, Neufvilles, Péronnes and Pont-sur-Sambre.^[16] Four Jews are called maistre, a term denoting a physician or a rabbinic scholar,^[17] and there was one maistre des juis, who may have been a rabbi or community leader. Quite a few women are named among the taxpayers.^[18] A scholar’s list of (lost) archival documents from Mons reflects their economic dealings in town around this period.^[19]

Twelve years later, Jews appear again in the sources, this time in connection with the persecution during the Black Death. The account books of the treasurer and the bailiff of Hainaut as well as those of the prévôts of Bavay, Mons, Le Quesnoy, and Valenciennes contain various notes concerning their trials and execution by fire in the summer of 1349. It seems that until the end of July and early days of August, the Jews were still doing business as normal.^[20] The treasurer recorded the tax paid by some Jews for the period from Corpus Christi day (11 June) until »the day they were burned« (juskes au jour k’il furent ars).^[21] By the end of August, however, the Jewish community of Hainaut was completely wiped out. Specific reference is made to the towns of Ath,^[22] Bray (near Binche),^[23] Hautrage,^[24] Hon (near Bavay),^[25] Jeumont,^[26] Mons,^[27] Neufvilles,^[28] Poix-du-Nord,^[29] and Steenkerque.^[30] Jews were probably also killed in further unnamed locations in the prévôtés of Mons^[31] and Valenciennes.^[32] A look at Map 1 shows that between 1307 and 1349, many Jews had settled in small and middling towns in the county. According to the later medieval hearth-tax lists, most of these places had only between fifty and one-hundred households; few had over two-hundred.^[33] Of the urban centers, only Mons is represented,^[34] and of the eleven seats of comital officials we find only three.^[35]

2 Jewish Credit in Hainaut – A Snapshot from the Summer of 1349

In 1349, the authorities of Hainaut confiscated not only the houses and chattels of the Jews but also their business documents, and then tried to collect the outstanding loans.^[36] By December the prévôt of Mons drew up two lists of debts owed to the Jews. List 1 amounts to 22 folios. It contains rémanés, that is, the loans he had until then not been able to recover. They are grouped according to the Jews’ »letters«,^[37] their »chirographs«, and their »papers«.^[38] List 2, on 10 folios, contains the income raised from claims already recovered and the expenses^[39] incurred in the process. It also mentions a first inventory, which is today lost.^[40] On the whole, the officials were not all too successful in their efforts to execute outstanding loans. They incurred costs; they had to return debts the Jews owed to Christians,^[41] and they had to grant reductions and extensions.^[42]

The two lists provide us with a unique glimpse into the Jewish credit operations in this area dotted by villages and small towns. The rural character of the credit market^[43] is apparent not only from the settlement structure of the region but also from the fact that some of the debts were to be repaid in grain, mostly wheat.^[44] Admittedly, this practice was rare and confined to a small number of debtors, among whom a certain Adains li Maires of Harveng was the most prominent.^[45] Most obligations of this kind were owed to a Jewish woman named Joye and her husband, Jacot.^[46]

Deeds of obligation (in our case, lettres and chirographes) were commonly drawn up for larger amounts only while smaller loans were not worth the trouble and expense. A first point to be noted, therefore, is that the loan deeds preserved today constitute only the proverbial tip of the iceberg of what was advanced by the Jewish moneylenders.^[47] Seen in this light, the registers from Mons take on great value in that they offer a broader view, including also small-scale transactions, with customers from all walks of society. The lists name between 1200 and 1500 individuals who either took out loans or served as witnesses or stood surety.^[48] It does not appear, by the way, that the frequent recourse to Jewish credit among the rural population of the region was a sign of crisis. Before the advent of the plague, 1349 had not been a bad year for the inhabitants of Hainaut; wheat prices were only slightly elevated in the south and quite moderate in the north of the region.^[49]

Map 2 gives an impression of the geographical spread of the loan operations. Places with more than ten customers are represented by larger circles, the smaller dots indicate the homes of individual customers or, if left white, the geographical bynames of people taking out Jewish loans. Most of the Jewsʼ clients lived in the prévôté of Mons, within a circle of about 15 kilometres around the town.

3 Book-Keeping Practices Reflected in the Jews’ »papiers«

Taken broadly, the lists compiled by the officials – both the lists of the outstanding loans and of those they had been able to recover – contain more than one thousand entries.^[73] Like other moneylendersʼ account books of the time, they were organised in a simple manner, according to the individual borrowers.^[74] Many of these brief personal accounts just give a name and an initial sum, possibly the original loan taken out, and then add further, mostly smaller sums. These smaller sums probably indicate the interest accrued or fees calculated on certain occasions, perhaps also new loans. For an example, let us take a look at a short extract from Hanginet’s papiers in List 1:

Jehans de Bertaimont, i. escut.

Lottiers Premars de St. Gillain xxi. s. Item i. escut. Item ii. s. Item viii. s.

Jaquemars Bauduins par lettre iii. florins a le caijere et une florence.

Jaquemars Mokette de Saint Gillain xix. s. par parties prestet environ le Pasque l’an xlix.

Martins de le Porte de St. Gill. vi. escus par lettre. Item après xxxvi. s.

Jehans li Blaniers de Saint Gillain xl. s. Item xxxvii. montois. Item vi. s. vi. d. Item iiii. s. vi. d. Item x. s. ii. d. Item vi. d. Item xxxvii. d. Item vi. d. Item v. s. Item iiii. s. vi. d. fait environ le Pasque l’an xlix, somme de ces parties iiii. lb. xix. s. v. d.^[75]

Compared with these entries, which in essence always follow the basic pattern, those based on Josson’s papiers provide more details about what might be called credit networks. In almost nine out of ten cases they name not only the borrower but also the witnesses or, when these are lacking, the individuals who stood surety for the borrower (here called pleges). These details were perhaps grounded in the fact that Josson, who lived in Steenkerque about 15 kilometres north of Mons, did not advance loans on deeds but had them recorded before witnesses:

Allemans u Wills. dou Sart ii. escus, pleges Colars li Sos, Iehans li Esteliers et Colars Mariauls.

Jehans Lambescos u Brokars i. escut, ties. Iehans Boukehors et Jakemars de la Haut demor. a Heripont.

Jehans Boutilliers i. escut, pleges Gossars, ties. Iehans Gillos et Jehans li Fevres demor. a Heripont.

Jehans li Dus demor. au Ruels i. escut, ties. Rassekins de Huteri et Hellins de Torup.

Pierars li fils Hallekin l’Escohier sen est pleges Mahius Joses, ties. Iehans Pier. et Hellins de Torup demor. a Kenaste iiii. escus; a lui iii. escus, ties. Iehans li Osteliers & Gerars li Fevres.^[76]

Some of the witnesses appear many times over in the lists, and they can be often identified as echevins of the towns in question. However, we also find members of the feudal court and vassals of the countess or of the church of Sainte-Waudru in Mons.^[77] In these cases possession of a seal was probably the deciding factor. By contrast, the circle of those standing surety for a debt did not differ much from that of the debtors in general.

Only 11 per cent of the entries contain dates. These are mostly due dates^[78] and based on the Christian calendar.^[79] Some of the known Hebrew account books, by contrast, were dating according the Jewish calendar, giving the day of the Hebrew month or in reference to a week’s Torah reading or parasha.^[80] The lack of such dates in our lists may relate to the fact that the Christian officials were unfamiliar with the Jewish calendar. Hence, numerous dates, if given at all, are approximate (environ).

The most intriguing feature of the lists based on the Jewsʼ papiers is that they contain information on the relations between the Jewish moneylenders and their clients over time. It appears that they encountered each other frequently, at regular intervals.^[81] In particular, we find indication of partial repayments and intermediate settlements. Information on partial repayments is probably incomplete. Still, List 2 contains numerous such indications.^[82] For example, a certain Jehan Sandrart dou Grant Kévy had already payed 1 écu 8 s. on the debt of 3 écus he owed to Joye, and the official noted that this was confirmed by Joye’s (i. e., Jacot’s) papers.^[83] Intermediate debt settlements are also often indicated in List 1.^[84] Sometimes a specific sum is marked by the words de compte fait, that is, »after reckoning«.^[85] To name but one example, a certain Jehans li Biaus from Goegnies had taken out two loans from Joye, amounting to 24 and 14 écus, respectively. Then two further chirographs became necessary, for the sums of 40 and 4 écus.^[86] Joye’s husband Jacot recorded the original debt of 24 écus in his papers and further noted that Jehan’s three daughters had recognised the chirograph for 40 écus »for greater security« (pour milleur seurteit). One year later a settlement was negotiated in the presence of a witness, by which the complete debt was reduced to 33 écus.^[87] These details imply that the credit relations between Jews and Christian should not be reduced to the period fixed in a deed, from taking out a loan to its repayment on the day it was due. Rather, I would suggest that they more resembled a bank account constantly overdrawn, with customers paying up parts of their debts from time to time in order to keep their debt under control, and meeting up with their moneylender for this purpose. Some negotiation over loan terms and sums was probably bound up with these regular meetings.

The major reason for intermediate reckonings was that the loans issued by Jewish moneylenders were for short terms only, often for only a quarter of a year. When that term was over, the moneylender would calculate the interest accrued; if the customer was then unable to return the principal plus interest, the loan had to be renewed or a new contract was drawn up. On these occasions, sums of interest that had not been paid back were added to the principal of the new loan. In other words, the short-term turnover of Jewish loans was very likely to produce compound interest.

Let us return to the above entry from Hanginet’s list:

Jehans li Blaniers de Saint Gillain xl. s. Item xxxvii. montois. Item vi. s. vi. d. Item iiii. s. vi. d. Item x. s. ii. d. Item vi. d. Item xxxvii. d. Item vi. d. Item v. s. Item iiii. s. vi. d. fait environ le Pasque l’an xlix, somme de ces parties iiii. lb. xix. s. v. d.^[88]

(Jean li Blaniers de Saint-Ghislan: 40 sous [= 480 pennies], then 37 montois [= 296 d.], then 6 s. 6 d. [= 78 d.], then 4 s. 6 d. [= 54 d.], then 10 s. 2 d. [= 122 d.], then 6 d., then 37 d., then 6 d., then 5 s. [= 60 d.], then 4 s. 6 d. [= 54 d.] made around Easter 1349. The sum of these parts is 4 lb. 19 s. 5 d. [= 1193 d.].)

In nine consecutive steps, the debt owed by Jean li Blaniers of Saint-Ghislain had grown from two pounds (fourty sous) to almost five. If we assume that the typical term of a loan was for a quarter of a year (thirteen weeks),^[89] his credit relationship with Hanginet had extended over two years or perhaps more. The first increase was the largest, and the fact that it is noted in a different currency (the montois, worth 8 pence) might indicate that it constituted not a calculation of interest accrued but a fresh loan. This is followed by 78 pence, which might constitute the interest accrued from 40 shillings over the first period of thirteen weeks (assuming a rate of 3 pennies per pound per week). Similarly, the following 54 pence was perhaps interest related to the 37 montois. Then the moneylender added various sums small and large that do not seem to be based on a fixed ratio towards the original loan, indicating neither a steady nor a growing increase of interest. I take the irregularity of these ratios to indicate that the borrower had tried to control the growth of his debt by paying parts of the interest accrued when he met up with his moneylender over the course of time. Despite his efforts, however, the debt had continued to grow.

It is risky and perhaps inadmissible to generalize from such individual cases. The lists from Hainaut are probably too far removed – by translation and by the omissions of the Christian scribes – from the wording and calculations in the Hebrew account books they are based on. At any rate, more calculation is required. Also, many debts listed here appear simple and without additions, probably reflecting the fact that the payback rate of loans was generally high. There is no doubt, however, that there were veritable debt careers. The point of this study is to provide a possible basis for them: short-term loans that had to be extended, or rather renewed, when the original due date was reached and for which the interest accrued then produced compound interest. While high rates of interest appear generally to have been accepted in short-term loans, they became onerous in situations when debtors failed on their obligations. Against this background, it is not clear whether extending a loan was always a favour on the moneylender’s part, as the cost for such loans could easily spiral out of control. In this respect, medieval Jewish loans and today’s credit cards are similar – both in their broad acceptance and their inherent problems. As Michael Toch has observed, most clients appear to have resorted to (Jewish) moneylenders as a matter of course, while contemporaries also regarded certain aspects of their business practices as unacceptable – above all, compound interest, but also loans that accrued interest over years and, generally, any sums that appear disproportionate to the original loan.^[90] Evidently, compound interest occasioned by short-term debt failure could become a major issue in times of economic disruption.

This problem is clearly reflected in a Jewish taqqanah from the »land of Worms« (medinat Warmaissa) discovered and published by Rainer Barzen. This ordinance can be dated to just after the expulsion from France, and the Jewish authorities drafting it were concerned with the problem that influential customers might be getting so deep into debt that they would eventually press towards expelling the Jews. They therefore decreed that, first, »no increase may be added [on a loan], and no man or woman shall be allowed to lend to any single non-Jewish debtor more than 100 pounds hallish.« Secondly, and more to our point, »when the time of repayment has come, it shall no longer be allowed to compound the interest owed to the principal. Rather, the whole debt shall be enforced from the hand of the debtor«.^[91] Three decades later, a certain Master Frederick, in his polemic against the Jews of Austria occasioned by the host desecration libel of Pulkau (1338), presented his readers with a calculation of the »usury« allegedly amassed by Jewish moneylenders, in which a loan of one mark, over the course of fifteen years, grows into a sum of 32 000 marks.

To what extent, and in how short a time the Jews become rich by usury may easily be seen: Let us assume that a Jew invests one mark in usury, from which he wants to make two after one year and, in the following year, four out of these two, as is evident, and so forth each year doubling the amount of this money, for fourteen years. When fourteen years have expired, he has, unless prevented from his intention to exercise usury, enlarged his one mark to a sum of 16 000 marks, in the fifteenth year reaching 32 000, and so on ad infinitum – if not he himself, then by others whom he has entrusted with increasing the usury. Whoever wants to do the calculation will find this to be true.^[92]

While Master Frederick’s calculation is both unrealistic (it does not account for expenses, living costs, taxation, etc.) and slightly inexact,^[93] it highlights the polemical potentials inherent in discussions of the short-term loan business that Jews were specializing in. In the later medieval period, the issue of compound interest became a central argument in the polemics against Jews and their business dealings. From the later fifteenth century onwards, more precise calculations of the (presumed) profits made by Jewish moneylenders in this way were spread in manuscript and print. While the figures these pamphlets present appear hugely out of proportion with the realities of the moneylenders’ plight, the maths behind them is (more or less) correct.^[94]

As the present paper suggests, the practice of calculating compound interest had long been customary among Jewish moneylenders, since it was a necessary by-product of their short-term loan practices. At the same time, we have also seen how firmly entrenched the practice of resorting to Jewish moneylending was in a region characterized by villages and small towns and by an agrarian economy. As opposed to the image one might get from the lone surviving deed of obligation in this time and region, they show that hundreds of people were involved in this part of the credit trade, taking out loans, witnessing contracts, or standing surety for one another. They also met their Jewish bankers frequently for checking their accounts – calculating the interest accrued, paying back loans or parts of them, extending them if needed. Clearly, some of the debtors were facing issues – but then this is a common feature of debt relations in all ages. It would be wrong to assume that it was their debts which fuelled the fires of persecution in the summer of 1349.^[95] Quite clearly, the Black Death persecutions in Hainaut were not popular riots against a background of economic hardship. Rather, they were ignited by external factors and set in motion by the local authorities. As a by-product of these events, the county’s officials compiled extensive lists of outstanding debts. These records cut into the dense network of relations between Jews and Christians in the region like an archaeological section, providing a detailed momentary reflection of ongoing practice.