Eustace the Monk, Philip Augustus of France and the Jewish Moneylenders
The Story of a Forgotten Medieval War against the Power of the Jews
The story of Eustace the Monk is one that is hardly known today outside of medieval historians and those who have engaged with the literature surrounding the origin of the tales of Robin Hood. However aside from acting as a probable folkloric feeder for some of the events in the earliest surviving tales of Robin Hood (1) the story of Eustace the Monk is one which we know is based on a real historical individual.
Even if the Eustace the Monk of legend is a rather larger-than-life character with lots of obviously invented exploits and background. He is still of interest on two levels: the Eustace the Monk of myth and the Eustace the Monk of history. In this essay - the first of two - I will focus on the historical Eustace the Monk in order to show the close connection between his actions in life and the activities of the jews.
This connection is very real even though there are superficially no mentions of the jews in the existent manuscript we have of the original story of Eustace the Monk, which is dated no later than 1284 and no earlier than 1223. The real Eustace the Monk was the youngest son of Baudoin Busket - a minor lordling of Boulogne - and born in approximately 1170. (2)
Eustace allegedly studied black magic in Toledo and later briefly became a Benedictine monk: although I would opine here that it is more likely that Eustace merely served in the novitiate as a kind of impromptu schooling (which was not uncommon at the time) (3) and then - when his father was killed in circa 1190 - left in order to take up his father's estates and responsibilities as was then the custom.
By 1205 Eustace and his liege lord Renaud de Dammartin had quarrelled substantially and Eustace was stripped of his estates as well as his title and outlawed: although not before Eustace had burned two of de Dammartin's mills. (4) Eustace then led the life of a forest vagabond - tricking de Dammartin and his servants at every opportunity - for a short amount of time (which is from where we have significant mythical crossover to the tales of Robin Hood) before setting up as a pirate lord on the island of Sark in what is now the British Channel Islands.
In this role Eustace working primarily for King John of England against King Philip II (i.e., Philip Augustus) of France. However, in 1212 Eustace's old liege lord de Dammartin allied with King John leading to Eustace directly entering the service of Philip II and being his admiral during the failed French invasion of England between 1216 and 1217.
Eustace's ship was surrounded, he himself was captured and then - as the medieval chronicler Matthew Paris relates - promptly beheaded for having engaged in so much piracy over the years, which had infuriated the English sailors who had lived in fear of Eustace's predations for so long.
This all sounds well and good, but it doesn't really get us any closer to the connection between Eustace and the jews. Or does it?
Well, it does in a sense, because it gives us a time-frame in which we can understand the events of Eustace's life and it is notable - much as the time-frame of the probable origins of the tales of Robin Hood legend is - because it neatly coincides with changes in royal policy towards the jews in the kingdoms of England and France.
We should note that Eustace was outlawed in 1205 by de Dammartin explicitly for - as recounted in the story of Eustace the Monk - his 'failures in accounting' or put another way for not paying his lord what his lord believed Eustace owed him. (5) This neatly coincides with the readmission of the jews - on the explicit understanding that they would engage in money lending - by Philip II of France in 1202. (6) Indeed, Philip himself took a key role in forcing through these measures and providing a legal framework for jewish money lenders through 1202 to 1206. (7)
This was after Philip II had launched a proverbial blitzkrieg against the monetary power of the jews - although primarily as part of a campaign to enrich the crown - as soon as he come to power in 1179, (8) but after he had spent all this money on various schemes and wars. Philip was forced to readmit the jews in order to tax their financial resources in order to rebuild his treasury. This is, of course, a nod to the fact that the jews were massively wealthy in Europe at the time as if they had not been so then Philip II would not have gone after them as a major potential source of revenue and nor would have been persuaded to readmit them.
It also exactly coincides with a letter sent by Pope Innocent III to Philip II in which the former states in no uncertain terms that:
'Know then that news has reached us to the effect that, in the French kingdom, the Jews have become so insolent that by means of their vicious usury, through which they extort not only usury, but usury on usury, they appropriate ecclesiastical goods and Christian possessions. There seems to be fulfilled among the Christians that which the prophet bewailed in the case of the Jews, saying “Our heritage has been turned over to strangers, our houses to foreigners.”' (9)
From this we can clearly see that from 1202 to 1205 the depredations of the jews had grown so enormous that word of them had even reached the Pope himself who felt it incumbent on his position to rebuke Philip II for unleashing the jews on his people for his own personal profit. Indeed, we can get a sense of the scale of this activity and the destruction of the social fabric of French society by jewish money lenders running amok in Innocent's indignant comment that the jews were even charging interest on their interest rates ('usury on usury')!
We thus need to take into consideration the fact that Eustace's failure to 'account for his goods' to de Dammartin takes place in the same year that Innocent III wrote such a stinging rebuke to Philip II about the activities of the jews in his territories. It is unlikely that such events are merely coincidental given that Eustace's crime - which leads to his outlaw status - is not surrendering all the money and/or payments in kind that his liege lord de Dammartin demanded.
It would not be surprising if the reason for de Dammartin's desperation for payment is to do with the jewish moneylenders running roughshod over the people of France. Given of course that the jews were the principal - although not the only - bankers in France at the time (and were also well connected internationally to other jews across Europe) (10) and whose principle clients were the aristocracy who used the money to fight wars, build castles and sponsor tournaments among other things.
If we understand this and note that Eustace's response to de Dammartin is to burn two of his mills, while the latter's response is to pillage Eustace's holdings. (11) Then we can see that de Dammartin is fundamentally desperate for hard cash, and we are even told that the damage to Eustace's wealth is the princely sum of 990 marks. The most likely reason for this desperation on de Dammartin's part is that he had got himself into debt with the principal moneylenders of the time: the jews.
Further adding the dimension that Innocent III's letter suggests - that the jews were charging 'interest on interest' (or just very high rates of interest) with the blessing of Philip II - gives us a probable cause for de Dammartin's spiralling debt in that he has used the ready cash that the jews could offer, but then has gotten himself into a situation where it is difficult for him to repay that loan because the interest kept accumulating and was beginning to outstrip his ability to pay the jews back or had already done so.
Thus, de Dammartin takes the step of increasing his rents and levies on those landowners, aristocrats and gentry beholden to him (i.e. his tenants) - one of which is Eustace - but there is resistance and some of his tenants refuse - or cannot afford - to pay the increased rents and levies. The most radical response comes from Eustace himself who refuses to pay de Dammartin more than he had previously done. Leading to the quarrel that causes Eustace to burn two of de Dammartin's mills to the ground (which we should remember were sources of significant income for de Dammartin) as an act of spite, which in turn causes de Dammartin to outlaw Eustace (with King Philip's tacit approval) and to take from his estates as much as he can carry away in wealth and chattels some 990 marks (which no doubt would have helped de Dammartin satisfy his jewish creditors).
This version of events is also pointed to by the oft-forgotten title of Eustace: the monk.
What do I mean by this?
Well, if Eustace had been schooled by Benedictine monks (or had actually taken vows as a monk) then he would have almost certainly imbibed the strident anti-Judaism current in the Roman Catholic Church at this time. (12) This would suggest that Eustace's Christian education lies at the heart of his refusal to give de Dammartin rent and levies beyond what he was traditionally due in order that de Dammartin could use the money to pay off the usurious loans he gotten from the jews.
After all, if Eustace had been simply a thug who didn't want to pay his liege lord his rent and levies then why would the text of the story of Eustace the Monk suggest that the difference of opinion was about the size of the rent to be paid and not whether the rent was to be paid. Eustace had presumably been paying his rents and levies from 1190 to 1204: so, then what had changed?
The simplest and most likely answer is that de Dammartin had sought to increase those rents and levies on his tenants with Eustace's response - based on his Christian anti-Judaism - being outright refusal to do something that would necessarily bring him into direct conflict with the explicit will of the Roman Catholic Church at that time.
This leads Eustace - as it likely did with Robin Hood (13) and Friar Tuck - (14) into radical action to defend Christendom - as Pope Innocent III had demanded - against the increasing power of jews in Christian kingdoms via the practice of usury. Such an explanation is pointed to by the fact that Eustace presents himself in the guise of a Knight Hospitaller to King John of England (i.e., Eustace regarded himself as a Christian knight fighting a crusade against the heathens [represented by the jews]) (15) and regarded John as far more preferable as a liege lord as he was vehemently anti-jewish and has enacted radical anti-jewish action in England. (16)
Indeed, as Philip II turned more and more to the jews for aid: King John took ever more stringent action against them. This was representative of a situation where - as Abulafia has observed - (17) the jews in England and France were wholly dependent on the protection of the crown from their (often outraged) neighbours and clients. Without explicit royal protection - which Philip had accorded and John revoked - the jews were fair game for the aristocrats they charged usury to and the common people who bore the cost of that usury in their rents and taxes to their aristocratic masters.
This leads Eustace to wage a small private war against de Dammartin which is exaggerated as a kind of medieval version of class war in the story of Eustace the Monk, but which quickly becomes more of a crusade against the jews and their practices. This is represented by the shift in Eustace's being a minor nuisance to de Dammartin as a forest outlaw to his setting himself up as a pirate king on the island of Sark.
The reason for this seems to have been for the sake of both practicality and security in so far as if Eustace was to be able to live relatively comfortably then he needed a defensible location, which he could use as a base of operations and a home for himself and his now dispossessed family. Sark was an ideal location as being an island off the coast of France it was highly defensible, had access to a ready source of food in the fishing grounds nearby and offered direct access to France's main waterways and sea trade routes.
Given that the commerce of France was the lifeblood of Philip II kingdom's ability to pay the now officially sanctioned jewish moneylenders (who often loaned to merchants to help underwrite the cost of risky mercantile sea voyages in return for a profit and payment if anything happened to the ship) (18) which in turn meant encouraging the anti-Christian practice of usury by rewarding it with repayment rather than punishing it with confiscation.
Eustace's alliance with King John can also be seen as a highly practical measure given that he would not have survived long as a pirate without the tacit approval of either the King of England or the King of France. In taking service with John - disguised as a Knight Hospitaller which both plays Eustace's own religious faith and John's failed ambition to follow in footsteps of his brother King Richard I and go on crusade - (19) Eustace was reconciling his practical need for the approval of either the King of England or the King of France with his own faith-based crusade against the usurious dealings of the jews who were officially supported by the King of France and under siege from the King of England.
Eustace's harassing of jewish interests and French trade evidently had a significant impact given that when Eustace's old nemesis de Dammartin switched his allegiance to King John and seems to - as part of the agreement for switching that allegiance - (20) have required John to jettison Eustace and his anti-jewish pirates. King Philip was quick to invite his old foe back into the fold and Eustace seems to have reluctantly agreed if only for the practical reason that he could not now operate without Philip's approval given that he had lost John's favour.
John's betrayal of Eustace appears to have rankled hard with the latter given that here was John: the anti-jewish King of England who had more or less rendered the jews of England powerless and he had betrayed him - his fellow anti-jewish crusader - in order to gain temporal benefit from a man (de Dammartin) who had got himself into debt with the jews and tried to force his tenants to pay that debt and its interest off and whom should have been his mortal enemy as an avowed Christian.
Eustace's reaction to this - combined with hardening anti-jewish attitudes among the French peasantry and aristocracy (which would lead to the near declaration of war on the jews by France after the death of Philip II) - (21) was to switch his activities from attacking the jewish moneylenders through disrupting French trade to attacking English ships, which led to the hatred that the men of the Cinque Ports (the five largest and wealthiest ports of the Kingdom of England as well as the strongholds of the Engish jewry) had of him. This of course led to Eustace's ultimate execution by them when he was captured in 1217.
From the foregoing discussion we can see that the historical Eustace - upon which the story of Eustace the Monk is based - was likely to have been an aristocrat dispossessed by the wiles of the jewish moneylenders. Who then waged a holy war - no doubt inspired by his Benedictine education and the crusades against the Muslims in Palestine and Syria - to smash jewish power in the Kingdom of France only to be betrayed by for political advantage by his erstwhile fellow anti-jewish crusader: King John of England.
Eustace deserves to be remembered less as a figure who was immortalized by an anonymous bard of Picardy and provided inspiration for some of the japes of the tales of Robin Hood, but rather as a man who stood up to the jews and was willing to take radical action against them in the name of the religious cause in which he deeply believed.
References
(1) James Holt, 1989, 'Robin Hood', 2nd Edition, Thames and Hudson: London, p. 64
(2) For ease of use I have taken the basic details of the real Eustace's life from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography which is available at the following address: http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/printable/37400
(3) Georges Duby, Juliet Vale (Trans.), 1991, 'France in the Middle Ages 987-1460: From Hugh Capet to Joan of Arc', 1st Edition, Blackwell: Oxford, pp. 91-94
(4) The mill was an economic powerful in the medieval era as well as natural monopoly as in order to make the flour needed to bake bread: the peasantry and yeomanry had to grind their corn at their lord's mill for a fee. Thus, burning two of de Dammartin's mills was equivalent to dynamiting two inexhaustible gold mines and bound to cause de Dammartin to deeply despise Eustace and seek vengeance against him.
(5) Eustace the Monk (Edition of Denis Conlon, 1972, 'Li Romans de Witasse le Moine: Roman du treizième siècle', Studies in Romance Languages and Literatures Monograph No. 126, University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill), Laisse 6
(6) Duby, Op. Cit., pp. 210-211
(7) Robert Chazan, 2006, 'The Jews of Medieval Western Christendom 1000-1500', 1st Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York, p. 143
(8) Ibid, pp. 141-142; Anna Sapir Abulafia, 1995, 'Christians and Jews in the Twelfth-Century Renaissance', 1st Edition, Routledge: New York, p. 137
(9) Solomon Grayzel, Kenneth Stow, 1989, 'The Church and the Jews in the XIIIth Century', 3rd Edition, Vol. 1, Wayne State University Press: Detroit, p. 107
(10) Chazan, Op. Cit., p. 143
(11) Eustace the Monk, Laisse 6
(12) Jeremy Cohen, 1982, 'The Friars and the Jews: The Evolution of Medieval anti-Judaism', 1st Edition, Cornell University Press: Ithaca, pp. 34-35; also Abulafia, Op. Cit., pp. 52-54
(13) https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/robin-hood-and-the-jews
(14) https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/friar-tuck-and-the-jews
(15) Eustace the Monk, Laisse 20
(16) Chazan, Op. Cit., pp. 161-162
(17) Abulafia, Op. Cit., p. 67
(18) Implied by Duby, Op. Cit., p. 101
(19) Christopher Tyerman, 2007, 'God's War: A New History of the Crusades', 1st Edition, Penguin: New York, p. 393
(20) This was part of the common pattern of shifting alliances which characterized the constantly warring kingdoms of England and France ever since a nominal vassal of the French King (William the Bastard [better known as William the Conqueror]) had become the King of England in 1066 right up until the final loss of Calais by Henry VIII in the 16th century.
(21) Chazan, Op. Cit., pp. 146-147