Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London Jacob Selwood DIVERSITY AND DIFFERENCE IN EARLY MODERN LONDON To An...

Author: Jacob Selwood

53 downloads 1258 Views 18MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

Jacob Selwood

DIVERSITY AND DIFFERENCE IN EARLY MODERN LONDON

To Ann, with love


JACOB SELWOOD Georgia State University, USA

© Jacob Selwood 2010 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. Jacob Selwood has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be LGHQWL¿HGDVWKHDXWKRURIWKLVZRUN Published by Ashgate Publishing Limited Wey Court East Union Road Farnham Surrey, GU9 7PT England

Ashgate Publishing Company Suite 420 101 Cherry Street Burlington VT 05401-4405 USA

www.ashgate.com British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Selwood, Jacob. Diversity and difference in early modern London. 1. Cultural pluralism–England–London–History–16th century. 2. Cultural pluralism–England– London–History–17th century. 3. Cultural pluralism–England–London–History–16th century Sources. 4. Cultural Pluralism–England–London–History–17th century–Sources. 5. London (England)–Social conditions–16th century. 6. London (England)–Social conditions–17th century. 7. London (England)–Social conditions–16th century–Sources. 8. London (England)– Social conditions–17th century–Sources. I. Title 305.8’009421’09031-dc22 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Selwood, Jacob. Diversity and difference in early modern London / Jacob Selwood. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ,6%1KDUGFRYHUDONSDSHU ±,6%1 HERRN (WKQLF JURXSV±(QJODQG±/RQGRQ±+LVWRU\±WK FHQWXU\ (WKQLF JURXSV±(QJODQG± London–History–17th century. 3. Minorities–England–London–History–16th century. 4. Minorities– England–London–History–17th century. 5. Immigrants–England–London–History–16th century. 6. Immigrants–England–London–History–17th century. 7. Aliens–England–London–History–16th century. 8. Aliens–England–London–History–17th century. 9. London (England)–Emigration and immigration. I. Title. DA676.9.A1S45 2010 305.8009421’09032–dc22 2009035083 ,6%1KEN ,6%1HEN.II

Contents

Preface Acknowledgments List of Abbreviations Introduction

vii ix xi 1

1 Setting the Stage: Finding a Place in Early Modern London

19

2 “No Better Than Conduit Pipes”: Occupational Practice and the Creation of Difference

51

3 “English-born Reputed Strangers”: Birth and Descent in Theory and Practice

87

4 Jewish Immigration in an Anti-stranger Context

129

5 The Islamic World, Captivity and Difference

159

Conclusion Bibliography Index

189 195 211

This page has been left blank intentionally

Preface

7KHZULWLQJRIWKLVERRNFRLQFLGHGERWKZLWKP\RZQH[SHULHQFHVDVDQLPPLJUDQW and with a particularly fraught period in the recent history of immigration. While ,ZDVFRQGXFWLQJUHVHDUFKLQ/RQGRQP\ZLIH$QQZDVZRUNLQJRQDPDVWHU¶V thesis in journalism that involved research with the Newham Monitoring Project, DQRUJDQL]DWLRQSURYLGLQJDGYRFDF\IRUWKRVHIDFLQJUDFLDOGLVFULPLQDWLRQ,¿UVW put pen to paper on an embryonic version of the text early on the morning of 11 September 2001. That day, of course, brought world-historical events that led not just to two wars, but, in America, to a period in which immigrants from Muslim countries were directly targeted by the federal government for special registration and worse. More recently, we have seen further xenophobia on both sides of the Atlantic, from anti-immigrant rhetoric in US politics to the election of two members of the far-right British National Party as members of the European Parliament. And during the same period I also found myself traveling through the US immigration system, on a path to permanent residency and eventual citizenship. Whether because of news headlines or long pre-dawn hours queuing outside immigration RI¿FHVLWZDVLPSRVVLEOHWRDYRLGWKLQNLQJDERXWWKHFRQWHPSRUDU\FRQWH[W :KLOH , KDYH HVFKHZHG PDNLQJ GLUHFW SDUDOOHOV EHWZHHQ HDUO\ PRGHUQ DQG FXUUHQW HYHQWV ZKHQ ZULWLQJ WKLV ERRN RII WKH SDJH , KDYH EHHQ VWUXFN E\ how depressingly familiar some early modern complaints are in the light of FRQWHPSRUDU\SROLWLFVDQGYLFHYHUVD $OOHJDWLRQVWKDW³WKH\´DUHWDNLQJ³RXU´ jobs seem ineradicable. While the context over four hundred years remains, of FRXUVHYHU\GLIIHUHQWLWLVVRPHWLPHVGLI¿FXOWWRDYRLGGUDZLQJGLUH²LIRYHUWO\ DKLVWRULFDO²FRQFOXVLRQVDERXWKXPDQQDWXUH Yet it is also important to note reasons for optimism, or at least signs of basic human decency. Readers inclined towards similarly despondent parallels should, ,WKLQNWDNHQRWHRIWKHVSHHFKRI6LU7KRPDV0RUHLQWKH(OL]DEHWKDQSOD\RI WKHVDPHQDPH,QZRUGVSUREDEO\ZULWWHQE\:LOOLDP6KDNHVSHDUH0RUHWHOOVD JURXS RI DQWLLPPLJUDQW ULRWHUV WR FDOP WKHLU ³PRXQWDQLVK LQKXPDQLW\´ DVNLQJ them to imagine “the strangers’ case.” They should, he suggests, consider what LW ZRXOG EH OLNH LI WKH\ WRR ZHUH ³VSXUQ>HG@ OLNH GRJV´ ZLWK ³GHWHVWHG NQLYHV´ against their throats.1 1 Anthony Munday et al., Sir Thomas More: A Play, ed. Vittorio Gabrieli and Giorgio Melchiori, The Revels Plays (Manchester, 1990), 2.3.141–51, cited in A.J. Hoenselaars, Images of Englishmen and Foreigners in the Drama of Shakespeare and His Contemporaries: A Study of Stage Characters and National Identity in English Renaissance Drama, 1558–1642 (Rutherford, NJ and London, 1992), p. 51. The play is discussed in Chapter 2 below, p. 54.

viii


7KDQNIXOO\ LW LV SRVVLEOH WR EHOLHYH WKDW LQ ERWK WKH HDUO\ PRGHUQ DQG contemporary worlds “mountanish inhumanity” does not get the last word. While WKLVERRNPDNHVDVSHFL¿FDUJXPHQWDERXWFLYLFDWWLWXGHVWRZDUGVLPPLJUDQWVDQG their children (and indeed, eschews a focus on xenophobia in favor of a wider investigation of attitudes towards difference), it is important to remember that then, as now, assertions of solidarity existed alongside expressions of hostility. We PXVWFRQVLGHUQRWMXVWWKRVHZKRVHHNWRH[FOXGHEXWDOVR7KRPDV0RUHDQGWKH Newham Monitoring Project. Jacob Selwood June 2009

$FNQRZOHGJPHQWs

, FRXOG QRW KDYH ZULWWHQ WKLV ERRN ZLWKRXW WKH KHOS RI QXPHURXV SHRSOH DQG LQVWLWXWLRQV)LQDQFLDOVXSSRUWIURP'XNH8QLYHUVLW\*HRUJLD6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\WKH Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Huntington /LEUDU\HQVXUHGWKDW,KDGVXI¿FLHQWIXQGLQJWRFRQGXFWP\UHVHDUFKDQGZULWLQJ , YHU\ PXFK DSSUHFLDWH WKHLU JHQHURVLW\ , ZRXOG DOVR OLNH WR WKDQN WKH VWDII RI WKHKLVWRU\GHSDUWPHQWVRIERWK'XNHDQG*HRUJLD6WDWH8QLYHUVLWLHVDORQJZLWK that of the Huntington Library, the Institute of Historical Research, the Guildhall /LEUDU\ WKH &RUSRUDWLRQ RI /RQGRQ 5HFRUG 2I¿FH WKH %ULWLVK /LEUDU\ DQG WKH British National Archives. 'XNH 8QLYHUVLW\¶V 'HSDUWPHQW RI +LVWRU\ SURYLGHG WKH HQYLURQPHQW WKDW JDYH ELUWK WR WKLV SURMHFW , ZRXOG HVSHFLDOO\ OLNH WR WKDQN &\QWKLD +HUUXS IRU KHU PHQWRUVKLS NLQGQHVV ULJRURXV FULWLFLVPDQG LQWHOOHFWXDOJHQHURVLW\ .ULVWHQ 1HXVFKHO%LOO5HGG\6XVDQ7KRUQHDQG3HWHU:RRGDOVRGHVHUYHVSHFLDOWKDQNV ,DPDOVRJUDWHIXOWR5REHUW*RKHHQ3DPHOD:DONHU$OHNVDQGUD%HQQHWWDQG0DUN Phillips of Carleton University. Without their instruction at the undergraduate and master’s level I would not have become a historian. Many others provided help, advice and necessary pointers at various stages of this project, including Joseph :DUG&ODLUH6FKHQ0DULDQQH0RQWJRPPHU\$ULHO+HVVD\RQDQG/OR\G.HUPRGH Of my colleagues at Georgia State University, Marni Davis, Ian Fletcher, Lauren Ristvet (now at the University of Pennsylvania) and Michele Reid all deserve VSHFLDOWKDQNVIRUUHDGLQJSDUWVRIWKHPDQXVFULSW Many friends on both sides of the Atlantic supported me throughout this SURMHFW&DWK\DQG$GULDQ6WRGGDUWDQG3HWHUDQG0RRNLH+XUVWZHUHJHQHURXV ZLWKWKHLUKRVSLWDOLW\ZKHQ,¿UVWDUULYHGLQ/RQGRQ'DYLG:LOVRQ6KD]LD.KDQ .DW\ )HQQ 0DUN 6KHIWDOO $QGUHZ 6SDUOLQJ 0DWWKHZ 6SHFWHU 5LFN 6DZ\HU :D\QHDQG5KRQGD/HH&KDUOHVDQG(ULQ*ULJVE\%HQDQG.HOVD6PLWK3KLOLSSH 5RVHQEHUJ-HQQLIHU7HUQL1LFN:LOGLQJ5HQD'LDPRQGDQG9DGLP3RNKOHENLQ DOOGHVHUYHVSHFLDOPHQWLRQDORQJZLWKPDQ\RWKHUVZKRDUH,DPOXFN\WRVD\ too numerous to name. 7KLVERRNZRXOGDOVRQRWKDYHEHHQSRVVLEOHZLWKRXWWKHORYHRIP\IDPLO\ particularly my parents, Roni and Rod Powell, and my sister, Anna Selwood. Finally, words cannot express my gratitude to my wife, Ann Claycombe, whose ORYHZLVGRPSDWLHQFHDQGXQGHUVWDQGLQJNQRZQRERXQGV


List of Abbreviations

BL &&-RXU &/52 DNB EL GL HM Lans. OED PC Rep. SP TNA

British Library, London &RPPRQ &RXQFLO -RXUQDOV &RUSRUDWLRQ RI /RQGRQ 5HFRUG 2I¿FH London &RUSRUDWLRQRI/RQGRQ5HFRUG2I¿FH/RQGRQ Oxford Dictionary of National Biography Ellesmere Manuscripts, Huntington Library, San Marino, California Guildhall Library, London Huntington Manuscripts, Huntington Library, San Marino, California Lansdowne MSS, British Library, London Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edn. Privy Council Registers, National Archives, London Repertories of the Court of Aldermen, Corporation of London Record 2I¿FH/RQGRQ State Papers, National Archives, London National Archives, London


Introduction

Around 1580 an anonymous writer compiled a list of allegations against “retailing strangers,” complaining of the harm that immigrants caused to English merchants. The author alleged that the new arrivals were “dangerous to the state” due to trading practices that “enhance the prices of wares,” and because of the strangers’ H[WUHPHZHDOWKWKHLUODFNRIUHOLJLRQDQGWKHIDFWWKDWWKH\³NHHSDFRPPRQZHDOWK amongst themselves,” causing the subjects of the realm to become “beggars and EDQNUXSWV´1 In January 1616 the Privy Council referred one Anastatius Ralapolus, “a Grecian born,” to the lord mayor of London with a request for assistance in order to redeem his parents out of the “miserable thralldom” into which they had IDOOHQ³E\WKHW\UDQQ\RIWKH7XUN´7KHUHLVQRUHFRUGRIWKHPD\RU¶VUHVSRQVH2 A decade later, in January 1625, upon the motion of the lord mayor, the Court of Aldermen ruled that “no alien, son, or grandchild of an alien” should be allowed to become a citizen of the City of London.3 And in 1660 the same body, together with the mayor, petitioned the newly restored Charles II to expel London’s Jewish community, which the government of Oliver Cromwell had allowed into England in 1656. They complained that strangers, “both Christians and Jews,” had conspired WRH[SRUW(QJOLVKZRROHQV³DQGRWKHUQDWLYHFRPPRGLWLHV´GHIUDXGLQJNLQJDQG FRXQWU\RIWKH³IRUHLJQWUDGH´DQGWKUHDWHQLQJ(QJOLVKPDUNHWVZLWK³PRUHDQG more decay.”4 All of these appeals made statements about belonging and exclusion in the City of London. Petitioners cast “aliens” and “strangers,” usually of French or Dutch origin, as a drain on the realm; the Privy Council endorsed the presence RI5DODSROXVLIRQO\WRSRLQWRXWWKHODUJHUW\UDQQ\RI³WKH7XUN´WKHORUGPD\RU 1 British Library, Lansdowne Manuscripts 99, fols. 171r–v (hereafter BL, Lansdowne MSS). The date is written in pencil on the manuscript. When quoting from unpublished early modern sources, I have modernized all spelling, capitalization and punctuation and have extended all abbreviations. Dates are in Old Style, with the exception that the year is WDNHQWRKDYHEHJXQRQ-DQXDU\:KHQDGDWHIURPDQRULJLQDOVRXUFHLVZLWKLQTXRWDWLRQ PDUNVKRZHYHU,KDYHQRWDOWHUHGWKHEHJLQQLQJRIWKH\HDU 2 &RUSRUDWLRQ RI /RQGRQ 5HFRUG 2I¿FH KHUHDIWHU &/52 Remembrancia, vol. 4, fol. 11r. 3 CLRO, Repertories of the Court of Aldermen 39, fol. 78v (hereafter CLRO, Rep.). Throughout this study I will use the upper-case “City” to refer both to the government of the City of London and the area under its formal control. The lower-case “city” should be WDNHQWRLQFOXGHWKHHQWLUHPHWURSROLWDQDUHD6HH&KDSWHUEHORZIRUDGHWDLOHGGLVFXVVLRQ of the divisions of London and its suburbs. 4 CLRO, Remembrancia, vol. 9, fols. 27v–28r.


2

and Court of Aldermen stated baldly that people born in the metropolis were not, in fact, Londoners if their parents or grandparents had come from abroad. They also asserted the malevolence and ultimate foreignness of the Jewish community, accusing its members of conspiring with other immigrants. Although causally unrelated, each points to the disparate peoples present in England’s metropolis, highlighting both the city’s global ties and Londoners’ varying responses to the city’s changing population. London in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was a surprisingly diverse place, a result both of the city’s proximity to Continental Europe and its growing Atlantic and Mediterranean connections. The metropolis was home not just to SHRSOHIURPWKURXJKRXWWKH%ULWLVK,VOHVEXWWRDVLJQL¿FDQWSRSXODWLRQRI)UHQFK and Dutch immigrants. A 1593 survey counted 7,113 strangers in the City and its suburbs, part of a wider metropolitan population of almost 200,000.5 Other groups were also present, albeit in smaller numbers. Ambassadors, mariners, travelers and UHIXJHHVFDPHIURPDVIDUD¿HOGDV+XQJDU\7XUNH\DQG0RURFFR7KHFLW\KRVWHG a small, hidden crypto-Jewish community, originating in the Iberian peninsula and practicing openly by the 1650s, as well as a number of sub-Saharan Africans, most brought involuntarily as slaves and servants. By the end of the seventeenth FHQWXU\ 6HSKDUGLF -HZV ZHUH MRLQHG E\$VKNHQD]LP WRJHWKHU ZLWK LPPLJUDQWV arriving from Germany, Greece and elsewhere. These are just a few examples, but WKH\SRLQWWRDPXOWLFXOWXUDODQGPXOWLHWKQLFPHWURSROLVDFWLRQ@WRZDUGVKLPDQGKLVKRXVHE\ORRVHDQGYDJDERQGSHUVRQV´18 May Day, then, was a time of apprehension for the authorities, due at least in part to the legacy of the anti-alien riots of 1517. +LVWRULDQV DUH GLYLGHG RYHU WKH VLJQL¿FDQFH RI (YLO 0D\ 'D\ IRU RXU understanding of later attitudes towards immigrants. Was it, as Nigel Goose has recently argued, “the last throw of the medieval dice,” a sign that late Tudor and early Stuart England was in fact “a veritable oasis of tolerance” and that the term ‘xenophobia’ is “an epithet too far”?19 Or, as Laura Hunt Yungblut has VXJJHVWHG GLG OHVV VSHFWDFXODU RXWEUHDNV RI YLROHQFH FRQWLQXH XQDEDWHG"20 And just how important is violence anyway? Would its absence indicate an irenic society, or merely one in which harassment of strangers continued in other venues, LQ³SDUOLDPHQWDQGWKHODZFRXUWVUDWKHUWKDQ>E\@VWRQLQJWKHPLQWKHVWUHHW´"21 7KHVHGLVDJUHHPHQWVVKRZWKHGLI¿FXOWLHVLQKHUHQWLQDVNLQJTXDQWLWDWLYHTXHVWLRQV about hostility towards strangers. Attempts to gauge xenophobia all too often fall SUH\ WR ELQDU\ WKLQNLQJ HPSKDVL]LQJ WKH SUHVHQFH RU DEVHQFH RU YLROHQFH DQG the rationality or irrationality of fear and stereotype.22 The conclusions reached 16

Huntington, EL 2516, fol. 2r (c. 1615). Rappaport, Worlds within Worlds, p. 16. 18 CLRO, Remembrancia, vol. 6, fol. 87r. The Privy Council made a similar request SULRUWR0D\'D\DQGDJDLQLQDOWKRXJKZLWKRXWVSHFL¿FDOO\PHQWLRQLQJWKH threat of anti-alien activity; see TNA, PC 2/44, p. 538; TNA, PC 2/47, pp. 323–4. 19 Goose, “Xenophobia,” pp. 129, 110. Joseph Ward also agrees that historians have RYHUHPSKDVL]HGSRSXODU[HQRSKRELDVHH:DUG³)LFWLWLRXVVKRHPDNHUV´SS± 20 <XQJEOXWWDNHVLVVXHZLWK(YLO0D\'D\¶VVXSSRVHGXQLTXHQHVVOLVWLQJQXPHURXV ³DFWXDODWWDFNVDQWLFLSDWHGDWWDFNVRULQYHVWLJDWLRQVRIWKUHDWHQLQJPDWHULDOV´LQWKHGHFDGHV after 1517; see Yungblut, Strangers, p. 40. 21 Archer, Pursuit of Stability, p. 140. 22 Ian Archer has suggested that although anti-alien stereotypes contained “much that was irrational,” perceptions of danger “were real and threatening enough”; ibid., pp. 131–2. While he concedes that Londoners frequently blamed immigrants for “problems the causes of which lay elsewhere,” at least some fears were rational in relation to one’s vulnerability 17

56


can vary depending on whether or not one’s threshold for a xenophobic society LQFOXGHVRYHUWSK\VLFDODJJUHVVLRQDVZHOODVWKHLQWHUSUHWLYHGLI¿FXOWLHVLQKHUHQW in divining the motives, basis and effects of non-violent actions and rhetoric. Undue attention to either the presence or absence of events such as Evil May Day leaves us in danger of negating the role that prosaic, daily activities played LQPDNLQJGLIIHUHQFH7KHVLWHVWKDWGH¿QHGEHORQJLQJDQGH[FOXVLRQZHUHGLIIXVH dispersed throughout the city in both time and space rather than concentrated in HDVLO\LGHQWL¿DEOHYLROHQWRXWEXUVWV3URFHHGLQJVLQFRXUWFRQFHUQLQJDOLHQVZHUH much more than just harassment by other means, standing on a continuum with the ongoing stream of petitions complaining of the habits of London’s immigrants, WKHGD\WRGD\QHJRWLDWLRQVEHWZHHQRI¿FLDOVRYHUWKHDGPLVVLRQRIDOLHQVWRJXLOGV or civic citizenship and, indeed, the sum total of the laws and traditions to which strangers were subject. Rather than stressing reason or unreason, violence or stability, we should mine the full range of reactions towards immigration for clues as WRWKHPDUNHUVWKDW/RQGRQHUVXVHGLQWKHLUFRQVWUXFWLRQRIGLIIHUHQFH(FRQRPLFDQG occupational fears were themselves the source of powerful anti-alien stereotypes that are hard to untangle from those expressed during events such as riots. Reasonable or not, they played a central role in the creation of difference. Economic Encroachment as Difference The decades from Elizabeth’s reign to the Restoration saw both economic crisis DQG JUDGXDO LPSURYHPHQW :LGHVSUHDG LQÀDWLRQ LQ WKH ODWH VL[WHHQWK DQG HDUO\ seventeenth centuries created a high degree of hardship that lasted until prices began to fall in the 1620s and 1630s. Although poverty and social polarization persisted, outright starvation became rare, aided in part by the slow but steady implementation of the Poor Law and a rise in philanthropic activity. The development of a host of small industries led to both a degree of surplus income, even among the less well RIIDQGWRWKHJURZWKRIDGRPHVWLFPDUNHWIRUPDQXIDFWXUHGJRRGV%\WKHHQGRI the seventeenth century England was well on the way to developing a consumer culture, although it remained, by almost any standard, a nation of extremes.23 to alien encroachment; see ibid., p. 140. Laura Hunt Yungblut, on the other hand, has argued that much anti-alien sentiment was in fact divorced from well-founded economic fears: “Hostility was … shown to foreigners who in no manner constituted economic competition for Londoners, contrary to the idea that economic fears generated all of the animosity”; Yungblut, Strangers, p. 43. Growth in immigration and increasing familiarity “seems to KDYHIXHOHGWKHVROLGL¿FDWLRQRIVWHUHRW\SHVUDWKHUWKDQWKHUHYHUVHÍRUPLQJ³DGLVWLQFWDQG LGHQWL¿DEOHSRSXODU[HQRSKRELD´LELG p. 46. 23 $QQ .XVVPDXO VLWXDWHV WKH LQÀDWLRQ RI WKH ODWH VL[WHHQWK DQG HDUO\ VHYHQWHHQWK centuries within a larger trend towards increased productivity, regional differentiation DQGE\DURXQGWKHLQWHJUDWLRQRIDQDWLRQDOPDUNHWVHH$QQ.XVVPDXOA General View of the Rural Economy of England, 1538–1840&DPEULGJH -RDQ7KLUVNDOVR

“No Better Than Conduit Pipes”

57

Although such long-term changes would have been largely imperceptible to the inhabitants of early modern London, some decades were noticeably worse than RWKHUV5HVLGHQWVRIWKHPHWURSROLVFHUWDLQO\IHOWWKHHIIHFWVRIWKHLQÀDWLRQRIWKH 1590s.24 Yet the relationship between economic change and daily attitudes towards DOLHQV LV GLI¿FXOW WR JDXJH$OWKRXJK LPPLJUDQWV SOD\HG D FHQWUDO UROH LQ VRPH of the industries that were the focus of change in this period, most importantly WKHFORWKWUDGHLWUHPDLQVH[WUHPHO\GLI¿FXOWWRPDSDQWLDOLHQVHQWLPHQWGLUHFWO\ onto a larger patterns of prosperity or dearth.25 This is due both to the inconsistent preservation of anti-stranger complaints and to their general persistence through good times and bad. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, whether earlier GHFDGHV RI FULVLV DQG LQÀDWLRQ RU ODWHU \HDUV RI HFRQRPLF JURZWK DQG GHFOLQLQJ prices, strangers remained a target of Londoners’ grievances. So what exactly can be said about the relationship between exclusion and the economy? If we cannot XVHRXWEUHDNVRIDQWLLPPLJUDQWKRVWLOLW\WRPHDVXUH[HQRSKRELDDQGLIVWUDQJHUV were the subject of complaint throughout our period, how did economic factors affect the construction of difference? Complaints concerning strangers, whether or not they had any basis in economic reality, made powerful statements about conceptions of difference. Accusations WKDW DOLHQV VXSSODQWHG (QJOLVK ZRUNHUV WHOO XV PDQ\ WKLQJV DERXW WKH SHUFHLYHG argues for the existence of a cycle of increased production and demand in the seventeenth FHQWXU\OHDGLQJWRWKHHYHQWXDOGHYHORSPHQWRIDFRQVXPHUVRFLHW\VHH7KLUVNEconomic Policy and Projects. Robert Brenner echoes this in arguing that the eventual fall in food prices, stimulated by increased agricultural production, led to economic growth and D PDUNHW IRU OX[XULHV 7KH FRQÀLFW EHWZHHQ DQ HQWUHSUHQHXULDO ODQGKROGLQJ FODVV DQG D Crown bent on maintaining economic and administrative control through the granting of monopolies provides the underlying economic narrative for the English Revolution; see Brenner, Merchants and Revolution. 3DXO6ODFNKDVDUJXHGWKDWWKHHFRQRPLFJURZWKRI the seventeenth century went hand in hand with the gradual implementation of the Poor Law, largely complete by around 1650, resulting in a reduction of “deep” poverty; see Paul 6ODFNPoverty and Policy in Tudor and Stuart England, Themes in British Social History 1HZLQJ@WKHLUPHUFKDQGL]HVVRORQJDVWKH\OLVW´DQG ³IHHG>LQJ@WKHPDUNHWZLWKWKHPDWWKHLUSOHDVXUH´WRWKHGHWULPHQWRIWKHLUKRVW nation.81 Not content to illegally sell their own goods, strangers also maintained contacts throughout the realm whose goal it was to aid in the alien monopolization RIWKHFRXQWU\¶VFRPPRGLWLHV7KLVQHWZRUNRIDOLHQRUDOLHQFRQWUROOHG EX\HUV snapped up domestic merchandise: “the merchant strangers … have their factors DEURDGLQGLYHUVHSDUWVRIWKLVNLQJGRPDVWKHPVHOYHVDOVRLQLQQVDQGRWKHUSODFHV of this city to buy up and engross into their hands most of our new drapery.” Aliens WKXV FRUQHUHG WKH FORWK WUDGH E\ XVLQJ D QHWZRUN RI DFTXLVLWLYH VSLHV ³WKHUHLQ IRUHVWDOOLQJWKHPDUNHWRIWKLVFLW\DQGDIWHUZDUGVVHOO>LQJ@WKHVDPHDJDLQ´WRFLWL]HQ DQGVWUDQJHUDOLNH³VRWKDWPRVWSDUWVRIRXUQHZGUDSHU\LVQRWWREHERXJKWDW London, but at their hands.”82 Yet such acts were merely a means to an end, at root a moral issue, intimately tied to a host of wider practices that revealed merchant strangers to be engaged in the subversion of a broad range of social norms.

80

/DZVFRQFHUQLQJIRUHVWDOOLQJWKHEX\LQJRIJRRGVEHIRUHWKH\UHDFKHGWKHPDUNHW in order to affect the price) were intertwined with those against engrossing (buying in large quantities in order to achieve a monopoly). W.S. Holdsworth notes that cases concerning the infringement of laws against both practices “frequently came before the court of Star &KDPEHUDQGWKHUHFRUGVRIWKH>3ULY\@&RXQFLOFRQWDLQPDQ\HQWULHVDVWRWKHVXSSUHVVLRQ of forestalling and ingrossing” in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; see William Searle Holdsworth, A History of English Law, 2nd ed., vol. 4 (London, 1937), p. 377. As E.P. Thompson has famously noted, there was a widespread perception throughout the eighteenth century that such laws should continue to be enforced. Moreover, although the legislation against forestalling was repealed in 1772, “the repealing Act was not well drawn” DQGWKHFKLHIMXVWLFHODWHU³WRRNLWXSRQKLPVHOIWRDQQRXQFHWKDWIRUHVWDOOLQJUHPDLQHGDQ indictable offence at common law.” Although more symbolic nods towards enforcement than a real attempt to deal with the problem, prosecutions of forestallers continued until the end of the eighteenth century; see E. P. Thompson, “The Moral Economy of the English Crowd in the Eighteenth Century,” Past and Present, 50 (1971): 88. 81 Huntington, EL 2517, fol. 1v (undated, c. 1603–17). According, at least, to a midVSHWLWLRQE\(QJOLVKKROGHUVRIWKHRI¿FHRQO\IUHHPHQVKRXOGDFWDVEURNHUVZLWKLQ the City, excluding both English foreigners and aliens; see CSP Dom., James I, vol. 11 (1623–25), p. 515. 82 Huntington, EL 2446, fol. 4r (1615). In July 1605 the clothiers of Colchester had also complained that Dutch immigrants engrossed their trade; see CSP Dom., James I, vol. 8 (1603–10), p. 229.


73

In order to retail their goods directly, evading the laws of the land, merchant strangers required a place to both live and to do business. Setting up secret shops in VXEGLYLGHGKRXVHVWKH\EUHDFKHGWKHUXOHVRIUHVLGHQF\DQGFRPPHUFHZHDNHQLQJ WKHQRUPVWKDWXVXDOO\RUGHUHGVRFLHW\DQGPDNLQJLWKDUGHUIRU/RQGRQHUVWR¿QG DSODFHWROLYH6WUDQJHUVSULFHGRXWRUGLQDU\SHRSOHE\WDNLQJ³WKHEHVWKRXVHV ZKHUHE\ WKH\ PDNH UHQWV GHDU´83 This was, according to one 1636 complaint, a deliberate act, conducted “for lucre and advantage.”84 At the same time, they transformed large, spacious residences into overcrowded slums. Alien merchants, RWKHUFRPSODLQDQWVDOOHJHG³WDNHXSWKHIDLUHVWKRXVHVLQWKHFLW\GLYLGHDQG¿W WKHPIRUWKHLUVHYHUDOXVHVDQGWDNHLQWRWKHPVHYHUDOORGJHUVDQGGZHOOHUV´85 These actions were part of a larger program to erode the quality of housing. As well as “the dividing of houses,” strangers erected “sheds, hovels, and cottages, putting into every room a family, to the great pestering of the city suburbs and places adjoining with inmates, aliens, and undersitters.” As a result, they enhanced ³WKHSULFHVRIYLFWXDOV¿ULQJDQGVXFKOLNH«WRWKHJUHDWRSSUHVVLRQDQGXWWHU undoing” of the English.86 Such overcrowding implied the erosion of hierarchy. %HFDXVHRIWKHVSOLWWLQJXSRI/RQGRQ¶V¿QHVWUHVLGHQFHV³WKHUHLQWKH\DUHWZR three or more householders commonly together.”87 Strangers thus did more than XQGHUPLQHWKHLUKRVWVE\EUHDNLQJWKHUXOHVE\FRPELQLQJ³GLYHUVIDPLOLHVLQRQH KRXVH´WKH\ZHUHVHWWLQJXSK\GUDOLNHUHVLGHQFHVFRQVLVWLQJRIPXOWLSOHKHDGV88 Immigrant housing patterns were about more than the cost of rent or the potential confusion caused by multiple householders under one roof. The alien residence, as a site of illegal trade, was custom-built to undermine English merchants, serving as a site for illicit, damaging commercial activity. After settling “in the fairest KRXVHVLQWKLVFLW\ZKLFKWKH\NHHS«WRWKHPVHOYHV´DOLHQPHUFKDQWVXVHGWKHLU residence as a place of business in which “they utter privately all sorts of wares and commodities thereby depriving the citizens of their best customs.”89 The LPSUHVVLRQJLYHQE\VRPHFRPSODLQWVLVRIDVLWHRIDOPRVWGHPRQLFHI¿FLHQF\LQ ZKLFKOHJLRQVRIDOLHQVLQFDEDOOLNHXQLRQVSHHGLO\GHSOR\HGPLQLRQVWRXQGHUFXW London’s native traders: their houses be contrived in such sort that any of them is able … in the several ZDUHKRXVHV LQ WKH VDPH KRXVH PDGH DQG ¿WWHG IRU WKDW SXUSRVH WR VHUYH DQG

83

Huntington, EL 2516, fol. 1r (c. 1615). GL, MS 4647, fol. 181v (1636). 85 Huntington, EL 2517, fol. 1v (undated, c. 1603–17). 86 GL, MS 4647, fol. 182r (1636). 87 Huntington, EL 2516, fol. 1r (c. 1615). 88 GL, MS 4647, fol. 157r (1635). 89 Huntington, EL 2446, fol. 2r (1615). See also CSP Dom. Eliz I, vol. 4 (1595–97), p. 565, for earlier concerns regarding strangers and the payment of customs. 84


74

sell commodities unto a freeman of this city, unto a country chapman, and unto a pedlar.90

The result was a place of business that, because it was beyond the purview of WKH&LW\¶VODZVDQGFXVWRPVFRXOGVZLIWO\DGDSWWRWKHH[LJHQFLHVRIWKHPDUNHW FDWHULQJ WR (QJOLVK SHRSOH RI DOO UDQNV ,I QHHGV EH VWUDQJHUV ZRXOG DOVR OHDYH these hidden locations, traveling “from shop to shop, from chamber to chamber, from inn to inn, from county to county, to ambassadors’ chambers … leaving no place unsearched” for the sale of their goods.91 Aliens inverted the natural hierarchy of the household, setting women and VHUYDQWVWRZRUNXVXDOO\IRUELGGHQWR(QJOLVKGHSHQGHQWV6XFKLQYHUVLRQKHOSHG strangers maintain an unfair competitive edge, “their wives and servants using WKHLUWUDGHRIUHWDLOLQJRIDOONLQGVRIIRUHLJQZDUHVZKLFKWKH\EX\RIWKHLURZQ country.”92 Evading the City’s rules, aliens employed “both men and women EURNHUVWRVHOOWKHLUZDUHVIRUWKHP´93 In this sense, complaints about retailing dovetailed with those relating to housing. Strangers had an advantage over English retailers both because they were willing to employ all members of the hierarchy and EHFDXVHVXFKSUDFWLFHVWRRNSODFHLQVHFUHWEH\RQGWKHVFRSHRIFLYLFDXWKRULWLHV women and the servants of the strangers, dwelling in an exempted and obscure place in some little shop or chamber … doth utter and sell more wares in one day than our country people dwelling in a place or street open … can utter in ten days.94

The authors of these petitions had come to the disturbing conclusion that it was precisely because aliens were willing to overturn the natural social order that they were able to outpace their English hosts. Strangers were such successful retailers QRW MXVW EHFDXVH WKH\ GHOLEHUDWHO\ EURNH WKH HFRQRPLF UXOHV EXW EHFDXVH WKH\ EURNHWKHUXOHVRIVRFLHW\E\OLYLQJLQVHFUHWLYHKRXVHKROGVZLWKPXOWLSOHKHDGV empowering women and servants to sell of their own accord. These practices made abuses such as forestalling possible. Aliens, “having their servants and others as EURNHUVWRFDUU\WKHLUZDUHVDERXWDQGXWWHUWKHPE\UHWDLO´FRXOGPDQLSXODWHWKH PDUNHWWRWKHLUEHQH¿W95

90

Huntington, EL 2446, fol. 2r (1615). One proposal suggested that every freeman of the City of London be made to swear an oath “not to connive at the trading of foreigners” (presumably, in this case, referring to anyone, English or alien, not free of the City); see CSP Dom., James I, vol. 11 (1623–25), p. 531. 91 GL, MS 4647, fols. 156v–157r (1635). 92 Huntington, EL 2518, fol. 1r (undated, c. early Stuart). 93 GL, MS 4647, fol. 156v (1635). 94 Huntington, EL 2518, fol. 1r (undated, c. early Stuart). 95 Ibid.


75

Merchant strangers, then, conducted their harmful economic acts on the spatial margins, from households where the normal rules of hierarchy did not apply. Yet they also spread their acquisitive tentacles beyond the home, into the neighborhoods of London and far into the surrounding countryside. Members of DOOUDQNVDQGJHQGHUVZRUNHG¿HQGLVKO\WRXQGHUPLQHWKH(QJOLVKE\³XWWHU>LQJ@ all their country’s wares unto the people of our nation.” Yet the same would “not but upon great necessity buy any one penny worth of our country’s people.”96 Thus there was a wilful refusal on the part of the non-English to play by the rules DQGWRLQDQ\ZD\EHQH¿WWKHLU(QJOLVKKRVWV7KHDLPRIDOLHQVZDVDSSDUHQWO\ QROHVVWKDQWRWDOHFRQRPLFGRPLQDWLRQDQGWKHUHGXFWLRQRIWKHNLQJ¶VVXEMHFWV WREHJJDU\7KHSDUWLFXODUZD\VLQZKLFKVWUDQJHUVEURNHWKHUXOHVZHUHPHUHO\ outward manifestations of this larger goal. Mercantilism and Difference Mercantilist economic theory provided a powerful vocabulary for the construction of difference, underwriting many complaints against merchant strangers. In emphasizing a positive balance of trade and the accumulation of bullion within the realm, mercantilism focused special attention on the activities of aliens, legitimizing a variety of positions on immigration. The settlement of strangers PLJKWIRVWHULQGXVWU\ZLWKLQWKHNLQJGRPQHJDWLQJWKHQHHGIRULPSRUWVDQGWKXV increasing the net wealth of the nation. Yet an emphasis on the country’s net wealth implied concerns about its permeability. Was the nation retaining its bullion? If not, who was responsible? Merchant strangers were prime targets of those concerned about the possible emptying of the nation’s riches abroad. Moreover, allegations that aliens were indeed responsible for the loss of wealth went hand in hand with broader claims about their status and position within society as a whole. 0HUFDQWLOLVWLQÀHFWHGFRPSODLQWVPDGHIDUUHDFKLQJVWDWHPHQWVDERXWGLIIHUHQFH The view that wealth was rooted in a limited quantity of precious metals was itself QRWKLQJQHZ¿QGLQJH[SUHVVLRQLQPHGLHYDO³EXOOLRQLVP´97 By the mid-sixteenth century, some advocates of commonwealth ideology tempered enthusiasm for specie with an emphasis on moral reform and social justice. The 1549 Discourse of the Commonweal asserted that gold and silver were, at best, necessary evils, to be eliminated after the establishment of a godly commonwealth in England and the moral reform of its neighbors. The text’s anonymous writer (probably Sir Thomas Smith) also called for the growth of surplus corn to aid neighboring countries experiencing dearth.98 In later decades, however, a growing body of mercantilist 96

Ibid. Yungblut, Strangers, pp. 97–8. 98 A.N. McLaren, Political Culture in the Reign of Elizabeth I: Queen and Commonwealth, 1558–1585, Ideas in Context (Cambridge, 1999), pp. 85, 88. For a discussion of the text’s authorship, see Mary Dewar, “The Authorship of the ‘Discourse of the Commonweal,’” Economic History Review, 19/2 (1966): 388–400. 97

76


ZULWHUVUHMHFWHGVXFKTXDOL¿FDWLRQV*HUDOG0DO\QHVDQG7KRPDV0LOOHVZULWLQJ in the 1590s and 1600s, emphasized the need to accumulate treasure within the realm. And while Edward Misselden and Thomas Mun would later maintain that some export of coin was allowable, this was only to be done “as capital guaranteed WREULQJEDFNPRUHJROGDQGVLOYHULQWRWKHFRXQWU\¶VFRIIHUV´99 Thus, while the term “mercantilism” covers a range of economic positions that changed over time, here I will use it as a shorthand for those sharing a common emphasis on both the accumulation of raw specie and a positive trading balance. The development of mercantilist thought is often tied to the growth in SRZHUDQGLQÀXHQFHRIWKHQDWLRQVWDWHDQLQÀXHQFHVHHPLQJO\JDLQHGDWWKH expense of parochial, civic and local authorities. In England, debates in the ¿UVWKDOIRIWKHVHYHQWHHQWKFHQWXU\DERXWWKHHIIHFWVRILQWHUQDWLRQDOFRPPHUFH culminated in the passage of the Navigation Acts of 1651 and 1660.100 These provide a “classic example” of a state-centered policy rooted in a mercantilist model, directing formerly unregulated commercial activities (in this case shipping) “to enrich the nation as a whole.”101 As Immanuel Wallerstein has noted, “state policies of economic nationalism” exhibited “a concern with the circulation of commodities, whether in terms of the movement of bullion or in the creation of balances of trade.”102 According to this interpretation, the state ZDVWKHSULPHEHQH¿FLDU\RIPHUFDQWLOLVWSROLFLHVRQWKHULVHZLWKLQDJURZLQJ capitalist economy.103

99 Jonathan Gil Harris, Sick Economies: Drama, Mercantilism, and Disease in Shakespeare’s England (Philadelphia, PA, 2004), p. 6. 100 7KRPDV/HQJ³&RPPHUFLDO&RQÀLFWDQG5HJXODWLRQLQWKH'LVFRXUVHRI7UDGHLQ Seventeenth-century England,” Historical Journal, 48/4 (2005): 935. 101 Jan De Vries, Economy of Europe in an Age of Crisis (Cambridge, 1976), p. 237. 102 Immanuel Wallerstein, The Modern World-System, vol. 2, Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European World-Economy, 1600–1750, Studies in Social Discontinuity 1HZWKHP@\HDUO\WKDQZHFRQVXPHRI theirs in value.”106 Writing in 1621 in order to demonstrate how trade with the East Indies could enrich the nation, Mun cited the many ways in which the economic GHVLJQVRIDOLHQVFRXOGSURYHLQMXULRXVWRWKHNLQJGRP¶VQHWZRUWK:HDOWKZDV measured by the presence of bullion, the export of which could in turn lead to a commerce, embracing “commercial interdependence” while “maintaining independence”; /HQJ³&RPPHUFLDO&RQÀLFW´S 104 Jan De Vries tempers the state-building implications of mercantilist economic thought by emphasizing the practical, “ad hoc character” of many mercantilist policies. 6XFKPHDVXUHVFRQWULEXWHGDVPXFKWRFRUUXSWLRQDQGWKHHQULFKPHQWRIORFDORI¿FLDOVDV to the inexorable rise of state power; see De Vries, Economy of Europe, p. 239. Conversely, -RDQ7KLUVN KDV FULWLFL]HG WKH LQÀXHQFH RI$GDP 6PLWK¶V HODERUDWLRQ RI WKLV YHU\ SRLQW Writing in the eighteenth century, at a time when “the consistent pursuit of mercantilist REMHFWLYHVKDGEHJXQWRXQGHUPLQHWKHOLYHOLKRRGRISHDVDQWZRUNHUV´6PLWKGUHZDWWHQWLRQ to “the debasement of mercantilism, its manipulation by ‘the rich and powerful.’” However, DV7KLUVNQRWHVWKHSULRUHPSKDVLVXSRQ³EXLOGLQJXSQDWLRQDOVHOIVXI¿FLHQF\KDGLQLWV earlier phase permitted many new industries to establish themselves in the deep interstices of the economy.” The small producers that Smith saw reduced to indigence were, in fact, WKH LQGLUHFW FUHDWLRQ RI WKH HFRQRPLF JURZWK EURXJKW E\ 6WXDUW SURMHFWRUV LQÀXHQFHG E\ PHUFDQWLOLVWWKRXJKW6HH7KLUVNEconomic Policy, p. 154. 105 Questioning its unity at the level of state policy, Jonathan Gil Harris also suggests the need to approach mercantilism “as primarily a discursive rather than an ideological or economic system”; see his Sick Economies, p. 6. 106 Thomas Mun, England’s Treasure by Foreign Trade, or the Balance of Our Foreign Trade Is the Rule of Our Treasure (London, 1664), in J.R. McCulloch (ed.), Early English Tracts on Commerce (Cambridge, 1954), p. 125.


78

GDPDJLQJQXPEHURIIRUHLJQJRRGVÀRRGLQJWKHGRPHVWLFPDUNHW0RQH\³PDGH RYHUKLWKHUE\VWUDQJHUV«DQGSUHVHQWO\FDUULHGEH\RQGWKHVHDVWRDVHFRQGSUR¿W´ GUHZZLWKLWWKHQDWLRQ¶VWUDGH:LWKKDUGFXUUHQF\GUDLQLQJDEURDG³WKHWDNHUVXS of money in foreign countries must necessarily drive a trade to those places, from ZKHQFHWKH\GUDZWKHLUPRQH\V´,QWKLVZD\VWUDQJHUV³GR¿OOXVXSZLWKIRUHLJQ commodities, without the vent of our own wares.”107 Such a negative balance of trade would cause the nation’s economic ruin. If there “be imported yearly a greater value in foreign wares, than … we do export of our own commodities,” the result would be “a manifest impoverishing of the Commonwealth.”108 Mun’s message was clear: if the economic designs of aliens followed their own course, they would greatly reduce the wealth of the nation.109 Yet mercantilist thought had deeper implications for the creation of difference. As we will see, complaints against merchant strangers that articulated fears about the nation’s net worth also made powerful statements about their motives and connections, over and above calling attention to the harmful effects of aliens’ trading practices. Such protests suggested that the draining of wealth abroad was a deliberate goal of aliens, not just an unintended consequence of their actions. Just as strangers conspired to control the English cloth trade, so they combined to impoverish the realm by exporting its specie and disrupting its balance of trade. 3HWLWLRQHUVHYRNLQJPHUFDQWLOLVWIHDUVDERXWWKHUHPRYDORIWKHQDWLRQ¶V¿QLWHZHDOWK DEURDG²ZKHWKHU DV FRLQ QDWXUDO UHVRXUFHV RU PDQXIDFWXUHG JRRGV²GHSOR\HG stereotypes of aliens who intentionally conspired to enrich their brethren beyond the seas at the expense of their English hosts. Conspiratorial in nature, strangers FOHDUO\ H[KLELWHG ¿HQGLVK RUJDQL]DWLRQDO SURZHVV WKRVH LQ (QJODQG RSHUDWLQJ in perfect concert with their brethren abroad. Complaints of this nature made 107

Thomas Mun, A Discourse of Trade, from England Unto the East-Indies: Answering to Diverse Objections Which Are Usually Made against the Same (London, 1621), in McCulloch, Early English Tracts on Commerce, p. 43. 108 Ibid., p. 45. Joyce Appleby has noted that although Mun’s focus was the balance of trade, neither he nor his contemporaries “dealt comprehensively with the relation of supply and demand.” Rather, “total demand appeared inelastic”; Joyce Appleby, “Ideology and Theory: The Tension between Political and Economic Liberalism in Seventeenthcentury England,” American Historical Review ±,WZRXOGWDNHDQHZ generation of writers in the latter decades of the century to posit what was, in effect, a XQLYHUVDOXUJHIRULQFUHDVHGFRQVXPSWLRQDWDOOOHYHOVRIWKHVRFLDOVFDOH7KHSRRUOLNHWKH ULFKKDG¿UVW³WREHFRQYHUWHGWRSRVVHVVLYHLQGLYLGXDOLVPDQGHFRQRPLFUDWLRQDOLW\8QWLO this transition had been made, class discipline needed the support of economic theories bolstered by religion and patriotism”; ibid., p. 515. 109 Mun, a director of the East India Company, made his case for trade with the East ,QGLHVZLWKLQDFODVVLFDOO\PHUFDQWLOLVWIUDPHZRUNDUJXLQJWKDWLWOHGWRDQHWLQFUHDVHLQ bullion within the realm. Although bullion was exported to the Indies, goods from the east were then traded with the Continent in exchange for a greater amount of hard currency, XOWLPDWHO\ HQULFKLQJ WKH NLQJGRP VHH -5 0F&XOORFK HG Early English Tracts on Commerce (Cambridge, 1954), pp. v–vi.


79

powerful statements about loyalty and assimilation, suggesting that immigrants could never, in fact, belong. Whether they were open about their transient nature or articulated a desire to settle in England for good, alien loyalties were at all times oriented towards their countries of origin. Free or not, denizen or not, merchant VWUDQJHUVZHUHSULPDULO\SDUWLFLSDQWVLQDQLQWHUQDWLRQDOSORWWRVXFNWKHHFRQRPLF marrow from the bones of the nation. John Fabian’s Modest Proposal In 1571 the London draper John Fabian wrote to Lord Burghley with a scheme to regulate the illicit sale of goods by merchant strangers, beginning at least 22 years of largely one-sided correspondence.110 Painfully aware, even at this early date, of the unprecedented alien population (“their numbers daily increasing surmount all memory”), Fabian pointed to the damage done by these new arrivals.111 As we have seen, the law forbade aliens from selling their own goods (as well as the JRRGVRIRWKHUV WKH\ZHUHLQVWHDGVXSSRVHGWRXVH(QJOLVKEURNHUVDQG@WKH\VHWWKHLURZQ SHRSOH DZRUN LQ DOO VRUWV RI WUDGHV´ 7KH (QJOLVK ZKHQ DEURDG LQWHJUDWH IXOO\ into their host country: “If an Englishman marry and dwell beyond the seas, in a generation or two they become the same nation in apparel, religion and affection to that people.” Yet strangers obstinately hold on to their own customs. Continuing “in the same tribe from generation to generation, they alter not their affection, their apparel nor conform themselves to our church’s government.” Issues of assimilation thus mingle with mercantilist concerns about the export of wealth, articulated almost in the same breath: aliens “alter not their language, they convey

138 139

CLRO, Remembrancia, vol. 1, fol. 18v. GL, MS 4647, fol. 153r; fol. 154v (1635).


86

DZD\RXUFRLQWKH\WDNHDZD\RXUODERUWKH\WDNHDZD\WKHUHE\WKHEUHDGRIWKH poor.” All are symptoms of wilful separation, greed, and malevolence.140 The accusation that strangers refused to assimilate called into question the Englishness of their London-born children. In 1627 the city’s weavers complained that “the sons of aliens or strangers are become bailiff, warden and assistant of RXU FRPSDQ\´ SRLQWLQJ WR LPPLJUDQW LQ¿OWUDWLRQ RI WKHLU JXLOG141 In doing so, they highlighted the contested nature of national identity in the metropolis, for the sons of strangers were also the English-born subjects of the Crown. With the establishment of long-term immigrant communities, it was no longer clear who, exactly, an alien was. The boundaries of difference had changed, and if the true subjects of the realm were to protect themselves from the threat of strangers, it was QHFHVVDU\WRFODULI\WKHQDWXUHRI(QJOLVKQHVV7KHTXHVWIRUWKLVFODUL¿FDWLRQZRXOG EULQJFLYLFDXWKRULWLHVLQWRFRQÀLFWQRWMXVWZLWKLPPLJUDQWVDQGWKHLUSURJHQ\EXW with English common law and, ultimately, the Crown.

140 141

Huntington, EL 2516, fol. 1r (c. 1615). GL, MS 4647, fol. 94r (1627).

Chapter 3

“English-born Reputed Strangers”: Birth and Descent in Theory and Practice

,Q-XO\DJURXSRIFORWKZRUNHUVDQGPHUFKDQWVWKH(QJOLVKERUQVRQVRI VWUDQJHUVSHWLWLRQHGWKHNLQJFRPSODLQLQJRIWD[DWLRQDWWKHKLJKHUUDWHWRZKLFK aliens were liable. Arguing that they “do truly strive for the good of the country,” the petitioners stated: >RXU@WUDGHEHLQJGHDGDQGRXUJDLQVVRVPDOO«ZHZRXOGEHJODGWRJHWEXW the one half of those rates which are demanded of us to maintain ourselves, our wives and families, and to save ourselves at the year’s end.1

:H GR QRW NQRZ ZKHWKHU WKH &URZQ VXEVHTXHQWO\ HDVHG WKH UDWH RI WD[DWLRQ However, it is clear that the authors of the petition had cause for complaint, not least because the Company of Dyers, by demanding payment of “a double tax” from the petitioners, sought “to suppress … men of their trade and living to their utter overthrow and undoing for ever.”2 The higher taxation of which the petitioners complained was due to the fact that their “fathers were born out of England.” The progeny of immigrants sought redress for discrimination. Although ³(QJOLVKERUQ´DQGKHQFHVXEMHFWVRIWKHNLQJZLWKDOOWKHULJKWVSULYLOHJHVDQG obligations that such birth entailed), the petitioners were also “denizens who are UHSXWHG VWUDQJHUV´ E\ /RQGRQ JXLOG DQG FLYLF RI¿FLDOV DQG ZHUH FRQVHTXHQWO\ accorded second-class status.3%\WKH¿UVWGHFDGHVRIWKHVHYHQWHHQWKFHQWXU\LQ London’s merchant circles it was no longer clear who was English. The children of aliens were caught between two competing notions of GLIIHUHQFHRQHGH¿QHGE\ELUWKDQGWKHRWKHUE\GHVFHQW$FFRUGLQJWRWKH FRXUWUXOLQJNQRZQDVCalvin’s CaseELUWKXQGHUWKHVRYHUHLJQW\RIWKHNLQJRI 1

PRO, SP 15/42, no. 56, fol. 91v. A previous version of this chapter appeared as “‘English-born Reputed Strangers’: Birth and Descent in Seventeenth-century London,” Journal of British Studies, 44/4 (2005): 728–53. © 2005 by North American Conference on British Studies. 2 The petitioners complained that “the merchant stranger is called to allow a rate DQG WKH G\HU WKDW LV (QJOLVKERUQ DQG GHQL]HQ DOWKRXJK UHSXWHG VWUDQJHUV LV OLNHZLVH WR allow a rate so that the paying of these burdensome and grievous taxes do bring other LQFRQYHQLHQFHVDQGGLVFRPPRGLWLHVZLWKLWDQGGRWKLQDNLQGDOVRDGRXEOHWD[´71$ SP 15/42, no. 56, fol. 91r. 3 Ibid.


88

(QJODQGPDGHRQHDVXEMHFW²LQGHHGWRDOOLQWHQWVDQGSXUSRVHV(QJOLVK4 Yet to the guild of their own trade these same men were strangers by virtue of descent.5 These two forms of difference denote divergence not just between Londoners of English birth, but between the City of London and central government. For the guild and civic authorities, Londoners of foreign descent were almost always GH¿QHGDVVWUDQJHUVRUDOLHQVLQFRQÀLFWVRYHUWD[DWLRQFXVWRPVGXWLHVDQGFLYLF citizenship. Although sometimes in agreement with the City, the institutions of FHQWUDOJRYHUQPHQW²ZKHWKHU&URZQ3ULY\&RXQFLORUWKHLQWHUUHJQXP&RXQFLO RI 6WDWH²ODUJHO\ VLGHG ZLWK LPPLJUDQWV DQG WKHLU RIIVSULQJ LQ UHMHFWLQJ VXFK characterizations. Such a pattern is in evidence throughout the seventeenth century, even under the Commonwealth when the issue of allegiance to the monarch no longer applied. By the second half of the century the issue of naturalization would become increasingly central to the immigration debate. And when civic authorities raised concerns about strangers becoming full-blown subjects, they did so by rearticulating their fears of the English-born children of immigrants. Both the naturalized and the offspring of strangers were different manifestations of an identical threat: that of people who were legally English but who, for some in the City at least, UHPDLQHGREYLRXVO\DOLHQ6XFKFRQÀDWLRQLVKLQWHGDWPXFKHDUOLHULQWKHFHQWXU\ The eponymous character of Henry Glapthorne’s 1635 comedy The Hollander is “a gallant naturalized Dutchman” named Sconce whose father was born in the Netherlands.6 In using the term “naturalized” to describe someone who appears to be of English birth, Glapthorne points to the contested status of Londoners of QRQ(QJOLVKSDUHQWDJHGXULQJWKH¿UVWKDOIRIWKHVHYHQWHHQWKFHQWXU\V@ presentation, enrolling and admitting into the liberties of this city or of any company thereof” was against the Act and hence invalid, the court moved to disenfranchise 56

See Chapter 1 above, pp. 43–4. 6HHQRWHEHORZIRUDGH¿QLWLRQRIWKHVHGXWLHV 58 CLRO, Rep. 21, fol. 310v. 59 The entry begins: “whereas at a Common Council held the 26th day of October in the 16th year of the reign of our late sovereign lady Queen Elizabeth, it was enacted WKDWIURPWKHQFHIRUWKQRFLWL]HQRIWKLVFLW\RIZKDWTXDOLW\VRHYHUKHZHUHVKRXOGWDNHDV apprentice any person whose father being not the child of an Englishman born was not or should not be born within the queen’s dominions or whose father had been was or should be of the allegiance of any foreign prince or state”; CLRO, Rep. 30, fol. 50r. 57

“English-born Reputed Strangers”

101

Sawyer. The wardens of the Company of Goldsmiths had complained that he had been made free of the City upon completion of his apprenticeship in their guild. Sawyer’s status as a de facto alien led the court, “according to the tenor of the said act of Common Council,” to “pronounce the said enrollment … and his admission LQWRWK>H@«IUHHGRPRIWKLVFLW\WREHDEVROXWHO\YRLG´60 $DWWHPSWWRPDNHDQRWKHUVWUDQJHU¶VVRQIUHHIXUWKHUGHPRQVWUDWHVWKH effective absence of Calvin’s Case in the City of London. That year, a proposal by the lord mayor to grant citizenship to one John Casteele prompted vehement objections from the court. The aldermen had heard the nomination of Casteele ³DV RQH RI WKH QXPEHU RI WKUHH SHUVRQV ZKLFK >KLV@ /RUGVKLS E\ YLUWXH RI KLV SUHURJDWLYH´KDGSURSRVHG³WRPDNHIUHH´61 According to the court’s minutes, the lord mayor’s nomination of Casteele followed “a precedence presented unto him of the names of the sons of some aliens that in former years had received from this court their freedom of the city.” It is not clear from the court’s records who had provided this information. The mayor, however, seems to have considered this suggestion to have been in accordance with tradition. Yet the aldermen questioned the validity of these previous moves to give citizenship to strangers’ sons, arguing that “they were not fully informed of them at the time of their grants.”62 The court voiced its opposition to the mayor’s nomination on two grounds, objecting both to Casteele’s validity as a nominee and to any wider moves to give Londoners of alien descent the freedom. The grounds for excluding Casteele are revealing. He was not a good candidate for the freedom of the City because of his status as a putative alien. The court had heard previous complaints against him ³IRUXVLQJWKHWUDGHRIPDNLQJRIFDQGOHVZLWKLQWKLVFLW\EHLQJDVWUDQJHU´)RUWKDW reason, the aldermen stated, he was “by the order of this court … prohibited and restrained from the liberty of a freedom within the city.” In this sense, Casteele’s VWDWXVDV(QJOLVKERUQZDVLUUHOHYDQW²WKH&LW\KDGSUHYLRXVO\UHJDUGHGKLPDVD stranger, and a stranger he was to remain. The court had not so much dismissed his rights as a subject under Calvin’s CaseDVLJQRUHGWKHLUH[LVWHQFHLQWKH¿UVWSODFH 7KHDOGHUPHQPRUHRYHUWRRNH[FHSWLRQWRWKHDGPLVVLRQRIany alien’s son to the freedom, both on the grounds that such actions were illegal and because they were unacceptable to the public at large. Previous moves to admit “strangers and their sons” to the freedom were “contrary to the laws and customs of this city,” and had been the cause of “a general grievance of the citizens.” Such objections were well

60

Ibid. Andrew Pettegree mentions the 1597 will of a “Lewis Sohier, a religious exile RIWKH¿UVW(OL]DEHWKDQJHQHUDWLRQ´7KLVPD\EHDUHIHUHQFHWR6DZ\HU¶VLPPLJUDQWIDWKHU see Pettegree, “Thirty Years On,” p. 307. 61 CLRO, Rep. 39, fol. 78v. As Valerie Pearl notes, the lord mayor “had the right to grant three redemptions for the freedom of the City, and even the Lady Mayoress had the right to grant one of these privileges”; Pearl, London, p. 63. 62 CLRO, Rep. 39, fol. 78v.


102

founded, for the admission of the children of strangers was, quite simply, to the ³JUHDWKXUWDQGGHWULPHQW´RIOHJLWLPDWHIUHHPHQWKRVHRI(QJOLVKEDFNJURXQG63 ,QWKHIDFHRIWKHVHSURWHVWVWKHORUGPD\RUEDFNHGGRZQVWDWLQJWKDWKHZDV “pleased not to press it further.” Moreover, he reiterated previous restrictions against aliens’ children. “[U]pon his motion´ WKH FRXUW ³WKRXJKW ¿W DQG VR ordered … that no alien, son, or grandchild of an alien shall at any time hereafter be admitted into the freedom of this city” (my emphasis). Indeed, the aldermen resolved that, if in the future “any such person” should petition the City for his freedom, “every one of this court shall as much as in them lyeth stop and hinder the proceedings.”64 For the court, the lord mayor’s nomination had been based RQHUURQHRXVLQIRUPDWLRQ²VLPLODUDFWLRQVLQWKHSDVWKDGQHYHUEHHQYDOLG7KH mayor, in turn, responded to the aldermen’s protests by moving to ensure that even &DVWHHOH¶VRZQRIIVSULQJZRXOGEHH[FOXGHGIURPFLWL]HQVKLSEDFNLQJDGHJUHH of exclusion on the basis of descent that seems to undermine his own prerogative to freely grant citizenship. The City had built upon the Common Council’s 1574 legislation concerning apprenticeship by explicitly excluding two generations of strangers’ offspring from the freedom of the City. Such actions by the lord mayor and Court of Aldermen did little to settle the issue, for the children of strangers still sought the freedom. In June 1633 the Court RI$OGHUPHQKHDUGWKHFRPSODLQWRI-RKQ0DVVLQJEHUG³FRPPRQSDFNHURIWKLV FLW\´DJDLQVW-RKQ7KHUU\³DVWUDQJHU¶VVRQERUQLQWKLVNLQJGRP´0DVVLQJEHUG accused Therry of “indirect shipping out of goods and refusing to pay the city GXWLHVRISDFNDJHDQGEDLODJH´65 Aside from raising the issue of the infringement of customs duties (which will be dealt with below), Therry’s case demonstrates the extent to which some complainants saw freedom and occupational practice as going hand in hand. The court heard further information from the London VXJDU UH¿QHUV DQG PHUFKDQWV ZKR DOOHJHG WKDW7KHUU\ ³GLG RI ODWH WDNH D JUHDW and spacious house in St. Mary Spittle without Bishopsgate London” and that he “hath proceeded in the erecting of a sugar house there.” He committed this latter DFW³XQGHUSUHWHQVHRIEHLQJERUQZLWKLQWKLVNLQJGRPDQGDIUHHPDQRIWKLVFLW\´ despite orders from the Privy Council that prohibited “all strangers and the sons of VWUDQJHUVWKRXJKERUQZLWKLQWKLVNLQJGRPÍURPUH¿QLQJVXJDUV7KHFRXUWGLGQRW dispute Therry’s English birth and clearly did not see it as conferring any particular EHQH¿WV,QVWHDGWKHDOGHUPHQDFFHSWHGWKHFKDUJHWKDWKHKDG³IUDXGXOHQWO\DQG indirectly procured his freedom” (although his manner of doing so is unclear). For this they directed the common sergeant to disfranchise John Therry “of and from the freedom and liberties of this city for ever.”66 7KHFRXUWZDVLQWHQWRQPDNLQJDQH[DPSOHRI7KHUU\LQRUGHUWRFODPSGRZQ on what it perceived to be a much wider problem. They consequently sent two 63 64 65 66

Ibid. Ibid. CLRO, Rep. 47, fol. 256r. See below for more on these duties. Ibid., fols. 256r–v.


103

DOGHUPHQ WR DFTXDLQW WKH ORUG NHHSHU DQG WKH ORUG SULY\ VHDO RI WKH JULHYDQFHV DJDLQVWKLPDVZHOODVRI³RWKHUVRIIHQGLQJLQWKHOLNHNLQG´67 Later that month the PHUFKDQWVDQGUH¿QHUVSUHVHQWHGDIXUWKHUFRPSODLQWWRWKH3ULY\&RXQFLODOOHJLQJ that Therry and others had failed to remove their sugar house, contrary to an order that also applied to “all other the sons of strangers as well as strangers themselves.”68 7KHSUHYLRXV$SULOWKH&RXQFLOKDGLQIDFWFRQ¿UPHGWKDW³DVZHOOWKHVRQVRI strangers as aliens themselves” were “to be utterly excluded from the trade.”69 Thus both the Court of Aldermen and the Privy Council seemed in agreement that the children of immigrants, despite their status as subjects of the Crown according to Calvin’s Case, did not have the privileges of other English-born people. Therry KDGUXQDIRXORIFLYLFDQGFHQWUDOJRYHUQPHQWLQWKHGLYHUVHDUHDVRIVXJDUUH¿QLQJ taxation and freedom, all due to his non-English parentage. John Therry’s case also shows the degree to which access to the freedom of the City was intertwined with apprenticeship and membership in a guild. As a stranger’s son, the City’s rules excluded him from the freedom. Yet the son of a freeman was also eligible for citizenship by patrimony. According to a petition WRWKHORUGPD\RUE\WKHVXJDUPHUFKDQWVDQGUH¿QHUV-RKQ7KHUU\DQGKLVEURWKHU James had attempted to exploit the loophole provided by patrimony in order to get around the exclusion of strangers’ sons. They had “lately called home from the parts beyond the seas” their younger brother Stephen, who, because he “was born after their father was made a freeman of London,” would be eligible for freedom by patrimony despite being the son of an alien.70 Moreover, the Therry sons, in order to insinuate their brother Stephen into the City’s occupational hierarchy, had “lately gotten him made free of the Company of Weavers.” By both their father’s status as a freeman and entry into the weavers’ guild, they could at least ensure that one of their own had the privilege of citizenship. According to the VXJDU UH¿QHUV WKH VXFFHVV RI WKLV VFKHPH ZRXOG OHDG ³WR WKH LQIULQJLQJ RI WKH privileges and liberties of his Majesty’s natural born subjects,” a group from which they clearly excluded the English-born John Therry.71 It also indicated the ongoing allegiance of strangers’ sons to the “parts beyond the seas.”72 Although, for the civic authorities, an alien father meant an alien son, the fact that a free father could 67

Ibid, fol. 256r. CLRO, Remembrancia, vol. 8, fol. 53v. 69 TNA, PC 2/42, p. 556. 70 CLRO, Remembrancia, vol. 8, fol. 54r. The identity of their father remains unclear. However, in 1609 one Robert Thiery was admitted into both the freedom of the City and the :HDYHUV¶&RPSDQ\RQWKHXUJLQJRIWKHNLQJGXHWR³KLVH[WUDRUGLQDU\VNLOOVDQGLQYHQWLRQV´ LQWKHDUHDRIVLONSURGXFWLRQVHH/XXImmigrants, p. 145. It is also uncertain whether the timing of birth was a factor in the gaining of citizenship by patrimony. Rappaport describes freedom as a birthright “of Londoners born to freemen,” implying at least that one’s father should be a citizen when one was born; see Rappaport, Worlds within Worlds, p. 24. 71 CLRO, Remembrancia, vol. 8, fol. 54r. 72 Ibid. 68


104

also confer his citizenship to his male offspring provided an opening to belonging for the Therry brothers. In pursuing this avenue, they deftly exploited the degree to which freedom could, in some cases at least, trump descent. The City enforced the boundaries of Englishness at the occupational level, IRU LW ZDV LQ WKH DUHQD RI ZRUN WKDW WKH DXWKRULWLHV EHOLHYHG WKH VOLSSHU\ VORSH to an alien-dominated London began. The status of freeman granted a measure of participation in the political life of the City and most Londoners gained their freedom upon completion of an apprenticeship.73 Citizenship also conferred occupational legitimacy. John Therry constructed his illegal sugar house at least in part on the basis of his “pretense of being … a freeman of this city.”74 Similarly, Lewes Sohere, alias Sawyer, gained his freedom following an illicit apprenticeship with a goldsmith.75 The City denied John Casteele his citizenship by redemption SUHFLVHO\ EHFDXVH KH KDG HQJDJHG LQ FDQGOH PDNLQJ ZKLOH ³EHLQJ D VWUDQJHU´ (though it is not clear if he had previously trained under a master of the tallowchandlers’ guild).76 Service as an apprentice was the gateway to citizenship.77 Thus, the best way to exclude the sons of strangers from the freedom was to limit their access to training within a guild. As has been seen in the previous chapter, Stephen Therry was just one of “many hundreds of aliens and the sons of aliens” that the hierarchy of the Weavers’ Company allowed to practice their art, at least if some complaints concerning IRUHLJQ LQÀXHQFH LQ WKH JXLOG DUH WR EH EHOLHYHG78 And in admitting those of foreign descent into the Company, the bailiffs, wardens and assistants provided an entry point to the freedom and thus to the central locus of belonging in London. If, after 1608, Calvin’s CaseHQVXUHG²DWOHDVWLQODZ²WKDWDQ\RQHERUQLQ(QJODQG ZDV WKH NLQJ¶V VXEMHFW DQG KHQFH (QJOLVK WKH SUDFWLFH RI WKH FLYLF DXWKRULWLHV maintained pressure in the opposite direction, away from belonging by birth and in favor of those of English descent. To do otherwise, granting the Englishness RI SHRSOH OLNH -RKQ 7KHUU\ DQG /HZHV 6DZ\HU ZRXOG RSHQ WKH &LW\ XS WR WKH LQÀXHQFHRIIRUHLJQIRUFHV

73

Rappaport, Worlds within Worlds, p. 291. CLRO, Rep. 47, fols. 256r–v. 75 CLRO, Rep. 30, fol. 50r. 76 CLRO, Rep. 39, fol. 78v. 77 6WHYH5DSSDSRUWQRWHVWKDWHQWU\LQWRWKHIUHHGRPRIWKH&LW\WRRNSODFHRQWKH “same day or usually no more than a few days later” as the ceremony that granted guild membership, following completion of an apprenticeship; see Rappaport, Worlds within Worlds, pp. 23–4. Of around 34,000 men who became free of the City between the 1530s and the 1600s, 87 percent did so via apprenticeship. A further 9 percent received freedom by patrimony, and 4 percent by redemption; see ibid., p. 291. 78 GL, MS 4647, fol. 171v. 74


105

Taxation and Customs Duties The City also moved to ensure that the sons of strangers paid taxes and duties at higher levels than those ascribed to English subjects. In particular, the duties RISDFNDJHVFDYDJHDQGEDLODJHVHUYHGDVDSRLQWRIIULFWLRQIRUWKHERXQGDULHV of Englishness throughout the seventeenth century.79 While aliens frequently WRRNLVVXHZLWKWKHUDWHVDQGREMHFWVRIWD[DWLRQVRWKHLU(QJOLVKERUQRIIVSULQJ protested the payment of taxes as strangers. In doing so, they explicitly used a language of subjecthood. The civic authorities, meanwhile, persistently rejected such claims to equality, arguing vehemently for the treatment of those of nonEnglish descent as aliens. The ongoing tendency on the part of the City to lump the children of strangers in with their alien parents, together with a general propensity WRWU\WRVHFXUHDVPXFKUHYHQXHDVSRVVLEOHFRPELQHGWREROVWHUDGH¿QLWLRQRI belonging grounded in descent. Aliens themselves had long been liable for payment of higher taxes, particularly LQWKHIRUPRISDFNDJHVFDYDJHDQGEDLODJH7KHFROOHFWRUVRIWKHVHGXWLHVKDG often pointed to recalcitrance on the part of strangers in paying their allotted share. In June 1581, for example, the Court of Aldermen had heard the complaint of John Smythe, the collector of scavage within the City and its liberties, “touching such strangers and others being merchants which do refuse to pay scavage in such manner and form as of long time hath been used and accustomed.”80 Similarly, in 'HFHPEHURSHQFRQÀLFWHUXSWHGEHWZHHQ³GLYHUVPHUFKDQWVWUDQJHUV´DQG WKH&LW\¶VSDFNHU5LFKDUG:ULJKWRYHUWKHSD\PHQWRIFXVWRPVGXWLHVZKHQWKH former exhibited a petition to the Court of Aldermen.81 The strangers complained RI ³VXQGU\ GLVRUGHUV « LQ WKH VHYHUDO RI¿FHV RI SDFNDJH VFDYDJH DQG RWKHU 79

3DFNDJHZDVDFKDUJHOHYLHGE\WKH&LW\IRUWKHSDFNLQJRIVWUDQJHUV¶JRRGVIRU export, scavage for the weighing of strangers’ merchandise brought to the port, while bailage was “the duty paid for the surveying and delivery of goods brought by stranger merchants by land or sea for export through the Thames by way of London.” According to Scouloudi, scavage also applied to any denizen “whose father was an alien born without the allegiance RIWKH.LQJ´VHH6FRXORXGLReturns, p. 30. The OEDPHDQZKLOHGH¿QHVSDFNDJHDV³WKH SULYLOHJHIRUPHUO\KHOGE\WKH&LW\RI/RQGRQRISDFNLQJFORWKDQGRWKHUJRRGVH[SRUWHGE\ aliens or denizens,” scavage as a “toll formerly levied by the mayor, sheriff, or corporation of London and other towns on merchant strangers, on goods offered for sale within their precincts” and bailage as “duty upon delivery of goods”; OEDVY³SDFNDJH´³VFDYDJH´ “bailage.” Early Tudor statutes dictated that denizens were to pay the same customs rates as strangers; see Chapter 1 above, pp. 38–9, and Scouloudi, Returns, p. 29. See ibid., pp. 29–30, for more on the logistics of collecting these duties. Aliens, including denizens, also paid double the English rate for the lay subsidy; see ibid., p. 17. 80 CLRO, Rep. 20, fol. 210v. 81 CLRO, Rep. 23, fol. 479r; ibid., fols. 557v–558r (also cited in Scouloudi, Returns, S 7KH³FRPPRQSDFNHU´ZDVUHVSRQVLEOHIRUVHWWLQJWKHUDWHVRISDFNDJHDQGDWWLPHV VFDYDJHLELG DVZHOODVEHLQJ³FKDUJHGZLWKWKHSDFNLQJRUVXSHUYLVLRQRIWKHSDFNLQJRI exported goods liable to custom”; OEDVY³SDFNHU´


106

things.”82 The following July the court heard the report of a committee appointed WRORRNLQWRWKHFRQWURYHUV\83 The dispute revolved around both the rates of taxation and the range of goods VXEMHFW WR SD\PHQW :KLOH WKH VWUDQJHUV DI¿UPHG WKHLU ZLOOLQJQHVV WR SD\ ³WKH UDWHVRISDFNDJH«PDGHLQWKHWLPHRI(GZDUGWKHIRXUWK´WKH\UHIXVHG³WRSD\ DQ\SDFNDJHIRUJRRGV´QRWVWLSXODWHGE\PHGLHYDOSUHFHGHQW84 The aldermen’s committee claimed that they were unable to learn from the strangers which rates were the cause of complaint.857KH\ UHFRPPHQGHG WR WKH FRXUW WKDW WKH SDFNHU clarify the current rates for the strangers, setting them down “in a table as other UDWHVDUHDOUHDG\VHWXSIRUVFDYDJHDQGRWKHUGXWLHV´7KHDOGHUPHQ¿QGLQJWKLV SURSRVDOVDWLVIDFWRU\RUGHUHGWKHSDFNHUWRGHFODUHWRWKH&LW\WKHUDWHVRISDFNDJH so that they may be “duly considered of and afterwards written in tables and openly hanged up” for all to see.86 7KHGXWLHVRISDFNDJHVFDYDJHDQGEDLODJHZRXOGDFWDVDSRLQWRIIULFWLRQIRU the boundaries of Englishness throughout the seventeenth century. While aliens WRRNLVVXHZLWKWKHUDWHVDQGREMHFWVRIWD[DWLRQVRWKHLU(QJOLVKERUQFKLOGUHQ resisted efforts by the civic authorities to compel them to pay strangers’ duties. In doing so, they highlighted their status as English subjects. On 19 December 1632 the Privy Council received a petition by “several merchants born within this NLQJGRP WKH VRQV RI VWUDQJHUV´ 7KH FRPSODLQDQWV DOOHJHG WKDW ³WKH SDFNHU RI /RQGRQGRWKUHTXLUHRIWKHPDVPXFKIHHVIRU>WKHGXWLHVRI@SDFNDJHEDLODJHDQG VKHZDJH>WKDWLVVFDYDJH@«DVKHGRWKRIVWUDQJHUVZKLFKDUHQRW(QJOLVKERUQ´ 7KHSHWLWLRQHUVDUJXHGWKDWKDYLQJEHHQERUQZLWKLQWKHNLQJGRPZKHUHWKH\KDG always resided, “though strangers’ sons” they “ought to enjoy the same favor and EHQH¿W DV QDWXUDO ERUQ VXEMHFWV´87 Summoned to meet with the Council along ZLWKWKHSDFNHUWKHIROORZLQJPRQWKWKHPHUFKDQWVUHLWHUDWHGWKHLUFODLPEDVHG

82

CLRO, Rep. 23, fol. 479r. Ibid., fol. 557v. 84 Ibid. 85 Ibid. 86 Ibid., fol. 558r. This was not, however, the end of the dispute. Wright complained of ongoing recalcitrance on the part of strangers in 1614. In 1615, strangers in turn complained RIXQMXVWGHPDQGVE\WKHSDFNHUIRUSD\PHQWRIVFDYDJHWROLWWOHDYDLO5LFKDUG:ULJKWZDV UHSODFHGE\/LRQHO:ULJKWDVSDFNHULQ$XJXVWDVLWXDWLRQWKDWGLGOLWWOHWRDPHOLRUDWH tension. Over the next two years merchant strangers argued with Wright over the correct rates of taxation. He died in September 1619, although disputes over the dues he assessed FRQWLQXHG IRU ¿YH PRUH \HDUV VHH 6FRXORXGL Returns, p. 31. Mysteriously, given that Richard Wright already seems to have held the position, CSP Domestic lists a December, 1604 letter to the lord mayor of London (the author not noted) appointing “Rich. and Rob. :ULJKW«MRLQWSDFNHUVRIZRROHQFORWKV FDQGSRUWHUVRIVWUDQJHUV¶JRRGVLQDQGRXWRI the port of London”; CSP Dom., James I, vol. 8 (1603–10), p. 179. 87 TNA, PC 2/42, p. 346. This entry is repeated almost verbatim in the City’s records; see CLRO, Remembrancia, vol. 7, fols. 97r–f 98r. 83


107

H[SOLFLWO\RQWKHJURXQGVWKDW³EHLQJERUQXQGHUWKHNLQJ¶VDOOHJLDQFHZLWKLQWKLV NLQJGRPWKH\FRQFHLYHWKHPVHOYHVWREH«>KLV@ODZIXOVXEMHFWV´)RUWKLVUHDVRQ WKH\VKRXOG³HQMR\WKHOLNHSULYLOHJHVDQGOLEHUWLHVZLWKWKHUHVWRIKLV0DMHVW\¶V natural born subjects.” The merchants were willing to “pay strangers’ customs” to WKHNLQJKLPVHOI³IRUVXFKJRRGVDQGPHUFKDQGL]HDVWKH\H[SRUWDQGLPSRUW´ EXW DJDLQ WKH\ WRRN SDLQV WR SRLQW RXW WKDW WKLV ZDV GHVSLWH ³WKH VDLG OLEHUW\ RI natural born subjects.” Their complaint lay with the added burden put upon them E\WKHSDFNHURI/RQGRQZKRIRUFHGWKHPWRSD\³VXFKIHHVWD[HVDQGSD\PHQWV for their said goods and merchandize as merchant strangers born do.” The civic authorities treated them as if they were aliens.88 The City defended its actions on the basis of tradition and precedent. The authorities of London collected only those duties granted “by ancient custom EH\RQGWKHPHPRU\RIPDQFRQ¿UPHGE\&KDUOHVDQGDOORZHGE\3DUOLDPHQW´ The burden was in accordance with the established tables for such rates, over which “there have been sundry trials at law” (presumably a reference to the controversy of the mid-1590s). Moreover, the sons of strangers, “though born here in England,” KDGDOZD\VEHHQOLDEOHIRUWKHVHIHHVDEXUGHQWKDWIHOOWR³WKH¿UVWGHVFHQWRQO\´ ODFNLQJ WKH ³JUDQGIDWKHU FODXVH´ RI RWKHU UHVWULFWLRQV ,Q VKRUW ³VXFK VRQV KDG DOZD\VSDLGWKHGXWLHVRISDFNDJHEDLODJHDQGVFDYDJHDVRWKHUVWUDQJHUVGRDQG ought to do.”89 In response, the Privy Council ordered the creation of a committee FRQVLVWLQJRIWKHORUGNHHSHUORUGWUHDVXUHUORUGFKDPEHUODLQDQGRWKHUVWRORRN into the matter.90,WVXOWLPDWHUXOLQJUHPDLQVXQNQRZQ In 1636 the issue again came before the Privy Council. In March of that year it KDGDSSRLQWHGDFRPPLWWHHWR³SHUXVHWKHFLW\¶VWDEOHVRISDFNDJHVFDYDJHEDLODJH DQG SRUWDJH´ LQ RUGHU WR ³FHUWLI\ ZKDW UDWHV DUH ¿WWLQJ DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH SUHVHQW times.”91 The committee had considered the rates for commodities traditionally subject to the duties, as well as for new goods that had not, until then, been listed. 2Q0D\WKH\UHSRUWHGEDFNWRWKH&RXQFLOSUHVHQWLQJWDEOHVRIWKHDSSOLFDEOH GXWLHV³WREHWDNHQE\WKH&LW\RI/RQGRQ«RIWKHPHUFKDQWVVWUDQJHUVDQGWKH VRQVRIPHUFKDQWVVWUDQJHUVLQWKH¿UVWGHVFHQW´7KH3ULY\&RXQFLOJDYHLWVDVVHQW to these rates, ordering that “transcripts and duplicates of the same should be hung up in the custom house.”92 The councilors seem to have responded to complaints of illegitimate taxation by simply incorporating the new rates into the body of traditional assessments. 88

TNA, PC 2/42, p. 375. Ibid. 90 Ibid., p. 376. 91 The committee had been ordered to examine the tables “the 16th of March last”; TNA, PC 2/46, p. 146. However, CSP Domestic contains an almost identical order to ³SHUXVH WKH FLW\¶V WDEOHV RI SDFNDJH VFDYDJH EDOOLDJH DQG SRUWDJH´ GDWHG )HEUXDU\ 1636; 21 February contains an entry for the City’s table of fees; see CSP Dom., Charles I, vol. 9 (1635–6), pp. 241, 247. 92 TNA, PC 2/46, p. 146. 89


108

ZKHQ@RQHSDUW\ denounced the other as judaizers.” Endelman, Jews of Britain, p. 17. 9 Ibid., p. 18. 10 .DW]Philo-Semitism, SS±.DW]¶VQXPEHUVFRPHIURPDFRXQWRIWKH-HZLVK community (found in the British Library, Additional MSS 29868, pp. 15–16). See also Edmund Valentine Campos, “Jews, Spaniards, and Portingales: Ambiguous Identities of Portuguese Marranos in Elizabethan England,” English Literary History, 69/3 (2002): 599–616. 11 7KH\HDUVDZWKHRSHQLQJRI/RQGRQ¶V¿UVW$VKNHQD]LFV\QDJRJXHWKRXJK a 1695 count of the Jewish community totaled under a thousand people. The Jewish community reached 5,000–8,000 by the mid-eighteenth century, almost all in London; see Statt, Foreigners and Englishmen, p. 30. 12 See, for example, Eva Holmberg, “‘A Ghetto in Stambull’: Early Modern English Travelers and the Jewish Quarters of Istanbul,” in Fabrizio Nevola and Flaminia Bardati (eds.), Tales of the City: Outsiders’ Descriptions of Cities in the Early Modern Period (Aldershot, forthcoming); Eva Holmberg, “Esthers in the Seraglio: Jewish Women in Early 0RGHUQ(QJOLVK7UDYHO1DUUDWLYHVRQ7XUNH\´LQ$QX.RUKRQHQDQG.-3/RZHHGV

132


anti-Jewish sentiment persisted. In England, as on the Continent, Jews were cast DVTXLQWHVVHQWLDOO\GLIIHUHQW(QJOLVKSOD\ZULJKWVOLNH0DUORZHDQG6KDNHVSHDUH echoed wider views of Jewish economic practice in creating characters that were paragons of avarice.13 As elsewhere in Europe, the English voiced unease about the peculiar Jewish status as an “international nation,” collectively subjects of no particular monarch, and hence, perhaps, peculiarly disloyal.14 Notions of Jewish physical difference also held traction, albeit in idiosyncratic ways. English writers were prone to believe that Jews possessed a distinct smell, “the so-called foetor judaicus,” even as they questioned the idea, particularly common in Spain, that Jews possessed inheritable physical characteristics.15 Anti-Jewish sentiment on both sides of the Channel rested on common religious foundations, grounded in a shared heritage of Christian anti-Semitism. Yet as we will see, persistent comparison with other groups underwrote many English attitudes towards Jews. Religious Anti-Semitism, Philo-Semitism and Conversion Perceptions of Jews had long played a part within doctrinal controversies internal to Christianity. The most common anti-Jewish myths had circulated prior to the H[SXOVLRQRIUHÀHFWLQJZLGHU(XURSHDQUHOLJLRXVDQWL6HPLWLVP$FFRUGLQJ to the most common accusations, Jews had been guilty of deicide. For the crime RI NLOOLQJ &KULVW *RG KDG GLVSHUVHG WKHP IURP WKHLU KRPHODQG DQG UHWUDFWHG his covenant. Most notoriously, it was commonly alleged that Jews practiced ritual murder, using the blood of Christian children during Passover.16 The post5HIRUPDWLRQFOLPDWHDOVRVKDSHG(QJOLVKDWWLWXGHV$FFXVDWLRQVHYRNLQJVSHFL¿F aspects of Catholic doctrine, such as host desecration, receded, while Jews sometimes served as a frame of reference within debates concerning reformed Christian doctrine and practice.17 Critics of the “churching” of women, the ritual of reintroducing new mothers to the community following the birth of a child, accused its practitioners of engaging in a superstitious Hebrew holdover, The Trouble with Ribs: Women, Men and Gender in Early Modern Europe+HOVLQNL James Shapiro discusses Henry Blount’s encounters with Jews in the Levant in Shakespeare and the Jews, pp. 35–6. 13 Jewish stereotypes on the early modern English stage are discussed below, pp. 137–41. For an overview of the position of Jews throughout early modern Europe, see Jonathan Irvine Israel, European Jewry in the Age of Mercantilism, 1550–1750 (Oxford, 1985). Shapiro notes that with changes in English usury laws in the late sixteenth century, -HZV EHFDPH LQFUHDVLQJO\ LGHQWL¿HG ³QRW ZLWK XVXU\ SHU VH EXW ZLWK RXWUDJHRXV DQG H[SORLWDWLYHOHQGLQJIRUSUR¿W´6KDSLURShakespeare and the Jews, p. 99. 14 Ibid., p. 39. 15 Ibid., p. 36. 16 See Glassman, Anti-Semitic Stereotypes without Jews, pp. 14–20; Felsenstein, Anti-Semitic Stereotypes, pp. 30–39; Shapiro, Shakespeare and the Jews, pp. 100–111. 17 Ibid., p. 33.

Jewish Immigration in an Anti-stranger Context

133

XQEH¿WWLQJ RI WUXH &KULVWLDQV$W WKH VDPH WLPH WKH\ GHQRXQFHG LW DV SRSLVK18 And English attitudes towards Jews became increasingly mixed with an emerging, idiosyncratic Protestant philo-Semitism.19 ZHUH@WRZHDUDEDGJHRUFRJLQHDQHRI\HOORZRQWKHLUXSSHUPRVW garment … to distinguish them from others.” “Not long after,” Jews were banished RXWRIWKHNLQJGRP³WRWKHQXPEHURISHUVRQVIRUFUXFLI\LQJD&KULVWLDQ child at Norwich.”22)RU6FDOHVWKHVHHYHQWV¿WVTXDUHO\ZLWKLQDODUJHUWKHRORJLFDO IUDPHZRUN$Q\ VXIIHULQJ RQ WKH SDUW RI WKH -HZLVK SHRSOH ZDV D GLUHFW UHVXOW 18 'DYLG&UHVV\³3XUL¿FDWLRQV7KDQNVJLYLQJDQGWKH&KXUFKLQJRI:RPHQLQ3RVW Reformation England,” Past and Present, 141 (1993): 106–46. 19 James Shapiro has suggested that in the period after the Reformation English people saw Jews “as a potential threat to the increasingly permeable boundaries of their own social and religious identities”; Shapiro, Shakespeare and the Jews, p. 7. For an extensive WUHDWPHQWRI3URWHVWDQWDWWLWXGHVWRZDUGV-HZVVHH.DW]Philo-Semitism. 20 Thomas Scales, “The Original, or Modern Estate, Profession, Practice, and Condition of the Nation of the Jews,” in Scale’s Abridgement (c. 1630), Huntington, HM 205. The ODUJHUERRNFRQWDLQVDPRQJRWKHUWKLQJVD³/LIHRI0RKDPHW´DQG³$'HPRQVWUDWLRQRI WKH:LVGRPDQG3RZHURI$OPLJKW\*RG´6FDOHV¶VZRUNLVEULHÀ\PHQWLRQHGE\6KDSLUR who suggests that it was “cobbled together out of various English chronicles”; Shapiro, Shakespeare and the Jews, p. 257 n. 59; see also ibid., pp. 47, 157. 21 Scales, Abridgement, QRSDJLQDWLRQ>IROU@ 22 Scales, “Condition of the Nation of the Jews,” pp. 20–21. According to Shapiro, “No FKURQLFOHHYHUPDNHVVXFKDFODLP´6KDSLURShakespeare and the Jews, p. 257 n. 59. The two classic medieval English narratives of Jewish ritual murder are those of Saint William RI1RUZLFKDQG+XJKRI/LQFROQ&KULVWLDQFKLOGUHQDOOHJHGO\NLOOHGE\-HZVLQDQG UHVSHFWLYHO\)RUDQRYHUYLHZRIERWKVWRULHVVHH+LOOHO-.LHYDO³5HSUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG .QRZOHGJH LQ 0HGLHYDO DQG 0RGHUQ $FFRXQWV RI -HZLVK 5LWXDO 0XUGHU´ Jewish

134


RIWKHUHMHFWLRQDQGPXUGHURI&KULVW7KH-HZV³FUXFL¿HGWKH/RUGRIJORU\IRU ZKLFKFDXVH*RGMXVWO\UHPRYHGKLVFDQGOHVWLFNIURPWKHPWRWKHJHQWLOH´23 Jewish PLVIRUWXQH WKHUHIRUH LV ³WKH MXVW MXGJPHQW RI DOPLJKW\ *RG >IRU@ WKH\ GHVSLVHG WKHIDWKHURIPHUFLHVDQGSULQFHRISHDFHDQGVDLGWR3LODWHZHKDYHQRNLQJEXW Caesar.” Since then, Jews have found “that the mercies of Caesar are cruel.”24 Scales’s Christian anti-Semitism draws on references to other groups, most notably to Muslims and Catholics. Jews, he wrote, “are wonderful superstitious in their observance of times, and amongst others they are very observant of the new PRRQ´LQWKLVUHVSHFW³ZRUVKLS>LQJ@WKHFUHDWXUHLQVWHDGRIWKHFUHDWRU´7KLVOXQDU ¿[DWLRQLVHFKRHGLQ,VODP³DVDUHOLF´RI-XGDLVP25 The Jewish need for “some other exposition of the written law” resulted in the Talmud. This, he cryptically notes, is “a Popish argument just.” Because of this reliance upon a secondary text, Jews “prefer the tradition of the Church of Rome and her expositions … before written verities.”26 Moreover, God’s wrath upon the Jews has resulted in their being despised not just by the Christians who they have so maligned, but by DOOJURXSV³2GLRXVDUHWKH\QRWWR&KULVWLDQVDORQHEXWWRWKHKHDWKHQWKDWNQRZ not God, or any part of his worship.”27 8QLYHUVDOO\ YLOL¿HG -HZV DUH ³QR OHVV detestable and hateful unto all nations and people in the world.” Global anti-Jewish VHQWLPHQWLVVRSURQRXQFHGWKDW³WKHYHU\0RKDPPHGDQ7XUNV«XVHDNLQGRI LPSUHFDWLRQLQWKHLUDI¿UPDWLRQRIYHULW\´VZHDULQJ³LIWKLVEHQRWWUXHZRXOG God I might die a Jew.”28 Muslims themselves are unwilling to accept Jewish FRQYHUWV³H[FHSW¿UVWKHKDWKSDVVHGIURPKLV-XGDLVPWKURXJKWKHSXUJDWRU\RI a Christian profession.”29 Scales’s text shows how a generic articulation of religious anti-Semitism could evince pronounced comparisons between Jews and other groups. While HDUO\PRGHUQ(QJOLVKDQWLSDWK\WRZDUGV-HZVUHÀHFWHG\HDUVRI&KULVWLDQ theology, such hostility also drew upon the broader culture. Jews, in other words, were less theFHQWUDO³RWKHU´RIWKHSHULRG²DVVRPHVFKRODUVKDYHDUJXHG²WKDQ SOD\HUVOLNH&DWKROLFV7XUNVDQG3URWHVWDQWVWUDQJHUVLQDZLGHUUKHWRULFDOGUDPD of relational difference.30 And, as we will see, these intersections were vital beyond Social Studies, 1/1 (1994): 55–7. For an extended analysis of both narratives, see Gavin I. Langmuir, 7RZDUGD'H¿QLWLRQRI$QWLVHPLWLVP%HUNHOH\&$ SS± 23 Scales, “Condition of the Nation of the Jews,” p. 21. 24 Ibid., p. 22. 25 Ibid., p. 8. 26 Ibid., p. 17. 27 Ibid., p. 21. 28 Ibid., p. 17. 29 Ibid., p. 21. In both cases Scales seems to be drawing upon the writings of the WUDYHOHU:LOOLDP%LGGXOSKZKRVHZRUNZDVUHSULQWHGE\6DPXHO3XUFKDVVHH3HWHU%HUHN “The Jew as Renaissance Man,” Renaissance Quarterly, 51/1 (1998): 142–3. 30 )RU-DPHV6KDSLUR(QJODQG³FRXOGEHGH¿QHGLQSDUWE\LWVKDYLQJSXUJHGLWVHOIRI -HZV´ZKLOH³(QJOLVKFKDUDFWHUFRXOGEHGH¿QHGE\LWVQHHGWRH[FOXGHµ-HZLVKQHVV¶´6KDSLUR


135

WKHSDJHVRIFRPPRQSODFHERRNVDQGSULQWHGWH[WV-HZLVKLPPLJUDQWVWKHPVHOYHV encountered treatment shaped not only by religious anti-Semitism, but also by attitudes towards other peoples present in the realm. Upon arrival in England, they IRXQGWKHPVHOYHVFDVWQRWMXVWLQWKHGHSUHVVLQJO\IDPLOLDUUROHRI&KULVWNLOOHU XVXUHUDQGFKLOGPXUGHUHUEXWDOVR²DVRQHFDVHZLOOVKRZ²DV6SDQLDUGSDSLVW and merchant stranger. Philo-Semitic attitudes, meanwhile, inverted traditional religious antipathies while continuing to assign a special place for Jews in the cosmic scheme of things. Some seventeenth-century Protestants aligned themselves with Jewish observance, holding that the Mosaic law applied to Christians, and observing Jewish dietary laws. Others, in a search for a universal language, promoted the use of Hebrew and, through it, Jewish culture at large. But of most consequence to Jews themselves ZDVWKHIDFWWKDWVRPHPLOOHQDULDQV²LQFOXGLQJTXLWHSRVVLEO\2OLYHU&URPZHOO² sought to readmit Jews into the realm in order to hasten Christ’s arrival.31 The 4XDNHU0DUJDUHW)HOOLQDSXEOLVKHGOHWWHUWR0HQDVVDK%HQ,VUDHOLQXUJLQJ Jewish immigration, referred to England as “a land of gathering, where the Lord *RGLVIXO¿OOLQJKLVSURPLVH´32 Yet being “chosen” in this way by Christians could carry overtones as negative as those that followed outright rejection. Jewish conversion to Christianity was, for some, a necessary prerequisite for Christ’s return.33 Robert Maton, in a tract printed in London in 1646, urged Christians to persuade the Jews that “they are to expect no other Messiah … but -HVXVRI1D]DUHWKZKRPWKHLUIRUHIDWKHUVFUXFL¿HG´34 Although the preaching of the Gospels was the ideal way to ensure conversion, for Maton, at least, divine intervention would be the decisive factor: “the time is set,” he wrote, “in which

Shakespeare and the Jews, S)RU)UDQN)HOVHQVWHLQDQWL6HPLWLVPZDV³DSDUDGLJPRI otherness in English popular culture” (the subtitle of his Anti-Semitic Stereotypes). 31 'DYLG6.DW]SURYLGHVDGHWDLOHGVWXG\RIDOORIWKHVHDVSHFWVRI3URWHVWDQWSUR Jewish sentiment in Philo-Semitism. He suggests that Cromwell’s “quiet support for Jewish readmission and toleration throughout his years of power” was rooted more in an ecumenical desire to see the unity of all “godly” peoples than a singularly pro-Jewish attitude; see ibid., p. 196. See also Glassman, Anti-Semitic Stereotypes without Jews, ch. 5; Shapiro, Shakespeare and the Jews, pp. 11, 57. For a recent reinterpretation of Christian philo-Semitism, see Glaser, Judaism without Jews. 32 Margaret Fell, For Manassaeth Ben Israel/RQGRQ STXRWHGLQ.DW] Philo-Semitism, p. 238. 33 As Nabil Matar notes, while proponents of both Jewish conversion and restoration tended towards Puritanism, Anglicans frequently rejected such views. However, some early Stuart theologians called for the conversion of the Jews out of “a feeling of gratitude,” because “it was felt that by rejecting Jesus as the Messiah, Jews had made possible the salvation of the Gentiles”; Nabil Matar, “George Herbert, Henry Vaughan, and the Conversion of the Jews,” Studies in English Literature, 30/1 (1990): 80–81. 34 Robert Maton, Israel’s Redemption Redeemed. Or, the Jewes Generall and Miraculous Conversion to the Faith of the Gospel (London, 1646), sig. A3v.


136

the spirit shall be poured on them from on high.”35 Walter Gostelo, writing the year before the readmission, also predicted that the Jews would accept Christ, in DZRUNWKDWDOVRFDOOHGIRUWKHFRQYHUVLRQRIKHDWKHQVWKHGRZQIDOORI5RPHDQG the protection of the Irish from transplantation. His, however, was a peculiar mix of millenarianism and royalism. Even at the time of writing, the Jews were being ³EURXJKW LQWR WKH IDLWK RI &KULVW RXU /RUG ZKRP WKH\ FUXFL¿HG´$W WKH VDPH WLPHWKH0HVVLDKZDV³PDNLQJKLPVHOINQRZQLQVXFKDPDQQHUDVWKH\H[SHFW not, most strange and wonderfully affording them his viceroy Charles Stuart for their defense and protection.”36 Such calls for conversion, then, combined a measure of philo-Semitism with ongoing references to Jewish deicide. And as )UDQN)HOVHQVWHLQKDVSRLQWHGRXW&KULVWLDQFRQYHUVLRQLVWVRIWHQFRQVLGHUHG-HZV ³VWLIIQHFNHG LQ WKHLU LQDELOLW\ WR UHFRJQL]H LQ -HVXV WKH WUXH 0HVVLDK´37 If the world needed such recognition before the second coming, Jews were guilty not RQO\RINLOOLQJ&KULVWEXWRISUHYHQWLQJKLVUHDSSHDUDQFH Even outside an eschatological context, Jewish conversion to Christianity could prove problematic. A 1660 petition by London’s lord mayor and aldermen to Charles II suggested that Jewish efforts to embrace Christianity were at best a temporary ruse, and that “hopes of converting that obstinate generation” were PLVSODFHG-HZVPHUHO\³GLVVHPEOH>G@WKHPVHOYHV&KULVWLDQV´DVDZD\WRDYRLG persecution, arriving in England “for liberty to profess and practice the Judaical superstition.”38 And at least one Jewish convert to Christianity harbored special opprobrium for his former co-religionists (as, apparently, did they for him). Jonas Gabay, baptized in St. Margaret’s Church, Westminster in 1672, in an open letter to readers “zealous of Christian faith” complained “of the sufferings and hard usages” he had “sustained by the malice and contrivance of the Jews.” Members of the “synagogue of Satan” had, he alleged, cruelly beaten him, pulled his hair IURPKLVKHDGKLUHG&KULVWLDQVWRNLOOKLPDQGWULHGWRSRLVRQKLPWKHPVHOYHVDIWHU LQYLWLQJKLPIRUDPHDO³XQGHUSUHWHQFHRINLQGQHVV´*DED\H[SUHVVHGSDUWLFXODU contempt for “renegado Christians” who “came from foreign parts … and call themselves Jews,” presumably a reference to London’s community of former Marranos (about which more below).39 In the very act of writing his complaint, Gabay was appealing to fellow Christians who, he seems to have assumed, would view him as one of their number. The lord mayor’s petition of 1660 suggests otherwise.

35

Ibid., sig. A4r. Walter Gostelo, Charls Stuart and Oliver Cromwel United, or, Glad Tidings of Peace to All Christendom, to the Jews and Heathen, Conversion, to the Church of Rome, Certain Downfall, the Irish Not to Be Transplanted (London, 1655), sigs. A3r–A4r. 37 Felsenstein, Anti-Semitic Stereotypes, p. 91. 38 CLRO, Remembrancia, vol. 9, fol. 28v. For extensive discussion of this petition, see pp. 149–51 below. 39 TNA, SP 29/385, fols. 254r–v. 36


137

Jews on the Elizabethan Stage Religious anti-Semitism also underwrote the portrayal of Jews on the Elizabethan stage. Here, too, even the most idiosyncratic of anti-Jewish stereotypes relied upon comparison with other groups. This tension between axiomatic Jewish difference and cross-cultural context shapes even the more crudely drawn stage Jews. And none is, perhaps, as blunt a dramatic instrument as Christopher Marlowe’s Barabas. Marlowe wrote The Jew of Malta between 1589 and 1591, a time when, Iberian conversos DVLGH-HZVZHUHRI¿FLDOO\DEVHQWIURP(QJODQGLWVHOI40 Barabas deserves particular attention both because he distills so many generic elements RIHDUO\PRGHUQDQWL6HPLWLVPDQGEHFDXVHKHVKRZVKRZHYHQWKHVWDUNHVWDQWL -HZLVKVHQWLPHQWGHSHQGHGXSRQWKHHYRFDWLRQRIRWKHUSHRSOHV$VDVSHFL¿FDOO\ Jewish villain he was instantly recognizable, embodying nothing that an audience would have found new or surprising about Jews, even if those stereotypes failed to resemble the ambiguous crypto-Jews actually in the realm. Yet the setting for his LOOGHHGVD¿FWLRQDO0DOWDWKDWVWRRGDVWKHFURVVURDGVIRUPDQ\FXOWXUHVSURYLGHG D FRQWH[W WKDW OLNH /RQGRQ LWVHOI FRQVWUXFWHG -HZLVK GLIIHUHQFH LQ UHODWLRQ WR diverse surroundings.41 The “rich Jew of Malta” is, as the title of the 1633 quarto would suggest, most centrally characterized by his love of wealth.42 Barabas is motivated, at root, E\ WKH GHVLUH IRU PRQH\ 7KLV LV DEXQGDQWO\ FOHDU IURP KLV ¿UVW DSSHDUDQFH RQ stage, “in his counting-house, with heaps of gold before him.”43 Here he embodies acquisitiveness as a universal Jewish trait: Jews are “on every side enriched,” a SURPLVH WKDW ZDV ³ROG$EUDP¶V KDSSLQHVV´ WR EH IXO¿OOHG E\ FRPPHUFH XVXU\ and treachery.44 Barabas cheats Christians both large and small. By “extorting, FR]HQLQJ IRUIHLWLQJ $QG WULFNV EHORQJLQJ XQWR EURNHU\´ KH ³¿OOHG WKH MDLOV ZLWKEDQNURXWV´DQG³ZLWK\RXQJRUSKDQVSODQWHGKRVSLWDOV´2QDODUJHUVFDOH

40

Siemon, introduction to Jew of Malta, p. xi. My aim here is to provide a brief overview of some of the Jewish stereotypes that Barabas embodies. Scholars have discussed Marlowe’s creation, and Jews in early modern drama in general, at length. See, for example: Emily C. Bartels, “Malta, the Jew, and the Fictions of Difference: Colonialist Discourse in Marlowe’s the Jew of Malta,” English Literary Renaissance ±%HUHN³7KH-HZDV5HQDLVVDQFH0DQ´*.+XQWHU “The Theology of Marlowe’s the Jew of Malta,” The Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institute, 27 (1964): 211–40; Stephen Greenblatt, “Marlowe, Marx, and Anti-Semitism,” in Learning to Curse: Essays in Early Modern Culture1HZ'XQQLQJWRQ@GLGVD\DQ\WKLQJDJDLQVWKLP´.QHYHWWDOVRGHFODUHGWR'XQQLQJWRQ WKDW³KLVLQWHQWLRQZDVWRREWDLQDFOHUN¶VSODFHLQWKHFRPPLWWHHRIGLVFRYHULHV´ presumably as the fruit of his accusations.85 Dunnington himself believed that “he PLJKWH[SHFWVRPHUHFRPSHQVHÍURP.QHYHWWIRUVZHDULQJDJDLQVWKLVPDVWHU86 The testimony of the two servants regarding Robles’s identity was ambiguous at EHVW:KHQDVNHGZKHWKHU5REOHVZDVD-HZRUD6SDQLDUG'XQQLQJWRQDQVZHUHG that he “cannot positively say.” He had, however, “heard several reports of him,” some of which had said that he was Spanish and others that he was Portuguese, ³EXW ZKLFK WR EHOLHYH , FDQQRW WHOO´ 'XQQLQJWRQ KLPVHOI ³GLG DOZD\V WDNH KLP WREHD6SDQLDUG´DQGDI¿UPHGWKDWKHKDGQHYHUKHDUGDQ\GLVSXWH³DERXWZKDW country man he was.”87 2Q DQRWKHU RFFDVLRQ 'XQQLQJWRQ WHVWL¿HG WKDW DV WR ZKHWKHU 5REOHV ZDV D 6SDQLDUG RU D 3RUWXJXHVH KH ³NQRZV QRW QRU NQRZV KH DQ\ RI KLV NLQGUHG´ +H VWDWHG KRZHYHU WKDW 5REOHV ZDV ³JHQHUDOO\ UHSXWHG D 3RUWXJDO´ KDYLQJ ³NLQGUHG WKDW DUH 3RUWXJDOV LQ WKH &DQDULHV DQG +ROODQG´ ,Q UHODWLRQWR5REOHV¶VUHOLJLRQ'XQQLQJWRQDI¿UPHGWKDW³KHKHDUVKHLVODWHO\WXUQHG a Jew having … professed himself a Catholic.”88 He also reported that he had seen 83 The case itself was initially heard by the Council of State, to whom Oliver Cromwell referred Robles’s petition. Members of the Council interviewed witnesses in person and received further testimony by correspondence. On 25 April 1656 the Council then passed WKHFDVHWRWKH&RPPLVVLRQHUVIRUWKH$GPLUDOW\DQG1DY\ZKRWRRNIXUWKHUWHVWLPRQ\DQG LVVXHGWKH¿QDOUHSRUW5REOHV¶VLQLWLDOSHWLWLRQDQGWKHGHSRVLWLRQVEHIRUHWKH&RXQFLOFDQ be found in SP 18/126, fols. 256r–67r. The examinations before the Commissioners and WKHLU¿QDOSURQRXQFHPHQWFDQEHIRXQGLQ63IROVU±YDQGIROUUHVSHFWLYHO\ 84 TNA, SP 18/126, fol. 260r. Parts of this document, including an apparent reference WR.QHYHWW¶VVWDWXVDV&R[HWDU¶VVHUYDQWDUHEDUHO\OHJLEOH 85 Ibid., fol. 263r. 86 TNA, SP 18/127, fol. 36v. 87 TNA, SP 18/126, fol. 264r. 88 ,ELGIROU'XQQLQJWRQ¶VRZQEDFNJURXQGLVDOPRVWDVFRQYROXWHGDVWKDWRI 5REOHV+HFODLPHGWREH³RI'XWFKSDUHQWVEXWNQRZVQRWZKHUHKHZDVERUQ´+H³ZDV HGXFDWHGDW1HZFDVWOHE\0UV0HGIRUGZKHUHKHZDVIRXURU¿YH\HDUVDQGWKHQZHQWWR Don Ant Robliss with whom he lived 8 years.” When the authorities enquired about his


145

Robles “at mass several times,” and that he “saw him at the Spanish ambassador’s at mass about six months ago.”89 )UDQFLV .QHYHWW PHDQZKLOH WHVWL¿HG WKDW KH EHOLHYHG5REOHVWREH³D-HZDQGD6SDQLDUG´DOWKRXJKLQWKH&DQDULHVWKHNLQJRI Spain had seized his estate “on the accompt of his being a Jew.”90 The Council of State called a number of further witnesses in an attempt to resolve the question of Robles’s identity. Their testimony also proved contradictory, ranging from straightforward echoes of Robles’s own narrative to protestations WKDWKHZDVERWKD6SDQLDUGDQGDSDSLVW6L[³IRUHLJQHUV´RIXQNQRZQEDFNJURXQG FHUWL¿HGWKDWWKH\GLG³YHU\ZHOONQRZ´5REOHVWKDWKHZDVDPHUFKDQWGZHOOLQJ in London “of the Hebrew nation and religion,” and that he was “married here in this city of London to a woman of the said nation and religion.” Robles, they VWDWHGÀHGWKHGRPLQLRQVRI6SDLQ³E\UHDVRQRIWKHLQTXLVLWLRQ´DQGKDGDOZD\V been “by us held and reputed for a Portuguese and Hebrew,” as well as “by all RWKHUVZKLFKNQRZKLP´7KUHHIXUWKHUVLJQDWXUHVRQWKHVDPHGRFXPHQWDWWHVWHG WKDW KH ZDV ³D 3RUWXJXHVH´ ERUQ LQ )XQGRQ 3RUWXJDO DQG WKDW WKH\ NQHZ ³KLV IDWKHUPRWKHUDQGPRVWRIKLVNLQGUHG´91 They made no reference to his father’s death, or to the whereabouts of his mother. Yet one Philip de Loyhoy wrote to Secretary of State John Thurloe that Robles was “a Spaniard but would go under the name of a Portugal.”92 Don Antonio De Ponto, a “Spaniard and a Roman Catholic,” VZRUHWKDWKHKDGNQRZQ5REOHVLQWKH &DQDULHVWHQ\HDUVSUHYLRXVO\ZKHUHWKH\KDGOLYHGXQGHUWKHOLEHUW\RIWKHNLQJRI Spain.93+HZRXOGQRWKRZHYHUVZHDUWKDW5REOHVZDV3RUWXJXHVH:KHQDVNHG whether Robles was a Jew, he stated that in the Canaries he “was reported to be a &KULVWLDQEXWKHLVUHSXWHGWREH>KHUH@D-HZ´94 Perhaps not surprisingly, Robles’s uncle, Duart Henri Alvares, echoed his own story. Alvares appears to have himself followed an analogous path, from Portugal to Madrid and the Canaries. He stated WKDWKHNQHZ5REOHV³DW0DGULGWREHD-HZ´WKRXJKKHGLGQRWFRQIHVVWKDW5REOHV was his nephew.95 Henry Chillingworth, Alvares’s servant in the Canaries, stated WKDW KH KDG NQRZQ 5REOHV DV ZHOO DV KLV PDVWHU DQG WKDW 5REOHV ZDV ³JUHDWO\ religion, Dunnington answered that “he is of no religion but hath been a papist.” Originally “named Samuel Dunnington when he went over” to the Canaries, he “was there bishopped and called John Baptista Dunnington which name he still retains”; TNA, SP 18/127, IROVU±Y(OVHZKHUHKHLVVLPSO\LGHQWL¿HGDV³DVWUDQJHUERUQDJHG\>HDUV@´71$ SP 18/126, fol. 262r. 89 TNA, SP 18/127, fols. 36r–v. 90 TNA, SP 18/126, fol. 266r. 91 Ibid., fol. 258r. 92 Ibid., fol. 260r. 93 Ibid., fol. 259r. 94 TNA, SP 18/127, fol. 36r. 95 Ibid., fol. 36r. Alvares is stated to be a Jew in TNA, SP 18/126, fol. 259r. According to the records of the Inquisition of the Canaries, he was Robles’s uncle and a customs agent IRUZKRP5REOHVKDGZRUNHGVHH:ROIJews in the Canary Islands, p. xxxvi.


146

UHSXWHGWREHD3RUWXJDO´WKRXJK³KHNQRZVQRWZKDWWKH\DUHE\ELUWK´96 They attended church “for fear of the Inquisition,” though “he hath understood them to EH -HZV´ +RZHYHU KH DOVR DFNQRZOHGJHG WKDW ERWK 5REOHV DQG$OYDUHV ³ZHUH reputed Spaniards.” &KLOOLQJZRUWKDOVRWHVWL¿HGWKDWLQWKH&DQDULHV5REOHVKDG gone under the name of “Don Anto Roderigo Robliss Perrerena.”97 One Signor de &DUHHUHV³RIWKH-HZLVKQDWLRQRIWKHWULEHRI-XGD´DI¿UPHGWKDWKHKDGKHDUGWKDW Robles was born in Portugal, but that on his “coming over” Robles had informed him that he was a Jew.98 In the end the authorities threw up their hands and discharged Robles from any penalty. The Commissioners for the Admiralty and Navy, to whom the Council of 6WDWHKDGUHIHUUHGWKHFDVHUHSRUWHGWKDWWKH\GLG³QRW¿QGDQ\FRQYLFWLQJHYLGHQFH to clear up either the nation or religion of the petitioner.” His nationality remained LQGLVSXWH³VRPHDI¿UPLQJKLPWREHD-HZERUQDW)XQGDPLQ3RUWXJDO«RWKHUV ZKR KDYH NQRZQ KLP ORQJ WKDW WKH\ DOZD\V HVWHHPHG KLP D 6SDQLDUG WKRXJK their testimony seems not so positive as the other.” The only apparent certainty was that Robles most recently hailed from the Canary Islands, which were under Spanish dominion. It was his religious status that was most questionable, for “in England he hath professed himself a Romanist, having frequented the mass till about six months since.” This Catholic practice, combined with “the consideration that he is yet uncircumcised,” led the committee to conclude that “he is either no -HZRURQHWKDWZDONVXQGHUORRVHSULQFLSOHVDQGYHU\GLIIHUHQWIURPRWKHUVRIWKDW profession.”99 As a result, the Council of State ordered that the seizure of Robles’s goods “be forthwith discharged,” and that he “be at liberty to dispose” of all of his possessions.100 The certainty of his provenance from the Canaries, seen in the light of his possible status as Jewish or Portuguese, was not enough to ensure that he be treated as an enemy Spaniard.101 96 97

TNA, SP 18/126, fol. 259r; TNA, SP 18/127, fol. 36r. ,ELG 7KLV ZDV DI¿UPHG E\ 5REOHV KLPVHOI LQ D IXUWKHU H[DPLQDWLRQ VHH LELG

fol. 36v. 98

Ibid. Also called was one “Domingo de la Sella,” who “saith he is an Hebrew, but born in Spain; where to avoid the Inquisition he called himself a Christian but is a Jew.” However, his statements regarding Robles’s origins are illegible; see TNA, SP 18/126, fol. 265r. 99 71$63IROU5REOHVKRZHYHUGLGQRWDSSHDUWRZDON³XQGHUORRVH SULQFLSOHVÍRUORQJ,Q2FWREHURQH3HGUR0DQVDQRWHVWL¿HGEHIRUHWKH,QTXLVLWLRQLQ WKH&DQDU\,VODQGVWKDW5REOHVKDGEHHQFLUFXPFLVHG0DQVDQRUHSRUWHGWKDWWKHIRUHVNLQ EXULHG IROORZLQJ WKH EULV KDG EHHQ SXEOLFO\ GXJ XS E\ -XDQ %DSWLVWD >'XQQLQJWRQ@ ³WR PDNHMHVWRILWZLWKVRPHRWKHUV´5REOHVXSRQKHDULQJRIWKLVHYHQW³ZDVPXFKYH[HGDQG turned the said Juan Baptista out of his house”; Wolf, Jews in the Canary Islands, p. 204. 100 TNA, SP 25/77, p. 129. 101 Robles’s life in England was also a source of confusion to the Inquisition of the Canary Islands, which held hearings into the activities of islanders who had moved to London and had reportedly declared themselves Jews. For Robles, see, in particular, Wolf, Jews in the Canary Islands, pp. 199, 202–7, 213. In 1665 Captain Francisco Machado WHVWL¿HGWRWKH,QTXLVLWLRQWKDW5REOHVLQ/RQGRQKDGSULYDWHO\³WROGKLPZLWKPDQ\WHDUV


147

Antonio Rodrigues Robles throws into relief the topography of difference upon which the authorities made judgments about identity. He was, depending on testimony, D -HZ D VWUDQJHU D &DWKROLF 6SDQLVK DQG 3RUWXJXHVH %RWK WKH TXHVWLRQV DVNHG E\WKHJRYHUQPHQWRI¿FLDOVDQGWKHUHVSRQVHVHOLFLWHGE\YDULRXVGHSRQHQWVUHYHDO DSUHRFFXSDWLRQZLWKDUDQJHRIFULWHULDIRUEHORQJLQJ²FRXQWU\RIELUWKSUHYLRXV SDWWHUQVRIUHVLGHQFHUHOLJLRXVEHOLHIDQGSUDFWLFH²QRQHRIZKLFKUHVROYHGLQWRD single coherent identity. While his case may appear deceptively simple to modern eyes, Robles clearly presented a problem to early modern observers. He reminds us that Londoners saw the arrival of Jews in the seventeenth century neither exclusively through the lens of pre-existing anti-Semitic stereotypes nor philo-Semitically, for its HVFKDWRORJLFDORUDSRFDO\SWLFVLJQL¿FDQFH-HZVLQPLGFHQWXU\IDFHGSUHFRQFHSWLRQV not just about what it meant to be Jewish, but also about what it meant to be Spanish, Portuguese and Catholic. In this, Robles provides more than an atypical example. London’s Jewish community was largely secretive and outwardly Catholic before the mid-1650s, and in that sense his ambiguity was probably more representative of Anglo-Jewish life prior to the readmission.102 It also possessed strong ties not just to the Iberian peninsula and the Netherlands, but to the broader Atlantic world. While Robles had traced a path to England via the Canaries, one petitioner on his behalf, Emanuel Martinez Dormido, a co-emissary of Menassah Ben Israel, had previously traded with Brazil.103 To the authorities, his accusers and the many witnesses called to account for his presence, no single factor explains who Robles was. For the Admiralty commissioners, he failed to meet the criteria for being a Jew. Not only was he a reputed papist, but his own uncircumcised body betrayed him as either not a Jew, or a Jew of “loose principles.”104 Yet he also failed to qualify as unambiguously Catholic, given both his tales of inquisitorial persecution and the fact that he presented himself as Jewish. Nor was he clearly Spanish, hailing as he did from 3RUWXJDO)RU)UDQFLV.QHYHWWDWOHDVWWKHUHZDVQRFRQWUDGLFWLRQEHWZHHQEHLQJ a “Jew dog” and a Spaniard, if only because both categories presented a target that he greatly regretted having been so foolish as to leave the Catholic Church for the Jewish, and that he was strongly inclined to go to Spain to throw himself at the feet of WKH,QTXLVLWLRQDQGDVNSDUGRQ´LELGS 102 $V.DW]QRWHV³(QJOLVK-HZVZRUVKLSSHGDWWKH6SDQLVK(PEDVV\XQWLODIWHUWKH Whitehall Conference.” Most were buried as Catholics, even after the establishment of a Jewish cemetery at Mile End. He provocatively suggests that if we accept John Bossy’s GH¿QLWLRQ RI WKH (QJOLVK &DWKROLF FRPPXQLW\ RQH RI KDELWXDO SUDFWLFH ZLWK RFFDVLRQDO recourse to a priest), then “Anglo-Jewry in the half-century before readmission must be LQFOXGHGDPRQJWKHPRVWGHYRWHG3DSLVWV´.DW]Philo-Semitism, p. 3. See also John Bossy, The English Catholic Community, 1570–18501HZF@RQ¿UPDWLRQ RI WKH VWDWXV RI WKH -HZV LQ ZULWLQJ´ ¿UVW UHTXHVWHG ³DW WKH KHLJKW RI WKH 5REOHV FDVH´ Dormido had been amongst those who had submitted a petition to Cromwell to accompany 5REOHV¶VRZQLQVHH.DW]Philo-Semitism, pp. 243, 236. Earlier in the same year, the Commons saw the introduction of a bill for the naturalization of “all foreigners that VKDOOWDNHWKH2DWKVRI$OOHJLDQFHDQG6XSUHPDF\H[FHSW-HZV´Journal of the House of Commons, vol. 8, p. 555. This ultimately failed to pass; see Chapter 3 above, n. 135. 134 TNA, PC 2/64, p. 175.

156


the Court of Aldermen received a complaint that several aliens of “poor and mean quality and estate pretending themselves to be Jews” had arrived with their families from overseas, settling within the City and its liberties. These were not the rich Jews of earlier petitions, possessed of “vast sums of treasure,” but rather people with “no trade or employment nor other means of livelihood” who were liable to become a burden to the parishes in which they lived.135 In response, the aldermen had ruled that “no further strangers calling or pretending themselves to be Jews” might lodge in the house of any English person or stranger within the City and OLEHUWLHVXQOHVVWKH\FRXOG³VXI¿FLHQWO\PDLQWDLQWKHPVHOYHV´ZLWKHLWKHUWKHLURZQ estates or by their own “industry and employment.” By this means, the authorities might prevent the evident drain on parish funds caused by Jewish immigrants. As an enforcement measure, the Court of Aldermen called upon constables and others to exercise “the punishment and passing away of all such Jews” who might arrive in the City “unable to their own maintenance.”136 The perceived threat caused by the readmission of the Jews seemed to span every available anti-immigrant stereotype, from the rich, engrossing merchant to the burdensome vagrant. Londoners, then, viewed Jews as a threat to the City, both because of their imputed wealth and international connections, and because of their supposed status as paupers who might undeservedly bleed the parish dry of funds. This contradiction between wealth and poverty was characteristic of complaints against other aliens. And the larger opposition, between a City hostile to new arrivals and a Crown generally willing to encourage immigration, characterized both attitudes towards Jewish immigrants and the ongoing experience of French and Dutch strangers. In this sense, although early modern English attitudes towards -HZV HYRNHG D QDUURZ WUDGLWLRQ RI &KULVWLDQ DQWL6HPLWLVP ERWK WKH FRQWHQW RI stereotypes and the resulting treatment of the community itself drew directly upon the wider culture in which people constructed, negotiated and policed difference. Londoners cast Jews as both perennial outsiders, removed from the human bond by God himself for the crime of deicide, and as mere aliens, possessing all of the disturbing parasitism of the French and Dutch. Conversely, they saw Protestant immigrants and their descendants in ways that accord with modern anti-Semitism, DFFXVLQJ&KULVWLDQVWUDQJHUVRIJDWKHULQJLQKLGGHQSODFHVZRUNLQJLQVHFUHWFDEDOV and maintaining international contacts in order to export the wealth of the realm. Jews were aliens, but aliens were, in a sense, also Jews. The blurring of the OLQHV EHWZHHQ -HZLVK LPPLJUDQWV DQG RWKHU VWUDQJHUV ZRUNHG LQ WZR GLUHFWLRQV DQWLSDWK\WRZDUGVERWKUHÀHFWLQJWKHVDPHODUJHUFXOWXUHWKURXJKZKLFK(QJOLVK people constructed difference. Awareness of this fact reminds us that to be Jewish in seventeenth-century London was to occupy several positions at once. This explains why scholars have found post-readmission Jewish identity so hard to pin down, and why no single criterion seems entirely satisfactory. As David S. 135 CLRO, Rep 82, fol. 221v. The reference to “vast sums of treasure” is in Violet, Petition Against the Jews, part 1, p. 7. 136 CLRO, Rep 82, fol. 221v.


157

.DW]KDVQRWHG-HZV³ZHUHQHLWKHUDOLHQQRUFLWL]HQ´ZKLOHYLHZLQJWKHPDVD species of Restoration Dissenter founders on the extra-religious aspects of Jewish identity.137 More recently, David Cesarani has pointed to the status of the nascent London Jewish community as “port Jews.” The lord mayor and aldermen’s call IRUH[SXOVLRQUHÀHFWVWKHOLPLQDOPDULWLPHVSDFHRFFXSLHGE\DGLDVSRULF-HZLVK community, at once both protected by the Crown and at odds with the City’s self-styled native mercantile elite.138 Yet as James Shapiro has noted, “while the notion of alien … might have worn thin, it had not worn out.”139 As we have seen, aliens too received protection from the Crown and faced hostility on the part of the City. The treatment of Jews here was nothing unique. Rather than interpreting overlapping policies and stereotypes as a sign that either anti-alien sentiment or anti-Semitism had primacy, we need to be attentive to the relational nature of both “Jew” and “alien.” These terms surely had coherent meanings in the early modern PHWURSROLVLQJ@ KLPVHOI ZLWK WKHUHDOPRI)HVVH´DQGUHLJQLQJDV³FRQWULEXWDU\´WR3RUWXJDO¶V.LQJ6HEDVWLDQ manipulates his Christian allies in a quest for wider power.41 Spain, meanwhile, though promising both “men, munition, and supply of war” and “Spaniards proud LQ.LQJ6HEDVWLDQ¶VDLGÍDLOVWRGHOLYHUVXSSRUWWKH3RUWXJXHVHNLQJLQVWHDG³GRQH to death with many a mortal wound.”42 The play thus offers a cautionary tale, 0RRULVKSHU¿G\EHWUD\LQJWKH(QJOLVKDQG3RUWXJXHVHLQDPDQQHUWKDWXOWLPDWHO\ EHQH¿WV 6SDLQ7KLV VHULHV RI HYHQWV DV VRPH WKHDWHUJRHUV ZRXOG NQRZ OHG WR the Spanish gaining sovereignty over their Iberian neighbor.43 And while all of WKH(XURSHDQFKDUDFWHUVDUHHLWKHU&DWKROLFRUZRUNLQJLQWKHVHUYLFHRI&DWKROLF SRZHUV²WKH (QJOLVK 7RP 6WXNOH\ VHUYLQJ WKH NLQJ RI 3RUWXJDO DIWHU IDLOLQJ WR LQYDGH,UHODQGDWWKHEHKHVWRIWKHSRSH²3RUWXJXHVHDQG(QJOLVKYLUWXHHFOLSVH ERWK0RRULVKGXSOLFLW\DQG6SDQLVKWUHDFKHU\$OWKRXJK3HHOH¶VSOD\ODFNVSRVLWLYH Protestant protagonists, it warns that Moors will capitalize on divisions between Christian powers, even as those divisions appear inevitable.

39 George Peele, “The Battle of Alcazar,” in The Dramatic Works of George Peele, ed. -RKQPDGH@ for this man being a stranger,” it would ensure that “both the collection would the whole be less at this time and hindered for time to come.” Any amount collected to redeem an alien was, in effect, money stolen from deserving English captives IRU ³ZKDWVRHYHU VKRXOG EH GLYHUWHG WR WKLV PDQ VKRXOG EH WDNHQ DV RXW RI WKH 147

Ibid., vol. 4, fol. 11r. *UHHNV DQG +XQJDULDQV ZHUH E\ IDU WKH PRVW QXPHURXV VWUDQJHUV VHHNLQJ funds for redemption. Although the Ottoman Empire had been defeated in the battle of /HSDQWRLQFRQÀLFWUHPDLQHGEH\RQGWKHERUGHURIWKH+DEVEXUJ(PSLUHVHH6FKHQ “Constructing the Poor,” p. 452. 149 CLRO, Remembrancia, vol. 1, fol. 149v. For more on the case of Argenteus, see .QXWVRQ³(OL]DEHWKDQ'RFXPHQWV´SS± 150 CLRO, Remembrancia, vol. 1, fol. 150r. 151 Ibid., fols. 151v–52r. 148


186

bellies and souls of our natural English brethren abiding in that thralldom” (my HPSKDVLV $QGLIZRUGJRWRXWWKDWFLYLFRI¿FLDOVZHUHZLOOLQJWRVSHQGPRQH\ on the redemption of aliens, it would only serve to “draw plenty of strangers” to PDNHVLPLODUDSSHDOV³WRWKHSUHYHQWLQJRIRXURZQSRRUEHLQJLQWKDWFDSWLYLW\ and to the utter overthrow of that sort of charity.”152 The fact that Argenteus was a fellow Christian was of no concern. In direct contrast to the Council’s assertions, KLV*UHHNELUWKHQWLUHO\QHJDWHGKLVSHUVHFXWLRQDWWKHKDQGVRIWKH7XUN)RUWKH lord mayor, Lucas Argenteus was no less foreign than his tormentors. This was not the end of disagreement between Crown and City over the worth of captive strangers. The following May the lord mayor wrote to Francis Walsingham WR UHSRUW WKH UHVXOWV RI IXUWKHU FROOHFWLRQV WDNHQ IRU DOLHQV DW WKH EHKHVW RI WKH &URZQ 7KH PD\RU FRQ¿UPHG KLV SUHYLRXV \HDU¶V SUHGLFWLRQV WKDW /RQGRQHUV would not accept solicitations on behalf of those from overseas. In this case, the TXHHQKDGXUJHGFROOHFWLRQVWREHWDNHQDW6W3DXO¶VRQEHKDOIRI³FHUWDLQSRRU captive Hungarians.” The lord mayor had consequently ensured that a collection ZDVWDNHQ³ERWKIRU3DXO¶VDQGHYHU\VHYHUDOFKXUFK´+RZHYHUDVSUHGLFWHGWKH result had been meager at best. At Paul’s there had only “been gathered a very VPDOOPDWWHUDERXWDQGOLNHO\DWWKHRWKHUGD\VWREHOHVV´+HUHLWHUDWHGKLV position that such collections were misguided, stating “that this benevolence doth a great deal more hurt the relief of poor English captives than it will help the Hungarians.” Indeed, it even reduced enthusiasm for collections to redeem the English, for solicitations for strangers “greatly abateth the disposition of men for the queen’s natural subjects whose number is greatly increased.” Consequently, the lord mayor urged that collections for the Hungarians on “the other two Sundays remaining may be forborne.”153 Why should a city that often reacted negatively to the requests of both 3URWHVWDQW VWUDQJHUV DQG WKHLU (QJOLVKERUQ FKLOGUHQ DLG *UHHNV +XQJDULDQV RU Syrians? For the Crown and Privy Council, help could and should be provided to DOO&KULVWLDQVZKRIHOOYLFWLPWRWKH7XUN)RUWKLVUHDVRQWKH\JUDQWHGSDVVHVWR SHRSOHRIGLYHUVHEDFNJURXQGVWRUDLVHPRQH\WKURXJKRXWWKHNLQJGRPFDOOLQJRQ FLYLFRI¿FLDOVWRGRWKHLUGXW\LQSURYLGLQJDVVLVWDQFH:RUWK\&KULVWLDQVDQGRWKHU nations might thus witness the extent of England’s benevolence. Yet the Argenteus case shows us not only a reluctance to help on the part of the City, but also an overt articulation of the reasons why supporting strangers was undesirable. In resisting the Crown’s exhortations, the lord mayor appealed not just to the degree to which English supplicants were more deserving of aid, but also to the resistance of the population at large to collections of funds for aliens. Such efforts would be doomed to fail, hurting English captives by reducing monies gathered on their behalf. In practice, both individual parishes and the Court of Alderman did help strangers who had fallen victim to captivity. Yet, at least in the 1580s, the lord mayor had DUWLFXODWHGDPXFKQDUURZHUVHQVHRIZKRGHVHUYHGDLGRQHLQVWULNLQJDFFRUGDQFH 152 153

Ibid., fol. 152r. Ibid., fol. 255r.

The Islamic World, Captivity and Difference

187

with the next century’s sharp divergence between Crown and City in response to the diversity of the metropolis. Conclusion The Islamic world provided one way for English men and women to gauge the relative worth of a range of different peoples. Its role in constructing difference was not limited to the pages of plays, travelers’ tales and captivity narratives where, as we have seen, there was a complex interaction between Islam, Catholicism and English Protestantism. Such comparative stereotypes were more than tropes or OLWHUDU\GHYLFHVVWUXFWXUHGE\JHQUH7XUNVDQG0RRUVVKDSHGGLIIHUHQFHEH\RQG the printed page. The issue of captivity permeated the City of London and the wider realm, with appeals reaching not just the lord mayor or Privy Council, but also the pulpit, and through it the people at large. Muslims, as non-Christians, were the enemy, professors of an erroneous religion and cruel users of God’s people from far and wide. As such, they served as a foe against which all of Christendom should unite. Yet as the Privy Council’s irritation with offending merchants such as Sir William Courten shows, Islamic rulers were also trading partners, the alienation of ZKRPZDVDJDLQVWWKHLQWHUHVWVRINLQJDQGFRXQWU\$QGDVSHUVHFXWRUV7XUNVDQG North Africans brought into relief the deserving or undeserving nature of groups DVGLVSDUDWHDV+XQJDULDQV6\ULDQV$UPHQLDQVDQG*UHHNV)RUWKH&URZQWKH status of captives as Christians mattered most, while for at least one lord mayor an emphasis on Englishness eclipsed the worth of foreign Christians even in the face RISHUVHFXWLRQE\7XUNVDQG0RRUV 7KHUHOXFWDQFHRIWKHORUGPD\RUWRKHOSDOLHQFDSWLYHVOLNH/XFDV$UJHQWHXV together with the enthusiastic support of the Crown for the provision of aid to both him and his fellow foreign Christians, hints at wider patterns in play throughout the course of the seventeenth century. This one example, at least, appears to echo later civic reluctance to accept continental Protestants, their English-born children and Jewish immigrants. Similarly, just as stereotypes of strangers in London tended to WUDQVFHQGLPDJHVRIVSHFL¿FQDWLRQVUHÀHFWLQJWKHHPSKDVLVSODFHGXSRQDOLHQQHVV LWVHOIVRWKHORUGPD\RU¶VUHMHFWLRQRIDLGIRUFDSWLYHVWUDQJHUVFRQÀDWHVDOODOLHQ identities. What mattered was the Englishness of the deserving captives, not the nationality of the undeserving. Yet both the civic government and individual parishes also, at times, provided help to supplicants from overseas. While we can, perhaps, discern larger patterns in civic attitudes towards Continental Protestants, Jews and alien captives, the very heterogeneity of England’s metropolis also ensured a measure of practical tolerance, even generosity. True consistency, where it existed, lay in the degree to which the worth of any one group depended on context. In both print and on the London stage, a Moroccan emperor could appear virtuous, even superior to European Christians, as long as those Christians were Spanish Catholics. While the London-born merchant Sir William Courten fought the City to avoid taxation

188


as a stranger, he was unambiguously English when trading in Barbary. And while Lucas Argenteus might seem undesirable to a lord mayor concerned both with aiding English captives and facing pressure from the Privy Council, a parish FKXUFKZDUGHQFRXOGWDNHSLW\RQKLVFRPSDWULRWVRIIHULQJWKHPDOPV1RVLQJOH group had a monolithic identity, and no one stereotype proved powerful enough to fully negate the diversity of a growing city with increasingly global ties.

Conclusion

The population of London increased more than fourfold between 1550 and 1700.1 During the same period, England went from a position of marginal maritime importance to that of a major power with substantial overseas territory. By the dawn of the eighteenth century London would serve not only as a national metropolis, a leading port and commercial center, but as the hub of a burgeoning imperial system. This role would bring contact and exchange with people from WKURXJKRXWWKHJOREH

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

Diversity and Difference in Early Childhood Education

London in Early Modern English Drama: Representing the Built Environment

Diplomacy and Early Modern Culture (Early Modern Literature in History)

London in Early Modern English Drama: Representing the Built Environment

Early Modern Women in Conversation (Early Modern Literature in History)

Early Modern Women in Conversation (Early Modern Literature in History)

Early Modern Civil Discourses (Early Modern Literature in History)

The Figure of the Crowd in Early Modern London: The City and Its Double (Early Modern Cultural Studies)

Blood and Violence in Early Modern France

Protestantism and Drama in Early Modern England

Theatricality in Early Modern Art and Architecture

Crime and Punishment in Early Modern Russia

Order and Disorder in Early Modern England

Crime and Mentalities in Early Modern England

Heterodoxy in Early Modern Science and Religion

Women and Property: In Early Modern England

Cupid in Early Modern Literature and Culture

Order and Disorder in Early Modern England

Change and Continuity in Early Modern Cosmology

Print and Protestantism in Early Modern England

Theatricality in Early Modern Art and Architecture

Rhetoric and Courtliness in Early Modern Literature

Cupid in Early Modern Literature and Culture

Outlaws in Medieval and Early Modern England

Mozarabs in Medieval and Early Modern Spain

Symbolic Blackness and Ethnic Difference in Early Christian Literature

Drugs and Theater in Early Modern England

Environment and Embodiment in Early Modern England

Cupid in Early Modern Literature and Culture

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

Diversity and Difference in Early Childhood Education

London in Early Modern English Drama: Representing the Built Environment

Diplomacy and Early Modern Culture (Early Modern Literature in History)

London in Early Modern English Drama: Representing the Built Environment

Early Modern Women in Conversation (Early Modern Literature in History)

Early Modern Women in Conversation (Early Modern Literature in History)

Early Modern Civil Discourses (Early Modern Literature in History)

The Figure of the Crowd in Early Modern London: The City and Its Double (Early Modern Cultural Studies)

Blood and Violence in Early Modern France

Protestantism and Drama in Early Modern England

Theatricality in Early Modern Art and Architecture

Crime and Punishment in Early Modern Russia

Order and Disorder in Early Modern England

Crime and Mentalities in Early Modern England

Heterodoxy in Early Modern Science and Religion

Women and Property: In Early Modern England

Cupid in Early Modern Literature and Culture

Order and Disorder in Early Modern England

Change and Continuity in Early Modern Cosmology

Print and Protestantism in Early Modern England

Theatricality in Early Modern Art and Architecture

Rhetoric and Courtliness in Early Modern Literature

Cupid in Early Modern Literature and Culture

Outlaws in Medieval and Early Modern England

Mozarabs in Medieval and Early Modern Spain

Symbolic Blackness and Ethnic Difference in Early Christian Literature

Drugs and Theater in Early Modern England

Environment and Embodiment in Early Modern England

Cupid in Early Modern Literature and Culture

Recommend Documents