Now! Then! 2024! - Yorkshire On This Day

Excerpt

In the morning, when a large multitude of people had assembled together to storm the castle, they found the wretched Jews who had survived standing on the battlements, announcing, in melancholy voice, the massacre of their people, which had taken place in the night; and to give ocular proof of this great sacrifice, they threw the dead bodies over the wall, and cried out to this effect: “Behold the bodies of those unfortunate people, who, in their mad fury, inflicted death upon themselves; and, when dying, set fire to the interior of the castle in order to burn us alive, because we refused to commit the like act, and chose rather to throw ourselves upon the mercy of the Christians. God, however, has preserved us from the fury of our brethren, and from the destruction of the flames, in order that we shall embrace your religion – for in our trouble we have gained understanding, and acknowledge the truth of Christ; we, therefore, pray your charity, for we are prepared to do that which you usually require, to be cleansed by holy baptism – to put away our ancient ceremonies, and to be united to the church of Christ. Receive us, therefore, as brethren instead of enemies; and let us live with you in the faith and peace of Christ.” While they thus spoke, with tears in their eyes, many of our people looked with deep horror and astonishment upon the mildness of those who were dead, and pitied the survivors; but the chiefs of the confederacy, among whom was one Richard, truly surnamed Malbeste, a most daring fellow, were unmoved by pity for these miserable wretches. They deceitfully addressed kind words to them, and promised the favour they hoped, under the testimony of their faith, in order that they might not fear to come forth; but, as soon as they came out, those cruel swordsmen seized them as enemies, and slaughtered them in the midst of their continual cries for the baptism of Christ.

Comment

Comment

The author of the source was contemporary and local, though not an eye-witness. From the excellent discussion by Anna Abulafia:

The general impression we gain from William’s narrative of the anti-Jewish riots in the early months of 1190 is that the impetus for the attacks came primarily from knights who deeply resented the Jewish debts they had incurred. Those who had taken the cross felt aggrieved at Jewish prosperity, in light of the funding they themselves needed to go on crusade. As Stacey has argued, it would seem that crusaders were disappointed that the new king had not started his reign by alleviating their burden of Jewish debt. Instead he had continued his father’s policy of chasing the debts of Aaron of Lincoln to benefit the royal coffers. In the case of York, William says explicitly that the instigators were persons of higher (nobiliores) rank who owed a great deal of money to the Jews (Book IV, chapter 9, 313); Richard Malebisse, the one conspirator whom William named, already owed substantial sums to Aaron of Lincoln in 1182 (Jacobs [1893], 77). Dobson has emphasized how the absence of the king and local political complexities meant that there was no one with the necessary authority to keep anti-Jewish animus from developing into murderous violence. Men such as Richard Malebisse seem to have been joined by clerics and groups of young men and by the rank and file of both the city and the county, but emphatically not by the highest ranking sections of the town when it came to attacking the royal castle. Economic interests tinged with religious concerns seem, then, to have been the driving force behind the hostilities. This interpretation is not only corroborated by the actions of the leaders of the riot after the massacre, who made their way to York Minster to destroy the physical evidence of the debts they owed to the Jews before they did anything else. It is also supported by William’s further reflections on the reasons why Jews were being attacked.

Throughout his account of the riots of 1189-90, William drew a direct link between Jewish engagement in moneylending at the behest of the king and Christian anti-Judaism. As far as William was concerned, moneylending had placed Jews in a position of domination over their Christian clients. To the Austin canon this was unacceptable, and his criticism of Henry II’s role in advancing the Jews was unequivocal. In his view Jews should occupy the legitimate place Augustine (d. 430) had carved out for them in Christendom, that of service to Christians. The purpose of the maxim ‘slay them not’ (Psalm 58[9]:12) was to enshrine the concept of Jewish service in Christendom. Living their lives as Jews, Jews were supposed to serve Christians by reminding them of the Passion of Christ whom, in William’s eyes, they had crucified. Their socio-economic position should make it absolutely plain that they existed at the behest of Christians and not the other way round. Anything else constituted an inversion of the proper order of things. In his commentary on the Song of Songs William spelt out that Jesus Christ stemmed from the Jewish people through his mother Mary. And Mary is portrayed as forever praying for the conversion of the Jews to her son. In the meantime Jews served Christians in expiation of the guilt they had incurred through the crucifixion (Gorman [1960], pp. 151-2, 342). All of this meant that whatever William thought of the moneylending activities of contemporary Jews in England, and however much he thought of Jews as a perfidious and blasphemous people (Book IV, chapter 1, pp. 294, 299) and insolent Christ killers, William could not advocate murderous riots against them. Nonetheless, these riots had occurred and many Jewish lives had been lost, and as a historian and as a canon William felt obliged to explain how this could have happened. Much as William thought that God had implemented his own good will through the bad will of the persecutors of St Alban (Kraebel [2010], lines 226-7), and that the Jews had unwittingly served Christ, who wanted to die for the sake of mankind, by wickedly contributing to his death, (Commentary on the Song of Songs, Gorman [1960], 91, 228) the greedy, misguided and criminal rioters of London, York, and elsewhere unknowingly performed God’s will by attacking the Jews. For, according to William, it was only right that the Jews should have been punished for their insolent behaviour. This did not, however, exonerate the perpetrators at all; William was very clear on that point. But, as far as William was concerned, it did explain the course of history in which bad things happened. For our purposes it gives us greater insight into the deep-rooted ambiguities governing Christian perceptions concerning Jews in medieval England in this period.

William’s account of the Jewish responses to the attacks is very much fuller than any of the available Hebrew sources, none of which stem from England itself. Ephraim of Bonn (1133-after 1196) gives some opaque information on the violence against the Jews in York, as well as some details about what happened in London at Richard’s coronation in his Book of Remembrance (Sefer Zekhrirah) (Habermann [1945], 127, trans. Roth [1964], 272, Chazan [1980], 161). The poems by Menachem ben Jacob of Worms (d. 1203) and Joseph of Chartres (12th-13th centuries), sing the praises of the martyrs’ erudition and their willingness to sacrifice their lives for the glory of God; Joseph included the names of some of the more prominent martyrs in his composition (Habermann [1945], 147-54; trans. of the verses in Menachem’s poem concerning York, Schechter [1893-4], 12-13, trans. Joseph’s poem in Roth [1945-51], 217-9). It is from Ephraim and Joseph that we gather the name of R. Yom Tov.

The self-martyrdom of the Jews echoed similar scenes which had taken place in the Rhineland in 1096 (see within), but the details of William’s account naturally reflects his own interpretation of what had happened. His report does take account of the desperation of the beleaguered Jews. But in his eyes, the killings were deranged acts of rational human beings. As a historian he sought to make sense of the acts of self-martyrdom by referring to Josephus’ description of the deaths of the Jews, who were beleaguered by the Romans at Masada in 74 C.E., in his History of the Jewish War. From William’s account we also learn that not all of the Jews in the castle chose to martyr themselves. This is important because it reminds us to appreciate the different ways medieval Jews might react to persecution. As had been the case in 1096, not all of the Jews in the York castle were prepared to take their own lives and those of their children. William’s shock and horror at the knights’ response to those who sought baptism is palpable. Killing Jews was bad enough; killing those who sought baptism was clearly beyond the pale. William’s insight that many of those who presented themselves for conversion would not have been sincere converts is as striking as his conviction that those who had been sincere would have been baptized through their own blood and saved.

As for the perpetrators of the riots, William goes on to tell us that an enraged Richard commissioned William of Longchamps, who was bishop of Ely and chancellor of England, to bring them to justice. In the event, heavy fines were exacted from York, but no one was put on trial for the blood that had been shed. As for any lasting effects of the massacre on a Jewish presence in York, Dobson has demonstrated that within only a few years of 1190, Jews were already re-establishing themselves in the city. York became an important centre of Jewish economic activity in the thirteenth century (Abulafia N.d.).

Ephraim of Bonn was a contemporary Jewish writer:

Afterwards, in the year 4551 (l. – 4550 = 1190) the Wanders came upon the people of the Lord in the city of Evoric (York) in England, on the Great Sabbath [before Passover] and the season of the miracle was changed to disaster and punishment. All fled to the house of prayer. Here Rabbi Yom-Tob stood and slaughtered sixty souls, and others also slaughtered. Some there were who commanded that they should slaughter their onlv sons, whose foot could not tread upon the ground from their delicacy and tender breeding. Some, moreover, were burned for the Unity of their Creator. The number of those slain and burned was one hundred and fifty souls, men and women, all holy bodies. Their houses moreover they destroyed, and they despoiled their gold and silver and the splendid books which they had written in great number, precious as gold and as much fine gold, there being none like them for their beauty and splendour. These they brought to Cologne and to other places, where they sold them the Jews (Ephraim of Bonn ).

Nie wieder etc. etc. ad infinitum.

Something to say? Get in touch

Original

Of the Jews of York … the principal were Benedict and Joceus, men who were rich, and who lent on usury far and wide. Besides, with profuse expense they had built houses of the largest extent in the midst of the city, which might be compared to royal palaces; and there they lived in abundance and luxury almost regal, like two princes of their own people, and tyrants to the Christians, exercising cruel tyranny towards those whom they had oppressed by usury. When they were in London, at the solemnity of the royal coronation, Benedict … had, by the judgment of God, a most unhappy lot assigned him for his end, and appeared to be in this accursed; but Joceus, having been with difficulty rescued from danger for a time, returned to York. Now, although the king, after the tumult at London, had passed a law for the peace of the Jews, and acted in good faith towards them throughout England, according to the ancient custom; yet, when the king was afterwards resident in the parts beyond sea, many people in the county of York took an oath together against the Jews, being unable to endure their opulence while they themselves were in want; and, without any scruple of Christian conscientiousness, thirsted for their perfidious blood, through the desire of plunder. Those who urged them on to venture upon these measures were certain persons of higher rank, who owed large sums to those impious usurers. Some of these, who had pledged their own estates to them for money, which they had received, were oppressed with great poverty; and others who were under obligations, on account or their own bonds, were oppressed by the tax-gatherers to satisfy the usurers who had dealings with the king. Some also of those who had accepted the sign of the Lord, and were now in readiness to set out for Jerusalem, could more easily be impelled to aid the expenses of a journey undertaken for the Lord, out of the plunder of His enemies; because they had very little reason to fear that any question would arise on this account after they had commenced their journey.

Late at night no small portion of the city was blazing in a conflagration that was kindled by chance, or rather (as it is believed) by confederates; so that while the citizens were occupied with their own houses, because of the peril of fire, they could offer no impediment to the plunderers. An armed band of the confederates, with iron tools made ready for this purpose, and with great violence, broke into the house of the said Benedict, who had died miserably at London (as it is mentioned above); in this house his wife and sons, and many others, were living; and after they had slain all that were in it, they set fire to the roof also; and while the fire was sullenly gaining strength, they swept away all the wealth, and left the house in flames; and thus, favoured by darkness and well-laden, the plunderers retired to their secret retreat. The Jews, struck with consternation at this event and especially Joceus, who was more eminent than the rest, earnestly entreated the governor of the royal castle, and secured his assistance. They carried thither vast loads of their money, as if they had been royal treasurers ; and, moreover, they had a very vigilant guard for their own security.

After some days, those nocturnal plunderers returned with greater confidence and ferocity; and, being joined by many others, they fiercely attacked the house of Joceus; which, from the magnitude and strength of its construction, might be said to be equal to a castle of no small size. At length they took it; and after plundering it, they set it on fire, while all those persons whose misfortune it was to be in the house were destroyed either by the sword or by fire. Joceus, however, cautiously foreseeing this misfortune, had a short time before removed into the castle with his wife and sons. In like manner the rest of the Jews acted, very few remaining abroad to be victims. After the plunderers had decamped with the booty acquired by so daring a deed, a promiscuous mob rushed in when it was morning, and carried off different kinds of things, and household furniture of every sort – the remains left by the plunderers and the fire. After this, those who had previously regarded the Jews with hatred, uniting with the confederates, and entertaining no respect for the vigor of the law, openly and with unbridled licence begin to rage against them; and, not being content with their substance, they gave to all they could find outside the castle the option either of holy baptism, or of death. At length, some who were baptized united themselves with the Christians; but they only feigned conversion in order to escape death; but others were slain without mercy, who refused to receive the sacrament of life, even though feignedly.

While these events were occurring, the multitude which had fled into the castle seemed to be in safety. The governor of the castle, however, happening to go out upon some kind of business, when he wished to enter the castle again, he was not permitted by the multitude inside and on the watch, as they were uncertain whom they could trust, lest, perchance, his faith towards them might happen to waver; and if he were corrupted, he might, after having received them for protection, expose them to their enemies. However, he instantly went to the governor of the county, who happened to be there on the king’s business, with a large company of knights of the shire, and complained that he was defrauded by the Jews of the custody of the castle, which had been committed to him. The governor was indignant and enraged against the Jews; while those, in particular, who had been the authors of the confederacy, continued to inflame his anger. They alleged that the timorous precaution of those miserable wretches was nothing else than a proud occupation of the royal castle, which of itself was greatly to the injury of the lord the king. Since many people were determined to attack those faithless men in every possible way, and to rescue the royal castle from them, the governor gave orders that the people should be assembled, and that the castle should be attacked. The irrevocable word went forth; the zeal of the Christian people was roused, and immense bands of armed men, not only from the pity, but also from the county, gathered around the castle.

Then the governor began to regret the order which he had issued, and endeavoured, in vain, to recall his command, and wished, but too late, to forbid the assault. But he had no power, either by the weight of reason or of authority, to restrain their minds, which were now inflamed, nor to prevent them from pursuing their design. The nobility of the city, and the more respectable citizens, apprehending danger from this commotion, cautiously declined to join such a riot; but the whole class of workmen, and all the young men in the city, with a very great mob of country people, and not a few military men, assisted with such alacrity, and urged forward the work of blood, as if each one sought his own private advantage, and something great for himself. Many of the clergy, too, were present; and among them a certain hermit, who appeared more fervent than the rest. Equal zeal inflamed all; thinking that they performed a great service to God, if they swept away a race rebellious against Christ, while, in their blinded understandings, they perverted that passage of David, that is to say, of the Lord, which is uttered in the person of the Savior, “God shall let me see my desire upon my enemies. Slay them not, lest my people forget” [Psalm 59:11]. In fact, the perfidious Jew that crucified the Lord Jesus Christ is suffered to live amongst Christians, from the same regard to Christian utility, that causes the form of the cross of the Lord to be painted in the church of Christ; that is to say, to perpetuate the highly beneficial remembrance of the passion of the Lord amongst all the faithful; and while in the Jew we execrate that impious action, in that sacred form we venerate the Divine majesty with due devotion. Thus the Jews ought to live among Christians for our own utility; but for their own iniquity they ought to live in servitude. The Jews who were living in England under king Henry II, by a preposterous proceeding, had been made happy and famous above the Christians; and out of their great prosperity, lifting themselves up imprudently against Christ, they had inflicted many sufferings upon the Christians; on which account, in the days of the new king, they underwent by the just judgment of Christ this peril of their lives – those lives which they possessed by his clemency; and yet, in the admirable order of His justice, those men can by no means be excused, who, by an unexpected commotion, inflicted slaughter upon them.

[…]

Thus were the Jews besieged in the royal castle; and in consequence of the want of a sufficient supply of food, they would, without doubt, have been compelled to surrender, even if no one had attacked them from without, for they had not arms sufficient either for their own protection, or to repel the enemy. Nevertheless, they kept off the besiegers with stones alone, which they pulled out of the wall in the interior. The castle was actively besieged for several days; and at length engines were got ready and brought up. That hermit of the Premonstratensian order, whom I have mentioned, urged onward the fatal work more than any one else.

Roused by the rumour, he had lately come to the city, and in his white frock was sedulously engaged among the besiegers of the castle, repeating often, “Down with the enemies of Christ!” with loud shouts, and inflaming the warriors by the example of his co-operation; and it is said that, during the days of the siege, before proceeding to the bloody work, he immolated in the morning the unbloody Sacrifice, for he was a priest. To such an extent had he persuaded himself, by his mental blindness, that he was employed on a religious matter, that he laboured to persuade others of it; and when the engines were moved forward, he fervently helped with all his strength. Whence it came to pass that, approaching the wall incautiously and not observing a large stone which was falling from above, he was crushed by it; he fell forward, and when he was lifted up, he instantly expired. It thus became manifest that, either by reason of his profession, or of his order, a greater judgment fell upon him than upon any other, for he was the only one of our people who happened miserably to die there. The engines being brought up, the capture of the castle was certain; and it was no longer doubtful that the hour fatal to the besieged was come. During the following night the besiegers rested, rejoicing at the certainty of their approaching victory; but the Jews, strong and unbending through desperation alone, had but little rest, and debated among themselves what was to be done in such an emergency.

There was among them a certain elder, a most famous doctor of the law, according to the letter which killeth, who had come from countries beyond the sea to instruct the Jews in England, as it is said. This man was held in honor among them all, and was obeyed by all, as if he had been one of the prophets. So when at this conjuncture his advice was asked, he replied, “God, to whom we ought not to say, ‘Why dost Thou this?’ commands us to die now for His law – and behold our death is at the doors, as ye see; unless, perchance, which be far from us, ye should think that the Holy Law ought to be deserted for the short span of this life, and should choose that which to good and manly minds is worse than any kind of death, that is to say, to live with the greatest disgrace, as apostates, through the mercy of our impious enemies. Since, therefore, we ought to prefer a glorious death to an infamous life, it is plain that we ought to choose the most honorable and easy kind of death: for if we should fall into the hands of the enemy, we should die according to their pleasure, and amidst their mockery. Therefore, let us willingly and devoutly, with our own hands, render up to Him that life which the Creator gave to us, since He now claims it, and let us not wait for the aid of a cruel enemy to give back that which he reclaims. For this, indeed, many of our people are known to have done laudably in divers tribulations, setting before us a precedent for that choice which is most fitting for us to make.” When he had said this, many embraced the fatal advice; but to others this discourse seemed hard.

Then the elder said, “Let those to whom this good and pious counsel is not pleasing, sit apart, cut off from this sacred band: for to us, for the sake of the Law of our fathers, this temporal life has already become vile.” Many, therefore, went away, preferring to make trial of the clemency of their enemies, rather than die in this manner with their friends. Soon after, at the suggestion of that mad old man, to prevent their enemies from being enriched by their wealth, the fire consumed their precious vestments, in the sight of all; and their most valuable vessels and other things, which could not perish in the flames, were by an artful kind of scheme prevented from being used again by being thrown into a place which I am ashamed to allude to. When this was done, the roof was set on fire, so that the flames, while a horrid deed was being done – for they were preparing their necks for the knife – might slowly gain strength among the solid timber, and deprive of life even those who had departed from the rest through love of life. Then it was decided, by the direction of that man who had grown old in evil days, that the men whose minds were more firm, should kill their wives and children – that most infamous Joceus, with a very sharp knife, cut the throat of Anna, his most beloved wife, and spared not even his own children. When this had been done by other men also, that most cursed old man cut the throat of Joceus, because he was more honorable than the rest. When all were killed, together with the leader of the crime, the fire which (as it was said) they had lighted when they were about to die, began to burn the interior of the castle. Those, however, who had chosen life, contended as well as they could against the flames, which had been lighted by their own people, in order that they themselves might die with them, though against their will ; and they fenced themselves in certain extreme parts of the castle. in which they would suffer least from the fire. This irrational fury of rational creatures against themselves is truly astonishing; but whoever reads the History of the Jewish War by Josephus understands well enough that madness of this kind, arising from their ancient superstition, has continued down to our own times, whenever any very heavy misfortune fell upon them.

In the morning, when a large multitude of people had assembled together to storm the castle, they found the wretched Jews who had survived standing on the battlements, announcing, in melancholy voice, the massacre of their people, which had taken place in the night; and to give ocular proof of this great sacrifice, they threw the dead bodies over the wall, and cried out to this effect: “Behold the bodies of those unfortunate people, who, in their mad fury, inflicted death upon themselves; and, when dying, set fire to the interior of the castle in order to burn us alive, because we refused to commit the like act, and chose rather to throw ourselves upon the mercy of the Christians. God, however, has preserved us from the fury of our brethren, and from the destruction of the flames, in order that we shall embrace your religion – for in our trouble we have gained understanding, and acknowledge the truth of Christ; we, therefore, pray your charity, for we are prepared to do that which you usually require, to be cleansed by holy baptism – to put away our ancient ceremonies, and to be united to the church of Christ. Receive us, therefore, as brethren instead of enemies; and let us live with you in the faith and peace of Christ.” While they thus spoke, with tears in their eyes, many of our people looked with deep horror and astonishment upon the mildness of those who were dead, and pitied the survivors; but the chiefs of the confederacy, among whom was one Richard, truly surnamed Malbeste, a most daring fellow, were unmoved by pity for these miserable wretches. They deceitfully addressed kind words to them, and promised the favour they hoped, under the testimony of their faith, in order that they might not fear to come forth; but, as soon as they came out, those cruel swordsmen seized them as enemies, and slaughtered them in the midst of their continual cries for the baptism of Christ.

With regard to these persons, who were thus butchered with savage ferocity, I will affirm, without hesitation, that if, in their entreaty for holy Baptism, there was no fiction, they were baptized with their own blood, and were by no means defrauded of its efficacy; but whether they sought the holy font feignedly or unfeignedly, the cruelty of those murderers is to be execrated. Their first crime, doubtless, was that of shedding human blood like water, without lawful authority; their second, that of acting barbarously, rather through the blackness of malice than the zeal for justice; their third, was that of refusing the grace of Christ to those who sought it; the fourth, that of deceiving those miserable people by telling lies to induce them to come forth to be victims.

When the massacre was complete, the confederates proceeded immediately to the cathedral church and, by violent representations, compelled the terrified wardens to deliver up the acknowledgments of the debts by which the Christians were bound, and which had been deposited there by the Jews, who were the farmers of the royal revenues, having obtained possession of those evidences of detestable avarice, they solemnly committed them to the flames in the midst of the church, and thus freed themselves and many others from their bonds. After these things were done, those among the confederates who had accepted the emblem of the Lord, commenced their intended journey before any inquiry could be instituted; but the rest remained in the county under the apprehension of an inquiry. These events at York occurred at the time of the Passion of our Lord, that is to say, on the day before Palm Sunday [17th March].

3272 words.

Tags

Tags are assigned inclusively on the basis of an entry’s original text and any comment. You may find this confusing if you only read an entry excerpt.

• Aaron of Lincoln (ca. 1125-1186) (1), Jewish financier, perhaps the wealthiest man in Norman England ·
• Anna Abulafia (1) ·
• Benedict of York (1) ·
• Christianity (9) ·
• Ephraim of Bonn (1) ·
• Farm (revenue leasing) (1) ·
• Forced conversion (1) ·
• Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor (1) ·
• History of the Jews in England (2) ·
• Jews (12) ·
• Josce of York (1) ·
• Loan (1) ·
• Massacre (4) ·
• Mental disorder (13) ·
• Philip II of France (1) ·
• Richard I of England (1) ·
• Riot (22) ·
• Third Crusade (1189-92) (2), an attempt by Philip II of France, Richard I of England and Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor to reconquer the Holy Land following the capture of Jerusalem by the Ayyubid sultan Saladin in 1187 ·
• William of Newburgh (1) ·
• Yom Tov of Joigny (1) ·
• 📌York Castle (36) ·
• 📌York Minster (27) ·
• 📌York (164) ·

All tags.

Similar

• 7 February 1685: Notables at York await the death of Charles II, planning to prevent anti-papists and other dissidents from disrupting the accession of James II
• 27 February 1390: Robert de Ellerbeck, mercer, walks into York Council on the Ouse bridge with a question for Ralph del See
• 2 August 1680: William Dolben, perhaps reluctantly, condemns Thomas Thwing to death at York for his part, without co-conspirators, in a fictitious conspiracy – the Popish Plot
• 11 July 1829: A Leeds Mercury subscriber asks why Christians do not seek to refute the claims of the Rev. Robert Taylor and Richard Carlile’s “infidel home missionary tour”
• 22 August 1572: The head of Thomas Percy, Earl of Northumberland and leader of the Catholic Rising of the North, is impaled on Micklegate Bar, York, where it stays for two years
• 11 February 1448: Henry VI liberates York from Yorkshire
• 12 October 0633: Edwin of Northumbria is killed and his army defeated by Gwynedd and Mercia at Hatfield Chase near Doncaster
• 12 April 0627: In a triumph for his Kentish wife, Edwin of Northumbria is baptised on Easter Sunday by Paulinus, in the latter’s wooden oratory on the site of York Minster
• 24 June 1687: John Reresby, governor of York, protests James II’s plans to turn his residence into a Catholic school
• 14 March 1655: Mary Sharp of Little Horton, Bradford, writes to her son Sam at Cambridge, in the year preceding his death, of his “misery by nature”