Roderigo Lopez was physician to Queen Elizabeth I. He was a Portuguese Jew who fled to England in 1559. He rose to eminence treating many rich and powerful patients.

Lopez had nine children of his own and an extensive family connection stretching across Europe - though his own brother denied his relationship to Lopez, after Lopez's execution.

Jews, in theory, were not allowed to live in England, having been expelled in 1290, so there was no expectation of there actually being practising Jews in 16th century England. Lopez was part of a Portuguese community of Jews who'd converted to Protestantism, some of whom may in fact have practised Judaism in private. Lopez himself was known to be Jewish, but he seems to have been primarily thought of as Portuguese.

David Katz's opinion is that Lopez was an unpleasant man. One document he found accused Lopez of "Jewish practice", presumably a reference to taking money and not doing the job properly. He also found other complaints about him taking too much money, being difficult, and treating the poor badly. A greedy man, he was promising spy material.

It's been claimed that Shakespeare based the character of Shylock on Lopez. The first performances of 'The Merchant of Venice' were two years after Lopez's trial. Lopez is also mentioned in 'Doctor Faustus' by Marlowe and several other less well-known works.

Evidence

Roderigo Lopez was a Jew who fled from the Portuguese Inquisition with his wife, Sarah, to England in 1559 and lived in East London. Ten years later he became a fellow of the College of Physicians and is listed in the Roll of the College. He worked at St Bartholomew's Hospital.

He gained great prominence, treating many influential English figures including the most important of all, Queen Elizabeth I. A letter in 1589 from Lopez states that at that time he had served the Queen for 3 years. As well as the Queen, he also treated Dom Antonio, the Earl of Leicester and Leicester's step-son, the Earl of Essex.

Lopez was in a position of great trust, trust that he wouldn't divulge secrets heard during his visits, and that he wouldn't harm any of his patients.

Thinking History

Getting to the bottom of a spy story is complex enough in the 21st century. In unravelling the Lopez case, we have also to make the imaginative leap into the mentalities of 16th century men and women whose outlook was shaped by religious belief and religious conflict. Was the affair a matter of ideology, or was it just one of ruthless ambition? Did Lopez become involved in plots to assassinate the Queen for anything more than naked greed?

We also have to consider whether Lopez was guilty, not in our terms, but in 16th century terms.

Q. Was Lopez guilty of a crime under the 1571 Treason Act?

For David Katz, Lopez was guilty because he had said he would kill the Queen - and this was enough under the terms of the Act to condemn him. Did he make this claim just when threatened with torture, or is he recorded as having done so at an earlier date?

Comments