Still more characteristic of Isaac ben Sheshet is his quarrel with Chayim ben Gallipapa, a rabbi, stricken in years, whose opinions differed from those of the rabbi of Saragossa. This man (born 1310, died 1380), rabbi of Huesca and Pampeluna, was a singular figure in the Middle Ages, whom it is difficult to classify. Whilst the rabbis of the time, particularly since the rise of the Asheride teaching, exceeded all bounds in the imposition of burdensome observances, and always, in cases of doubt, decided in favor of their most rigorous fulfillment, Gallipapa took the opposite view, and maintained that the aim of all Talmudical exegesis should be to disencumber life. The times, he considered, had improved, and neither the ignorance of the people nor the fear of defection was so great as to warrant such severity. This principle was no mere theory with Gallipapa, for he followed it practically. The freedom he suggested concerned matters of comparative insignificance, but at that time every trifle was regarded as important. On certain dogmas, also, Gallipapa held independent views. The Messianic belief which, since the time of Maimonides, had become an article of faith, to deny which was heresy, he boldly set aside. Gallipapa considered that the prophecies, in Isaiah and Daniel, of the great prosperity of Israel in the future, had been fulfilled in the days of the Maccabees, and wrote a work on the subject. Against this hardy innovator, a storm naturally arose. A neighboring rabbi, Chasdaï ben Solomon, of Tudela, a man of not over-fine sensibilities, denounced him to Isaac ben Sheshet, and the latter lectured the venerable Gallipapa, who had sent disciples into the world, as if he had been a mere schoolboy. He adjured Chayim Gallipapa to avoid scandal and give no opportunity for schism amongst his brethren. The modest attempt at reform went no further.
This severe tendency in matters of religion was the natural outcome of the prevailing spiritual needs; and it must be confessed that the more rigorous, the better it was adapted to them. Isaac ben Sheshet and his friend Chasdaï Crescas, who, although no enemy of secular learning, entertained the same view as his colleague, and defended his orthodoxy on philosophic grounds, were considered, after the death of Nissim Gerundi, the most eminent rabbinical authorities of their day, not in Spain only. From far and near, inquiries were addressed to them, principally to Isaac ben Sheshet, but also to Chasdaï Crescas. The proudest rabbis and the largest communities invoked their counsel, and were content to abide by their decisions. The court of Aragon also regarded them as the leaders of the Jewish communities, but this operated to their disadvantage. In consequence of the denunciation of some malevolent person, the ground of which is unknown, the king, Don Pedro IV, ordered Chasdaï Crescas, Isaac ben Sheshet, his brother, Crescas Barfat, the aged Nissim Gerundi of Barcelona, and two others, to be thrown into prison. After a long time, they were released on bail. We may believe Isaac ben Sheshet, when he assures us that he and his fellow-prisoners were all innocent of the offense or crime laid to their charge. Their innocence must have come to light, for they afterwards remained unmolested.
The authority of Chasdaï Crescas and Isaac ben Sheshet was appealed to by the French communities to settle an important point in a dispute about the chief rabbinate of France. A change, largely the outcome of the political condition of the country, had come over the circumstances of these communities. Manessier de Vesoul, the zealous defender and protector of his co-religionists, was dead (about 1375–1378). Of his four sons—Solomon, Joseph, Abraham, and Haquinet—the eldest succeeded to his father's post of receiver general of the Jew taxes and political representative of the French Jews, and the second became a convert to Christianity. Solomon and his brothers enjoyed the same esteem at the royal court as their father. They were exempted from wearing the humiliating Jew badge, and they diligently cared for the interests of their brethren. Among Jews, however, they do not seem to have obtained the consideration that their father had enjoyed. On the death of the king, Charles V, their importance ceased altogether. The regent Louis, Duke of Anjou, confirmed, for a consideration, the privileges acquired by the French Jews (14th October, 1380), and prolonged their term of sufferance in the land by another five years. His protection, however, did not reach far, or rather it involved the Jews in his own unpopularity. The impoverished population of Paris, driven to despair by burdensome taxation, loudly and stormily demanded redress of the young king and the regent. Egged on by a nobility involved in debt, they included the Jews in their outcry, and demanded that the king should expel from the country "these shameful usurers who have ruined whole families." The people did not stop at words; at the instigation of the nobles, they attacked the houses of the Jews (November 16th, 1380), robbed the exchequer of the receiver general (of the Vesoul family), pillaged their dwelling-houses, destroyed the bonds of the debtors, appropriated the accumulated pledges, murdered a few Jews, and tore children from the arms of fleeing and weeping Jewish mothers to baptize them forthwith. A large number of Jews saved themselves by flight to the fort Châtelet. The regent was much irritated by this violent outbreak, but was unable to punish the offenders at once on account of the excited state of the people. He ordered that the Jews be reinstated in their homes, and the plunder restored to them. Few complied with the order. The prevôt of Paris, Hugues Aubriot—a man of considerable energy, who had beautified and enlarged the French capital—also interested himself in the Jews. In particular, he brought about the restitution of the stolen and baptized children. For this he was violently attacked by men whose learning should have taught them better. Aubriot, by his orderly administration, had made enemies of the university professors and students, who denounced as criminal his interference for the benefit of the Jews. He was accused before the bishop of Paris of having held intercourse with Jewish women, and even of being a secret adherent of Judaism. He was found guilty of heresy and infidelity, and made to pay with imprisonment for his humane conduct towards the Jews. Not only in Paris, but also in other towns where the people rose against heavy taxation, Jews fell victims to the popular excitement. Four months later, similar bloody scenes were enacted in Paris and the provinces when the rising of the Maillotins (so called from the mallets with which the insurgents were armed) took place. For three or four days in succession Jews were again plundered, ill-treated, and murdered (March 1st, 1381). The king, Charles VII, or rather the regent, attempted to protect the Jews and to obtain some indemnification of their losses. They were, however, unable to recover from the blow they had received. In these tumults the sons of Manessier de Vesoul appear either to have lost their lives, or, at any rate, their position of influence.
This change in the fortunes of the French Jews brought in its train a violent communal dispute, the excitement of which extended far and wide. The chief rabbi, Matathiah Provenci, had been gathered to his fathers. The communities had elected his eldest son, Jochanan, in his place, and the king had confirmed their choice. He had been in office five years, and was projecting the establishment of an academy, when a former pupil of his father, one Isaiah ben Abba-Mari, arrived in France from Savoy with the authorization of the German chief rabbi, Meïr ben Baruch Halevi, granting to him alone the right to maintain an academy and ordain pupils as rabbis. Whoever exercised rabbinical functions without his authority and, especially, meddled with marriages and divorces, was threatened with excommunication. All unauthorized documents were declared null and void. By virtue of his authority, and in consequence of Jochanan's refusal to subordinate himself to him, Isaiah relieved him of his office (about 1380–1390). The Vesoul family being extinct or having lost prestige, Jochanan found himself without influential support. Many of the French Jews, however, were extremely wroth at this violent, imperious behavior of the immigrant rabbi. They condemned the presumptuousness of the German rabbi, Meïr Halevi, in treating France as though it were a German province, and protested against his dictating laws to the French communities, as it had always been the custom to regard each community, and certainly the Jews of each country, as independent. The result was a storm of indignation, which increased considerably when Isaiah proceeded to appoint his own relatives to the various rabbinates. It being impossible to settle the dispute by an appeal to the home-authorities, Jochanan turned with his grievance to the two foremost representatives of Spanish Judaism, Chasdaï Crescas and Isaac ben Sheshet. Both these "Catalonian grandees," as they were called, pronounced in favor of Jochanan. This decision, however, was not destined to bring about lasting peace, for the days of the Jews in France were numbered.
The storm on this occasion arose in Spain, and convulsed for a time the entire Jewish race. The golden age of the Spanish Jews had passed away; still they were more firmly established in the Peninsula than in any other country. It required a series of violent shocks, extending over an entire century, to completely uproot them, whilst in France they were swept away by a breath, like twigs planted in quicksand. For the sanguinary drama which commenced towards the end of the fourteenth century, and ended in the latter part of the fifteenth, the Spanish Jews were themselves largely to blame. It is true that the many had to suffer for the few, for when the enemies of the Jews complained of their obsequious attendance at court and on the grandees, of their wealth accumulated by usury, and their flaunting in silks and satins, blame was due only to a few of the most prominent, for whose follies and extravagances the masses were not responsible. Indeed, there were Jews who complained that their moral sense was deeply wounded by the selfishness and covetousness of their wealthy brethren. "For these troubles," says one, "the titled and wealthy Jews are greatly to be held responsible; their only consideration is for their position and money, whilst for their God they have no regard." In fact, the union that had previously been the chief source of strength among the Spanish Jews, was broken up. Jealousy and envy among the Jewish grandees had undermined fraternal feeling, which formerly had induced each to merge his interests in those of the community at large, and all to combine for the defense of each. Generosity and nobility of mind, once the brilliant qualities of the Spanish Jews, had now become almost extinct. A contemporary writer pictures their degeneracy in darkest hues, and if only one half of what he tells us is true, their decline must have been grave indeed.
"The majority of wealthy Jews," says Solomon Alami in his "Mirror of Morals," or "Letter of Warning," "who are admitted to royal courts, and to whom the keys of public exchequers are confided, pride themselves on their dignities and wealth, but give no thought to the poor. They build themselves palaces, drive about in splendid equipages, or ride on richly caparisoned mules, wear magnificent apparel, and deck their wives and daughters like princesses with gold, pearls, and precious stones. They are indifferent to their religion, disdain modesty, hate manual labor, and live in idleness. The wealthy love dancing and gaming, dress in the national costume, and go about with sleek beards. They fill themselves with dainties, whilst scholars starve on bread and water. Hence, the rabbis are despised, for all classes prefer to have their sons taught the lowest of handicrafts to bringing them up to the study of the Law. At sermon time, the great resign themselves to sweet slumber, or talk with one another, and the preacher is frequently disturbed by men and women at the back of the synagogue. On the other hand, how devout are the Christians in their houses of worship! In every town the noble live at variance with one another, and stir up discord on the most trivial questions. Still worse is the jealousy with which they regard each other; they slander one another before the king and the princes."
It is certainly true that at this period secret denunciations, once almost unknown among the Jews, were exceedingly rife, even rabbis being occasionally the victims. As the aged Nissim Gerundi, Isaac ben Sheshet, Chasdaï Crescas, and their friends were victimized by the conspiracy of some miserable calumniator, so an attempt was made to ruin the rabbi of Alkolea de Cinca, En-Zag Vidal de Tolosa, by representations to the queen of Aragon.
The rabbis, who, with one or two assessors, constituted courts of justice for criminal cases, dealt severely with such traitors, and even sentenced them to death. In the communities of Castile, Aragon, Valencia, and Catalonia, the privilege of passing death-sentences was of great antiquity. The Jewish courts required for the execution of such sentences special sanction from the king in a sealed letter (Albala, Chotham); but, if necessary, this could be obtained through the medium of Jewish courtiers, or by bribery. Such proceedings, however, only increased the evil they were designed to cure. The accused were made short work of without exhaustive inquiry, or sufficient testimony, and this naturally infuriated their relatives and friends. It did not unfrequently occur that utterances were construed as treasonable which had no such character. The ill-advised action of the Jewish court of Seville (or Burgos) on an unfounded charge of disloyalty to the community preferred against an eminent and beloved co-religionist was, if not the actual cause, at any rate the occasion of the first widespread and sanguinary persecution of the Jews in Spain, the final result being the total expulsion of the Jews from the Peninsula.
Joseph Pichon, of Seville, high in favor with the king of Castile, Don Henry II, whose receiver general of taxes he had been, was accused of embezzlement by some jealous Jewish courtiers. He was imprisoned by the king, condemned to pay a fine of 40,000 doubloons, and then set free. He afterwards retrieved his reputation, and became extraordinarily popular among the Christian population of Seville. To avenge his wrongs, or possibly with a view to his own vindication, he had entangled his enemies in a serious accusation, when Don Henry died. His son, Don Juan I, was crowned at Burgos, the capital of Old Castile (1379). During the coronation festivities, a Jewish court of justice (at Burgos or Seville) condemned Pichon as an enemy to the community and a traitor (Malshim, Malsin), without affording him an opportunity of being heard in defense. Some Jews, having access to the court, asked permission of the young king to execute a dangerous member of their own body without mentioning his name. Confidants of the king are said to have been bribed to obtain the royal signature to this decree. Provided with the king's warrant and the death sentence of the rabbinical college, Pichon's enemies repaired to the chief of police (Alguacil), Fernan Martin, and obtained his assistance at the execution. Early on the morning of the 21st August, two or three Jews, together with Martin, entered Pichon's house whilst he was yet asleep, and awoke him under the pretext that his mules were to be seized for debt. As soon as he appeared at the door of his dwelling, he was arrested by the Jews intrusted with the carrying out of the sentence, and, without a word, beheaded.
Whether Pichon had deserved death, even according to rabbinical law, or whether he fell a victim to the intrigues of his enemies, is not known. It is not difficult to understand that so cruel an act should have stirred up widespread indignation. The anger of the young king knew no bounds when he learnt that his coronation festivities had been stained with the murder of one who had rendered his father substantial services, and that his own sanction had been surreptitiously obtained. He immediately ordered the execution of the Jews who had carried out the sentence, and of a Jewish judge of Burgos. Even the chief of police, Fernan Martin, was ordered to be put to death for the assistance he had given; but at the intercession of some nobles, his life was spared, and his punishment commuted to the chopping off of one hand. This incident had other grave consequences. The king at once deprived the rabbis and Jewish courts of justice of jurisdiction in criminal cases, on the ground of their abuse of the privilege. At the first meeting of the cortes at Soria (1380), he made this restriction a permanent statute. By its terms the rabbis and communal leaders were thenceforth prohibited from decreeing punishments of death, dismemberment, or exile, and in criminal cases were to choose Christian judges. One of the reasons assigned was that, according to the prophets, the Jews were to be deprived of all power and freedom after the advent of Jesus. The still exasperated king then arraigned the Jews on other charges. He accused them particularly of cursing Christians and the Christian church in their prayers, and with receiving Mahometans, Tartars, and other foreign persons into the pale of Judaism, and having them circumcised. These alleged practices were forbidden under heavy penalties. The feeling against the Jews was not limited to the king and the court circle. The entire population of Castile was roused by the apparently unjust execution of Joseph Pichon, and by the circumstance that his death was not the work of irresponsible individuals, but of the foremost leaders of the Jewish community. In Seville, where Pichon had been very popular, the fury against the Jews rose to such a height that, had the opportunity presented itself, summary vengeance would have been taken.
Accusations against the Jews and petitions for the restriction of their liberties became the order of the day at the meetings of the cortes, as formerly at the councils of the Visigothic kings. The infuriated Don Juan acquiesced in this agitation, in so far as it did not tend to the detriment of the royal finances. At the cortes of Valladolid (1385), he granted the petition for the legalization of the canonical restrictions, presented by the clergy, and accordingly prohibited the living together of Jews and Christians, and the suckling of Jewish infants by Christian nurses, under pain of public whipping. He also consented to the passing of a law excluding Jews (and Mahometans) from the post of treasurer to the king, queen, or any of the royal family.
Curiously, it was the quarrel over the chief rabbinate of Portugal that snatched the crown of that country, at the moment when it was within his grasp, from this monarch, who cannot be said to have been wholly hostile to the Jews. By a treaty with King Ferdinand of Portugal, it had been agreed that, male heirs to the crown failing, he, or rather his second wife, the Portuguese Infanta Beatrice (Brites), should have the first right to the succession. In Portugal the Jews had always been tolerated, and, up to the time of their expulsion from the country, suffered no persecution. During the reign of King Ferdinand (1367–1383), their position was exceptionally happy. Since the thirteenth century (1274), the government of the community had been more completely in its own hands than in any other European country. Some of their peculiar institutions dated even further back. At the head of the Portuguese Jews was a chief rabbi (Ar-Rabbi Mor), possessing almost princely privileges. On account of the importance of the office he was always appointed by the king, who conferred it as a reward for services rendered to the crown, or to add to the dignity of some particular favorite. The chief rabbi used a special signet, administered justice in all its branches, and issued decrees under his own sign-manual with the addendum: "By the grace of my lord, the king, Ar-Rabbi Mor of the communities of Portugal and Algarve." It was his duty to make an annual circuit of all the Portuguese communities, to investigate their affairs, invite individuals to lay before him their grievances, even against the rabbis, and remedy abuses wherever they existed. On these journeys he was accompanied by a Jewish judge (Ouvidor), a chancellor (Chanceller) with his staff, a secretary (Escrivão), and a sheriff (Porteiro jurado), to carry out the sentences of his court. The chief rabbi or Ar-Rabbi Mor, appointed in each of the seven provinces of the kingdom provincial rabbis (Ouvidores) subject to him. These rabbis were established in the seven principal provincial Jewish centers, Santarem, Vizeu, Cavilhão, Porto, Torre de Montcorvo, Evora and Faro. They governed the provincial communities, and were the judges of appeal for their several districts. The local rabbis were elected by the general body of contributing members of the community; but the confirmation of their election and their investiture proceeded from the chief rabbi, under a special deed issued in the name of the king. The judicial authority of the rabbis extended to criminal cases, and they retained this privilege much longer than their Spanish brethren. Public documents had to be written in the vernacular. The Jewish form of oath was very simple, even in litigation with Christians; it required nothing but the presence of a rabbi and the holding up of the Torah.
The king, Don Ferdinand, had two Jewish favorites, who supervised his monetary affairs: Don Judah, his chief treasurer (Tesoreiro Mor), and Don David Negro, of the highly-respected Ibn-Yachya family, his confidant and counselor (Almoxarif). When this frivolous and prodigal monarch died, and the regency was undertaken by the queen, Leonora—a princess whose beauty rendered her irresistible, but who was hated for her faithlessness and feared for her vindictiveness and craft—the municipal authorities of Lisbon approached her with an urgent prayer for the abolition of sundry unpopular measures of the late king. Among other things they asked that Jews and Moors should no longer be allowed to hold public offices. Leonora craftily replied that during the lifetime of the king she had exerted herself to procure the exclusion of Jews from public offices, but her representations had always been unheeded. Immediately after the king's death she had removed Judah and David Negro from the public service, and dismissed all the Jewish receivers of taxes. She nevertheless retained Judah in her immediate circle, anticipating that, on account of his wealth and experience, he might prove of use to her. Leonora's scheme to obtain absolute authority and share the government with her paramour was frustrated by the still craftier bastard Infante Don João, Grand Master of Avis. In the art of winning public favor and turning it to account, Don João was a master, and he soon brought things to such a pass that the queen regent was forced to leave the capital. Burning for revenge, Leonora invoked the aid of her son-in-law, King Don Juan of Castile, with the result that a sanguinary civil war was commenced. In opposition to the aristocratic faction, supporting the queen regent and the Castilians, there arose a popular party, which enthusiastically espoused the cause of Don João of Avis. Leonora was obliged to fly before the hatred of her people and take refuge in Santarem. Among her escort were the two Jewish grandees, Judah and David Negro, who had escaped from Lisbon in disguise. Hither came King Juan of Castile; and Leonora, in order to be enabled to take full vengeance on her enemies, renounced the regency in his favor, and placed at his disposal all her adherents, comprising the entire Portuguese nobility, together with a large number of fortresses. The idea of the Castilian king in undertaking this enterprise was to unite the crowns of Portugal and Castile; but for the realization of this project a thorough understanding between Leonora and her son-in-law and her ungrudging co-operation were indispensable. This important harmony was disturbed by a question as to the appointment of a chief rabbi, and owing to this dispute their agreement was transformed into bitter and disastrous enmity.
The rabbinate of Castile became vacant in 1384. Leonora, desiring to obtain the appointment for her favorite Judah, made application to the king on his behalf. At the instance of his wife Beatrice, he conferred the dignity upon David Negro. Leonora's anger at this rebuff was expressed with vehemence. She is reported to have said to her circle of adherents: "If the king refuses so trivial a favor, the first I have asked of him, to me, a woman, a queen, a mother, one who has done so much for him, what have I and what have you to expect? Even my enemy, the Grand Master of Avis, would not have treated me thus. You will do better to go over to him, your legitimate master." Leonora transferred to her son-in-law, King Juan, all the hatred with which she had formerly regarded the Grand Master of Avis. She organized a conspiracy to murder him, the details of which she confided to the former treasurer Judah. The plot was, however, discovered by the chief rabbi elect, David Negro, who saved the king's life. Don Juan immediately caused the queen dowager to be arrested and thrown into prison. Judah also was imprisoned, and ordered to be executed, but at the energetic intercession of his rival, David Negro, his life was spared. This quarrel with and imprisonment of his mother-in-law cost Don Juan all support in Portugal. Thenceforth he encountered resistance on every side, and was obliged to resort to forcible measures for the subjugation of the country. His plans, however, all failed, and in the end he found himself compelled to renounce his hope of a union of the two lands.
A few rabbis intrigued to obtain rabbinical office, and involved their several communities in much unseemly strife, as, for example, David Negro and Judah, Isaiah ben Abba-Mari and Jochanan in France, Solomon Zarfati and En-Vidal Ephraim Gerundi in the Island of Majorca, and Chasdaï ben Solomon and Amram Efrati in Valencia, but it must be acknowledged that such incidents were of rare occurrence. To the majority, the rabbinate was as a holy priesthood, the duties of which they sought to discharge in all purity of heart and deed, with devotion and self-denial. They were generally examples to their communities, not only in learning and piety, but in high-mindedness, conscientiousness, and the purity of their morals. Even the less worthy cannot be charged with anything more serious than a desire for place, and a certain degree of irascibility. It would be a gross libel on their memory to compare them with the servants of the church during the same period. At no time in its history had Christianity more reason to be ashamed of its representatives than during the fourteenth and the succeeding century. Since the papacy had established itself at Avignon, it had become a perfect hot-bed of vice, the contagion of which spread over the clergy down to the lowliest friar. Besides, there arose passionate strife between pope and anti-pope, between one college of cardinals and another, dividing the whole of Christendom into two huge, bitterly hostile camps. It was only natural that the clergy should infect the lay world with their immeasurable dissoluteness and vice. Yet these degenerate, inhuman and degraded Christian communities presumed to treat the modest, virtuous, pious Jews as outcasts and accursed of God. Although superior in everything save wickedness and the virtues of a robber chivalry, they were denied the commonest rights of man. They were baited and slaughtered like beasts of the field. In Nördlingen the entire Jewish community, including women and children, was murdered (1384). All over Suabia they were persecuted, and in Augsburg they were imprisoned until a ransom of 20,000 florins was paid. A characteristic illustration is furnished by the following occurrence: The rabbis and communal leaders of central Germany had determined to hold a synod at Weissenfels, in Saxony, for the purpose of deliberating upon certain religious questions, and adopting resolutions of public utility (1386). They had provided themselves with safe-conduct passes from the Saxon princes, it being unsafe for Christians to travel on the public highroads, and, of course, much more so for Jews. Nevertheless, a party of German robber-nobles, anticipating rich booty, waylaid the travelers on their return journey, and, having plundered and ill-used them, threw them into prison, and liberated them only on the payment of a ransom of 5,000 groschen. The rabbis and their companions complained to the princes of this attack, and the latter, indignant at the disrespect with which their authority had been treated, summoned the noble marauders to answer the charges urged against them. The line of defense adopted by the spokesman of the accused was that they had no idea of disregarding the safe-conduct passes of the princes, but that they held the opinion that the Jews, the enemies of the church, did not deserve the protection of Christian authorities. The speaker continued that, for his own part, wherever he met the enemies of Christ, he would give them no quarter. A defense of this kind could not fail to obtain applause. Its spirit was that of the majority of the Christians of that day. The accused were absolved from blame, and the Jews dismissed without redress, "for the defense captivated the princes."
The art of poetry, which should beautify life, began to work like poison on the moral atmosphere of the Jews. For some centuries past romantic works had variously portrayed the character of a creditor, who, as equivalent for a debt, claimed a certain portion cut from the body of his creditor, either a liege lord from his vassal, or a nobleman from a burgher. At first this was harmless fiction, but afterwards it was turned against the Jews, as though only a Jewish Shylock could be capable of such hardness of heart as to insist on the payment of a pound of flesh from a Christian. Thus cannibal hatred of Christians was foisted on the Jews, and received credence. Romances took up the theme, and made it popular.
The depraved, dissolute clergy—a class of men who, in an age of public decency, would have been objects of universal contempt, or might have earned the corrections of a Bridewell—affected to feel insulted by contact with the Jews, and, under the pretext that their cloth was disgraced by them, caused new scenes of horror and cruelty. In Prague, since the time of Charles IV the chief city of Germany, a bloody persecution was set on foot by their agency. A local priest—perhaps one of those whom Emperor Wenceslaus had caused to be pilloried with their concubines—passed through the Jewish quarter on Easter Sunday (April 18th, 1389) with the host, to visit a dying person. Jewish children playing in the street—it was one of the latter days of the Passover feast—were throwing sand at one another, and a few grains happened to fall upon the priest's robe. His attendants immediately turned upon the children, and cruelly beat them. Their cries quickly brought their parents to their rescue, whereupon the priest fled to the market-place, loudly proclaiming that his holy office had been profaned by Jews. To invest the incident with the necessary importance, he exaggerated it, and said that he was pelted with stones until forced to drop the host. The citizens and lower orders of Prague immediately banded themselves together, and, armed with murderous weapons of every description, made a violent attack upon the houses of the Jews. As usual, they offered their victims the choice between death and baptism, but they found them steadfast in their faith. Many thousands perished in the massacre, which lasted a whole day and night. Several of the Jews, among them their venerable rabbi, first took the lives of their wives and children, and then their own, to escape the cruelties of their enemies. The synagogue was laid in ashes, and the holy books and scrolls torn and trodden under foot. Not even the burial ground escaped the fury of these Christian zealots. The corpses in the streets were stripped of their clothing, left naked, and then burnt.
For the same offense—that is, for no offense at all—the communities in the vicinity of the Bohemian capital were "confined, oppressed, ill-treated and persecuted." The reigning pope issued a bull condemning the outrages (July 2d, 1389), and based his action upon the edict of Pope Innocent IV, which enacted that Jews should not be forcibly baptized, nor disturbed in the observance of their festivals; but he failed to produce an impression on the consciences of the faithful. It was in vain, too, that the Jews appealed to their liege lord, the German emperor Wenceslaus, in whose capital the persecution had originated. This prince—who, had he not been an emperor, would certainly have been a freebooter—was a man of sense only on the rare occasions when he was not intoxicated. His reply to the representations of his Jewish subjects was that they had deserved the attacks made upon them, as they had had no right to show themselves outside their houses on Easter Sunday. For the goods and chattels they had left behind them he exhibited more concern, promptly ordering them to be appropriated to his empty exchequer. This was the measure of his general attitude towards the Jews. During several years he attempted to possess himself of their monetary claims on his Christian subjects, and to carry out his design he convened (1385) a conference of representatives of the Suabian cities, which met at Ulm. Despite the impoverishment of the German communities, he exacted from every Jew, even from every Jewish youth and maiden, the so-called "golden penny" poll-tax, amounting to one gulden annually. He openly declared that the possessions of the Jews were his personal property, and forbade them to sell or mortgage anything. And still Emperor Wenceslaus was not the worst of rulers in the eyes of the Jews. The rabbi, Avigedor Kara, of Prague, boasted his friendship; and the Jews of Germany whispered significantly to one another that his allegiance to the teaching of Christ was very weak.
This storm of spoliation and persecution had no far-reaching consequences in the history of the German Jews. It could not affect their abject condition, for they had been too long accustomed to turn their cheeks submissively to the smiter. Quite different were the effects of a contemporary persecution in Spain. Here the very heart of the Jewish race was attacked, and the results made themselves felt in the history of the whole Jewish people. The Spanish Jews had until then been more hated than despised; the horrors of this persecution, however, so thoroughly cowed their spirits, so paralyzed their energies, and humbled their pride, that they, too, became the scorn of their oppressors. As in Prague, the outbreak was the work of an ecclesiastic and a mob, but here it assumed the vastest proportions, and developed permanent results, the operations of which were disastrous in the extreme. It arose in Seville through the agitation of a fanatical priest, Ferdinand (Ferrand) Martinez, who seemed to consider implacable hatred of the Jews as the essence of his religion. His discourses were devoted to stirring up the populace against them, and he thundered against their hardened infidelity, their pride, their heaped-up riches, their greed, and their usury. In Seville he found the people only too ready to listen to him, for there the Jews were hated with special intensity. The citizens could not forgive them the important part they had played in the civil war between Don Pedro and Don Henry II, and particularly the suspicious circumstances of the death of Joseph Pichon, who had been so popular among them. As long as Don Juan I lived, Martinez took care to restrain the mob from open violence, for though the king regarded the Jews with but little affection, he was in the habit of punishing lawless outbreaks with the utmost severity. No sooner was he dead, however, than the bigoted cleric thought he might dare the utmost. The circumstances of the government were favorable to the development of his plans. The new monarch, Henry III, was a boy of only eleven years of age, and in the council of regency discord reigned, threatening to involve the country in another civil war.
One day (March 15, 1391)—a memorable day, not only for the Jews and for Spain, but for the history of the entire world, for on that day the first germ of the monstrous Inquisition was created—Martinez, preaching as usual against the Jews, deliberately incited the mob to riot in the expectation that many Jews would abjure their religion. The passions of the multitude became inflamed, and broke out in wild uproar. The authorities of the city, the Mayor (Alguacil mayor), Don Alvar Perez de Guzman, and two of the magistrates interposed to protect the Jews, arresting two of the ringleaders in the riot, and ordering them to be flogged. This proceeding excited the fanatical mob only the more. In their fury they put a large number of Jews to death, and threatened with a like fate the governor of the city, Don Juan Alfonso, and the officials who were attempting to shield the unfortunate Hebrews. A few of the leading Jews of Seville, perceiving that the local authorities were not strong enough to grapple with the rising, hurried to the court of the young king, and appealed to the council of regency to stop the slaughter of their brethren. Their representations were favorably received. Messengers were dispatched forthwith to Seville with instructions to tell the populace to abstain from further outrage. The local nobility seconded the action of the king, and, ranging themselves on the side of the Jews, succeeded in mastering the rioters. When the Christian inhabitants of the neighboring towns showed a disposition to imitate the scenes enacted in Seville, the council of regency also sent messengers thither armed with the same powers. Thus, for a brief moment, the threatened Jew-hunt was delayed, but by no means suppressed. It was soon renewed with greater violence, and on a far more extended scale. The young king and a few of the members of the council of regency were probably earnest in their desire not to permit the massacres, but, unfortunately, they were not sufficiently interested to take adequate precautions against them. One such precaution should have been to silence the outrage-monger, Ferdinand Martinez, or at least to prohibit his inflammatory harangues; but they did nothing of the kind. They left him perfectly free to level his poisonous eloquence at the Jews, and he was not slow to take advantage of their inaction. Encouraged by the dissensions in the government, and the disorder which consequently reigned throughout the entire land, he again set himself to stir up the rabble of Seville, and this time with greater success. Hardly three months after the last outbreak, the mob resumed (June 6th, 1391) its holy work of massacre by setting fire to the Jewish quarter (Juderia) and slaughtering its inhabitants. The result was that, of the important and wealthy community of Seville, which had numbered 7,000 families, or 30,000 souls, but few remained. Murder counted not more than 4,000 victims, but to escape death the majority permitted themselves to be baptized. Women and children were sold into Mahometan slavery by the bloody rioters. Of the three synagogues of Seville two were transformed into churches. Among the large number who sought refuge from fire and sword at the baptismal font was Samuel Abrabanel, the ancestor of the afterwards celebrated Abrabanel family, and an ornament of his community in the reign of Don Henry II, with whom he possessed great influence. He adopted the Christian name of Juan de Sevilla.
From Seville the persecution swept like a raging torrent over a large portion of Spain. Its progress was stimulated more by a craving for plunder than by fanatical eagerness to proselytize. Cordova, the parent community of the Peninsula, the mold in which the high character of Spanish Judaism had been cast, was the next scene of its activity. Here also many Jews were cruelly murdered, and a large number forced to embrace Christianity. On the fast day commemorating the fall of Jerusalem (Tammuz 17th–June 20th) the population of the capital, Toledo, rose against the largest Jewish community in Spain. The blood of the believers in the unity of God, who steadfastly refused to change their faith, deluged the streets. Among the many martyrs who fell at Toledo were the descendants of the Asheri family. They met death with the same unflinching courage as their German brethren. Jehuda ben Asher II, one of Asheri's great-grandsons, who lived in Burgos, but happened to be at Toledo, took with his own hands the lives of his mother-in-law and wife, and then his own. Here also a large number went over to Christianity. About seventy communities were visited by this terrible persecution, among them those of Ecija, Huete, Logroño, Burgos, Carrion, and Ocaña. At Ascalona not a single Jew remained alive. The thoroughly maddened Christian population meditated a similar fate for the Moors, or Mahometans, living in the kingdom of Seville. The more prudent among them, however, pointed out the danger of such a step, reminding them that the Christians living in the Mahometan kingdom of Granada, or held as prisoners by the Moors on the other side of the straits of Gibraltar, might be sacrificed in retaliation. The massacre of the Moors was consequently abandoned. The Jews alone were made to drain the cup of bitterness to the dregs, because they were too weak to protect themselves. Nothing demonstrates more impressively that the clergy had succeeded in transforming the people into a race of cut-throats.
In the kingdom of Aragon, where both ruler and people were opposed to Castile, and, as a rule, held that to be wrong which in the latter state was considered right, the hatred and persecution of the Jews were promoted with the same zeal. Here the government was in the hands of the weak but well-meaning king, Juan I, who, absorbed by his love of music and the chase, wielded but little authority, and was the laughing-stock of his generally uncultured subjects. About three weeks after the outbreak at Toledo, the inhabitants of the province of Valencia rose against the Jews (Ab 7th–July 9th). Of the 5,000 souls that constituted the Jewish community in the city of Valencia, not one was left. Some 250 were murdered, a few saved themselves by flight, and the rest embraced Christianity. Throughout the length and breadth of the kingdom the defenseless Jews were attacked with fire and sword, the community of Murviedro alone being spared.
The sanguinary madness then crossed the sea, and alighted on the island of Majorca. In the capital, Palma, a crowd of roughs and sailors paraded the Monte-Zion street, in which the Jews resided, and holding aloft a cross, rudely formed by tying together two cudgels, shouted "Death to the Jews" (August 2d–Ellul 1st). One sturdy Jew, assaulted by the rabble, ventured to defend himself, and severely punished his assailants. Hereupon the mob broke out in uncontrollable violence, and 300 martyrs fell to its fury. Among the victims was the rabbi, En-Vidal Ephraim Gerundi, whose controversy with Solomon Zarfati has already been referred to. A large number of Jews here also sought safety in baptism.
Three days later, as if by previous arrangement, the Jew-massacres began in Barcelona, one of the proudest homes of Jewish intelligence. The great wealth which the Jews of this city had acquired by their extensive maritime commerce appears to have excited the envy of the Christians, and tempted them to outrage. On the 5th August, a Sabbath, on which was held a minor festival in honor of Mary, the mob attacked the Jews as if to honor their queen of heaven with human sacrifices. In the first assault, close upon 250 victims fell. The larger portion of the community were harbored and cared for in the citadel by the governor of the town; but here again the rabble opposed the nobility. They attacked the citadel with crossbows, laid siege to it in due form, and ultimately set it on fire. When the imprisoned Jews saw that there was no longer a chance of being saved, a large number slew themselves with their own hands, or threw themselves from the walls. Others sallied forth from the fortress to meet their assailants in the open field, and fell in honorable combat. Among the martyrs was the noble Chasdaï Crescas' young and only son, then on the eve of his marriage. Eleven thousand Jews are said to have been baptized on this occasion. Only a very few escaped, and not one remained in Barcelona. The same fate befell the communities of Lerida, Gerona, and other towns, in each case a large number of Jews being murdered, some being baptized, and a very few escaping by flight. In Gerona, where the community was distinguished for rigid piety, the number of converts to Christianity was exceedingly small, the rabbis setting their flocks an example by their steadfastness and contempt for death. In Catalonia, as in Valencia, but few Jews were spared, and they owed their good fortune to the protection received—in exchange, of course, for large sums of money—in the castles of the nobility. In Aragon itself the outbreaks were not so serious, as the Jewish communities had made a timely and prudent offer of all their wealth for the protection of the court.
For three months fire and sword raged unresisted in the majority of the Spanish Jewries. When the storm abated, the Jews remaining were so broken in spirit that they did not venture forth from their places of refuge. The sad occurrences were described in a heart-breaking, tearful epistle to the community of Perpignan, which Chasdaï Crescas, who had been robbed of an only son and his entire fortune, penned in answer to their sympathetic inquiries. Thus, to Spanish Jews came the tragical fate which had befallen their German brethren, hardly half a century before, at the time of the Black Death. They also had acquired materials for bitter songs of lamentation, which they inserted in the Jewish liturgy. But the consequences of the persecution were even more terrible than the persecution itself. Their pride was completely crushed, and their spirit permanently darkened. They who had formerly held their heads so proudly aloft, now slunk timidly along, anxiously avoiding every Christian as a possible murderer or instigator of murderous assaults. If hundred Jews were assembled, and a single rough abused them, they fled like a flock of frightened birds. This persecution gave them their first experience of the bitterness of exile, for, notwithstanding many untoward circumstances, they had always imagined themselves secure and at home in Spain. Now, for the first time, their haughty demeanor was humbled. They were no longer the men who had so valiantly wielded the sword in the armies of Don Pedro. In Portugal alone the Jews were free from fanatical attacks. Its king, Don João I, enjoyed a popularity to which, in a crisis, he was able to appeal. As his instructions were cheerfully obeyed, he was able to preserve order and put down outbreaks with a firm hand. The chief rabbi, Don Moses Navarro, brought under his notice the two bulls of the popes Clement VI and Boniface IX, in which force was forbidden in converting Jews. The king immediately issued an order (July 17th, 1392) prohibiting persecutions. Wide publicity was given to the bulls in every town in Portugal, and they were inserted among the statutes of the realm. Portugal thus became an asylum for the persecuted Jews of Spain.
The Jews of the south of France were not entirely exempted from the horrors of this persecution. The tempest which had crossed the sea to the island of Majorca also whirled over the snow-capped Pyrenees, and caught up the Jews of Provence in its deadly eddies. No sooner was intelligence received of the bloody massacres of the Jews of Spain than the populace of Provence rose, and began to plunder and murder their Jewish neighbors.
The Jews in France had been permitted to settle in the country only for a specified time, and, although this term was frequently extended, their thoughts were necessarily always directed towards possible banishment. They were compelled to amass and keep in readiness sufficient money to enable them, at any moment, to start life afresh in another land. Like their ancestors in Egypt, they were ready for an exodus, their loins girded, their shoes on their feet, and their staffs in their hands. Although the acquisition of land was allowed them, they were obliged to concentrate themselves on the money business, and pursue the advantages offered by each moment. Necessity made them usurers. Some among them charged a higher rate of interest than permitted by the privileges granted them, and exacted even compound interest from dilatory debtors. But it was the king himself who forced them to immoderate, exasperating usury, by the extravagant demands he made upon their purses to meet the expenses of his wars, and the Jews could fulfill his demands only by transgressing the laws, but their exactions naturally rendered them hateful in the eyes of the general public. That Jewish creditors frequently had ill-intentioned or tardy Christian debtors imprisoned to force them to discharge their liabilities tended to increase the bitterness. The exercise of this right was regarded as a triumph of "the children of the devil over the children of heaven." The public became so angered at their possessing the privilege that the king, Charles VI, was obliged to abolish it. On the other hand, the necessity of maintaining the privilege was shown to be so imperative—the Jews being threatened with the entire loss of their outstanding debts—that the king and parliament had to grant it a month later in a modified form. They permitted the Jews to imprison only the debtors who, in their bonds, made themselves answerable with their bodies.
A trifling circumstance sufficed to kindle into a flame these embers of Jew-hatred in France. A wealthy Israelite, Denys Machault, of Villa-Parisis, became a convert to Christianity, and then suddenly disappeared. The affair became the subject of strange rumors. Some said that he had been murdered by Jews; others that he had been hurried abroad with a view to providing him with an easy means of returning to Judaism. The clergy interested themselves in the mystery, fanatical appeals were made to the people, and, eventually, the Paris tribunals prosecuted seven prominent Hebrews. A commission of priests and lawyers subjected the accused to the rack, and extorted the confession that they had advised Denys Machault to abandon his new faith. The commission condemned them to the stake as promoters of apostasy from Christianity. Parliament substituted an apparently milder punishment. It ordered the accused to be scourged in three of the public places of Paris, kept in goal until Denys Machault re-appeared, and then, stripped of all their possessions, expelled the country. From the publicity given to this affair, it created an extraordinary sensation, and still further inflamed the popular passions against the Jews.
For about three months the court extended a protecting wing over the unfortunate Jews, but soon withdrew it in face of the stormy, menacing clamor of the clergy and people. At last the enemies of the Jews prevailed upon the king to promulgate the order of banishment. Doubtless with malice aforethought the day chosen for the issue of the decree was the solemn Fast of Atonement (September 17th, 1394), when the Jews were afflicting their souls during the entire day in the synagogues. The prolonged term granted for their sojourn in the country not having expired, it became necessary to put forward an excuse for ignoring the convention. The royal decree was not able to impute to the Jews specific crimes or misdemeanors, and, consequently, confined itself to vague generalities. It had been reported to his majesty by trustworthy persons, including many of his lieutenants and other officials, that complaints had been made concerning offenses committed by the Jews against the Christian religion and the special laws drawn up for their control. That meant that they had encouraged baptized Jews to recant, and had practiced extortionate usury—the latter Charles had partly approved and partly condoned. The decree then stated that his majesty had made the irrevocable law that henceforth no Jews should be allowed to reside or tarry in any part of France, either in Languedoil or Languedoc (northern and southern France).
Thus, ninety years after their first expulsion by Philip le Bel, and after a second sojourn of thirty-four years, the French Jews were compelled once more to grasp the wanderer's staff. Charles, however, dealt more leniently with them than his heartless ancestor. They were not, as before, robbed of all their possessions, and turned adrift stripped to the skin. On the contrary, Charles VI issued orders to the prevôt of Paris and his provincial governors, instructing them to see that no harm come to the Jews, either in their persons or their chattels, and that they cross the frontier safely. Time was also allowed them up to the 3d November to collect their debts. They did not leave France until the end of 1394 or the beginning of the following year. To some of the nobility and towns the expulsion was not a welcome measure. Thus, the Count de Foix wished at all hazards to retain the community of Pamier, and had to be forced by royal officers to expel the Jews. In Toulouse twelve Jewish families, and in the vicinity seven more, remained behind, so that they must have received special indulgences. Jews also remained in the provinces not directly dependent on the French crown—in the Dauphiné, in Provence proper, and in Arles, these being fiefs of the German empire. The flourishing seaport, Marseilles, possessed a Jewish community for a long time after the expulsion. Even the popes of Avignon tolerated Jews in Avignon and Carpentras, the chief towns of their small ecclesiastical province of Venaissin; and here they remained until very recent times, using a ritual of their own, which differed from that of their Spanish and their French brethren. The papacy had now little to fear from the helpless, enfeebled Jews; hence, doubtless, this parade of toleration.
The exiles who failed to find an asylum in the tolerant principalities of France emigrated to Germany and Italy; only a few directed their steps to Spain, formerly the most hospitable refuge for persecuted Jews. Since the massacres of 1391 that country had become a purgatory to the native Jews, and so long as foreign Jews could find a shelter elsewhere, they naturally avoided its frontiers. French communities migrated in a body to Piedmont, and settled in the towns of Asti, Fossano, and Moncalvo, where they could maintain unchanged their old synagogue ritual. The fate of the larger number of the French exiles may be described in the words of Amos: "As if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear met him; or went into the house, and leaned his hand on the wall, and a serpent bit him." Almost everywhere they were met with a storm of barbarity, not unfrequently stirred up against them by baptized Jews. In Germany an apostate named Pessach, who, with Christianity, had adopted the name of Peter, brought serious accusations against his brethren in race, with a view to bringing about another persecution. To the usual charges that the Jews called Jesus the crucified or the hanged, and that they cursed the Christian clergy in one of their prayers, Pessach-Peter added others. He stated that an abusive allusion to Jesus was contained in the sublime Alenu prayer, which pictures the future reign of God on earth, and he made other lying and ludicrous charges. The result was that a large number of the Jews of Prague were arrested and imprisoned (August 3d, 1399). Among them was the foremost and, perhaps, only really learned German Jew of the Middle Ages, Lipmann (Tab-Yomi) of Mühlhausen, a scholar accomplished alike in Biblical and Talmudical lore, who had read not only Karaite authors, but also the New Testament in a Latin version. The clergy called upon him to answer Pessach-Peter's charges. His defense was forcible, but seems to have had little effect, for on the day Emperor Wenceslaus was deposed, and Rupert of the Palatinate elected his successor (August 22d, 1400), seventy-seven Jews were executed, and three weeks later three more led to the stake.
The Marranos—The Satirists—Pero Ferrus of Alcala, Diego de Valencia, and Villasandino—Astruc Raimuch and Solomon Bonfed—Paul de Santa Maria and his Zealous Campaign against the Jews—Joshua Ibn-Vives—Profiat Duran (Efodi)—Meïr Alguades—The Philosophy of Crescas—Death of Henry III of Castile and Unfavorable Change in the Position of the Jews—Messianic Dreams of the Kabbalists—Jews seek an Asylum in Northern Africa—Simon Duran—Geronimo de Santa Fé, Vincent Ferrer and Benedict XIII—Anti-Jewish Edict of Juan II—Special Jewish Costume—Conversion of Jews owing to Ferrer's Violent Efforts—Disputation at Tortosa—The Jewish Spokesmen at the Conference—Incidents of the Meeting—Geronimo instigates the Publication of a Bull for the Burning of the Talmud—Pope Martin V befriends the Jews.
1391–1420 C.E.
The baptized Jews who had abandoned their faith during the terrible persecution of 1391 became a source of considerable trouble to their Spanish brethren. They had embraced the cross only to save their lives, or the lives of those dear to them; for, surely, they had found no convincing demonstration of the truth of the Christian religion in the violence of its missionaries, or in the death agonies of their brethren in race who had perished rather than apostatize. Dazed and broken-hearted, these forced converts (Anusim) to Christianity felt more intense antipathy to their new religion than when they had been openly opposed to it. It was natural for them to resolve to take the first opportunity of casting away their disguise, and returning to Judaism with increased zeal. Many of these new Christians emigrated to the neighboring Moorish countries; to Granada or across the straits to Morocco, Tunis, or Fez, where the people, wiser and more tolerant than Christian Europe, gladly opened their doors to a wealthy and industrious race. The majority, unable to leave Spanish territory, yet averse to wholly discarding their ancient faith, joined in Jewish ceremonies and celebrations whilst outwardly appearing Christians. The kings of Castile, Aragon and Majorca, who had disapproved of conversions by mob violence, allowed the Jews to do as they pleased. The authorities either did not or would not see their relapse into Judaism, and the Inquisition had not yet been established in Spain. These forced converts gradually formed themselves into a peculiar class, outwardly Christians, at heart Jews. By the populace, who nicknamed them Marranos, or "The Damned," they were regarded with more distrust and hatred than the openly observant Jews, not because of their secret fidelity to Judaism, but on account of their descent and inborn intelligence, energy, and skill. Baptized Jews, who had been glad to disencumber themselves of their Judaism, shared in these feelings of aversion. They were the worldlings who valued wealth, rank, and luxury above religion, or the over-educated whose philosophy had led them to skepticism, and whose selfishness induced them to welcome a change which brought them out of the narrow confines of a small community, and opened up a wider world to them. Their hearts had never been with Judaism, and they had adhered to it only out of respect or a certain compunction. To them, forced baptism was a relief from chafing fetters, a welcome coercion to overcome scruples which had always sat lightly upon them. For their own advantage they simulated devotion to Christianity, but were on that account neither better nor more religious men. The unscrupulous among them found special pleasure in the persecution of their former religion and its followers. To gratify their malice, they brought charges against rabbis and other representative Jews, or any member of the community, thus endangering the existence of the whole body of Jews in the country. It was bad enough that the latter had been robbed of so many able and learned men—physicians, authors, poets—and that the church had been enriched by their wealth and intelligence; but these very forces were used to inflict further mischief on the Jews that had remained steadfast. Knowing the faults of their former brethren, the converts could easily attack them. Don Pero Ferrus, a baptized Jew, made the community and rabbis of Alcala the target for his ridicule. In a poem he represents himself exhausted from want of sleep finding repose at last in the synagogue of this town, when suddenly he is disturbed, and scared away without mercy by "Jews with long beards and slovenly garments come thither for early morning prayer." A sharp rejoinder to this effort of Ferrus' "buffoon tongue" was put forth by a Jewish poet in the name of the Alcala community. Spanish poetry reaped considerable advantage from these passages at arms. Verse, up to that period starched, solemn, and stately as the punctilious ceremonial of the Madrid court, in the hands of Judæo-Christian satirists acquired the flexibility, wit and merriment of neo-Hebraic poetry at its best. This tone and style were gradually adopted by Christian poets, who borrowed expressions from Jewish writers to give point to their epigrams. Not only the apostate, the monk, Diego de Valencia, used Hebrew words in lampoons on the Jews, but the same practice was adopted with surprising dexterity by the Christian satirist, Alfonso Alvarez de Villasandino, the "poet prince" of his day. A malicious critic might have been inclined to say that Spanish poetry was in process of being Judaized.
A few of the new-Christians showed as active a zeal in the propagation of Christianity as if they had been born Dominicans, or as if they felt isolated in their new faith among the old Christians, and yearned for the companionship of their former friends. A newly-baptized physician, Astruc Raimuch, of Fraga, who, as a Jew, had been a pillar of orthodoxy, exerted himself to make converts, taking to himself the name of Francisco God-flesh (Dios-Carne). He spread his snares particularly with a view to entrapping one of his young friends. A fluent writer of Hebrew, Astruc-Francisco drew up a letter in that language, dwelling on the decline of Judaism and enthusiastically propounding the dogmas of Christianity. His applications of Biblical texts to the doctrines of the Trinity, Original Sin, Redemption, and the Lord's Supper, appear almost droll in Hebrew. His friend's answer was meek and evasive, every word carefully weighed to avoid offending the delicate sensibilities of the church and its zealous servants. More spirited was the reply of the satirical poet, Solomon ben Reuben Bonfed, who in rhymed prose set himself to confute Astruc-Francisco's arguments with unsparing incisiveness. Apologizing in his introduction for interfering between two friends, he proceeded to point out that as a Jew the questions discussed concerned him nearly, whilst the misstatements made rendered it impossible for him to remain silent. Solomon Bonfed examined somewhat minutely the dogmas of the Incarnation, Original Sin, and Transubstantiation, showing them to be irrational and untenable. He justly said: "You twist and distort the Bible text to establish the Trinity. Had you a Quaternity, you would demonstrate it quite as strikingly and convincingly from the books of the Old Testament."
Of all the Jews baptized in 1391, however, none inflicted so much injury on his former brethren as Rabbi Solomon Levi of Burgos (born 1351–1352, died 1435), who as a Christian rose to very important ecclesiastical and political dignities under the name of Paul Burgensis, or de Santa Maria. Previous to his change of creed he had been a rabbi, and he was well versed in Biblical, Talmudical, and Rabbinical literature. As a Jew he was extremely orthodox and punctilious, passing in his own circle for a pillar of the faith. His nature was, however, shrewd and calculating. Ambitious and vain to the last degree, he soon began to regard as too narrow his sphere of action within the walls of the college, which during a long period counted him amongst its students and teachers. He longed for a life of bustling activity. To obtain a state appointment, he sought access to court, and began to live like a grandee, with equipage and horses and numerous retinue. It was his ambition to become a Jewish Almoxarif or even to obtain a higher appointment. His occupations bringing him into daily contact with Christians, and frequently involving him in religious controversies, he devoted some attention to church literature, in order to be able to make a display of learning. The massacres of 1391 dissipated his last hope of obtaining high preferment as a Jew, and he consequently resolved, in his fortieth year, to be baptized. To derive the best advantage from his conversion, the new Christian, Paul de Santa Maria, caused it to be understood that he had embraced Christianity willingly, as a result of the convincing arguments put forth in the theological writings of the schoolman Thomas Aquinas. The Jews received such protestations with distrust. Knowing him well, they did not scruple to ascribe his conversion to a craving for rank and power. After his change of creed, his family, wife and sons, renounced him.
For a commoner, the only road to high office lay through the church. Solomon-Paul knew this well, and at once proceeded to Paris and attended the University, where he pursued theology. His knowledge of Hebrew gave him a great advantage, and helped him to distinguish himself. It was not long before the quondam rabbi became a duly ordained Catholic priest. Then he betook himself to the papal court at Avignon, where the haughty, obstinate, and proselytizing cardinal, Pedro de Luna, reigned as anti-pope under the title of Benedict XIII. Here, during the stormy church schism, favorable opportunities for intrigue and personal advancement presented themselves. Paul won the pope's favor by his shrewdness, zeal, and eloquence. He was appointed archdeacon of Trevinjo and canon of Seville, his first steps on the ladder of the Catholic hierarchy. He abandoned himself to the most ambitious dreams: he might become a bishop, a cardinal, and why not the pope? The times were propitious. He boasted that he was descended from the most ancient and the noblest branch of the Hebrew race, the tribe of Levi, the same that had given birth to Mary, the mother of Jesus. He was not an ordinary priest sprung from the people, but had ancestors bound to be acknowledged and distinguished by the church. On the recommendation of the pope, he was later on overwhelmed with honors and favors by the king of Castile, Don Henry III, and his ambition was satisfied.
The apostasy of so respected a rabbi as Solomon Burgensis not only created the greatest astonishment among Jews, but filled them with anxiety. Would this example not find imitators in a time of so much trouble and temptation? Would it not bias waverers, or at least encourage pretending Christians to persevere in the course begun? The prevailing disquietude was increased when it was found that after his own conversion Paul considered it his duty to convert his former co-religionists. To this end he left no stone unturned. With voice and pen he assailed Judaism, seeking his weapons in Jewish literature itself. Not long after his conversion he addressed a letter to his former acquaintance, Joseph (José) Orabuena, physician in ordinary to King Charles III of Navarre, and chief rabbi of the Navarrese communities, in which he stated that he acknowledged and honored Jesus as the Messiah whose advent had been foretold by the prophets, and invited Orabuena to follow his example. To another chief rabbi, Don Meïr Alguades, physician in ordinary to the Castilian king, Don Henry III, Paul de Santa Maria addressed a Hebrew satire in prose and verse, in which he ridiculed the innocent celebration of the Jewish feast of Purim. As if grudging the Jews the moderate pleasures in which they indulged during this festival, he exaggerated their love of drink, and boasted of his own sobriety. Paul evinces in this satire considerable skill in handling the new-Hebrew language, but, notwithstanding his opportunities, he exhibits little wit.
As soon as he had acquired a position at the papal court at Avignon, he devoted himself to calumniating the Jews with a view to bringing about new persecutions. His purpose became so obvious that the cardinal of Pampeluna himself, and other ecclesiastics, ordered him to desist. It is true the Jews had to pay dearly for his silence. He also intrigued against Chasdaï Crescas. So far did this apostate carry his enmity to Judaism that he advised the king, Don Henry III, to abstain from employing both Jews and new-Christians in state offices. Did he wish to render impossible the rivalry of some fellow-Hebrew, his superior in adroitness? In his writings Paul de Santa Maria exhibited as much hatred of Judaism as of Jews. While the Franciscan monk, Nicholas de Lyra, a born Christian, held up the works of Jewish commentators like Rashi as models of simple exegesis, the former rabbi found every observation of a Rabbinical writer insipid, nonsensical, and scandalous. On the other hand, the most ridiculous commentary of a church writer was to him a lofty, unsurpassable work.
Thoughtful Jews were not slow to recognize their bitterest foe in this new-Christian, and they prepared for a severe struggle with him, notwithstanding that their choice of weapons was limited. Christians were not only free to say what they pleased in demonstration and defense of their doctrines, but could appeal to the summary authority of the sword and the dungeon. Jews were forced to all kinds of circumlocution and ambiguity to avoid provoking the violence of their adversaries. The gallant stand of a mere handful of Jews against power and arrogance should excite the admiration of all whose sympathies are not with victorious tyranny, but with struggling right.
The campaign against Paul de Santa Maria was opened by a young man, Joshua ben Joseph Ibn-Vives of Lorca (Allorqui), a physician and an Arabic scholar, who had formerly sat at the feet of the renegade rabbi. In an humble epistle, as though a docile pupil were addressing an illustrious master, Joshua Allorqui administered many a delicate reproof to his apostate teacher, and at the same time, by his naïve doubts, dealt destructive blows at the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. He observes in his introduction that the conversion of his beloved teacher had to him more than to others been a source of astonishment and reflection, as his example had been a main support of his own religious belief. He was at a loss to conceive the motives of the sudden change. He could not think that he had been led away by desire for worldly distinction, "for I well remember," he says, "how, surrounded by riches and attendants, thou didst yearn for thy former humble state with its life of retirement and study, and how it was thy wont to speak of thy high position as empty mockery of happiness." Nor could he suppose that Paul's Jewish convictions had been disturbed by philosophic doubt, as up to the moment of his baptism he had conscientiously observed all the ceremonial laws, and had known how to discriminate between the kernel of philosophic truth which harmonizes with religion and the pernicious shell which so often passes for the real teaching. Could it be that the sanguinary persecution of the Jews had led him to doubt the possibility of the enduring power of Judaism? But even this theory was untenable, for Paul could not be unaware of the fact that only a minority of Jews live under Christian rule, that the larger numbers sojourn in Asia, and enjoy a certain degree of independence; so that if it pleased God to allow the communities in Christian lands to be extirpated, the Jewish race would not by any means disappear from the face of the earth. There remained, continued Joshua Vives of Lorca, the assumption that Paul had carefully studied Christianity, and had come to the conclusion that its dogmas were well founded. He begged him, therefore, to impart to him the convictions at which he had arrived, and thus dissipate the doubts which he (Joshua) still entertained as to the truth of Christianity. Allorqui then detailed the nature of his doubts, covertly but forcibly attacking the Christian system. Every sentence in this epistle was calculated to cut the Jew-hating new-Christian to the quick. The evasive and embarrassed reply, which Paul indited later on, clearly indicated how he had winced under this attack.
The philosopher, Chasdaï Crescas, also came forward in gallant defense of the religion of his fathers. He composed (1396) a polemical treatise (Tratado), in which he tested philosophically the Christian articles of faith, and demonstrated their untenableness. This work was addressed to Christians more than to Jews, and was particularly intended for the perusal of Spaniards of high rank whose friendship Chasdaï Crescas enjoyed. Hence it was written not in Hebrew but in Spanish, which the author employed with ease, and its tone was calm and moderate. Chasdaï Crescas set forth the unintelligibility of the doctrines of the Fall, the Redemption, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Immaculate Conception, and Transubstantiation, and examined the value of baptism, the coming of Jesus, and the relation of the New Testament to the Old, with dispassionate deliberation, as if he did not know that he was dealing with questions which might at any moment light the fires of an auto-da-fé.
At about the same time an accomplished Marrano, who had relapsed into Judaism, published a pungent attack on Christianity and the new-Christians. In the entire history of Judæo-Christian controversy no such stinging satire had been produced on the Jewish side as that now issued by the physician, astronomer, historical student, and grammarian Profiat Duran. During the bloody persecution of 1391 in Catalonia, Profiat Duran, otherwise Isaac ben Moses, or, as he called himself in his works, Efodi (Ephodæus), had been forced to simulate conversion to Christianity. He was joined by his friend David Bonet Buen-Giorno. Both resolved at a convenient opportunity to abandon their hated mask and emigrate to Palestine, where they could freely acknowledge Judaism. Their affairs being arranged, Profiat Duran traveled to a seaport town in the south of France, and there awaited his friend. The latter, in the meantime, was sought out by or came across the Jew-hating apostate, Solomon Paul de Santa Maria, and was prevailed upon to remain a Christian. What was Profiat Duran's astonishment when he received a letter announcing, with much exultant vaporing, the definite acknowledgment of Christianity by En Bonet, who exhorted him also to remain in the pale of his adopted faith. The letter contained an enthusiastic panegyric of Paul de Santa Maria, who had been taken into the favor of the king of Castile. Profiat Duran could not remain silent. In reply, he inflicted punishment on his friend, and more particularly on the proselytizing Paul, in an epistle characterized by the keenest irony, which has not yet lost its sting. It pretends to assent to everything advanced by Bonet, and to confirm him in his resolve to remain a Christian. "Be not ye like your fathers" (Altehi ka-Abothecha) is the refrain throughout, and so artfully is this admonition employed that Christians used it (under the title Alteca Boteca) as an apology for Christianity. Whilst thus pretending to criticise the errors of the older faith, Profiat Duran dwells on the Christian dogmas, naïvely describing them in their most reprehensible form. He concentrates on the weaknesses of Christianity the full light of reason, Scriptural teaching and philosophic deduction, apparently with no desire to change his friend's intention. A portion of the satire is directed against the Jew-hater Paul de Santa Maria, upon whom Bonet had bestowed unstinted praise. "Thou art of opinion that he may succeed in becoming pope, but thou dost not inform me whether he will go to Rome, or remain at Avignon"—a cutting reference to the papal schism distracting the church. "Thou extollest him for having made efforts to free Jewish women and children from the obligation of wearing the Jew badge. Take the glad tidings to the women and children. For myself, I have been told that he preached mischief against the Jews, and that the cardinal of Pampeluna was compelled to order him to be silent. Thou art of opinion that he, thy teacher, will soon receive the miter or a cardinal's hat. Rejoice, for then thou also must acquire honors, and wilt become a priest or a Levite." Towards the end Profiat Duran changes irony into a tone of seriousness: he prays his former friend not to bear as a Christian the name of his respected father who, had he been alive, would sooner have had no son than one faithless to his religion. As it is, his soul in Paradise will bewail the faithlessness of his son. This satirical epistle was circulated as a pamphlet. Its author sent copies not only to his former friend, but also to the physician of the king of Castile, the chief rabbi, Don Meïr Alguades. So telling was the effect produced, that the clergy, as soon as they discovered its satirical character, made it the subject of judicial inquiry, and committed it to the flames. At the request of Chasdaï Crescas, Profiat Duran wrote another anti-Christian work, not, however, a satire, but in the grave language of historical investigation. In this essay he showed, from his intimate acquaintance with the New Testament and the literature of the church, how in course of time Christianity had degenerated.