The Jews of Italy failed to distinguish themselves in poetry even during the Medici period, in spite of the high culture which, with the Hussite movement, was eating away the foundations of mediæval Catholicism. Since Immanuel Romi, the Jews of Italy had produced but one poet; even he was not a poet in the noblest sense of the word. Moses ben Isaac (Gajo) da Rieti, of Perugia (born 1388, died after 1451 ), a physician by profession, a dabbler in philosophy, and a graceful writer in both Hebrew and Italian, might have passed for an artist if poetry were a thing of meter and rhyme, for in his sublimely conceived poem both were faultless. His desire was to glorify in poetry Judaism and Jewish antiquity, the sciences, and the illustrious men of all ages. He employed an ingenious form of verse, in which the stanzas were connected by threes by means of cross-rhymes. But Da Rieti's language is often rough, many of his allusions show want of taste, and where he should rise to lofty thought he sinks into puerilities. Only in one respect does his work mark an advance in neo-Hebrew poetry. He breaks entirely with the traditional Judæo-Arabic method of a single rhyme. There is variety in his versification; the ear is not wearied by monotonous repetition of the same or similar sounds, and the lines fall naturally into stanzas. He also avoids playing on Biblical verses, the objectionable habit of Judæo-Spanish poets. In a word, Da Rieti supplied the correct form for neo-Hebrew poetry, but he was unable to vivify it with an attractive spirit. Yet the Italian Jews adopted a part of his poem into their liturgy, and recited extracts daily.
From the Apennine Peninsula let us turn back to the Pyrenean, where the pulsation of historic life among the Jews, though gradually becoming weaker, still was stronger than in the other countries in which they were dispersed. The two branches of intellectual activity which formerly, in their palmy days, had exercised every mind—the severe study of the Talmud and the airy pursuit of the poetic muse—had lost their predominance in the Spanish Jewries. The systematic study of the Scriptures also was no longer properly cultivated. The literary activity of this period was almost exclusively directed towards combating the intrusiveness of the church, repelling its attacks on Judaism, and withstanding its proselytizing zeal. Faithful and strong-minded Jewish thinkers held it a duty to proclaim their convictions aloud, and to admonish waverers and strengthen them. The more the preaching monks, especially apostates of the stamp of Paul de Santa Maria, Geronimo de Santa Fé, and Pedro de la Caballeria, exerted themselves to prove that the Christian Trinity was the true God of Israel, taught and typified in the Bible and the Talmud, and the more the church stretched forth its tentacles towards the Jews, straining every nerve to fold them in its fatal embrace, the more necessary was it for the synagogue to watch over its sacred trust, and guard its holy of holies from idolatrous desecration. It was especially necessary that the weaker-minded should be spared confusion in religious and doctrinal matters. Hence Jewish preachers devoted themselves more than ever to expounding the doctrine of the unity of God in their pulpits. They pointed out the essential and irreconcilable difference between the Jewish and the Christian conception of the Deity, and characterized their identification as false and impious. The time resembled that other epoch in Jewish history when Hellenized Jews tried to induce their brethren to deny God, and were supported by the secular arm. Some preachers, in their zeal, went to extremes. Instead of relying exclusively on the convincing demonstrations in the Bible text, or on the attractive illustrations of the Agada, they resorted to the armory of scholasticism, employing the formulæ of philosophy and, in the presence of the Torah, and by the side of the Hebrew prophets and the Talmudical sages, quoted Plato, Aristotle, and Averroes.
This controversial literature, cultivated on a large scale, was designed to defend Judaism against calumny and abuse, rather than to convert a single Christian soul. Its aim was to open the eyes of Jews, so that ignorance or credulity might not lead them into the snares prepared for them. Doubtless it also desired to stir up the new-Christians, and to re-animate their Jewish spirit beneath the disguise they had assumed to save their lives. Hence the majority of the polemical writings of the day were merely vindications of Judaism from the old charges fulminated by Nicholas de Lyra a century before, or more recently by Geronimo de Santa Fé and others, and widely circulated by the Christian clergy. Solomon-Paul of Burgos, who had been appointed bishop of his native town, wrote, in his eighty-second year (1434, a year before his death), a venomous tract against Judaism—"Searching the Scriptures" (Scrutinium Scriptuarum)—in the form of a dialogue between a teacher and his pupil, the unbelieving Saul and the converted Paul. Solomon-Paul does not seem to have retained much of the wit which, according to Jewish and Christian panegyrists, had at one time distinguished him—it had probably become blunted amid the luxurious ease of the episcopal palace—for his tract, devoutly Christian and Catholic in tone, is pointless and dull. Another ex-rabbi who devoted himself to attacking Judaism was Juan de España, also called Juan the Old (at Toledo), a convert who in old age had embraced Christianity under the influence of Vincent Ferrer's proselytizing efforts. He wrote a treatise on his own conversion and a Christian commentary on the seventy-second Psalm, in both of which he asserted the genuineness of his change of creed, and urged the Jews to abjure their errors. How many weak-minded Jews must have been influenced by the zeal, earnest or hypocritical, of such men as these, belonging to their own race, and learned in their literature!
It is impossible to exaggerate the services of the men who, deeply impressed with the gravity of the crisis, threw themselves into the breach, with exhortations to their co-religionists to remain faithful to their creed. In defiance of the dangers which menaced them, they scattered their inspiriting discourses far and wide. Foremost among them were the men who had distinguished themselves at the Tortosa disputation by their unyielding attitude and their courage in withstanding the unjustifiable attacks upon the Talmud—Don Vidal (Ferrer) Ibn-Labi and Joseph Albo. The former drew up in Hebrew a refutation of Geronimo's impeachment of the Talmud (Kodesh ha-Kodashim), and the latter circulated, in Spanish, an account of a religious controversy he had sustained with an eminent church dignitary. Isaac ben Kalonymos, of a learned Provençal family named Nathan, who associated a great deal with learned Christians, and frequently had to defend his religious convictions, wrote two polemical works, one entitled "Correction of the False Teacher," directed against Geronimo's libelous essay, and the other, called "The Fortress," of unknown purpose. He also compiled a laborious work of reference intended to assist others in defending Judaism from attack. Isaac Nathan, in his intercourse with Christians, often had to listen to criticisms of Judaism, or evidences drawn from the Hebrew Bible, in favor of Christian dogmas, which he found were always based on false renderings of Hebrew words. To put an end to these illusory outgrowths of prevailing ignorance of the original text of the Scriptures, or, at least, to lighten the labors of his brethren in refuting them, he resolved to compile a comprehensive digest of the linguistic materials of the Bible, by which the actual meaning of each word should be made clear. According to the plan adopted, any one can ascertain, at a glance, both how often a certain word occurs in the Bible, and its varying meanings according to the contexts. The work thus undertaken by Isaac Nathan was of colossal scope, and occupied a long series of years (September, 1437–1445). It was a Bible concordance, that is, the verses were grouped alphabetically under the reference words according to roots and derivations. The existing Latin concordances served in a measure as models, although their purpose was the less ambitious one of assisting preachers to find texts. Isaac Nathan, who produced various other works, by this concordance rendered inestimable and lasting service to the study of the Bible, although his labor was of a purely mechanical kind. Originating from the temporary needs of the polemical situation, it has been, and will ever remain, a powerful weapon for ensuring the triumph of Judaism in its struggles with other religious systems.
The philosopher, Joseph Ibn-Shem Tob (born 1400, died a martyr 1460), who was a voluminous writer, a popular preacher, and a frequenter of the Castilian court, also entered the lists against Christianity to expose the fallacy and unreasonableness of its dogmas. In his frequent intercourse with Christians of distinction, both clerical and lay, he found it necessary to make himself thoroughly acquainted with Christian theology that he might adduce cogent arguments in reply to those who wished to convert him, or in his presence made the oft-reiterated statement of the falsity of Judaism. Occasionally a regular controversy in defense of his creed was forced upon him. The fruits of his studies and thought he committed to writing in the shape of a small treatise, entitled "Doubts of the Religion of Jesus," in which he criticised with unsparing logic the dogmas of Original Sin, Salvation, and Incarnation. Besides, he wrote, for the instruction of his brethren, a detailed commentary on Profiat Duran's satire on Christianity, and made available for them, by means of a Hebrew translation, Chasdaï Crescas' polemical work against the Christian religion, originally written in Spanish. Strange to say, the Spanish Jews preferred, as a rule, Hebrew books to those in the language of their adopted country.
Among the authors of polemical works against Christianity a contemporary of Joseph Ibn-Shem Tob deserves special mention. History has hitherto forgotten Chayim Ibn-Musa, from Bejar, in the neighborhood of Salamanca (born about 1390, died about 1460), a physician, versifier and writer, who had access to the Spanish court and the grandees through his medical skill, and so, frequent opportunities of discussing questions of doctrine with ecclesiastics and learned laymen. A colloquy preserved by Chayim Ibn-Musa illustrates the spirit which prevailed in Spain before the hateful Inquisition silenced all freedom of speech. A learned ecclesiastic once asked Ibn-Musa why, if Judaism, as he maintained, was the true faith, the Jews could not possess themselves of the Holy Land and Jerusalem? Ibn Musa replied that they had lost their country through the sins of their fathers, and could regain it only by perfect atonement and purgation. He, in turn, propounded a question: Why are the Christians no longer in possession of the Holy Sepulcher? and why does it, together with all the sites associated with the Passion, continue in the hands of Mahometan infidels, notwithstanding that Christians, by means of confession and absolution, and through the medium of the nearest available priest, can free themselves at any moment from sin? Before the ecclesiastic could bethink himself of a suitable reply, a knight, who had formerly been in Palestine, interposed: The Mahometans are the only people who deserve to possess the site of the Temple and the Holy Land, for neither Christians nor Jews hold houses of prayer in so much honor as they. The Christians, during the night before Easter (Vigils), perpetrate shameful abominations in the churches at Jerusalem, abandon themselves to debauchery, harbor thieves and murderers, and carry on bloody feuds within their precincts. They dishonor their character in the same way as the Jews profaned their Temple. Therefore, God, in His wisdom, has deprived the Jews and the Christians of the Holy City, and has intrusted it to the Mahometans, because, in their hands, it is safe from desecration. To his observation the Christian priest and the Jewish physician could oppose only abashed silence.
Chayim Ibn-Musa devoted himself to the task of discrediting the chief sources of the materials of Christian attacks on Judaism, the writings of the Franciscan Nicholas de Lyra. He not only refuted the assertions put forward in those works, but deprived them of the soil upon which they fed. The ever-recurring controversies between Jews and Christians led to no conclusions, and left each party in the belief that it had gained a victory, because they generally turned on secondary questions, the disputants never discussing fundamental premises, but wrangling, each from his undemonstrated basis. Chayim Ibn-Musa wished to introduce method into these controversies, and to lay down clear principles for the defense of Judaism. Accordingly, he drew up rules which, strictly observed, were bound to lead to a definite result. In the first place, he advised Jews invariably to hold fast in a disputation to the simple meaning of the Scriptures, always to take the context into account, and especially to avoid allegorical or symbolical methods of interpretation, which left Christian polemics free to introduce arbitrary theories. Further, Jewish disputants were to announce that they ascribed no authority in matters of belief either to the Chaldaic translation of the Bible (Targum) or to the Greek (Septuagint), these being the sources of the false proofs adduced by Christians. He counseled them to abandon even Agadic exegesis, and not to hesitate to declare that it had no weight in determining the doctrines of Judaism. These and similar rules Chayim Ibn-Musa applied to the writings of Nicholas de Lyra, successfully refuting them from beginning to end in a comprehensive work, justly entitled "Shield and Sword."
The anti-Christian polemical literature of this period was further enriched by two writers, father and son, living in Algiers, far removed from the scenes of the Christian propaganda. But Simon ben Zemach Duran and his son, Solomon Duran, were Spaniards by birth and education. In his philosophic exposition of Judaism, the former devoted a chapter to Christianity, maintaining, in answer to Christian and Mahometan objections, the inviolability of the Torah. This chapter, entitled "Bow and Buckler," and described as being "for defense and attack," proves the contention of older writers, and more recently of Profiat Duran, that Jesus' intention was not to abolish Judaism. The rabbi of Algiers exhibits extraordinarily wide acquaintance with the literature of the New Testament and thorough familiarity with church doctrine, combats each with weapons taken from its own arsenal, and criticises unsparingly.
Solomon Duran I (born about 1400, died 1467), who succeeded his father in the Algerian rabbinate, combined with profound Talmudic knowledge a decided leaning towards a rationalistic apprehension of Judaism. Unlike his father and his ancestor, Nachmani, he was a sworn enemy of the Kabbala. During his father's lifetime and at his request, he wrote a refutation of the shameless, lying accusations brought against the Talmud by Geronimo de Santa Fé. In an exhaustive treatise ("Letter on the Conflict of Duties") he deals sharply with Geronimo's sallies. He repels the accusation that the Talmud teaches lewdness, and proves that it really inculcates extreme continence. Jews who regulate their lives according to Talmudical prescriptions scrupulously abstain from carnal sins, holding them in great abhorrence, and pointing with scorn at persons guilty of them. How, asks Solomon Duran, can Christians reproach Jews with unchastity—they, whose holiest men daily commit sins which dare not be mentioned to modest ears, and which have become proverbial as "Monk's sin" (peccato dei frati).
Religious philosophy, which had been raised to the perfection of a science only by Jewish-Spanish thinkers, had its last cultivators in Spain during this period. The same men who protected Judaism against the onslaughts of Christianity defended it against benighted Jews who wished to banish light, and, like the Dominicans, desired to establish blind faith in the place of reason and judgment. Zealots like Shem Tob Ibn-Shem Tob and others, biased by their narrow Talmudical education, and misled by the Kabbala, saw in scientific inquiry a byroad to heresy. Perceiving that for the most part cultivated Jews succumbed to the proselytizing efforts of Vincent Ferrer and Pope Benedict, men of the stamp of Shem Tob were confirmed in their belief that philosophic culture, nay, reflection on a religious topic, irretrievably lead to apostasy. The logical result of religious impeachment of science was the condemnation of Maimuni and all the Jewish thinkers who had allowed reason to have weight in religious questions. Against this form of bigotry Joseph Albo entered the lists with a complete religio-philosophical work (Ikkarim, "fundamental teachings"), in which he attempted to separate the essential doctrines of Judaism from the non-essential, and to fix the boundary line between belief and heresy.
Joseph Albo (born about 1380, died about 1444), of Monreal, one of the principal representatives of Judaism at the Tortosa disputation, who, probably through the intolerance of Pope Benedict, had emigrated to Soria, was a physician and a pupil of Chasdaï Crescas, hence well acquainted with the physical sciences and the philosophic thought of his time. Although a strict adherent of Talmudical Judaism, he was, like his teacher, not averse to philosophic ideas. Indeed, he tried to reconcile them, without, of course, permitting Judaism to yield a jot to philosophy. Albo had not, however, the profundity of his teacher; as a thinker he was superficial, commonplace, and incapable of writing with logical sequence. On the advice of his friends, he undertook to investigate in how far freedom of inquiry in religious matters was possible within the limits of Judaism. At the same time he wished to fix the number of articles of faith and to decide the question whether the number thirteen adopted by Maimuni was correct, or whether it could be increased or lessened without justly bringing a charge of heresy on him who made the change. Thus originated his religio-philosophical system, the last on Spanish soil. Albo's style differs widely from that of his predecessors. He was a preacher—one of the cleverest and most graceful—and this circumstance exercised marked influence on his method of exposition. It is easy, comprehensible, popular and captivating. Albo has the knack of explaining every philosophic idea by a striking illustration, and of developing it by skillful employment of Bible verses and Agadic aphorisms. What his style thus gained, on the one hand, in intelligibility and popularity, it lost, on the other, through a certain redundancy and shallowness.
It is a remarkable fact that Albo, who thought that he was developing his religio-philosophical system exclusively in the native spirit of Judaism, placed at its head a principle of indubitably Christian origin; so powerfully do surroundings affect even those who exert themselves to throw off such influence. The religious philosopher of Soria propounded as his fundamental idea that salvation was the whole aim of man in this life, and that Judaism strongly emphasized this aspect of religion. His teacher, Chasdaï Crescas, and others, had considered man's aim the bliss of the future life, to be found in proximity to the Deity and in the union of the soul with the all-pervading spirit of God. According to Albo highest happiness consists not so much in the exaltation of the soul as in its salvation. That is the nucleus of Albo's religio-philosophical system. Man attains only after death the perfection for which he is destined by God; for this higher life his mundane existence is but a preparation. How can he best utilize his term of preparation? There are three kinds of institutions for the reclamation of man from barbarism and his advancement to civilization. The first is Natural Law, a sort of social compact to abstain from theft, rapine and homicide; the second is State Legislation, which cares for order and morals; and the third is Philosophical Law, which aims at promoting the enduring happiness of man, or, at least, at removing obstacles in the way of its realization. All these institutions, even when highly developed, are powerless to assist the real welfare of man, the redemption of his soul, his beatitude; for they concern themselves only with actions, with proper conduct, but do nothing to inculcate the views or supply the principles which are to be the mainsprings of action. If the highest aim of man be eternal life or beatitude after death, then there must be a Divine Legislation, without which man in this world must always be groping in darkness and missing his highest destiny. This Divine Legislation must supply all the perfections lacking in its mundane counterpart. It must have for its postulate a perfect God, who both wishes and is able to promote the redemption of man; it must further bear witness to the certainty that this God has revealed an unalterable Law calculated to secure the happiness of man; and finally it must appoint a suitable requital for actions and intentions. Hence this Divine Legislation has three fundamental principles: the Existence of God, the Revelation of His Will, and just Retribution after Death. These are the three pillars on which it rests, and it requires none other.
Judaism, then, according to Albo, is a discipline for eternal salvation. It is "the Divine Legislation" (Dath Elohith), and, as such, comprises many religious laws—613 according to the customary calculation—to enable each individual to promote his own salvation. For even a single religious precept fulfilled with intelligence and devotion, and without mental reservation or ulterior motive, entitles man to salvation. Consequently, the Torah, with its numerous prescriptions, is not intended as a burden for its disciples, nor are the Jews threatened, as Christian teachers maintain, with a curse in the event of their not observing the entire number of commandments. On the contrary, the object is to render easy the path to higher perfection. Therefore, the Agada says that every Israelite has a share in Eternal Life (Olam ha-ba), for each one can obtain this end by the fulfillment of a single religious duty.
Arrived at this point, the religious philosopher of Soria propounds the question whether Judaism can ever be altered as previous dispensations were by the Sinaitic Revelation. This question required specially careful consideration, as Christians always maintained that Christianity was a new revelation, as Judaism had been in its time; that the "New Covenant" took the place of the "Old," and that by the Gospel, the Torah had been fulfilled, i. e., abrogated. Albo had acknowledged the existence of rudimentary revelations previous to that of Sinai, and to avoid being entrapped by the consequences of his own system he put forward a peculiar distinction. That which God had once revealed by His own mouth direct to man was, by virtue of that fact, unalterable and binding for all time; but that which had been communicated only by a prophetic intermediary might suffer change or even annulment. The Ten Commandments which the Israelites had received direct from God, amid the flames of Sinai, were unalterable; in them the three cardinal principles of a divine legislation are laid down. On the other hand, the remaining prescriptions of Judaism, imposed on the people solely through the mediation of Moses, were open to change or even revocation. But this instability of a portion, perhaps a large portion, of the Jewish religious law was only a theory, propounded simply as a possibility. In practice the obligations of the Torah were to be regarded as binding and unalterable, until it should please God to reveal other laws through the medium of a prophet as great as Moses, and in as open and convincing a manner as on Sinai. Hitherto no prophet had made good his claim so far as to render necessary the rescinding of any portion of Judaism.
Albo's religious system is far from satisfactory. Based upon the Christian doctrine of salvation, it was compelled to regard faith, in a Christian sense, as the chief condition of the soul's redemption, and the ordinances of Judaism as sacraments, similar to baptism or communion, upon which salvation was dependent. Nor is the development of his theory strictly logical. Too often the arts of the preacher take the place of severe reasoning, and for the illustration of his ideas he indulges in prolix sermons in exposition of Biblical and Agadic texts.
A bolder thinker than Albo, but, like him, a preacher, was his junior contemporary, Joseph Ibn-Shem Tob. At one time, when in disgrace with the king of Castile, and leading a wandering life, he held forth every Sabbath to large audiences. He had been well schooled in philosophy. His Kabbalistical, gloomy and fanatical father, who denounced philosophy as a primary source of evil, damned Aristotle to hell, and even accused Maimuni of heterodoxy, must have been scandalized when his son Joseph plunged deep, and with all his heart, into the study of Aristotle and Maimuni. But Joseph did not hesitate to stigmatize the error of his father and of those who thought the employment of philosophic methods opposed to the interests of religion. He, on the contrary, held that they were essential for the attainment of the higher destiny to which all men, especially Israelites, are called. The cultured, philosophical Jew who intelligently discharges all the religious duties of Judaism obviously realizes his high aim much sooner than the Israelite who practices his ceremonial blindly, without wisdom or understanding. Science is also of great value in enabling human intelligence to discriminate error. It is the nature of man's imperfect intellect to foster truth and error side by side; but knowledge teaches how to distinguish between the true and the false. On the other hand, gaps in philosophical teaching are bridged over by the Sinaitic Law. In so far as the latter conceives the happiness of man in the survival of the spirit after the destruction of the body, it is immeasurably the superior of philosophy. Judaism also names the means of attaining eternal happiness—the conscientious fulfillment of religious obligations. On this point, Joseph Shem Tob's view approximates that of Joseph Albo. In his eyes, also, the commandments of Judaism have a sacramental character, but he does not emphasize salvation so much as Albo. Joseph Ibn-Shem Tob went so far, however, as to deny that the objects of the religious laws were knowable, and, to a certain extent, ascribed to them a mystical influence.
None of these writings of the first half of the fifteenth century, philosophical or polemical, was the fruit of leisure and an unfettered spirit. All were stimulated into existence by the urgent necessities of the times, and were put forth to protect the religious and moral treasure-house from pressing danger. In order not to succumb, Judaism was forced simultaneously to strengthen itself from within and ward off attacks from without.
It was, indeed, more than ever necessary for Judaism to arm itself, doubly and trebly; its darkest days were approaching. Again the grim church fiend arose, and the gruesome shadow of its extended wings swept anxiously across Europe. As in the time of Innocent III, so again at this period the church decreed the degradation and proscription of the Jews. The old enactments were solemnly renewed by the official representatives of Christendom, assembled in Œcumenical Council at Basle, where they had declared their infallibility, and even sat in judgment on the papacy. Curious, indeed! The council could not arrange its own concerns, was powerless to bring the mocking Hussites back to the bosom of Mother Church, despaired of putting an end to the dissoluteness and vice of the clergy and monks, yet gave its attention to the Jews to lead them to salvation. Leprous sheep themselves, they sought to save unblemished lambs! The Basle church council, which sat for thirteen years (June, 1431-May, 1443), examining all the great European questions, gave no small share of its attention to the Jews. Their humiliation was necessary for the strengthening of Christian faith—such was the ground on which the council proceeded at its nineteenth sitting (September 7th, 1434), when it resolved to revise the old and devise new restrictions. The canonical decrees prohibiting Christians from holding intercourse with Jews, from rendering them services, and from employing them as physicians, excluding them from offices and dignities, imposing on them a distinctive garb, and ordering them to live in special Jew-quarters, were renewed. A few fresh measures were adopted, new in so far as they had not previously been put forward by the highest ecclesiastical authorities. These provided that Jews should not be admitted to university degrees, that they should be made, if necessary, by force, to attend the delivery of conversionist sermons, and that at the colleges means should be provided for combating Jewish heresy by instruction in Hebrew, Chaldee, and Arabic. Thus the Œcumenical Council, which gave itself out as inspired by the Holy Ghost, designed the conversion of all Jews. It adopted the program of Penyaforte, Pablo Christiani, and Vincent Ferrer, who had counseled systematic application of pressure to induce the Jews to abandon "their infidelity." On the baptized Jews, too, the Basle church council bestowed special attention. They were to be favored, but also carefully watched, lest they marry Jews, keep the Sabbath and Jewish feasts, bury their dead according to Jewish rites, or, in fact, follow any Jewish observances.
A fanatical paroxysm broke out afresh in various towns of Europe, commencing in the island of Majorca. The remnant of the congregation of Palma was hated alike by the priests and the mob, and both gave a willing ear to the rumor that the Jews, during Holy Week, had crucified the Moorish servant of a Jew, and put him to the torture. The reputed martyr was still living, but, nevertheless, Bishop Gil-Nunjoz caused two Jews to be imprisoned as ringleaders. Thereupon arose a contest between the bishop and the governor, Juan Desfar, the latter maintaining that as the Jews were the property of the king, he alone could condemn them. The bishop was obliged to hand over the Jews, who were locked up in the governor's jail. The priests, however, incited the mob against the governor and the Jews, and before Juan Desfar could arrange for a hearing, the people were prepossessed against him. A court composed chiefly of Dominicans and Franciscans was called together, and employed the rack as the most effectual means of obtaining the truth from the witnesses. One of the accused put to the torture acknowledged all that was desired, and pointed out any Jews who happened to be mentioned as his accomplices. An unprincipled Jew named Astruc Sibili, who lived in strife with many members of the community, and feared to be involved in the blood accusation, came forward as the denouncer of his co-religionists. Apparently of his own accord Astruc Sibili acknowledged that the servant had been crucified, and pointed out several Jews as the murderers. Although he kept himself clear from all complicity in the matter, Astruc Sibili was soon punished for his denunciations—he was thrown into prison as an accomplice. The fate of the informer and the flight of several Jewish families, justly fearing a repetition of massacres, from Palma to a mountain in the vicinity, excited the Christian inhabitants yet more. The fugitives were pursued, placed in fetters, and brought back to the city, their flight being considered a proof of the guilt of the entire community. Astruc Sibili and three others were condemned to be burnt at the stake, but their punishment was commuted to death by hanging, on condition that they be baptized. To this they agreed, considering baptism the last straw by which their lives might be saved. The whole community, men, women and children, two hundred in all, went over to Christianity to escape a horrible death. The priests had ample employment in baptizing the converts. How little they believed in the imputed crime of the condemned was shown when, the gallows being reached, the priests, encouraging the mob to do the same, demanded the pardon of the condemned. The governor yielded to the voice of the people, and by a procession and amid singing they were escorted to the church, where a Te Deum was chanted. Thus ended the community of Majorca, which had lasted over a thousand years, and had greatly contributed to the well-being of the island. With it disappeared the prosperity of this fruitful and favored island. Simon Duran, deeply grieved at the secession of the community of Palma, which he had lovingly cherished, silenced his conscience with the thought that he had not been remiss in exhortation.
Pope Eugenius IV, under the Influence of Alfonso de Cartagena, changes his Attitude towards the Jews—His Bull against the Spanish and Italian Jews in 1442—Don Juan II defends the Jews—Pope Nicholas V's Hostility—Louis of Bavaria—The Philosopher Nicholas of Cusa and his Relation to Judaism—John of Capistrano—His Influence with the People is turned against the Jews—Capistrano in Bavaria and Würzburg—Expulsion of the Breslau Community—Expulsion of the Jews from Brünn and Olmütz—The Jews of Poland under Casimir IV—Capture of Constantinople by Mahomet II—The Jews find an Asylum in Turkey—The Karaites—Moses Kapsali—Isaac Zarfati—Position of the Jews of Spain—Persecutions directed by Alfonso de Spina—The Condition of the Marranos.
1442–1474 C.E.
About the middle of the fifteenth century, venomous hatred of Jews, become characteristic of Spain and Germany, began to increase, and at the end of that century reached its highest development. In Spain it was stimulated principally by envy of the influential positions still enjoyed by Jews in spite of misfortune and humiliation; in Germany, on the contrary, where the Jews moved like shadows, it arose from vague race-antipathy, of which religious differences formed only one aspect. An unfortunate event for the German communities was the death of Emperor Sigismund (towards the end of 1437) at the moment when the council of Basle was casting a threatening glance in their direction. This prince was not a reliable protector of the Jews. Often enough he bled them to relieve his ever-recurring pecuniary embarrassments, and he even charged them with the expenses of the council of Constance. But so far as lay in his power he set his face against the bloody persecutions of his Hebrew subjects. He was succeeded as German king and emperor by the Austrian Archduke Albert, who had already distinguished himself by inhumanity towards Jews. Albert II was a deadly enemy of Jews and heretics. He could not exterminate either, for the Hussites had courage and arms, and the Jews were an indispensable source of money; but whenever it was sought to injure them he gladly assisted. When the town council of Augsburg decided to expel the Jewish community (1439), the emperor joyfully gave his consent. Two years were granted them to dispose of their houses and immovables; at the end of that time they were one and all exiled, and the grave-stones in the Jewish cemetery used to repair the city walls. Fortunately for the Jews, Albert reigned only two years, and the rule of the Holy Roman Empire, or rather the anarchy by which it was convulsed, devolved on the good-natured, weak, indolent, and tractable Frederick III. As a set off, two fanatical Jew-haters now arose—Pope Eugenius IV and the Franciscan, John of Capistrano, a cut-throat in the guise of a lowly servant of God.
Eugenius, whom the council of Basle had degraded step by step, depriving him of his dignities and electing another pope in his place, ultimately triumphed through the treachery of some of the principal members of the council and the helplessness of the German princes, and was again enabled to befool the Christian nations. Eugenius, though of narrow, monkish views, was at first not unfavorably disposed towards the Jews. At the beginning of his pontificate, he confirmed the privileges granted Jews by his predecessor, Martin V, promised them his protection, and forbade their forcible baptism. But he was soon influenced in an opposite direction, and developed extraordinary zeal in degrading the Jews and withdrawing all protection from them. The prime mover in this conversion seems to have been Alfonso de Cartagena, a son of the apostate Paul de Santa Maria. Appointed bishop of Burgos on the death of his father, Alfonso warmly espoused the cause of Pope Eugenius at the council of Basle, and hence rose high in the favor of the pontiff. He alone could have been the author of the complaints against the pride and arrogance of the Castilian Jews which induced the pope to issue the bull of 1442. This document was addressed to the bishops of Castile and Leon (10th August, 1442), and was to the effect that it had come to the knowledge of his Holiness that the Jews abuse the privileges granted them by former popes, blaspheming and transgressing to the vexation of the faithful and the dishonor of the true faith. He felt himself compelled, therefore, to withdraw the indulgences granted by his predecessors—Martin and other popes—and to declare them null and void. At the same time Eugenius repeated the canonical restrictions in a severer form. Thus, he decreed that Christians should not eat, drink, bathe, or live with Jews (or Mahometans), nor use medicines of any kind purveyed by them. Jews (and Mahometans) should not be eligible for any office or dignity, and should be incompetent to inherit property from Christians. They were to build no more synagogues, and, in repairing the old, were to avoid all ornamentation. They were to seclude themselves from the public eye during Passion Week, to the extent even of keeping their doors and windows closed. The testimony of Jews (and Mahometans) against Christians was declared invalid. Eugenius' bull emphatically enjoined that no Christian should stand in any relation of servitude to a Jew, and should not even kindle a fire for him on the Sabbath; that Jews should be distinguished from Christians by a peculiar costume, and reside in special quarters. Furthermore, every blasphemous utterance by a Jew about Jesus, the "Mother of God," or the saints, was to be severely punished by the civil tribunals. This bull was ordered to be made known throughout the land, and put in force thirty days later. Heavy penalties were to be exacted for offenses under it. If the culprit was a Christian, he was to be placed under the ban of the church, and neither king nor queen was to be exempt; if a Jew, then the whole of his fortune, personal and real, was to be confiscated by the bishop of the diocese, and applied to the purposes of the church. By means of circular letters, Eugenius exhorted the Castilian ecclesiastics to enforce the restrictions without mercy. He dared not be outdone in Jew-hatred by the council of Basle. At about the same time, or perhaps earlier, Eugenius issued a bull of forty-two articles against the Italian Jewish communities, in which, among other things, he ordered that, under pain of confiscation of property, Jews should not read Talmudic literature.
The papal bull for Castile was proclaimed in many of the towns, as it would appear, without the consent of the king, Juan II. The fanatics had won the day; all their wishes were fulfilled. The misguided people at once considered Jews and Mahometans outlawed, and proceeded to make violent attacks on their persons and property. Pious Christians interpreted the papal ordinances to mean that they were not to continue commercial relations of any kind with the Jews. Christian shepherds forthwith abandoned the flocks and herds committed to their charge by Jews and Mahometans, and plowmen turned their backs upon the fields. The union of towns (Hermandad) framed new statutes for the more complete oppression of the proscribed of the church. In consternation the Jews appealed to the king of Castile. Their complaints had all the more effect upon him as their damage meant damage to the royal exchequer. Accordingly, Juan II, or rather his favorite, Alvaro de Luna, issued a counter decree (April 6th, 1443). He expressed his indignation at the shamelessness which made the papal bull an excuse for assaults on the Jews and Mahometans. Canonical, royal and imperial law agreed in permitting them to live undisturbed and unmolested among Christians. The bull of Pope Eugenius placed Jews and Mahometans under certain specific restrictions; but it did not follow that they might be robbed, injured or maltreated, that they might not engage in trade or industry, nor work as weavers, goldsmiths, carpenters, barbers, shoe-makers, tailors, millers, coppersmiths, saddlers, rope-makers, potters, cartwrights or basket-makers, or that Christians might not serve them in these pursuits. Such service involved neither relaxation of Christian authority nor dangerous intimacy with Jews. Nor did it appear that the avocations mentioned conferred any of that prestige which solely the bull was designed to deny to Jews.
Christians should certainly abstain from the medicines of Jewish or Moorish physicians, unless compounded by Christian hands; but this did not mean that skillful doctors of the Jewish or the Mahometan faith should not be consulted, or their medicines not used, when no Christian physician was available. Juan II imposed upon the magistracy the duty of safeguarding the Jews and Mahometans, as objects of his special protection, and instructed them to punish Christian offenders with imprisonment and confiscation of goods. He furthermore ordered that his pleasure be made known throughout the land by public criers, in the presence of a notary.
Whether this sophistical decree was of any real use to the Jews is doubtful. Don Juan II had not much authority in his kingdom, and was obliged to make frequent concessions to hostile parties, with whom his own son occasionally made common cause. The Castilian Jews were consequently abandoned to the arbitrary authority of the local magistrates during the remainder of the reign of this well-meaning but weak monarch, and were obliged to come to terms with them whenever protection was required against violence or false accusations. Did any misfortune threaten a Jew, then the tailor would fly to his princely patron, or the goldsmith to a grandee of high position, and seek to avert it by supplications or gold. It was truly no enviable situation in which the Jews found themselves.
Eugenius' successor, Pope Nicholas V (March, 1447-March, 1455), continued the system of degrading and oppressing the Jews. As soon as he ascended the throne of St. Peter he devoted himself to abolishing the privileges of the Italian Jews, which Martin V had confirmed and Eugenius had not formally revoked, and subjecting them to exceptional laws. In a bull, dated June 23d, 1447, he repeated for Italy the restrictions which his predecessor had formulated for Castile, re-enacting them in the fullest detail, not even omitting the prohibition against the lighting of fires for Jews on the Sabbath. But though Nicholas' bull was only a copy, it had much more real force than the original; for its execution was confided to the pitiless Jew-hater and heretic-hunter, John of Capistrano. On him devolved the duty of seeing, either in person or through his brother Franciscans, that the provisions of the bull were literally obeyed, and infractions strictly punished. If, for example, a Jewish physician provided a suffering Christian with the means of regaining health, Capistrano was authorized to confiscate the whole of the offender's fortune and property. And the saintly monk, with heart of stone, was just the man to visit such a transgression with unrelenting severity.
The Jew-hatred of the council of Basle and the popes spread like a contagion over a wide area. The fierce and bigoted Bavarian Duke of Landshut, Louis the Rich—"a hunter of game and Jews"—had all the Jews of his country arrested on one day (Monday, October 5th, 1450), shortly after his accession to power. The men were thrown into prison, the women shut up in the synagogues, and their property and jewelry confiscated. Christian debtors were directed not to pay their Jewish creditors more than the capital they had originally borrowed, and to deduct from that the interest already paid. After four weeks of incarceration the unhappy Jews were obliged to purchase their lives from the turbulent duke for 30,000 gulden, and then, penniless and almost naked, they were turned out of the country. Gladly would Louis have meted out the same treatment to the large and rich community of Ratisbon, which was within his jurisdiction. As, however, his authority was recognized only to a limited extent, and as the Jews of the city were under the protection of the council and its privileges, he was obliged to content himself with levying contributions. Many Jews are said to have been driven by anxiety and want into embracing Christianity.
As the rest of the European Jews regarded their Spanish brethren as an exalted and favored class, so the papacy directed special attention to them in order to put an end to their favorable position in the state. Either on the proposition of the king to modify the severe canonical restrictions against Jews, or on the petition of their enemies to confirm them, Pope Nicholas V issued a new bull (March 1st, 1451). He confirmed the old exclusions from Christian society and all honorable walks of life, and entirely abolished the privileges of the Spanish and the Italian Jews.
The unpitying harshness of canonical legislation against the children of Israel was unconsciously based on fear. All-powerful Christianity dreaded the influence which the Jewish mind might exert on the Christian population in too familiar intercourse. What the papacy concealed in the incense-clouds of its official decrees was disclosed by a philosophical writer and cardinal standing in close relation with the papal court. Nicholas de Cusa (from Cues on the Moselle), the last devotee of scholasticism, into which he tried to introduce mystic elements, enthusiastically advocated, in the face of the dissensions of Christendom, a union of all religions in one creed. The church ceremonies he was prepared to sacrifice, nay, he was ready to accept circumcision, if, by such means, non-Christians could be won over to the belief in the Trinity. He feared, as he distinctly said, the stiffneckedness of the Jews, who cling so stubbornly to their monotheism; but he consoled himself with the reflection that an unarmed handful could not disturb the peace of the world. It is true, the Jews were unarmed; but, mentally, they were still powerful, and Nicholas resolved to devote himself to the task of depriving them of intellectual strength. The pope had appointed him legate for Germany, where he was to reform church and cloister (1450–1451). But the cardinal also occupied himself with the Jewish question. At the provincial council of Bamberg he put into force the canonical statute concerning Jew badges, which provided that men should wear round pieces of red cloth on their breasts, and women blue stripes on their head-dresses—as if the branding of Jews could heal the dissolute clergy and their demoralized flocks of their uncleanness. The only result of the isolation of the Jews was their protection from the taint of prevailing immorality. The cardinal was not successful in purifying the clergy, or in putting an end to the fraud of bleeding hosts and miracle-working images, against which he had exclaimed so loudly. The church remained corrupt to the core. There would have been abundant cause to fear the Jews, if they had been permitted to probe the suppurating wounds.
Especially troublesome to the church were the thousands of baptized Jews in Spain, who had been driven into its fold by the massacres, pulpit denunciations, and legal restrictions to which their race was exposed. Not only the lay new-Christians, but also those who had taken orders or had assumed the monk's garb, continued to observe, more or less openly, the Jewish religious laws. The sophistry of the converts, Paul de Santa Maria and Geronimo de Santa Fé, regarding the testimony in the Old Testament and the Talmudic Agada to the Messiahship of Jesus, the Incarnation of God, the Trinity and other church dogmas, impressed the Marranos but little. In spite of baptism, they remained stiff-necked and blind, i. e., true to the faith of their fathers. Don Juan of Castile, at the instigation of his favorite, Alvaro de Luna, who was anxious to strike at his arch-enemies, the new-Christians, complained to Pope Nicholas V of the relapses of the Marranos, and the pontiff knew of no remedy but force. He addressed rescripts to the bishop of Osma and the vicar of Salamanca (November 20th, 1451), empowering them to appoint inquisitors to inquire judicially into cases of new-Christians suspected of Judaizing. The inquisitors were authorized to punish the convicted, imprison them, confiscate their goods and disgrace them, to degrade even priests, and hand them over to the secular arm—a church euphemism for condemning them to the heretic's stake. This was the first spark of the hell-fire of the Inquisition, which perpetrated more inhumanity than all the tyrants and malefactors branded by history. At first this bull seems to have been ineffectual. The times were not ripe for the bloody institution. Besides, the Christians themselves helped to keep up the connection of the baptized Jews with their brethren in race. They denied equal rights to new-Christians of Jewish or Mahometan origin, and wished to exclude them from all posts of honor. Against this antipathy, inherent in the diversity of national elements, the pope was compelled to issue a bull (November 29th, 1451), but it was powerless to uproot the prejudice. It could be removed only by higher culture, not at the dictation of a church chief, even though he boasted of infallibility.
How absurd, then, to continue driving such proselytes into the church! Yet this was done by the Franciscan monk, John of Capistrano (of Neapolitan origin), who is responsible for immense injury to the Jews of many lands. This mendicant friar, of gaunt figure and ill-favored appearance, possessed a winning voice and an iron will, which enabled him to obtain unbounded influence, not only over the stupid populace, but also over the cultivated classes. With a word he could fascinate, inspire, or terrify, persuade to piety or incite to cruelty. Like the Spanish Dominican, Vincent Ferrer, the secret of Capistrano's power lay not so much in his captivating eloquence as in the sympathetic modulations of his voice and the unshakable enthusiasm with which he clung to his mistaken convictions. He himself firmly believed that, with the blood he had gathered from the nose of his master, Bernard of Siena, and his capuche, he could cure the sick, awake the dead and perform all kinds of miracles, and the misguided people not only believed but exaggerated his professions. His strictly ascetic life, his hatred of good living, luxury and debauchery, made an impression the deeper from its striking contrast to the sensuality and dissoluteness of the great bulk of the clergy and monks. Wherever Capistrano appeared, the people thronged by thousands to hear him, to be edified and agitated, even though they did not understand a syllable of his Latin addresses. The astute popes, Eugenius IV and Nicholas V, recognized in him a serviceable instrument for the restoration of the tottering authority of St. Peter. They rejoiced in his homilies on the infallibility of the papacy and his fiery harangues on the extermination of heretics, and the necessity of withstanding the victoriously advancing Turks. They offered no objection if, at the same time, he thought proper to vent his monkish gall upon harmless amusements, pastimes and the elegancies of life, seeing that they themselves were not disturbed in their enjoyments and pleasures. Among the standing themes of Capistrano's exciting discourses—second only to his rancor against heretics and Turks, and his tirades against luxury and sports—were his denunciations of the impieties and the usury of Jews. This procured his appointment by Pope Nicholas to the post of inquisitor of the Jews, his duty being to superintend the enforcement of the canonical restrictions against them. He had in Naples occupied the position of inquisitorial judge for the Jews, on the nomination of Queen Joanna, who had empowered him to punish with the severest penalties any failure to observe the ecclesiastical law or wear the Jew badge.
When this infuriate Capuchin visited Germany, he spread terror and dismay among the Jews. They trembled at the mention of his name. In Bavaria, Silesia, Moravia, and Austria, the bigotry of the Catholics, already at a high pitch on account of the Hussite schism, was further stirred by Capistrano, and, the Bohemian heretics being beyond its reach, it vented itself upon Jews. The Bavarian dukes, Louis and Albert, who had on one occasion before driven the Jews out of their territories, were made still more fanatical by Capistrano. The former demanded of certain counts, and of the city of Ratisbon, that they expel the Jews. The burgomaster and town council, however, refused, and would not withdraw the protection and the rights of citizenship which the Jews had enjoyed from an early period. But they could not shield them from the hostility of the clergy. Eventually even the Ratisbon burghers, despite their good will for their Jewish fellow-citizens, fell under the influence of Capistrano's fanaticism, and allowed themselves to be incited to acts of unfriendliness. In the midwife regulations, promulgated during the same year, occurs a clause prohibiting Christian midwives from attending Jewish women, even in cases where the lives of the patients were at stake.
The change of public feeling in respect to the Jews, brought about by Capistrano, is strikingly illustrated by the conduct of one eminent ecclesiastic before and after the appearance of the Capuchin in Germany. Bishop Godfrey, of Würzburg, reigning duke of Franconia, shortly after his accession to the government of the duchy, had granted the fullest privileges to the Jews. More favorable treatment they could not have desired. For himself and his successors he promised special protection to all within his dominions, both to those settled and those who might settle there later. They were to be freed from the authority of the ordinary tribunals, lay and ecclesiastical, and to have their disputes inquired into and adjudicated by their own courts. Their rabbi (Hochmeister) was to be exempt from taxes, and to be allowed to receive pupils in his Yeshiba at his discretion. Their movements were to be unrestricted, and those who might desire to change their place of residence were to be assisted to collect their debts, and provided with safe-conduct on their journeys. It was further promised that these privileges should never be modified or revoked, and the dean and chapter unanimously recognized and guaranteed them "for themselves and their successors in the chapter." Every Jew who took up his abode within Bishop Godfrey's jurisdiction was provided with special letters of protection. But after Capistrano had begun his agitation, how different the attitude towards Jews! We soon find the same bishop and duke of Franconia issuing, "on account of the grievous complaints against the Jews in his diocese," a statute and ordinance (1453) decreeing their banishment. They were allowed until the 18th January of the following year to sell their immovables, and within fourteen days after that date, they were to leave, for "he (the bishop) would no longer tolerate Jews in his diocese." The towns, barons, lords, and justices were enjoined to expel the Jews from their several jurisdictions, and Jewish creditors were deprived of a portion of the debts owing to them. When Jews were concerned, inhuman fanaticism could beguile a noble-hearted prince of the church and an entire chapter of ecclesiastics into a flagrant breach of faith.
Capistrano's influence was most mischievous for the Jews of Silesia. Here he showed himself in truth to be the "Scourge of the Jews," as his admirers called him. The two chief communities in this province, which belonged half to Poland and half to Bohemia, were at Breslau and Schweidnitz, and the Jews composing them, not being permitted to possess real property, and being, besides, largely engaged in the money traffic, had considerable amounts of money at their command. The majority of the nobles were among their debtors, and several towns were either themselves debtors or had become security for their princes. Hence it is not unlikely that some debtors of rank secretly planned to evade their liabilities by ridding themselves of the Jews. At any rate the advent of the fanatical Franciscan afforded an opportunity for carrying out such a design.
Capistrano came to the Silesian capital on the invitation of the bishop of Breslau, Peter Novak, who found himself unable to control his subordinate ecclesiastics. Summoning the clergy to his presence, the Franciscan preacher upbraided them for their sinful, immoral, and sensual lives. The doors of the church in which the interview took place were securely bolted, so that no lay ear might learn the full extent of the depravity of the ministers of the Gospel. But nearer to his heart than the reclamation of the clergy was the extermination of the Hussites, of whom there were many in Silesia, and the persecution of the Jews. The frenzied fanaticism with which Capistrano's harangues inspired the people of Breslau directed itself principally against the Jews. A report was spread that a Jew named Meyer, one of the wealthiest of the Breslau Israelites, in whose safe-keeping were many of the bonds of the burghers and nobles, had purchased a host from a peasant, had stabbed and blasphemed it, and then distributed its fragments among the communities of Schweidnitz, Liegnitz, and others for further desecration. It need hardly be said that the wounded host was alleged to have shed blood. This imbecile fiction soon reached the ears of the municipal authorities, with whom it found ready credence. Forthwith all the Jews of Breslau, men, women and children, were thrown into prison, their entire property in the "Judengasse" seized, and, what was most important to the authors of the catastrophe, the bonds of their debtors, worth about 25,000 Hungarian gold florins, confiscated (2d May, 1453). The guilt of the Jews was rendered more credible by the flight of a few of them, who were, however, soon taken. Capistrano assumed the direction of the inquiry into this important affair. As inquisitor, the leading voice in the prosecution of blasphemers of the consecrated wafer by right belonged to him. He ordered a few Jews to be stretched on the rack, and personally instructed the torturers in their task—he had experience in such work. The tortured Israelites confessed. Meantime another infamous lie was circulated. A wicked baptized Jewess declared that the Breslau Jews had once before burnt a host, and that, on another occasion, they had kidnaped a Christian boy, fattened him, and put him into a cask studded with sharp nails, which they rolled about until their victim gave up the ghost. His blood had been distributed among the Silesian communities. Even the bones of the murdered child were alleged to have been found. The guilt of the Jews appeared established in these various cases, and a large number, in all 318 persons, were arrested in different localities, and brought to Breslau. Capistrano sat in judgment upon them, and hurried them to execution. At the Salzring—now Blücherplatz—where Capistrano resided, forty-one convicted Jews were burnt on one day (2d June, 1453). The rabbi (Phineas?) hanged himself; he had also counseled others to take their own lives. The remainder were banished from Breslau, all their children under seven years of age having previously been taken from them by force, baptized, and given to Christians to be brought up. This was Capistrano's wish, and in a learned treatise he explained to King Ladislaus that it was in consonance with the Christian religion and orthodoxy. The honest town clerk, Eschenloer, who did not venture to protest aloud against these barbarities, wrote in his diary, "Whether this is godly or not, I leave to the judgment of the ministers of religion." The ministers of religion had transformed themselves into savages. The goods of the burnt and banished Jews were, of course, seized, and with their proceeds the Bernardine church was built. It was not the only church erected with bloody money. In the remaining Silesian towns the Jews fared no better. Some were burnt, and the rest chased away, stripped almost to the skin.
When the young king, Ladislaus, was petitioned by the Breslau town council to decree that from that time forward no Jew would be allowed to settle in Breslau, not only did he assent "for the glory of God and the honor of the Christian faith," but he added, in approval of the outrages committed, "that they (the Silesian Jews) had suffered according to their deserts," a remark worthy of the son of Albert II, who had burnt the Austrian Jews. The same monarch also sanctioned—doubtless at the instigation of Capistrano, who passed several months at Olmütz—the expulsion of the Jews from the latter place and from Brünn.
The echoes of Capistrano's venomous eloquence reached even Poland, disturbing the Jewish communities there from the tranquillity they had enjoyed for centuries. Poland had long been a refuge for hunted and persecuted Jews. Exiles from Germany, Austria and Hungary found a ready welcome on the Vistula. The privileges generously granted them by Duke Boleslav, and renewed and confirmed by King Casimir the Great, were still in force. The Jews were, in fact, even more indispensable in that country than in other parts of Christian Europe; for in Poland there were only two classes, nobles and serfs, and the Jews supplied the place of the middle class, providing merchandise and money, and bringing the dead capital of the country into circulation. During a visit which Casimir IV paid to Posen shortly after his accession, a fire broke out in this already important city, and, with the exception of its few brick houses, it was totally destroyed. In this conflagration, the original document of the privileges granted the Jews a century before by Casimir the Great perished. Jewish deputations from a number of Polish communities waited upon the king, lamenting the loss of these records, so important to them, and praying that new ones might be prepared according to existing copies, and that all their old rights might be renewed and confirmed. Casimir did not require much persuasion. In order that they might live in security and contentment under his happy reign, he granted them privileges such as they had never before enjoyed in any European state (14th August, 1447). This king was in no respect a slave of the church. So strictly did he keep the clergy within bounds that they charged him with persecuting and robbing them. He forbade their meddling in affairs of state, saying that in such matters he preferred to rely on his own powers.
Either the king was misled by a false copy of the original charters, or he desired to avail himself of the opportunity of enlarging their scope without appearing to make fresh concessions; at all events, the privileges accorded under the new statute were, in many respects, more considerable than those formerly enjoyed by the Jews. Not alone did it permit unrestricted trading and residence all over the then very extensive kingdom of Poland, but it annulled canonical laws often laid down by the popes, and only recently re-enacted by the general church council of Basle. Casimir's charter mentioned that Jews and Christians might bathe together, and in all respects enjoy free intercourse with each other. It emphatically decreed that no Christian could summon a Jew before an ecclesiastical tribunal, and that if a Jew was so summoned, he need not appear. The palatines in their several provinces were enjoined to see that the Jews were not molested by the clergy, and generally to extend to them powerful protection. Furthermore, no Jew might be accused of using Christian blood in the Passover ceremonies, or of desecrating hosts, "Jews being innocent of such offenses, which are repudiated by their religion." If a Christian charged an individual Jew with using Christian blood, his accusation had to be supported by native, trustworthy Jewish witnesses and four similarly qualified Christian witnesses, and then the accused was to suffer for his crime, and his co-religionists were not to be dragged into it. In the event, however, of the Christian accuser not being in a position to substantiate his charge by credible testimony, he was to be punished with death. This was a check on ever-recurring calumny with its train of massacres of Jews. Casimir also recognized the judicial autonomy of the Jewish community. In criminal cases between Jews, or between Jews and Christians, the ordinary tribunals were not to interfere, but the palatine, or his representative, assisted by Jews, was to adjudicate. In minor law-suits the decision was to rest with the Jewish elders (rabbis), who were permitted to inflict a fine of six marks in cases where their summonses were not obeyed. To keep the authority of the Jewish courts within reasonable bounds, Casimir's charter enacted that the ban should be pronounced on a Jew only with the concurrence of the entire community. Truly, in no part of Christian Europe were the Jews possessed of such important privileges. They were renewed and issued by the king with the assent of the Polish magnates. Also the Karaite communities of Troki, Luzk, etc., received from Casimir a renewal and confirmation of the privileges granted them by the Lithuanian Duke Witold in the thirteenth century.
The clergy looked with jealous eyes on this complaisance to the Jews, and zealously worked to induce the king to change his friendly attitude. At the head of the Polish priesthood thus hostile to the Jews stood the influential bishop and cardinal of Cracow, Zbigniev Olesnicki. The protection accorded the Jews and Hussites by the king was to him a source of deep chagrin, and, to give effective vent to his feelings, he sent in hot haste for the heretic-hunter Capistrano. Capistrano entered Cracow in triumph, and was received by the king and the clergy like a divine being. During the whole of his stay in Cracow (August 28th, 1453, to May, 1454), aided by Bishop Zbigniev, he stirred up King Casimir against the Hussite heretics and the Jews. He publicly remonstrated with him on the subject, threatening him with hell-fire and an unsuccessful issue to his war with the Prussian order of knights, if he did not abolish the privileges enjoyed by Jews, and abandon the Hussite heretics to the church. It was easy to predict a defeat at the hands of the Prussian knights, seeing that the pope and the whole of the Polish church were secretly assisting them against Casimir.
Therefore, when the Teutonic knights, in aid of their Prussian allies, took the field against Poland, and the Polish army, with King Casimir at its head, was ignominiously put to flight (September, 1454), the game of the clerical party was won. They spread the rumor that the disaster to Poland was a consequence of the king's favor to Jews and heretics. To retrieve his fallen fortunes, and to undertake a vigorous campaign against the Prussians, Casimir needed the assistance of Bishop Zbigniev, and the latter was in a position to make his own terms. The Jews were sacrificed—the king was compelled to give them up. In November, 1454, Casimir revoked all the privileges he had granted the Jews, on the ground that "infidels may not enjoy preference over the worshipers of Christ, and servants may not be better treated than sons." By public criers the king's resolve was made known throughout the land. Besides, Casimir ordered that the Jews of Poland wear a special costume to distinguish them from Christians. Capistrano was victorious all along the line. Through him the Jews were abased even in the land where they had been most exalted. The results of this misfortune were not long in showing themselves. The Jewish communities mournfully wrote to their brethren in Germany, "that 'the monk' had brought grievous trouble," even to those who lived under the scepter of the king of Poland, whose lot had formerly been so happy that they had been able to offer a refuge to the persecuted of other lands. They had not believed that an enemy could reach them across the Polish frontier; and now they had to groan under the oppression of the king and the magnates.
Meanwhile, heavy but deserved judgment descended on Christendom. After an existence of more than a thousand years the sin-laden Byzantine empire, which had stood its ground for centuries in spite of its rottenness, had at length collapsed with the fall of Constantinople (May 29th, 1453). The Turkish conqueror, Mahomet II, had given New Rome over to slavery, spoliation, massacre, and every horror and outrage, yet had, by no means, requited the wrongs she had inflicted on others and herself. From Constantine, the founder of the Byzantine empire, who placed a blood-stained sword in the hands of the church, to the last of the emperors, Constantine Dragosses, of the Palæologus family, everyone in the long series of rulers (with the exception of the apostate Julian) was more or less inspired by falsehood and treachery, and an arrogant, hypocritical, persecuting spirit. And the people, as well as the servants of state and church, were worthy of their rulers. From them the German, Latin and Slavonic peoples had derived the principle that the Jews ought to be degraded by exceptional laws, or even exterminated. Now, however, Byzantium itself lay shattered in the dust, and wild barbarians were raising the new Turkish empire on its site. Heavy vengeance had been exacted. Mahomet II, the conqueror of Constantinople, threw a threatening glance at the remainder of Europe, the countries of the Latin Church. The whole of Christendom was in danger; yet the Christian rulers and nations were unable to organize an effective resistance against the Turkish conquerors. The perfidy and corruption of the papacy now bore bitter fruit. When the faithless pope, Nicholas V, called upon Christendom to undertake a crusade against the Turks, his legates at the diet of Ratisbon were compelled to listen to unsparing denunciation of his corruption. Neither the pope nor the emperor, they were told, had any real thought of undertaking a war against the Turks; their sole idea was to squander upon themselves the money they might collect. When the Turks made preparations to invade Hungary, and threatened to carry the victorious crescent from the right to the left side of the Danube, Capistrano preached himself hoarse to kindle enthusiasm for a new crusade. His tirades had ceased to draw. Their only effect was to assemble a ragged mob of students, peasants, mendicant friars, half-starved adventurers and romantic fanatics. The ghost of mediævalism vanished before the dawn of a new day.
It seems almost providential that, at a moment when the persecutions in Europe were increasing in number and virulence, the new Turkish empire should have arisen to offer an hospitable asylum to the hunted Jews. When, three days after the chastisement which he inflicted on Constantinople, the sultan, Mahomet II, proclaimed that all the fugitive inhabitants might return to their homes and estates without fear of molestation, he gave a benevolent thought to the Jews. He permitted them to settle freely in Constantinople and other towns, allotted them special dwelling-places, and allowed them to erect synagogues and schools. Soon after his capture of Constantinople, he ordered the election of a Greek patriarch, whom he invested with a certain political authority over all the Greeks in his new dominions, and also nominated a chief rabbi to preside over the Hebrew communities. This was a pious, learned, upright Israelite, named Moses Kapsali. Mahomet even summoned this rabbi to the divan, and singled him out for special distinction, giving him a seat next to the mufti, the Chief Ulema of the Mahometans, and precedence over the patriarch. Moses Kapsali (born about 1420, died about 1495), also received from the sultan a kind of political suzerainty over the Jewish communities in Turkey. The taxes imposed upon the Jews he had to apportion among communities and individuals; he had to superintend their collection and to pay them into the sultan's exchequer. He was furthermore empowered to inflict punishment on his co-religionists, and no rabbi could hold office without his sanction. In short, he was the chief and the official representative of a completely organized Jewish communal system.
This favorable situation of the Jews had a stimulating effect on the degenerate Karaites, who migrated in considerable numbers from Asia, the Crimea and southern Poland, to take up their abode with their more happily placed brethren in Constantinople and Adrianople. The Karaites, whose fundamental principle is the study and reasonable interpretation of the Bible, were in so lamentable a state of ignorance, that their entire religious structure had become a system of authorized dogmas and traditions more rigid even than that of the Rabbanites. The extent of their intellectual decline may be measured by the fact that in the course of a century they failed to produce a single moderately original theological writer. Those with a bent for study were compelled to sit at the feet of Rabbanite teachers and receive from them instruction in the Scriptures and the Talmud. The proud masters of Bible exegesis had become the humble disciples of the once despised Rabbanites. The petrifaction of Karaism is illustrated by an event in European Turkey. A Karaite college, consisting of Menachem Bashyasi, his son Moses Bashyasi, Menachem Maroli, Michael the Old, his son Joseph, and a few others, had permitted the lights necessary for the Sabbath eve to be prepared on Friday, so that the holy day need not be spent in darkness. The college gave adequate reasons for the innovation. According to a Karaite principle, not only an ecclesiastical authority, but any individual is justified in abolishing an ancient custom, or annulling former decisions, if he can cite sufficient exegetical authority. Nevertheless, stormy opposition arose (about 1460) against this decision, aimed at a custom derived, perhaps, from Anan, the founder of Karaism, and hence possessing the sacredness conferred by the rust of seven centuries. Schism and friction were the result. The section of the community which ventured to prepare the lights required for the Sabbath eve was abused, and charged with heresy. Moreover, the schism relating to the commencement of the festivals was still unhealed. The Palestinian Karaite communities and their neighbors continued to distinguish between an ordinary and a leap year by the state of the barley harvest, and to regulate their festivals by the appearance of the new moon. On the other hand, the communities in Turkey, the Crimea, and southern Poland, used the calendar of the Rabbanites. These hereditary differences were eating more and more into the solidarity of the sect, for there was no means of composing them, and agreeing upon uniform principles.