THE BLACK DEATH.
Rise of the False Accusation against Jews of Poisoning the
Wells--Massacres in Southern France and Catalonia--The
Friendly Bull of Pope Clement VI--Terrible Massacres in all
Parts of Germany--Confessions wrung from the Jews on the Rack
--The Flagellants as a Scourge for the Jews--King Casimir of
Poland--Persecution in Brussels--The Black Death in Spain
--Don Pedro the Cruel and the Jews--Santob de Carrion and
Samuel Abulafia--Fall of Don Pedro and its Consequences for the
Jews--Return of the Jews to France and Germany--The "Golden
Bull"--Manessier de Vesoul--Matathiah Meïr Halevi--Synod at
Mayence.
1348-1380 C.E.
The assistance of the pope was of very little use to the Jews, and
the protection of the German emperor was like the support of a broken
reed. Within ten years they learned this comfortless experience; for
soon came most mournful days for the Jewish communities in most parts
of Europe where the cross held sway, to which the slaughter by the
Leather-arms and the brutal atrocities of Deckendorf were but a weak
prelude.
The glimpse of good fortune which the Spanish Jews enjoyed under
Alfonso XI served only to bring down upon their brethren in the
other Christian countries a widespread, intense, indescribably cruel
persecution with which none of the massacres that had hitherto taken
place can be compared. The destroying angel called the Black Death,
which carried on its ravages for over three years, made its way from
China across lands and seas into the heart of Europe, heralded by
premonitory earthquakes and other terrifying natural phenomena. Sparing
neither rank nor age, it left a devastated track behind, sweeping
away a fourth part of all mankind (nearly 25,000,000) as with a
poison-laden breath and stifling every noble impulse. In Europe the
invisible Death with its horrors turned the Christians into veritable
destroying angels for the Jews. Those whom the epidemic had spared
were handed over to torture, the sword, or the stake. Whilst neither
Mahometans nor Mongols who suffered from the plague attacked the Jews,
Christian peoples charged the unhappy race with being the originators
of the pestilence, and slaughtered them _en masse_. The church had so
often and impressively preached that infidels were to be destroyed;
that Jews were worse than heretics, even worse than unbelieving
heathens; that they were the murderers of Christians and the slayers
of children, that at last its true sons believed what was said, and
carried its doctrines into effect. Owing to the prevailing misery,
discipline and order, obedience and submissiveness were at an end, and
each man was thrown upon his own resources. Under these circumstances,
the effects of the education of the church appeared in a most hideous
form. The Black Death had indeed made itself felt among Jews also; but
the plague had visited them in a comparatively milder form than the
Christians, probably on account of their greater moderation, and the
very careful attention paid their sick. Thus the suspicion arose that
the Jews had poisoned the brooks and wells, and even the air, in order
to annihilate the Christians of every country at one blow.
It was charged that the Spanish Jews, supposed to be in possession
of great power and influence over the congregations of Europe, had
hit upon this diabolical scheme; that they had dispatched messengers
far and wide with boxes containing poison, and by threats of
excommunication had coerced the other Jews to aid in carrying out their
plans, and that these directions issued from Toledo, which might be
viewed as the Jewish capital. The infatuated populace went so far as
to name the man who had delivered these orders and the poison. It was
Jacob Pascate, said they, from Toledo, who had settled in Chambery
(in Savoy), from which as a center he had sent out a troop of Jewish
poisoners into all countries and cities. This Jacob, together with a
Rabbi Peyret, of Chambery, and a rich Jew, Aboget, was said to have
dealt largely in the manufacture and sale of poisons. The poison,
prepared by the Jewish doctors of the black art in Spain, was reported
to be concocted from the flesh of a basilisk, or from spiders, frogs
and lizards, or from the hearts of Christians and the dough of the
consecrated wafers. These and similar silly stories invented by
ignorant, or, perhaps, malicious people, and distorted and exaggerated
by the heated imagination, were credited not alone by the ignorant mob,
but even by the higher classes. The courts of justice earnestly strove
to learn the real truth of these rumors, and employed the means for
confirming a suspicion used by the Christians of the Middle Ages with
especial skill--torture in every possible form.
As far as can be ascertained, these tales concerning the poisoning of
the brooks and wells by Jews first found credence in southern France,
where the Black Death as early as the beginning of the year 1348 had
obtained many victims. In a certain town of southern France, on one
day (the middle of the month of May), the whole Jewish congregation,
men, women, and children, together with their holy writings, were cast
into the flames. From that place the slaughter spread to Catalonia and
Aragon. In these provinces, in the same year, anarchy was rife, because
the nobles and people had revolted against the king, Don Pedro, in
order to secure certain of their privileges against the encroachments
of the monarch. When the tales of the poisoning of the wells had taken
firm root in the minds of the people of these countries also, the
inhabitants of Barcelona gathered together on a Saturday (towards
the end of June), slew about twenty persons, and pillaged the Jewish
houses. The most distinguished men of the city received the persecuted
people under their protection, and aided by a terrible storm, loud
thunder and flashes of lightning, they made a successful attack upon
the deluded or plunder-seeking assailants of the Jews.
A few days later the community at Cervera was attacked in a similar
manner, eighteen of its members killed, and the rest compelled to
flee. The Jewish philosopher, Vidal Narboni, happened to be in the
town, and in the assault he lost his possessions and his books. All
the congregations of northern Spain knew themselves in danger of being
attacked; they instituted public fasts, implored mercy from heaven,
and barricaded those of their quarters which were surrounded by walls.
In Aragon, however, the higher classes came to the help of the Jews.
Pope Clement VI, who had taken so much interest in the astronomical
works of Gersonides, and who, terrified at the approach of death,
had shut himself up in his room, still felt for the sufferings of
an innocent, persecuted people. He issued a bull in which, under
pain of excommunication, he prohibited anyone from killing the Jews
without proper judicial sentence, or from dragging them by force to
be baptized, or from despoiling them of their goods (the beginning
of July). This bull was probably of some use in southern France, but
in the other parts of the Christian world it produced no effect. One
country followed the example of another. The ideally beautiful region
surrounding Lake Geneva next became the scene of a most frightful
persecution. At the command of Amadeus, duke of Savoy at that time,
several Jews suspected of poisoning were arrested and imprisoned in
two small towns, Chillon and Chatel, on Lake Geneva. A commission of
judges was appointed to inquire into the charges brought against the
prisoners, and, if convicted, they were to be severely punished.
In this country, then, a prince and his tribunal believed the
preposterous fable of the poisoning by Jews. On the Day of Atonement
(15th September, 1348), three Jews and a Jewess in Chillon were made
to undergo torture: the surgeon Valavigny, from Thonon, Bandito and
Mamson, from Ville-Neuve, and, three weeks later, Bellieta and her son
Aquet. In their pain and despair, they told the names of the persons
from whom they had received the poison, and admitted that they had
scattered it in different spots near wells and brooks. They denounced
themselves, their co-religionists, their parents and their children as
guilty. Ten days later the merciless judges again applied the torture
to the enfeebled woman and her son, and they vied with each other in
their revelations. In Chastelard five Jews were put to the torture, and
they made equally incredible confessions of guilt. Aquet made the wild
statement that he had placed poison in Venice, in Apulia and Calabria,
and in Toulouse, in France. The secretaries took down all these
confessions in writing, and they were verified by the signatures of
their authors. To remove all doubts concerning their trustworthiness,
the crafty judges added that the victims were only very lightly
tortured. In consequence of these disclosures, not only the accused who
acknowledged their crime, but all the Jews in the region of Lake Geneva
and in Savoy were burnt at the stake.
The report of the demonstrated guilt of the Jews rapidly made its way
from Geneva into Switzerland, and here scenes of blood of the same
horrible description were soon witnessed. The consuls of Berne sent
for the account of the proceedings of the courts of justice at Chillon
and Chastelard. They then put certain Jews to the torture, extracted
confessions from them, and kindled the funeral pyre for all the Jews
(September).
The annihilation of the Jews on the charge of poisoning was now
systematically carried out, beginning with Berne and Zofingen (canton
Aargau). The consuls of Berne addressed letters to Basle, Freiburg,
Strasburg, Cologne, and many other places, with the announcement that
the Jews had been found guilty of the crime imputed to them; and also
sent a Jew, bound in chains, under convoy, to Cologne, that every one
might be convinced of the diabolical plans of the Jews. In Zurich the
charge of poisoning the wells was raised together with that of the
murder of a Christian child. There, also, those who appeared to be
guilty were burnt at the stake, the rest of the community expelled
from the town, and a law passed forbidding them ever to return thither
(21st September). The persecution of the Jews extended northwards with
the pestilence. Like the communities around Lake Geneva, Jews in the
cities surrounding Lake Constance, in St. Gall, Lindau, Ueberlingen,
Schaffhausen, Constance (Costnitz), and others, were burnt at the
stake, put to the wheel, or sentenced to expulsion or compulsory
baptism. Once again Pope Clement VI took up the cause of the Jews; he
published a bull to the whole of Catholic Christendom, in which he
declared the innocence of the Jews regarding the charge leveled against
them. He produced all possible reasons to show the absurdity of the
accusation, stating that in districts where no Jew lived the people
were visited by the pestilence, and that Jews also suffered from its
terrible effects. It was of no avail that he admonished the clergy to
take the Jews under their protection, and that he placed the false
accusers and the murderers under the ban (September). The child had
become more powerful than its parent, wild fancy stronger than the
papacy.
Nowhere was the destruction of the Jews prosecuted with more
thoroughness and more intense hatred than in the Holy Roman Empire.
In vain the newly-elected emperor, Charles IV, of Luxemburg, issued
letter after letter forbidding the persons of the Jews, his "servi
cameræ," to be touched. Even had he possessed more power in Germany,
he would not have found the German people willing to spare the Jews.
The Germans did not commit their fearful outrages upon the Jews merely
for the sake of plunder, although a straightforward historian of that
epoch, Closener of Strasburg, remarks that "their goods were the poison
which caused the death of the Jews." Sheer stupidity made them believe
that Jews had poisoned the wells and rivers. The councils of various
towns ordered that the springs and wells be walled in, so that the
citizens be not poisoned, and they had to drink rain water or melted
snow. Was it not just that the Jews, the cause of this evil, should
suffer?
There were some too sensible to share the delusion that the Jews were
the cause of the great mortality. These few men deserve a place in
history, for, despite their danger, they could feel and act humanely.
In the municipal council of Strasburg, the burgomaster Conrad (Kunze)
of Wintertur, the sheriff, Gosse Sturm, and the master workman, Peter
Swaber, took great trouble to prove the Jews innocent of the crimes
laid at their door, and defended them against the fanatical attack
of the mob and even against the bishop. The councilors of Basle and
Freiburg likewise took the part of the unhappy people. The council of
Cologne wrote to the representatives of Strasburg that it would follow
the example of the latter town with regard to the Jews; for it was
convinced that the pestilence was to be considered as a visitation
from God. It would, therefore, not permit the Jews to be persecuted
on account of groundless reports, but would protect them with all its
power, as in former times. In Basle, however, the guilds and a mob
rose in rebellion against the council, repaired with their flags to
the city hall, insisted that the patricians who had been banished on
account of their action against the Jews, should be recalled, and the
Jews banished from the city. The council was compelled to comply with
the first demand; as to the second, it deferred its decision until
a day of public meeting, when this matter was to be considered. In
Benfelden (Alsace) a council was actually held to consider the course
to be followed with regard to Jews. There were present Bishop Berthold
of Strasburg, barons, lords, and representatives of the towns. The
representatives of Strasburg bravely maintained the cause of the
Jews, even against the bishop, who either from malice or stupidity
was in favor of their complete destruction. Although they repeatedly
demonstrated that the Jews could not be the cause of the pestilence,
they were out-voted, and it was decided to banish the Jews from all the
cities on the upper Rhine (towards the close of 1348).
The Jews of Alsace, through the decision of Benfelden, were declared
outlaws, and were either expelled from the various places they visited,
or burnt. A hard fate overtook the community of Basle. On an island
of the Rhine, in a house especially built for the purpose, they were
burnt to death (January 9th, 1349), and it was decided that within the
next two hundred years no Jew should be permitted to settle in that
city. A week later all the Jews of Freiburg were burnt at the stake
with the exception of twelve of the richest men, who were permitted to
live that they might disclose the names of their creditors, for the
property of the victims fell to the community. The community of Speyer
was the first sacrifice amongst the communities of the Rhineland. The
mob rose up and killed several Jews, others burning themselves in their
houses, and some going over to Christianity. The council of Speyer
took the property of the Jews, and confiscated their estates in the
neighborhood. The council of Strasburg remained firm in its protection
of the Jews, sending out numerous letters to obtain proofs of their
innocence. But from many sides came unfavorable testimony. The council
of Zähringen said that it was in possession of the poison the Jews had
scattered. When tried it proved fatal to animals. The council would not
let it go out of its hands, but would show it to a messenger.
A castellan of Chillon had the confessions of the Jews tortured in
the district of Lake Geneva copied, and sent them to the council of
Strasburg. Only the council of Cologne encouraged Wintertur to support
the cause of the Jews, and to take no notice of the demands of their
enemies. At length the trade-guilds rose against Wintertur and his two
colleagues, who were deposed from office. A new council was chosen that
favored the persecutions of the Jews. In the end, the entire community
of Strasburg--2,000 souls--were imprisoned. The following day, on
a Sabbath (14th February, 1349), they were all dragged to the burial
ground. Stakes were erected, and they were burnt to death. Only those
who in despair accepted the cross were spared. The new council decreed
that for a period of a hundred years no Jew should be admitted into
Strasburg. The treasures of the Jews were divided amongst the burghers,
some of whom were loth to defile themselves with the money, and, by the
advice of their confessors, devoted it to the church.
Next came the turn of Worms, the oldest Jewish community in Germany.
The Jews of this town had the worst to fear from their Christian
fellow-citizens, Emperor Charles IV having given them and their
possessions to the town in return for services, so that "the city
and the burghers of Worms might do unto the Jews and Judaism as they
wished, might act as with their own property." When the council
decreed that the Jews should be burnt, the unfortunates determined to
anticipate the death which awaited them from the hangman. Twelve Jewish
representatives are said to have repaired to the town hall and begged
for mercy. When this was refused to them, they are said to have drawn
forth the weapons concealed in their clothes, to have fallen on the
councilors, and killed them. This story is legendary; but it is a fact
that nearly all the Jews of Worms set fire to their houses, and that
more than 400 persons were burned to death (10th Adar-1st March, 1349).
The Jews of Oppenheim likewise burnt themselves to death to escape
being tortured as poisoners (end of July). The community of Frankfort
remained secure so long as the rival emperors, Charles IV and Gunther
of Schwarzburg, were fighting in that neighborhood; the latter holding
his court in Frankfort. When he died, and the contest was ended, the
turn of the Jews of Frankfort came to be killed. On being attacked they
burned themselves in their houses, causing a great conflagration in the
city. In Mayence, where the Jews had hitherto been spared, a thief,
during a flagellation scene, stole his neighbor's purse. An altercation
arose, and the mob seized the opportunity to attack the Jews. They
had, no doubt, been prepared, and 300 of them took up arms, and
killed 200 of the mob. This aroused the anger of the entire Christian
community, which likewise took to arms. The Jews fought a considerable
time; at length, overpowered by the enemy, they set fire to their
houses (24th August). Nearly 6,000 Jews are said to have perished in
Mayence. In Erfurt, out of a community of 3,000 souls, not one person
survived, although the council, after their slaughter in the whole of
Thuringia, including Eisenach and Gotha, had long protected them. In
Breslau, where a considerable community dwelt, the Jews were completely
destroyed. Emperor Charles gave orders to seize the murderers and give
them their due punishment. But he had taken no steps to hinder the
horrible slaughter enacted everywhere, although informed of the plots
against the Jews. In Austria, also, the outcry was made that the Jews
were poisoners, and terrible scenes ensued. In Vienna, on the advice
of Rabbi Jonah, all the members of the congregation killed themselves
in the synagogue. In Krems, where there was a large congregation, the
populace of the town, assisted by that of a neighboring place named
Stein and the villages, attacked the Jews, who set fire to their houses
and died (September, 1349), only a few being saved.
In Bavaria and Suabia, persecution was also rife, and the communities
of Augsburg, Würzburg, Munich, and many others succumbed. The Jews
of Nuremberg, through its extensive commerce, possessed great riches
and grand houses, and were the especial objects of dislike to the
Christians. Their destruction was so imminent that Emperor Charles IV
freed the council from responsibility if they should be injured against
its wish.
At length their fate was fulfilled. On a spot afterwards called
Judenbühl (Jews' hill), the followers of the religion of love erected
a pile, and all those who had not emigrated were burnt or killed.
The council of Ratisbon did its utmost to save the community, the
oldest in the south of Germany. For here also the mob demanded the
annihilation or banishment of the Jews. The dukes of Bavaria, the sons
of Emperor Louis, who favored the persecution of the Jews, had given
the people permission in writing to "treat the Jews as they liked,
according to honor or necessity, and banish them with or without
justice." Margrave Louis of Brandenburg, son of Emperor Louis, one of
the partisans of the rival emperor, Gunther of Schwarzburg, showed his
religious feeling by giving orders to burn all the Jews of Königsberg
(in Neumark), and to confiscate their goods. So inhuman were people
in those days that the executioner boasted of his deed, and gave
documentary evidence that Margrave Louis had commanded the Jews to be
burnt. In North Germany there lived but few Jews, except in Magdeburg,
but there, too, they were burnt or banished. In Hanover (in 1349) the
flagellants were rampant. Outside of Germany, amongst the nations
still uncivilized, there were comparatively few persecutions. Louis,
King of Hungary, an enthusiast for his faith, drove the Jews out of
his land, not as poisoners, but as infidels, who opposed his scheme of
conversion, although he had given them equal rights with the Christians
and privileges besides. The Hungarian Jews who remained true to their
faith emigrated to Austria and Bohemia. In Poland, where the pestilence
also raged, the Jews suffered but slight persecution, for they were
favored by King Casimir the Great. At the request of some Jews who had
rendered services to him, the king, after his ascent upon the throne
(October 9th, 1334) confirmed the laws enacted nearly a century before
by Boleslav Pius, duke of Kalish, or rather by Frederick the Valiant,
archduke of Austria, and accepted by the king of Hungary and various
Polish princes. Holding good only in the dukedom of Kalish and Great
Poland, they were extended by Casimir to the whole of the Polish
empire. Thirteen years later, Casimir altered the laws by which the
Jews were permitted to lend money at interest, but we must not deduce
that he was inimical to the Jews, for he expressly states that he made
this limitation only at the request of the nobility. In the years of
the pestilence, too, Casimir appears to have protected the Jews against
the outbreaks of the misguided multitude, for the accusation of the
poisoning of wells by the Jews had traveled from Germany across the
Polish frontier, and had roused the populace against them. Massacres
occurred in Kalish, Cracow, Glogau, and other cities, especially on
the German frontier. If the number of Jews stated to have been killed
in Poland (10,000) be correct, it bears no relation to the enormous
multitudes who fell as victims in Germany. Later (1356) Casimir is said
to have taken a beautiful Jewish mistress named Esther (Esterka), who
bore him two sons (Niemerz and Pelka) and two daughters. The latter are
said to have remained Jewesses. In consequence of his love to Esther,
the king of Poland is supposed to have bestowed special favors and
privileges on some Jews, probably Esther's relations. But the records,
handed down by untrustworthy witnesses, cannot be implicitly believed.
At all events, the Jews of Poland fared better than those of Germany,
seeing that they were placed on an equality, if not with the Roman
Catholics, yet with the Ruthenians, Saracens, and Tartars. The Jews
were permitted to wear the national costume and gold chains and swords,
like the knights, and were eligible for military service.
As on the eastern frontier of Germany, the Jews on the western side,
in Belgium, were also persecuted at the period of the Black Death.
In Brussels a wealthy Jew stood in great favor with the duke of
Brabant, John II. When the flagellants came, and the death of his
co-religionists was imminent, this Jew entreated his patron to accord
them his protection, which John willingly promised. But the enemies
of the Jews had foreseen this, and ensured immunity from punishment
through the duke's son. They attacked the Jews of Brussels, dragged
them into the streets, and killed all--about 500.
In Spain, the congregations of Catalonia, which, after those of
Provence, supplied the first victims, conceived a plan to prevent the
outrages of fanaticism. They determined to establish a common fund in
support of their people who should become destitute through a mob or
persecution. They were to choose deputies to entreat the king (Don
Pedro IV) to prevent the recurrence of such scenes of horror. Other
concessions were to be sought, but the plan was never carried into
effect, owing to delay on the part of the Jews of Aragon, and also
probably because too much was expected of the king. The Jews under
Aragonian rule were still behind those in the kingdom of Castile.
In Castile also the Black Death had held its gruesome revelries; but
here the population, more intelligent than elsewhere, did not dream of
holding the Jews responsible for its ravages. In Toledo and Seville
the plague snatched away many respected members of the community,
particularly from the families of Abulafia, Asheri, and Ibn-Shoshan.
The grief of the survivors is vividly depicted in such of the tombstone
inscriptions of the Toledo Jewish cemetery as have come down to us.
King Alfonso XI was amongst the victims of the insidious plague, but
not even a whisper charged the Jews with responsibility for his death.
During the reign of Don Pedro (1350-1369), Alfonso's son and successor,
the influence of the Castilian Jews reached a height never before
attained. It was the last luster of their splendid career in Spain,
soon to be shrouded in dark eventide shadows. The young king, only
fifteen years of age when called to the throne, was early branded by
his numerous enemies with the name of "Pedro the Cruel." His favors to
the Jews had a share in procuring him this nickname, although he was
not more cruel than many of his predecessors and successors. Don Pedro
was a child of nature with all the good and the bad qualities implied;
he would not submit to the restrictions of court etiquette, nor allow
himself to be controlled by political considerations. Through the
duplicity and faithlessness of his bastard brothers, sons of Alfonso's
mistress, Leonora de Guzman--the same who had unconsciously saved the
Jews from imminent destruction--the king was provoked to sanguinary
retaliation. The instinct of self-preservation, the maintenance of his
royal dignity, filial affection, and attachment to an early love, had
more to do with his reckless, bloody deeds than inherent cruelty and
vengeance. The young king, destined to come to so sad an end, involving
the Castilian Jews in his fall, was from the beginning of his reign
surrounded by tragic circumstances. His mother, the Portuguese Infanta
Donna Maria, had been humiliated and deeply mortified by her husband at
the instigation of his mistress, Leonora de Guzman. Don Pedro himself
had been neglected for his bastard brothers, and particularly for his
elder half-brother, Henry de Trastamara. The first important duty of
his reign, then, was to obtain justice for his humiliated mother, and
degrade the rival who had caused her so much misery. That he tolerated
his bastard brothers is a proof that he was not of a cruel disposition.
His severity was felt more by the grandees and hidalgos, who trampled
on justice and humanity, and ill-treated the people with cavalier
arrogance. Only in these circles Don Pedro had bitter enemies, not
amongst the lower orders, which, when not misled, remained faithful to
him to death. The Jews also were attached to him. They risked property
and life for their patriotism, because he protected them against
injustice and oppression, and did not treat them as outcasts. The Jews
certainly suffered much through him, not in the character of patient
victims, as in Germany and France, but as zealous partisans and fellow
combatants, who shared the overthrow of their leader with his Christian
followers.
Shortly after Don Pedro had ascended the throne, when the grief
caused by the death of King Alfonso XI was still fresh, a venerable
Jewish poet ventured to address to the new monarch words of advice in
well-balanced Spanish verses. This poet, Santob (Shem Tob) de Carrion,
from the northern Spanish town of that name (about 1300-1350), a
member of a large community, has been entirely neglected in Jewish
literature. Christian writers have preserved his memory and his verses.
Santob's (or as abbreviated, Santo's) poetical legacy deserves to
be treasured. His verses flow soft and clear as the ripples of an
unsullied spring, dancing with silvery brightness out of its rocky
hollow. He had not only thoroughly mastered the sonorous periods of the
Spanish language, at that time in a transition state between tenderness
and vigor, but had enriched it. Santob embodied the practical wisdom of
his time in beautiful strophes. His "Counsels and Lessons," addressed
to Don Pedro, have the character of proverbs and apothegms. He drew
upon the unfailing wealth of maxims of the Talmud and later Hebrew
poets for his verse, and the sweetness of his poetry was derived from
various sources.
Santob's verses are not always of this gentle, uncontroversial
character. He did not hesitate to speak sternly to those of his
co-religionists who had become wealthy by the king's bounty, and he
denounced the prejudice with which Spanish Christians regarded whatever
was of Jewish origin. Even to the young king he was in the habit of
indulging in a certain amount of plain speaking; and in his stanzas,
more than 600 in number, he often drew for his majesty's benefit
suggestive pictures of virtue and vice. He reminded the king, too, of
promises made to Santob by his father, and bade him fulfill them. From
this it would appear that our Jewish troubadour, who wooed the muse so
successfully, was not a favorite of fortune. Little, however, is known
of him beyond his verses, and we have no knowledge of the reception
which his representations met at the hands of Don Pedro.
To other prominent Jews the king's favor was unbounded. Don Juan
Alfonso de Albuquerque, his tutor and all-powerful minister,
recommended for the post of minister of finance a Jew who had rendered
him great services, and the king appointed Don Samuel ben Meïr Allavi,
a member of the leading family of Toledo, the Abulafia-Halevis, to a
state situation of trust, in defiance of the decision of the cortes
that Jews should no longer be eligible. Samuel Abulafia not only became
treasurer-in-chief (Tesoreo mayor), but also the king's confidential
adviser (privado), who had a voice in all important consultations and
decisions. Two inscriptions referring to Don Samuel, one written during
his lifetime, the other after his death, describe him as noble and
handsome, instinct with religious feeling, a benevolent man, "who never
swerved from the path of God, nor could he be reproached with a fault."
Another Jew who figured at Don Pedro's court was Abraham Ibn-Zarzal,
the king's physician and astrologer. Don Pedro was, indeed, so
surrounded by Jews, that his enemies reproached his court for its
Jewish character. Whether the protection he extended to his Jewish
subjects was due to the influence of these Jewish favorites or to his
own impulses is unknown. On opening for the first time the cortes of
Valladolid (May, 1351), he was presented with a petition, praying him
to abolish the judicial autonomy enjoyed by the Jewish communities and
their right to appoint their own Alcaldes; he replied that the Jews,
being numerically a feeble people, required special protection. From
Christian judges they would not obtain justice, or their cases would be
delayed.
Whilst the relatives of the young king were intriguing to arrange
a marriage between him and Blanche, daughter of the French Duc de
Bourbon, he fell in love with Maria de Padilla, a clever, beautiful
lady of a noble Spanish family. It is said that he was formally
married to her in the presence of witnesses. At any rate, he caused
the marriage proposals to Blanche to be withdrawn; but the Bourbon
princess, either of her own accord, or at the instance of her ambitious
relatives, insisted on coming to Spain to assume the diadem. Her
resolve brought only sorrow to herself and misfortune to the country.
The nearest relatives of the king strained every nerve to procure
the celebration of the marriage, and in this they succeeded; but Don
Pedro remained with his bride only two days. The result of this state
of things was that to the old parties in the state another was added,
some grandees taking part with the deserted queen, others with Maria de
Padilla. To the latter belonged Samuel Abulafia and the Jews of Spain.
The reason assigned was that Blanche, having observed with displeasure
the influence possessed by Samuel and other Jews at her husband's
court, and the honors and distinctions enjoyed by them, had made the
firm resolve, which she even commenced to put into execution, to
compass the fall of the more prominent Jews, and obtain the banishment
of the whole of the Jewish population from Spain. She made no secret of
her aversion to the Jews, but, on the contrary, expressed it openly.
For this reason, it is stated, the Jewish courtiers took up a position
of antagonism to the queen, and, on their part, lost no opportunity of
increasing Don Pedro's dislike for her. If Blanche de Bourbon really
fostered such anti-Jewish feelings, and circumstances certainly seem
to bear out this view, then the Jews were compelled in self-defense to
prevent the queen from acquiring any ascendency, declare themselves for
the Padilla party, and support it with all the means in their power.
Dissension and civil war grew out of this unhappy relation of the king
to his scarcely recognized consort. Albuquerque, who was first opposed
to the queen, and then permitted himself to be won over to her side,
fell into disgrace, and Samuel Abulafia succeeded him as the most
trusted of the king's counselors. Whenever the court moved, Samuel,
with other eminent grandees, was in attendance on the king.
One day Don Pedro's enemies, at their head his bastard brothers,
succeeded in decoying him, with a few of his followers, into the
fortress of Toro. His companions, among whom was Samuel Abulafia, were
thrown into prison, and the king himself was placed under restraint
(1354). Whilst a few of the loyal grandees and even the Grand Master
of Calatrava were executed by the conspirators, the favorite Samuel
was, strange to say, spared. Later on he succeeded in escaping with
the king. Having shared his royal master's misfortune, he rose still
higher in his favor, and the esteem in which he was held by the king
was largely increased by his successful administration of the finances,
which he had managed so as to accumulate a large reserve, of which few
of Don Pedro's predecessors had been able to boast. The treacherous
seizure of the king at Toro formed a turning point in his reign. Out
of it grew a fierce civil war in Castile, which Don Pedro carried on
with great cruelty. In this, however, the Jewish courtiers had no hand;
even the enemies of the Jews do not charge the Jewish minister with any
responsibility for Don Pedro's excesses. The bastard brothers and their
adherents endeavored to seize the chief town, Toledo. Here Don Pedro
had numerous partisans, amongst them the whole of the Jewish community,
and they contested the entrance of the brothers. One of the gates was,
however, secretly opened to them by their friends, and they immediately
attacked the quarters in which the Jews lived in large numbers. In
Alcana street they put to the sword nearly 12,000 people, men and
women, old and young. But in the inner town they failed to make any
impression, the Jews having barricaded the gates and manned the walls,
together with several noblemen belonging to the king's party (May,
1355). A few days later Don Pedro entered Toledo. By his adherents
in the city he was received with enthusiasm, but he dealt out severe
retribution to all who had assisted his brothers.
Samuel Abulafia, by the wisdom of his counsels, his able financial
administration, and his zeal for the cause of Maria de Padilla,
continued to rise in the favor of the king. His power was greater
than that of the grandees of the realm. His wealth was princely, and
eighty black slaves served in his palace. He seems to have lacked
the generosity which would have suggested employing some portion of
his power and prosperity for the permanent benefit of his race and
religion. He certainly "sought to promote the welfare of his people,"
as an inscription tells us; but he failed to understand in what this
welfare consisted. Against injustice and animosity he protected
his brethren, promoted a few to state employment, and gave them
opportunities for enriching themselves, but he was far from being
what Chasdaï Ibn-Shaprut and Samuel Ibn-Nagrela had been to their
co-religionists. Samuel Abulafia appears to have had little sympathy
with intellectual aspirations, or with the promotion of Jewish science
and poetic literature. He built synagogues for several of the Castilian
communities, and one of especial magnificence at Toledo, but not a
single establishment for the promotion of Talmudic study.
The Abulafia synagogue at Toledo which, transformed into a church, is
still one of the ornaments of the town, was, like most of the Spanish
churches of that period, built partly in the Gothic, partly in the
Moorish style. It consisted of several naves separated from each other
by columns and arches. The upper part of the walls is decorated with
delicately cut arabesques, within which, in white characters on a green
ground, the eightieth Psalm may be read in Hebrew. On the north and
south sides are inscriptions in bas-relief, reciting the merits of
Prince Samuel Levi ben Meïr. The community offers up its thanks to God,
"who has not withdrawn His favor from His people, and raised up men to
rescue them from the hands of their enemies. Even though there be no
longer a king in Israel, God has permitted one of His people to find
favor in the eyes of the king, Don Pedro, who has raised him above the
mighty, appointed him a councilor of his realm, and invested him with
almost royal dignities." The name of Don Pedro appears in large and
prominent letters, suggesting that this prince, in intimate relations
with the Jews, belonged, one may say, to the synagogue. In conclusion,
the wish is expressed that Samuel may survive the rebuilding of the
Temple, and officiate there with his sons as chiefs of the people.
This large and splendid synagogue was completed in the year 1357. For
the following year the beginning of the Messianic period had been
predicted, a century before, by the astronomer Abraham ben Chiya
and the rabbi and Kabbalist Nachmani, and, a few decades before, by
the philosopher Leon de Bagnols. As this prophecy was not literally
fulfilled, many Jews began to regard the eminence attained by Samuel
and other leading Jews as a suggestion of the scepter of Judah. It
was a dangerous aberration, whose pitfalls were fully appreciated by
Nissim Gerundi ben Reuben (about 1340-1380), rabbi of Barcelona, the
most important rabbinical authority of his day. Justly fearing that
the belief in the coming of a Messiah would suffer discredit by the
non-fulfillment of such prophecies, he preached against the calculation
of the end of the world from expressions in the book of Daniel.
Don Samuel exercised too decided an influence over the king to avoid
making enemies. Even had he been a Christian, the court party would
have devised schemes to bring about his fall. Attempts were made to
stir up the Castilian population against the Jews, particularly
against the Jewish minister, not only by Don Pedro's bastard brother,
Don Henry, and Queen Blanche, but by all formerly in the king's
service. Don Pedro Lopez de Ayala, poet, chronicler, and the king's
standard-bearer, has given us, in one of his poems, a picture of the
feelings of the courtiers for favored Jews: "They suck the blood
of the afflicted people; they lap up their possessions with their
tax-farming. Don Abraham and Don Samuel, with lips as sweet as honey,
obtain from the king whatever they ask." Samuel's fall was desired
by many. It is even said that some Toledo Jews, envious of his good
fortune, charged him with having accumulated his enormous wealth at his
royal master's expense. Don Pedro confiscated Samuel's entire fortune
and that of his relatives, 170,900 doubloons, 4,000 silver marks, 125
chests of cloth of gold and silver and 80 slaves from the minister,
and 60,000 doubloons from his relatives. According to some writers,
an extraordinary quantity of gold and silver was found buried under
Samuel's house. Don Pedro ordered his former favorite to be imprisoned
at Toledo and placed upon the rack at Seville, in order to force him
to disclose further treasures. He, however, remained firm, revealed
nothing, and succumbed under the torture (October or November, 1360).
His gravestone recites in simple phrase how high his position had been,
and how his soul, purified by torture, had risen to God. Concerning Don
Pedro, the inscription has not a single condemnatory expression.
Samuel Abulafia's death did not change the friendly relations between
the king and the Jews. They remained faithful to him, and he continued
to confer important distinctions on members of their body. They
consequently came in for a share of the hatred with which the enemies
of the king regarded him. The king resolved to put to death his
detested consort (1361). Whatever the character of the queen, whether
she was a saint or the reverse, whether or not she had deserved her
fate, the method of her death must ever remain a stain on Don Pedro's
memory. In spite of the animosity with which De Ayala regarded the
Jews, there is no intimation in his chronicle that any of Don Pedro's
Jewish favorites were concerned in this crime. It was reserved for
a later period to invent fables identifying them with the king's
guilt. A story was forged to the effect that a Jew had administered
poison to the queen on the king's order, because she had insisted
on the expulsion of the Jews from Spain. A French romance, in which
an endeavor is made to varnish the deeds and misdeeds of the French
adventurers who fought against Don Pedro and the Jews, attributes the
queen's death to a Jewish hand.
Don Pedro announced publicly, before the assembled cortes at Seville,
that his marriage with Blanche of Bourbon had been illegal, inasmuch
as he had been previously married to Maria de Padilla. He called
witnesses, among them a few of the clergy, and these confirmed his
statement on oath. Through the murder of Blanche, and its consequences,
an opportunity offered itself to Don Henry de Trastamara to obtain
allies for the dethronement of the king, and of this he was not slow
to avail himself. The Bourbons in France and the king promised him
aid, and allowed him to enlist the wild lances of the so-called great
or white company, who, at the conclusion of the war with England, were
rendering France insecure. The pope, displeased at the favors shown by
Don Pedro to the Jews, also supported Don Henry, and placed the king of
Spain under the ban.
To invest his rebellion with a tinge of legality and win the feelings
of the people, Don Henry blackened his brother's character, picturing
him as an outcast who had forfeited the crown because he had allowed
his states to be governed by Jews, and had himself become attached to
them and their religion. Don Henry carried his calumnies so far as to
state that not only his mistress, Maria de Padilla, was a Jewess, but
that Don Pedro himself was of Jewish extraction.
With the mercenaries of the "white company," graceless banditti, Henry
crossed the Pyrenees to make war on and, if possible, depose his
brother. At the head of these French and English outlaws stood the
foremost warrior of his time, the hero and knight-errant, Bertrand du
Guesclin (Claquin), celebrated for his deeds of daring, his ugliness,
and his eccentricity, who, like the Cid, has been glorified by legend.
The Jews consistently cast in their fortunes with those of the Don
Pedro party, and supported it with their money and their blood. They
flocked to its standard in the field, and garrisoned the towns against
the onslaughts of Don Henry and Du Guesclin. The wild mercenaries
to whom they were opposed avenged themselves not only on the Jewish
soldiers, but also on those who had not borne arms.
The approach of the enemy compelled Don Pedro to abandon Burgos, the
capital of Old Castile, and at an assembly of the inhabitants it was
prudently resolved not to contest Don Henry's entrance. On taking
possession of the town, where he was first proclaimed king (March,
1360), Henry levied a fine of 50,000 doubloons on the Jewish community,
and canceled all outstanding debts due from Christians to Jews. The
Jews of Burgos, unable to pay this large contribution, were compelled
to sell their goods and chattels, even the ornaments on the scrolls of
the Law. Those who could not make up their share of the contribution
were sold into slavery. The whole of Spain fell to the conqueror in
consequence of Don Pedro's neglect to concentrate round himself that
portion of the population on which he could rely, or to buy over the
free lances of the "white company," as he had been advised. The gates
of Toledo, the capital, were opened to the victor, although Don Pedro's
party, to which the Jews belonged, strongly counseled defense. Upon the
Toledo community Don Henry also levied a heavy fine for its fidelity to
the legitimate king. Don Pedro's last refuge was Seville, which he also
lost.
Once again fortune smiled on Don Pedro, after he was compelled to cross
the Pyrenees as a fugitive, and leave the whole of his country in the
hands of the enemy. The heroic Prince of Wales, called the Black Prince
from the color of his armor, being in the south of France, undertook
to come to the aid of the deposed monarch both for the sake of a
legitimate cause, and in expectation of rich rewards in money and land.
Henry de Trastamara was compelled to leave Spain (1367). The whole
of the peninsula hailed the victor Don Pedro and his ally, the Black
Prince, with enthusiasm, as it had previously rejoiced at the triumph
of his brother and the wild Constable of France, Bertrand du Guesclin.
Soon, however, the scene changed. The Black Prince left Don Pedro, and
Don Henry returned with new levies from France. The northern towns of
Spain again fell before his arms. The citizens of Burgos opened their
gates to the conqueror, but the Jews remained true to the unfortunate
Don Pedro. Assisted by a few loyal noblemen, they bravely defended the
Jewry of Burgos, and were subdued only by the superior strength of the
enemy. They obtained a favorable capitulation, providing for their
undisputed continuance in the town, but they were forced to pay a war
indemnity of one million maravedis.
This time the Christian population was desirous of profiting by the
revolt against Don Pedro. The cortes of Burgos represented to Henry
that the Jews, having been favorites and officials under the former
king, were largely responsible for the civil war, and that he should
sanction a law to exclude them in future from all state employment,
including the post of physician to the king or queen, and also from the
right of farming taxes. To this Don Henry replied that such a practice
had not been countenanced by any former king of Castile. He would,
however, not consult with the Jews at his court, nor permit them the
exercise of functions which might prove detrimental to the country.
From this it is evident that Henry had no particular aversion to the
Jews. Possibly, he feared that by oppressing them he might drive them
to acts of desperation.
Don Pedro still counted many adherents in the country. Most of the
Jewish communities remained true to him, and Jews served in his army,
and fought against the usurper for the king, who to the last treated
them with special favor. Even when in despair he was obliged to call to
his assistance the Mahometan king of Granada, he impressed upon that
monarch the duty of protecting the Jews. Notwithstanding this, the Jews
endured indescribable sufferings at the hands of both friend and foe.
Don Pedro being entirely dependent on the auxiliaries of the Black
Prince and on those of the Mahometan king, his wishes with respect to
the Jews were not regarded. The community of Villadiego, celebrated for
its benevolence and the promotion of learning, was utterly destroyed
by the English. The same evil fortune befell Aguilar and other
communities. The inhabitants of Valladolid, who paid allegiance to Don
Henry, plundered the Jews, demolished their eight synagogues, despoiled
them of their treasures, and tore up the sacred writings. A period of
shocking degeneracy followed. Wherever Don Henry came, he laid the
Jews under heavy contributions, precipitating them into poverty, and
leaving them nothing but their lives. The Mahometan king, Don Pedro's
ally, carried three hundred Jewish families as prisoners from Jaen to
Granada. Still worse was the treatment of the violent Du Guesclin. A
prey to French Jew-hatred, he could not look upon Jews as his equals in
party strife and war, but only as slaves who had dared draw the sword
against their masters. The misery was so great at this time that many
Jews became converts to Christianity.
The community of Toledo suffered most severely. In emulation of Don
Pedro's Christian adherents, they made the greatest sacrifices for the
defense of the town, and endured a long and frightful siege. The famine
during the investment was so great that the unfortunates consumed,
not only the parchment of the Law, but even the flesh of their own
children. Through hunger and war the greater portion of the Toledo
community perished--according to some 8,000 persons, according to
others more than 10,000. At last, at Montiel, Don Henry defeated his
brother, who had been abandoned by all his partisans (14th March,
1369). Don Pedro's end was tragic. When the brothers met, Henry is
said to have hurled these insulting words in his face: "Where is the
Jew, the son of a harlot, who calls himself king of Castile?" They
then closed in a struggle. Don Pedro was overcome, and beheaded by his
brother's general, Du Guesclin. Pope Urban V could not contain his
delight on hearing the news of Don Pedro's death. "The church must
rejoice," he wrote, "at the death of such a tyrant, a rebel against the
church, and a favorer of the Jews and Saracens. The righteous exult in
retribution." The humiliation and abasement of the Spanish Jews, which
the papacy had so long failed to accomplish, was obtained unexpectedly
by the civil war in Castile. At Montiel they suffered a defeat pregnant
with consequences fatal to their future.
Had a traveler, like Benjamin of Tudela, journeyed through Europe in
the latter half of the fourteenth century, with the object of visiting,
enumerating, and describing the various Jewish communities, he would
have had a dismal picture to give us. From the Pillars of Hercules and
the Atlantic Ocean to the banks of the Oder or the Vistula, he would
have found in many districts no Jews at all, and elsewhere only very
small, poverty-stricken, wretched communities, still bleeding from
the wounds inflicted by the plague-maddened populace. According to
human calculation, the destruction of the Jews in western and central
Europe was imminent. Those who had survived the pitiless massacre,
or been spared a desperate suicide, had lost courage. Communal ties
were for the most part rent asunder. The recollection of the scenes of
horror through which they had passed long agitated the small number of
surviving Jews, and left them no hope of better times. Lord Byron's
elegiac lines--
"The wild dove hath her nest, the fox his cave,
Mankind their country--Israel but the grave,"
are applicable to the whole of the mediæval history of the Jews, but
to no period more than to this. Western and central Europe had become
for the descendants of the patriarchs and the prophets one vast grave,
which insatiably demanded new victims.
It is remarkable that the Jews had become indispensable to the
Christian population, in spite of the venomous hatred with which the
latter regarded them. Not only princes, but cities, and even the
clergy, had a mania for "possessing Jews." A few years after the
terrible frenzy which followed the Black Death, German citizens and
their magistrates hastened to re-admit the Jews; they soon forgot
their vow, that for a hundred or two hundred years no Jew should dwell
within their walls. The bishop of Augsburg applied to Emperor Charles
IV for the privilege "to receive and harbor Jews." The electors,
ecclesiastical as well as secular, were bent upon curtailing the
exclusive right of the German emperor to possess serfs of the chamber
(servi cameræ), and upon acquiring the same right for themselves.
Gerlach, archbishop of Mayence, especially exerted himself to wrest
this privilege from Emperor Charles IV, his success being to no small
extent due to the desire of the emperor to retain his popularity
amongst the electors. At an imperial Diet held at Nuremberg in
November, 1355, where a kind of German constitution, known as the
"Golden Bull," was promulgated, the emperor conferred on the electors,
in addition to the right of discovery of metal and salt mines, the
privilege to hold Jews; that is to say, he yielded to them this source
of revenue in addition to such sources as deposits of metal and salt.
But it was only to the electors that the emperor conceded this right;
he retained his rights over the "servi cameræ" living under the rule of
the minor princes and in cities. The archiepiscopal elector of Mayence
lost no time in utilizing the new privilege, and immediately employed
a Jew to obtain others for him. Thus the Jews were at once repelled
and attracted, shunned and courted, outlawed and flattered. They were
well aware that it was not for their own sake that they were tolerated,
but solely on account of the advantages they afforded the authorities
and the population. How, then, could they be expected not to devote
themselves to money-making, the sole means by which they were enabled
to drag out a miserable existence?
In France, as in Germany, financial considerations induced the rulers
to consent to the re-admission of the Jews. The embarrassments
resulting from frequent wars with England, particularly felt after
the captivity of King John (September, 1356), threatened to reduce
this chivalrous land to the condition of a province of the English
crown. Money especially was wanting. Even to ransom the imprisoned
king the assembled States-General did not vote supplies, or they
burdened their grant with heavy conditions. The third estate rose in
rebellion, and encouraged the peasants to throw off the yoke of the
nobles. Anarchy reigned throughout the country. At this juncture the
Jews, with their financial skill, appeared to the dauphin Charles,
who acted as regent during the captivity of the king, as providential
deliverers of the state. A clever Jew, Manessier (Manecier) de Vesoul,
actively negotiated the return of the Jews to France, whence they had
been so frequently banished. The dauphin-regent had granted permission
to a few Jews to return, but if the impoverished state or court was
to reap any real benefit from such return, it was necessary that it
should take place on a large scale. Hence, the plan which Manessier
submitted to the prince was approved in every detail, and the return
of the Jews for twenty years was authorized under the most favorable
conditions. Neither the Jews nor their representative, Manessier,
cared to take advantage of so important an offer without the consent
of the imprisoned king. The plan was accordingly submitted to him
for confirmation. At the instance of Manessier de Vesoul, the Jews
at the same time laid before the king a memorial setting forth that
they had been unjustly expelled from France, and that they could not
forget the land of their birth. The imprisoned monarch then issued a
decree (March, 1360), by which, with the consent of the higher and
lower clergy, the higher and lower nobility, and the third estate,
permission was granted to all Jews to enter France and reside there
for twenty years. They were allowed to take up their abode in any part
of the country, in large and small towns, villages and hamlets, and to
possess, not only houses, but also lands.
The head of every Jewish family was, however, compelled, on entering
the country, to pay a sum of fourteen florins (florins de Florence) for
himself, and one florin for each child or other member of his family;
besides this, he became liable to an annual Jew tax of seven florins,
and one for each individual of his household. On the other hand, the
emigrants were to enjoy extensive privileges. They were not amenable
to the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts or officials, but had a
special justiciary in the person of Count d'Etampes, a prince of the
blood royal, who acted as their protector (gardien, conservateur), and
whose duty it was to appoint investigating judges and commissioners,
and to safeguard the interests of the community when endangered. Cases
of misdemeanor and crime amongst themselves were to be tried by two
rabbis and four assessors. From the decisions of this tribunal there
was no appeal. The property of the convicted Jewish criminal, however,
became forfeited to the king, to whom, in addition, the rabbis had to
pay the sum of one hundred florins. For past misdemeanors and crimes
the king granted them a complete amnesty. They were protected against
the violence of the nobles and the petty annoyances of the clergy.
They could not be forced to attend Christian services or discourses.
Their furniture, cattle, and stores of grain and wine, as well as their
sacred books, not merely the Bible, but copies of the Talmud also, were
to be guaranteed against confiscation, so that the public burning of
the Talmud at Paris could not be repeated. The amplest protection was
given their trade. They were allowed to charge 80 per cent interest (4
deniers on the livre) on loans, and to take pledges, their rights upon
which were safeguarded by a fence of laws. Manessier de Vesoul himself,
the active and zealous negotiator of these privileges, was appointed
to a high position at court. He became receiver general (procureur
or receveur-general), and in this capacity was responsible for the
punctual payment of the Jew taxes, his commission being nearly 14 per
cent. The result of the granting of these privileges was that the Jews
entered France in large numbers, even foreigners being permitted to
settle there, or take up a more or less protracted residence.
The extensive privileges granted to the Jews excited envy. The
Christian physicians, exposed to the competition of Jewish doctors,
complained that the latter had not passed a public examination, and
denounced them as charlatans. The judges and officials, without power
over the Jews and having no opportunity for extorting money from them,
complained that they abused their privileges. The clergy, indignant
at the favored position of the Jews, but having no real grievance,
complained that they no longer wore the prescribed badge. The feeble
king allowed an order to be extorted from him, to some extent in
contradiction of his own decree, by which only such Jews were to be
permitted to practice medicine as had passed an examination, and
all Jews, not excepting those even who enjoyed especial privileges
(Manessier and his family), were to wear a red and white wheel-shaped
badge (rouelle) of the size of the royal seal. Finally the Jews were
re-committed to the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts, and the
earlier arrangements annulled.
As soon as the politic dauphin ascended the throne, under the title
of Charles V, and adopted a strict system of government, to deliver
himself from dependence on the States-General (May, 1364), he proceeded
to assure himself of the sources of revenue possessed by the Jews. He
restored the privileges partly abolished by his father, lengthened the
period of residence by six years, and secretly granted permission to
Hebrew money dealers to exceed the charge of 80 per cent on loans. At
the instance of Manessier de Vesoul, always zealous in the interests
of his co-religionists, the Jews were again withdrawn from the
jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals, and committed to the care of
their official protector, Count d'Etampes. The clergy, whose hatred of
the Jews bordered on inhumanity, were rendered powerless. In the south
of France, the heads of the church had threatened with excommunication
any Christians who should trade with Jews, or provide them with fire,
water, bread, or wine, and by this means, had so stirred up the
fanaticism of the people, that the lives and property of the Jews were
imperiled. To counteract this, the governor of Languedoc issued, in the
name of the king, an ordinance informing the officials, both lay and
ecclesiastical, that all who exhibited hostility toward the Jews would
be unsparingly punished in person and substance.
During the reign of Charles V (1364-1380), then, the condition of
the Jews was at least endurable. Manessier remained receiver general
of the Jew taxes for the north of France (Langue d'Oyl), and the
same functions were discharged by Denis Quinon in Languedoc. On the
complaint of the latter that a few Jewish converts, in conjunction
with the Christian clergy, had forced their former brethren to attend
the churches to hear sermons, the king issued a rescript (March, 1368)
severely prohibiting all such unseemly compulsion. Subsequently,
Charles prolonged the period for remaining in the country by ten
years, and later on by six more. All this was brought about by the
indefatigable Manessier (1374). His zeal in the Jewish cause and
the advantages the king derived from his exertions were rewarded
by the exemption of himself and his family from every kind of tax,
contribution and service to the crown (1375).
Although the German and French Jews appeared to revive after their
dreadful sufferings, it was only a material revival; their spirit
remained dead. Their intellectual powers had disappeared. In France,
where, during more than two centuries, from Rashi to the last of the
Tossafists, the study of the Talmud had been carried to its most
flourishing point, and where remarkable acuteness and intellectual
depth had been developed, the new emigrants exhibited so astonishing
an ignorance that they were obliged to commence their studies anew.
The indulgences of the kings, John and Charles, certainly spoke of
rabbis who should be invested with authority to try Jewish criminals;
but there was not a single profound Talmudist among them; indeed,
according to the avowal of contemporary writers, not more than five
of even mediocre attainments. The only devotee of Talmudical study,
Matathiah ben Joseph Provenci, has left nothing in writing to testify
to his ability. Held in such esteem by Charles V that he and his
family were exempted from wearing the distinctive badges prescribed
by law, and apparently related to the receiver general, Manessier de
Vesoul, Matathiah was in the best position to deal with the prevailing
ignorance. He re-established a college at Paris, assembled pupils,
expounded the Talmud to them, ordained them to rabbinical offices,
and caused copies of the Talmud to be written. In consequence of his
energy and his comparatively great learning, he was chosen by the newly
established French communities to the office of chief rabbi and chief
justice in civil and penal cases, his appointment being confirmed by
the king. His school had to supply the communities with rabbis, but his
pupils enriched rabbinical literature by their contributions as little
as he himself. Even Provence, once so fruitful of Jewish literature,
had become intellectually impoverished.
In Germany, where the rabbis had once been so proud of their
traditional knowledge, the Black Death, with its attendant
persecutions and banishments, had so thinned the ranks of the Jews
that extraordinary intellectual decay had set in. The illiterate and
the superficial, in the absence of better men, were inducted into
rabbinical offices. This mischievous practice was vigorously opposed by
Meïr ben Baruch Halevi, a rabbi, who, in his time, passed for a great
authority in Germany (1370-1390). Rabbi at Vienna, as his father had
been before him, Meïr Halevi (Segal) ordered that no Talmudical student
should exercise rabbinical functions unless authorized by a rabbi of
standing. Until then it had been the practice for anyone who felt able
and willing to assume the rabbinical office without further ceremony,
or, if he perchance settled in the neighborhood of his teacher, to
obtain permission from him. As from the time of Gershom of Mayence
there had always been great Talmudists in Germany, public opinion
counteracted the abuse of this liberty; for had an unqualified person
arrogated to himself the exercise of rabbinical functions, he would
have incurred general derision and contempt. After the Black Death,
however, this deterrent lost much of its force through the scarcity of
Talmudists. The order of Meïr of Vienna, that every rabbi should be
ordained, that he should earn the title (Morenu), and that, without
such preparation, he should be precluded from dealing with matrimonial
matters, marriages and divorces, was dictated by the exigencies of the
times, not the presumptuousness of its author. The insignificance of
even the most respected of the German rabbis of this period is apparent
from the fact that not one of them has left any important Talmudical
work; that, on the contrary, they all pursued a course productive of
mental stagnation. Meïr Halevi, his colleague Abraham Klausner, and
Shalom, of Austria, rabbi at Neustadt, near Vienna, devoted themselves
exclusively to writing down and perpetuating the customs of the
communities (Minhagim), to which, formerly, but very little attention
had been given. They and their disciples, Isaac Tyrnau of Hungary, and
Jacob Mölin (Maharil) have left behind them nothing but such insipid
compilations. If the Austrian school, which at this time preponderated,
was so wanting in intellectuality, how much more the Rhenish, from
which only names have come down to us.
Through the disasters that resulted from the Black Death, the memories
of old times had become so obliterated that the Rhenish rabbis found
themselves compelled, in consequence of differences of opinion on
points of marriage law, to convene a synod, exclusively for the purpose
of restoring old regulations. At the meeting at Mayence (15th Ab-5th
August, 1381) a few of the rabbis, together with some of the communal
leaders, renewed the old decisions of Speyer, Worms and Mayence
(Tekanoth Shum); as, for instance, that the childless widow should be
released, without extortion or delay, from the obligation of marrying
her brother-in-law, and should receive a definite portion of the
property left by her husband. Among the rabbis who took part in this
synod there is not one name of note.