CHAPTER V.

THE AGE OF CHASDAÏ CRESCAS AND ISAAC BEN SHESHET.

The Jews of Spain after the Civil War--Joseph Pichon and

Samuel Abrabanel--The Apostates: John of Valladolid--Menachem

ben Zerach, Chasdaï Crescas, and Isaac ben Sheshet--Chayim

Gallipapa and his Innovations--Prevôt Aubriot and the Jews of

Paris--The French Rabbinate--Revival of Jewish Influence in

Spain--The Jews of Portugal--The Jewish Statesmen, David and

Judah Negro--Rabbis and Clergy--Persecutions in Germany and

Spain--The First Germs of the Inquisition--Second Expulsion of

the Jews from France--The Convert, Pessach-Peter--Lipmann of

Mühlhausen.

1369-1380 C.E.

The heart of the Jewish race had become not less crippled and sickly

than its members. In Spain disintegrating forces were at work on

the firm nucleus of Judaism, which had so long defied the corroding

influences of ecclesiastical and civil animosity. The prince, whom

the Jews at the dictates of their loyalty had so sturdily resisted,

against whom they had even taken up arms; the bastard, Don Henry de

Trastamara; the rebel who had brought civil war upon his native land,

and flooded it with a marauding soldiery; the fratricide, who had burst

the bonds alike of nature and law, had, after the victory of Montiel,

seized the scepter with his blood-stained hands, and placed the stolen

crown of Castile on his guilty head. Of the large Jewish population, a

considerable proportion had, during the protracted and embittered civil

war, met death on the field of battle, in the beleaguered towns, and,

armed and unarmed alike, at the swords of the mercenaries of the "white

company."

The Jewish community of Toledo, the Castilian capital--the "Crown

of Israel" of the Middle Ages, and, in a measure, the Jerusalem of

the Occident--did not number, after the raising of the siege, as

many hundreds of Jews as previously thousands. The remainder of the

Jews of Castile had been reduced to beggary by the depredations and

confiscations of friend and foe. Not a few, in their despair, had

thrown themselves into the arms of Christianity. A striking picture of

the unhappy condition of the Castilian communities at this period is

furnished by a contemporary writer, Samuel Çarça: "In truth, plunderers

followed on plunderers, money vanished from the purse, souls from the

bodies; all the precursory sufferings of the Messianic period arrived

--but the Redeemer came not!"

After Don Henry's victory, the Jews had good reason to tremble. One

pretext for making war on his brother was the favor shown by Don Pedro

to Jews. Now he had become the arbiter of their destinies. Would he

not, like another Vespasian or Hadrian, place his foot on the necks of

the vanquished? The gloomiest of their anticipations, however, were not

realized. Don Henry II was as little able to dispense with the Jews as

his predecessors, or the French and German princes. Jews were the only

financiers able to keep the state exchequer in prosperity and order,

and for this purpose Don Henry stood in need of them more than ever.

During the war he had incurred debts for the payment of the troops with

which Du Guesclin had assisted him, and for help received in other

quarters he had made promises which had to be redeemed. The country

had become impoverished by the protracted war. Who was to procure

the necessary sums, and provide for the systematic collection of the

taxes, if not the Jews? Henry was not blind to the merits of the Jews

exemplified in their constancy to his brother. Instead of punishing the

conquered, he appreciated their fidelity, saying: "Such subjects a king

must love and reward, because they maintained proper loyalty to their

conquered king unto death, and did not surrender to the victor."

Don Henry, then, was guilty of the conduct which, in the case of his

brother, he branded as a crime in the eyes of all Christendom; he

employed able Jews in the service of the state, confiding to them the

finances in particular. Two Jews from Seville, Don Joseph Pichon and

Don Samuel Abrabanel, he appointed to important posts, the former as

receiver general of taxes, and Almoxarif to the king, by whom he was

held in high esteem. Other Jews, distinguished for their ability or

their wealth, had access to Don Henry's court.

If the king bore the Jews no grudge for the part they had taken in the

war against him, the general population was not so magnanimous. The

nobility and the commonalty could not forgive their having confronted

them as foes in the besieged towns and on the open battle-fields. A

passion for vengeance, linked with the usual Jew-hatred, blinded them

to the benefits which the Jews contributed to the welfare of the state,

and their only thought was how to gratify their resentment. The Jews,

being the vanquished, ought, as they thought, to be reduced to a kind

of serfdom. The hostile feeling of the populace manifested itself on

the assembling of the first cortes at Toro (1371). Here the enemies

of the Jews opened the attack. The cortes expressed to the king their

displeasure that this "evil, audacious race," these enemies of God

and Christendom, were employed in "high offices" at court and by the

grandees of the realm, and that the farming of the taxes was confided

to them, by which means feeble Christians were held in subjection and

fear. The cortes accordingly made explicit demands upon the crown

with respect to the Jews. From that time forward they were not to

be eligible for any kind of state employment; they were to live in

Jewish quarters separated from the Christian population, be forced

to wear Jew-badges, be prohibited from appearing in public in rich

apparel, from riding on mules, and from bearing Christian names. To

Don Henry these demands were very unwelcome, but he dared not refuse

some concessions. The majority he dismissed with the remark that in

his treatment of Jews he only followed the example of his ancestors,

especially that of his father, Alfonso XI. The two restrictions

conceded were, if not of material significance, yet calculated to

have a sinister effect. These were that the Castilian Jews should

don the degrading badges, and give up their Spanish names. The pride

of the Jews, equal to that of the grandees and the hidalgos, was

deeply wounded. A century and a half had elapsed since the canonical

law concerning the Jew-badge, the outcome of papal intolerance and

arrogance, had been promulgated. During the whole of that period the

Jews of Castile had been able to prevent its application to themselves,

but now they also were to be compelled to wear the stigma on their

garments. They who had been accustomed to hold their heads high, and

rejoice in sounding titles, were, like the German Jews, to slink along

with downcast eyes, and be called by their Oriental names. They could

not accustom themselves to this humiliating situation.

In consequence of an outcry made by some of his subjects, who had been

ruined by loans from Jewish creditors, and complained of usurious

interest, Don Henry made encroachments upon their private rights. He

decided that if the Christian debtors discharged their obligations

within a short space of time, they need refund only two-thirds of the

principal borrowed.

The misery resulting from the civil war and the new restrictions

exercised a depressing effect on the Castilian Jews. Their most

prominent men, those who had access to court, and possessed wealth and

influence, especially Samuel Abrabanel, exerted themselves to remedy

the gloomy state of affairs. They particularly endeavored to restore

the abased, impoverished, and disorganized community of Toledo; but it

was beyond their power to revive the scholarly culture and intellectual

distinction to which the Toledo community had been as much indebted

for its leading position as to the prosperity of its members. The

unhappy war, and the evils following in its trail, had stunted the

Jewish mind, and diverted it from intellectual to material interests.

Disorganization proceeded with great strides. Indifference to

scientific work resulted in so general an ignorance, that what formerly

every tyro was familiar with now passed for transcendent wisdom. We

have an example of the mawkishness to which the new Hebrew poetry had

fallen in the verses of the poetaster Zarak (Zerach) Barfat, who, in a

poetical paraphrase of the book of Job, completely marred the beauties

of that work of art. Just at this period men of learning and ability

were urgently required, for representatives of Christianity began to

make earnest and energetic attacks on Judaism to obtain converts from

amongst its adherents.

Don Henry had much to thank the clergy for; they had sanctified his

usurpation, and acquiesced in his arrogated succession. From gratitude

and a false conception of religiousness, he conceded much to them. At

his command, Jews were again forced to take part in religious debates,

in which there was much to lose and nothing to gain.

Two baptized Jews received from the king the privilege of holding

religious discussions in every province and town of Castile, which they

might compel Jews to attend.

One of these apostates was John of Valladolid. At Burgos the discussion

took place before Archbishop Gomez of Toledo. At Avila the whole

community was compelled to repair to the great church (1375), where

the debate was carried on in the presence of many Christians and

Mahometans. Moses Cohen de Tordesillas, who was as familiar with

Christian as with Jewish theological authorities, appeared on behalf of

the Jews. He entered upon his dangerous enterprise with trepidation,

for he had had an opportunity to form an estimate of Christian charity.

During the civil war, Christian marauders had robbed him of all his

possessions, and had even personally ill-used him in order to force

him to embrace Christianity. All these trials he had suffered with the

courage of strong convictions, but he had become so poverty-stricken

that he had to accept support from the community of Avila.

Moses de Tordesillas did not find his part in the discussion too

difficult. The apostate John of Valladolid laid stress on the

proposition that the dogmas of Christianity--the Messianic claim, the

Divinity and Incarnation of Jesus, the Trinity, and the Virginity of

the "Mother of God"--could be demonstrated from the Old Testament.

It was consequently not difficult for his Jewish opponent to confute

his arguments. After four debates John was obliged to abandon his task,

vanquished. This, however, did not conclude the matter. A pupil of the

apostate, Abner-Alfonso, appeared soon after, and challenged Moses de

Tordesillas to a debate on the Talmud and Agadic texts. In case of

refusal, he threatened publicly to impeach the Talmud as the source of

anti-Christian sentiments. Moses was again forced to meet a series of

silly assertions and charges, and to drag himself through the thorny

length of another controversy. By the advice of the Avila community, he

committed to writing the principal arguments used in these discussions

under the title, "Ezer ha-Emuna," and sent them to his Toledan

brethren for use under similar circumstances. Moses de Tordesillas'

disputations, notwithstanding the difficulties of his position, were

characterized by calmness and equanimity. Not a word of abuse or

invective escaped him, and he counseled his Toledo brethren not to

permit themselves to be tempted by their zeal to vexatious expressions,

"for it is a fact," he said, "that the Christians possess the power and

disposition to silence truth by force." Toledo, formerly recognized as

the teacher of Jewry, was now obliged to play the part of pupil, and

follow formularies in the disputations to which its members might be

invited.

As if the more far-seeing Jews had anticipated the approach of the

gloomiest era of Spanish Judaism, they provided their co-religionists

for the coming struggle with casque and buckler, so that the inexorable

foe might not surprise them unarmed. A Spanish Jew, contemporary with

Moses de Tordesillas, compiled a polemical work, more exhaustive than

its predecessor, defending Judaism and attacking Christianity. Shem-Tob

ben Isaac Shaprut of Tudela had at an early age been forced into the

position of a defender of his brethren against proselytizing attempts.

Cardinal Don Pedro de Luna, who later on, as Pope Benedict XIII,

brought so much confusion into the church and evil on the Jews, was

possessed of a perfect mania for conversion and religious controversy.

At Pampeluna he summoned Shem-Tob ben Shaprut to a debate on original

sin and salvation, and the latter was compelled to sustain his part in

the presence of bishops and learned prelates. The war between England

and Castile, the scene of which was Navarre, obliged Shem-Tob ben

Shaprut, with many other Jews, to quit the country (1378) and settle

in the neighboring town of Tarazona, in Aragon. Observing here that

Jews of the stamp of John de Valladolid were extremely zealous in the

promotion of religious discussions, the conversion of weaklings, and

the maligning of Jewish literature, he published (1380) a comprehensive

work ("Eben Bochan"), unmasking the speciousness of the arguments

deduced by Christian controversialists from the Bible and the Talmud.

The work is written in the form of a discussion between a believer in

the unity of God and a Trinitarian. To enable the Jews to use weapons

out of the Christian armory, Shem-Tob ben Shaprut translated into

Hebrew extracts from the four Gospels, with incisive commentaries.

Subsequently the anti-Jewish work of the apostate Abner-Alfonso fell

into his hands, and he refuted it, argument by argument.

These polemical works did not prove of far-reaching importance; at any

rate, their effect was not what their authors had expected. The Jews

of Spain did not so much stand in need of writings as of men of force

of character, commanding personality and dignity, able to raise, if

not the masses, at least the half-educated classes, and imbue them

with somewhat of their own spirit. The ban against scientific studies,

pronounced by excessive fear and extreme religiousness, notably avenged

itself. It dwarfed the intelligence of the people, and deprived them

of that capacity for appreciating the signs of the times which only a

liberal education can develop. Even faith suffered from this want of

culture in the rising generation. Only one Jew of profound philosophic

genius stands out prominently in the history of this period, and the

influence he exerted over a rather small circle was due less to his

superior intelligence than to his position and Talmudic knowledge.

The majority of the Spanish rabbis, if not actually hostile, were

indifferent to the sciences, especially to religious philosophy. Only

laymen devoted themselves to such pursuits, and they were neither

exhaustive in their inquiries nor creative in their speculations.

It is characteristic of this period that Maimuni's philosophical

"Guide of the Perplexed" was entirely neglected, the fashion being

to read and discuss Ibn-Ezra. The fragmentary nature of the writings

of this commentator, the ingenuity and acuteness, the disjointedness

of thought, the variety of matter, which characterize his work,

appealed to the shallowness of this retrograde generation. Shem-Tob ben

Shaprut, Samuel Çarça, Joseph Tob-Elem, Ezra Gatiño, and others wrote

super-commentaries on Ibn-Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch. The

solution of riddles propounded by Ibn-Ezra, and the discovery of his

secrets, and explanations of his obscurities, seriously exercised the

minds of large circles of students.

The Talmud, with which the more thoughtful minds, prompted by a

religious bias, continued to be engaged, fared no better than secular

learning. Here, also, a state of stagnation, if nothing worse, had

supervened. The rabbis of some large communities were not even able

to discharge one of their chief duties, the explanation of the Talmud

to their disciples. A French Talmudist, Solomon ben Abraham Zarfati,

who had settled at Majorca, could venture to speak slightingly of

the Spanish rabbis, not excepting the celebrated Nissim Gerundi, and

compare them disparagingly with the French and German rabbis. A measure

of the average intelligence of the rabbis of this period is yielded by

the works of Menachem ben Zerach, chief rabbi of Toledo, even after its

misfortunes a very important Jewish community.

Menachem ben Aaron ben Zerach (born 1310, died 1385) counted several

martyrs in his family. His father, Aaron, was one of the unfortunates

whom the cupidity and tyranny of a French king had banished. With the

limited means spared by legalized robbery he had settled in Estella, a

not inconsiderable Navarrese community. His father, mother, and four

brothers perished in the massacre of Jews instigated by a Dominican

friar. Young Menachem was severely wounded in this outbreak, and might

have succumbed but for the assistance of a nobleman of his father's

acquaintance. On his recovery he devoted himself daily to Talmudical

study, and later on attended the celebrated school of the Asheride

Judah of Toledo. After he had passed his fortieth year, Menachem ben

Zerach became chief of an academy, the care of which was confided to

him by the Alcala (de Henares) community. During the civil war in

Castile he was wounded and plundered by the lawless soldiery, and of

his entire fortune, only his house, field, and collection of books

remained. Don Samuel Abrabanel assisted him in his distress, so that

he was enabled to recover somewhat from his misfortunes. Through his

interposition Menachem was called from Alcala to assume the rabbinate

of Toledo, where he opened an academy. As the disciple and successor

of Jehuda Asheri, considerable Talmudical attainments were with

justice expected of him. But he did not rise above the mediocrity of

his times. To remedy the increasing ignorance of religious forms and

duties, he wrote a compendium of theoretic and practical Judaism ("Zeda

la-Derech," 1374), as comprehensible as it was short, for the use of

prominent Jews, who, employed at court and by the grandees, had not

sufficient leisure to search an extensive literature for instruction.

His work is interspersed with scientific elements--psychological

and religio-philosophical--but it is weak and commonplace, full of

platitudes, and its several parts do not cohere. Even the Talmudical

elements are neither profound nor original. The only redeeming feature

is that it is conceived in a warm, sympathetic spirit, distinguishing

it from the usually dry rabbinical disquisitions.

Only two men of this time are raised by their character and learning

above the dead level of prevailing mediocrity: Chasdaï Crescas and

Isaac ben Sheshet. They both lived in the kingdom of Aragon, where the

Jews under Pedro IV and Juan I were neither so poor nor so oppressed as

their brethren in Castile. Chasdaï Crescas and Isaac ben Sheshet were

not sufficiently great to dominate their contemporaries, or prescribe

their own views as rules of conduct; they were, however, the foci of

large circles, and were frequently appealed to for final decisions on

complicated and difficult questions. Both worked earnestly for the

maintenance and furtherance of Judaism, for the preservation of peace

in the communities at home and abroad, and for the consolation and

re-animation of the broken in spirit, notwithstanding that their means

were limited, and the times unpropitious.

Chasdaï ben Abraham Crescas (born 1340, died 1410), originally of

Barcelona, and subsequently of Saragossa, where he ended his days, did

not belong to the class of ordained rabbis, but he had been educated

on Talmudical lines, and was an accomplished Talmudist. His wealth

and his occupations seem to have indisposed him for this honorable

position. Chasdaï Crescas was in close relation with the court of Juan

I, of Aragon, was frequently consulted on important state questions,

and also had much intercourse with the grandees of the kingdom. In the

views of the various schools of philosophy he was well versed; the

independence and depth of thought he evinced in dealing with them stamp

him an original thinker. His ideas, of course, were largely based upon

religious, or rather Jewish convictions, which, however, he presented

in an original form. Chasdaï Crescas was the first to recognize the

weak points of the prevailing Aristotelianism, and he attacked it with

irresistible force. Of his youth nothing is known, and it is impossible

to say under what influences those ripe powers of mind were developed

which enabled him to question the authority not only of Maimonides

and Gersonides, but of Aristotle himself. His ancestors were learned

Talmudists, and his grandfather enjoyed a reputation equal to that of

the famous Asheri family. In Talmudical studies he was a disciple of

Nissim Gerundi, of Barcelona. Chasdaï Crescas was kind and gentle, a

friend in need, and a faithful defender of the weak. During the unhappy

days which broke upon the Jews of Spain in his lifetime, he devoted all

his powers to the mitigation of the disasters which befell his brethren.

Similar in character, but fundamentally opposed to him in the

disposition of his mind, was his friend and senior, Isaac ben Sheshet

Barfat (Ribash, born 1310, died about 1409). A native of Barcelona, and

having studied under Ben Adret's son and pupils, Isaac ben Sheshet may,

in a measure, be considered a disciple of Ben Adret. He acquired his

teacher's capacity for seizing the spirit of the Talmud and expounding

it lucidly, and far surpassed him in hostility to secular studies. Ben

Adret had permitted the circumstances of his times to extort from him

the prohibition of such studies, as far as raw youths were concerned;

Ben Sheshet, in his rigid orthodoxy, took the view that even mature

men should hold aloof from them, although at that period there was but

little fear of heresy. The physical sciences and philosophy, he held,

should be completely avoided, as they were calculated to undermine the

two essential supports of the Torah, the doctrines of the creation, and

of a Providence; because they exalted reason over faith, and generated

doubts of miracles. In Gersonides, and even Maimuni, Ben Sheshet found

illustrations of the pernicious effects of philosophic speculation.

He granted that they were men of incomparable genius, but he insisted

that they had been seduced by philosophy to adopt heterodox views, and

explain certain miracles of the Bible rationalistically. Ben Sheshet

was of high moral character; his disposition was kindly, and on several

occasions he willingly sacrificed his personal interests to advance the

common good and to promote peace. But when he suspected the violation

of a Talmudical precept or the non-observance of even an unessential

custom, his mildness was immediately transformed into most obdurate

severity.

On account of his Talmudical learning, his clear, penetrating

intellect, and his irreproachable character, he was much sought

after. The important community of Saragossa elected him its rabbi.

Immediately on taking office, Isaac ben Sheshet gave an illustration

of the tenacity with which he clung to the letter of the Law, even

when it conflicted with the spirit. He observed, with regret, that the

practice obtained of reading the book of Esther on the feast of Purim

in a Spanish translation, for the benefit of the women. This practice

had been introduced into other Spanish communities, and was not only

applauded by all men of common sense, but had even been authorized by a

few rabbis, who considered it unobjectionable from a Talmudical point

of view. Ben Sheshet raised a cry of alarm, as if Judaism had been

threatened with ruin. He called to his assistance the authority of his

teacher, Nissim Gerundi, and together they opposed the excellent custom

with sophistical argument. They appear to have been successful in

abolishing it.

Still more characteristic of Isaac ben Sheshet is his quarrel with

Chayim ben Gallipapa, a rabbi, stricken in years, whose opinions

differed from those of the rabbi of Saragossa. This man (born 1310,

died 1380), rabbi of Huesca and Pampeluna, was a singular figure in the

Middle Ages, whom it is difficult to classify. Whilst the rabbis of the

time, particularly since the rise of the Asheride teaching, exceeded

all bounds in the imposition of burdensome observances, and always, in

cases of doubt, decided in favor of their most rigorous fulfillment,

Gallipapa took the opposite view, and maintained that the aim of all

Talmudical exegesis should be to disencumber life. The times, he

considered, had improved, and neither the ignorance of the people

nor the fear of defection was so great as to warrant such severity.

This principle was no mere theory with Gallipapa, for he followed it

practically. The freedom he suggested concerned matters of comparative

insignificance, but at that time every trifle was regarded as

important. On certain dogmas, also, Gallipapa held independent views.

The Messianic belief which, since the time of Maimonides, had become

an article of faith, to deny which was heresy, he boldly set aside.

Gallipapa considered that the prophecies, in Isaiah and Daniel, of the

great prosperity of Israel in the future, had been fulfilled in the

days of the Maccabees, and wrote a work on the subject. Against this

hardy innovator, a storm naturally arose. A neighboring rabbi, Chasdaï

ben Solomon, of Tudela, a man of not over-fine sensibilities, denounced

him to Isaac ben Sheshet, and the latter lectured the venerable

Gallipapa, who had sent disciples into the world, as if he had been a

mere schoolboy. He adjured Chayim Gallipapa to avoid scandal and give

no opportunity for schism amongst his brethren. The modest attempt at

reform went no further.

This severe tendency in matters of religion was the natural outcome

of the prevailing spiritual needs; and it must be confessed that the

more rigorous, the better it was adapted to them. Isaac ben Sheshet

and his friend Chasdaï Crescas, who, although no enemy of secular

learning, entertained the same view as his colleague, and defended his

orthodoxy on philosophic grounds, were considered, after the death

of Nissim Gerundi, the most eminent rabbinical authorities of their

day, not in Spain only. From far and near, inquiries were addressed to

them, principally to Isaac ben Sheshet, but also to Chasdaï Crescas.

The proudest rabbis and the largest communities invoked their counsel,

and were content to abide by their decisions. The court of Aragon

also regarded them as the leaders of the Jewish communities, but this

operated to their disadvantage. In consequence of the denunciation

of some malevolent person, the ground of which is unknown, the king,

Don Pedro IV, ordered Chasdaï Crescas, Isaac ben Sheshet, his brother,

Crescas Barfat, the aged Nissim Gerundi of Barcelona, and two others,

to be thrown into prison. After a long time, they were released on

bail. We may believe Isaac ben Sheshet, when he assures us that he and

his fellow-prisoners were all innocent of the offense or crime laid

to their charge. Their innocence must have come to light, for they

afterwards remained unmolested.

The authority of Chasdaï Crescas and Isaac ben Sheshet was appealed to

by the French communities to settle an important point in a dispute

about the chief rabbinate of France. A change, largely the outcome of

the political condition of the country, had come over the circumstances

of these communities. Manessier de Vesoul, the zealous defender and

protector of his co-religionists, was dead (about 1375-1378). Of his

four sons--Solomon, Joseph, Abraham, and Haquinet--the eldest

succeeded to his father's post of receiver general of the Jew taxes

and political representative of the French Jews, and the second became

a convert to Christianity. Solomon and his brothers enjoyed the same

esteem at the royal court as their father. They were exempted from

wearing the humiliating Jew badge, and they diligently cared for the

interests of their brethren. Among Jews, however, they do not seem

to have obtained the consideration that their father had enjoyed. On

the death of the king, Charles V, their importance ceased altogether.

The regent Louis, Duke of Anjou, confirmed, for a consideration, the

privileges acquired by the French Jews (14th October, 1380), and

prolonged their term of sufferance in the land by another five years.

His protection, however, did not reach far, or rather it involved the

Jews in his own unpopularity. The impoverished population of Paris,

driven to despair by burdensome taxation, loudly and stormily demanded

redress of the young king and the regent. Egged on by a nobility

involved in debt, they included the Jews in their outcry, and demanded

that the king should expel from the country "these shameful usurers

who have ruined whole families." The people did not stop at words; at

the instigation of the nobles, they attacked the houses of the Jews

(November 16th, 1380), robbed the exchequer of the receiver general

(of the Vesoul family), pillaged their dwelling-houses, destroyed the

bonds of the debtors, appropriated the accumulated pledges, murdered

a few Jews, and tore children from the arms of fleeing and weeping

Jewish mothers to baptize them forthwith. A large number of Jews

saved themselves by flight to the fort Châtelet. The regent was much

irritated by this violent outbreak, but was unable to punish the

offenders at once on account of the excited state of the people. He

ordered that the Jews be reinstated in their homes, and the plunder

restored to them. Few complied with the order. The prevôt of Paris,

Hugues Aubriot--a man of considerable energy, who had beautified and

enlarged the French capital--also interested himself in the Jews.

In particular, he brought about the restitution of the stolen and

baptized children. For this he was violently attacked by men whose

learning should have taught them better. Aubriot, by his orderly

administration, had made enemies of the university professors and

students, who denounced as criminal his interference for the benefit

of the Jews. He was accused before the bishop of Paris of having held

intercourse with Jewish women, and even of being a secret adherent of

Judaism. He was found guilty of heresy and infidelity, and made to pay

with imprisonment for his humane conduct towards the Jews. Not only

in Paris, but also in other towns where the people rose against heavy

taxation, Jews fell victims to the popular excitement. Four months

later, similar bloody scenes were enacted in Paris and the provinces

when the rising of the Maillotins (so called from the mallets with

which the insurgents were armed) took place. For three or four days in

succession Jews were again plundered, ill-treated, and murdered (March

1st, 1381). The king, Charles VII, or rather the regent, attempted to

protect the Jews and to obtain some indemnification of their losses.

They were, however, unable to recover from the blow they had received.

In these tumults the sons of Manessier de Vesoul appear either to have

lost their lives, or, at any rate, their position of influence.

This change in the fortunes of the French Jews brought in its train

a violent communal dispute, the excitement of which extended far and

wide. The chief rabbi, Matathiah Provenci, had been gathered to his

fathers. The communities had elected his eldest son, Jochanan, in his

place, and the king had confirmed their choice. He had been in office

five years, and was projecting the establishment of an academy, when

a former pupil of his father, one Isaiah ben Abba-Mari, arrived in

France from Savoy with the authorization of the German chief rabbi,

Meïr ben Baruch Halevi, granting to him alone the right to maintain

an academy and ordain pupils as rabbis. Whoever exercised rabbinical

functions without his authority and, especially, meddled with marriages

and divorces, was threatened with excommunication. All unauthorized

documents were declared null and void. By virtue of his authority, and

in consequence of Jochanan's refusal to subordinate himself to him,

Isaiah relieved him of his office (about 1380-1390). The Vesoul family

being extinct or having lost prestige, Jochanan found himself without

influential support. Many of the French Jews, however, were extremely

wroth at this violent, imperious behavior of the immigrant rabbi. They

condemned the presumptuousness of the German rabbi, Meïr Halevi, in

treating France as though it were a German province, and protested

against his dictating laws to the French communities, as it had always

been the custom to regard each community, and certainly the Jews of

each country, as independent. The result was a storm of indignation,

which increased considerably when Isaiah proceeded to appoint his own

relatives to the various rabbinates. It being impossible to settle

the dispute by an appeal to the home-authorities, Jochanan turned

with his grievance to the two foremost representatives of Spanish

Judaism, Chasdaï Crescas and Isaac ben Sheshet. Both these "Catalonian

grandees," as they were called, pronounced in favor of Jochanan. This

decision, however, was not destined to bring about lasting peace, for

the days of the Jews in France were numbered.

The storm on this occasion arose in Spain, and convulsed for a time

the entire Jewish race. The golden age of the Spanish Jews had passed

away; still they were more firmly established in the Peninsula than in

any other country. It required a series of violent shocks, extending

over an entire century, to completely uproot them, whilst in France

they were swept away by a breath, like twigs planted in quicksand. For

the sanguinary drama which commenced towards the end of the fourteenth

century, and ended in the latter part of the fifteenth, the Spanish

Jews were themselves largely to blame. It is true that the many had

to suffer for the few, for when the enemies of the Jews complained of

their obsequious attendance at court and on the grandees, of their

wealth accumulated by usury, and their flaunting in silks and satins,

blame was due only to a few of the most prominent, for whose follies

and extravagances the masses were not responsible. Indeed, there were

Jews who complained that their moral sense was deeply wounded by the

selfishness and covetousness of their wealthy brethren. "For these

troubles," says one, "the titled and wealthy Jews are greatly to be

held responsible; their only consideration is for their position and

money, whilst for their God they have no regard." In fact, the union

that had previously been the chief source of strength among the Spanish

Jews, was broken up. Jealousy and envy among the Jewish grandees had

undermined fraternal feeling, which formerly had induced each to merge

his interests in those of the community at large, and all to combine

for the defense of each. Generosity and nobility of mind, once the

brilliant qualities of the Spanish Jews, had now become almost extinct.

A contemporary writer pictures their degeneracy in darkest hues, and if

only one half of what he tells us is true, their decline must have been

grave indeed.

"The majority of wealthy Jews," says Solomon Alami in his "Mirror of

Morals," or "Letter of Warning," "who are admitted to royal courts, and

to whom the keys of public exchequers are confided, pride themselves

on their dignities and wealth, but give no thought to the poor. They

build themselves palaces, drive about in splendid equipages, or ride

on richly caparisoned mules, wear magnificent apparel, and deck their

wives and daughters like princesses with gold, pearls, and precious

stones. They are indifferent to their religion, disdain modesty, hate

manual labor, and live in idleness. The wealthy love dancing and

gaming, dress in the national costume, and go about with sleek beards.

They fill themselves with dainties, whilst scholars starve on bread

and water. Hence, the rabbis are despised, for all classes prefer to

have their sons taught the lowest of handicrafts to bringing them up to

the study of the Law. At sermon time, the great resign themselves to

sweet slumber, or talk with one another, and the preacher is frequently

disturbed by men and women at the back of the synagogue. On the other

hand, how devout are the Christians in their houses of worship! In

every town the noble live at variance with one another, and stir up

discord on the most trivial questions. Still worse is the jealousy with

which they regard each other; they slander one another before the king

and the princes."

It is certainly true that at this period secret denunciations, once

almost unknown among the Jews, were exceedingly rife, even rabbis

being occasionally the victims. As the aged Nissim Gerundi, Isaac

ben Sheshet, Chasdaï Crescas, and their friends were victimized by

the conspiracy of some miserable calumniator, so an attempt was made

to ruin the rabbi of Alkolea de Cinca, En-Zag Vidal de Tolosa, by

representations to the queen of Aragon.

The rabbis, who, with one or two assessors, constituted courts of

justice for criminal cases, dealt severely with such traitors, and

even sentenced them to death. In the communities of Castile, Aragon,

Valencia, and Catalonia, the privilege of passing death-sentences

was of great antiquity. The Jewish courts required for the execution

of such sentences special sanction from the king in a sealed letter

(Albala, Chotham); but, if necessary, this could be obtained through

the medium of Jewish courtiers, or by bribery. Such proceedings,

however, only increased the evil they were designed to cure. The

accused were made short work of without exhaustive inquiry, or

sufficient testimony, and this naturally infuriated their relatives and

friends. It did not unfrequently occur that utterances were construed

as treasonable which had no such character. The ill-advised action

of the Jewish court of Seville (or Burgos) on an unfounded charge of

disloyalty to the community preferred against an eminent and beloved

co-religionist was, if not the actual cause, at any rate the occasion

of the first widespread and sanguinary persecution of the Jews in

Spain, the final result being the total expulsion of the Jews from the

Peninsula.

Joseph Pichon, of Seville, high in favor with the king of Castile,

Don Henry II, whose receiver general of taxes he had been, was

accused of embezzlement by some jealous Jewish courtiers. He was

imprisoned by the king, condemned to pay a fine of 40,000 doubloons,

and then set free. He afterwards retrieved his reputation, and became

extraordinarily popular among the Christian population of Seville. To

avenge his wrongs, or possibly with a view to his own vindication, he

had entangled his enemies in a serious accusation, when Don Henry died.

His son, Don Juan I, was crowned at Burgos, the capital of Old Castile

(1379). During the coronation festivities, a Jewish court of justice

(at Burgos or Seville) condemned Pichon as an enemy to the community

and a traitor (Malshim, Malsin), without affording him an opportunity

of being heard in defense. Some Jews, having access to the court, asked

permission of the young king to execute a dangerous member of their own

body without mentioning his name. Confidants of the king are said to

have been bribed to obtain the royal signature to this decree. Provided

with the king's warrant and the death sentence of the rabbinical

college, Pichon's enemies repaired to the chief of police (Alguacil),

Fernan Martin, and obtained his assistance at the execution. Early

on the morning of the 21st August, two or three Jews, together with

Martin, entered Pichon's house whilst he was yet asleep, and awoke him

under the pretext that his mules were to be seized for debt. As soon as

he appeared at the door of his dwelling, he was arrested by the Jews

intrusted with the carrying out of the sentence, and, without a word,

beheaded.

Whether Pichon had deserved death, even according to rabbinical law,

or whether he fell a victim to the intrigues of his enemies, is not

known. It is not difficult to understand that so cruel an act should

have stirred up widespread indignation. The anger of the young king

knew no bounds when he learnt that his coronation festivities had been

stained with the murder of one who had rendered his father substantial

services, and that his own sanction had been surreptitiously obtained.

He immediately ordered the execution of the Jews who had carried

out the sentence, and of a Jewish judge of Burgos. Even the chief

of police, Fernan Martin, was ordered to be put to death for the

assistance he had given; but at the intercession of some nobles, his

life was spared, and his punishment commuted to the chopping off of

one hand. This incident had other grave consequences. The king at

once deprived the rabbis and Jewish courts of justice of jurisdiction

in criminal cases, on the ground of their abuse of the privilege.

At the first meeting of the cortes at Soria (1380), he made this

restriction a permanent statute. By its terms the rabbis and communal

leaders were thenceforth prohibited from decreeing punishments of

death, dismemberment, or exile, and in criminal cases were to choose

Christian judges. One of the reasons assigned was that, according to

the prophets, the Jews were to be deprived of all power and freedom

after the advent of Jesus. The still exasperated king then arraigned

the Jews on other charges. He accused them particularly of cursing

Christians and the Christian church in their prayers, and with

receiving Mahometans, Tartars, and other foreign persons into the pale

of Judaism, and having them circumcised. These alleged practices were

forbidden under heavy penalties. The feeling against the Jews was

not limited to the king and the court circle. The entire population

of Castile was roused by the apparently unjust execution of Joseph

Pichon, and by the circumstance that his death was not the work of

irresponsible individuals, but of the foremost leaders of the Jewish

community. In Seville, where Pichon had been very popular, the fury

against the Jews rose to such a height that, had the opportunity

presented itself, summary vengeance would have been taken.

Accusations against the Jews and petitions for the restriction of their

liberties became the order of the day at the meetings of the cortes,

as formerly at the councils of the Visigothic kings. The infuriated

Don Juan acquiesced in this agitation, in so far as it did not tend

to the detriment of the royal finances. At the cortes of Valladolid

(1385), he granted the petition for the legalization of the canonical

restrictions, presented by the clergy, and accordingly prohibited the

living together of Jews and Christians, and the suckling of Jewish

infants by Christian nurses, under pain of public whipping. He also

consented to the passing of a law excluding Jews (and Mahometans) from

the post of treasurer to the king, queen, or any of the royal family.

Curiously, it was the quarrel over the chief rabbinate of Portugal that

snatched the crown of that country, at the moment when it was within

his grasp, from this monarch, who cannot be said to have been wholly

hostile to the Jews. By a treaty with King Ferdinand of Portugal,

it had been agreed that, male heirs to the crown failing, he, or

rather his second wife, the Portuguese Infanta Beatrice (Brites),

should have the first right to the succession. In Portugal the Jews

had always been tolerated, and, up to the time of their expulsion

from the country, suffered no persecution. During the reign of King

Ferdinand (1367-1383), their position was exceptionally happy. Since

the thirteenth century (1274), the government of the community had

been more completely in its own hands than in any other European

country. Some of their peculiar institutions dated even further back.

At the head of the Portuguese Jews was a chief rabbi (Ar-Rabbi Mor),

possessing almost princely privileges. On account of the importance of

the office he was always appointed by the king, who conferred it as a

reward for services rendered to the crown, or to add to the dignity

of some particular favorite. The chief rabbi used a special signet,

administered justice in all its branches, and issued decrees under

his own sign-manual with the addendum: "By the grace of my lord, the

king, Ar-Rabbi Mor of the communities of Portugal and Algarve." It was

his duty to make an annual circuit of all the Portuguese communities,

to investigate their affairs, invite individuals to lay before him

their grievances, even against the rabbis, and remedy abuses wherever

they existed. On these journeys he was accompanied by a Jewish judge

(Ouvidor), a chancellor (Chanceller) with his staff, a secretary

(Escrivão), and a sheriff (Porteiro jurado), to carry out the sentences

of his court. The chief rabbi or Ar-Rabbi Mor, appointed in each of

the seven provinces of the kingdom provincial rabbis (Ouvidores)

subject to him. These rabbis were established in the seven principal

provincial Jewish centers, Santarem, Vizeu, Cavilhão, Porto, Torre de

Montcorvo, Evora and Faro. They governed the provincial communities,

and were the judges of appeal for their several districts. The local

rabbis were elected by the general body of contributing members of the

community; but the confirmation of their election and their investiture

proceeded from the chief rabbi, under a special deed issued in the

name of the king. The judicial authority of the rabbis extended to

criminal cases, and they retained this privilege much longer than their

Spanish brethren. Public documents had to be written in the vernacular.

The Jewish form of oath was very simple, even in litigation with

Christians; it required nothing but the presence of a rabbi and the

holding up of the Torah.

The king, Don Ferdinand, had two Jewish favorites, who supervised his

monetary affairs: Don Judah, his chief treasurer (Tesoreiro Mor),

and Don David Negro, of the highly-respected Ibn-Yachya family, his

confidant and counselor (Almoxarif). When this frivolous and prodigal

monarch died, and the regency was undertaken by the queen, Leonora--a

princess whose beauty rendered her irresistible, but who was hated for

her faithlessness and feared for her vindictiveness and craft--the

municipal authorities of Lisbon approached her with an urgent prayer

for the abolition of sundry unpopular measures of the late king. Among

other things they asked that Jews and Moors should no longer be allowed

to hold public offices. Leonora craftily replied that during the

lifetime of the king she had exerted herself to procure the exclusion

of Jews from public offices, but her representations had always been

unheeded. Immediately after the king's death she had removed Judah

and David Negro from the public service, and dismissed all the Jewish

receivers of taxes. She nevertheless retained Judah in her immediate

circle, anticipating that, on account of his wealth and experience,

he might prove of use to her. Leonora's scheme to obtain absolute

authority and share the government with her paramour was frustrated by

the still craftier bastard Infante Don João, Grand Master of Avis. In

the art of winning public favor and turning it to account, Don João

was a master, and he soon brought things to such a pass that the queen

regent was forced to leave the capital. Burning for revenge, Leonora

invoked the aid of her son-in-law, King Don Juan of Castile, with the

result that a sanguinary civil war was commenced. In opposition to the

aristocratic faction, supporting the queen regent and the Castilians,

there arose a popular party, which enthusiastically espoused the cause

of Don João of Avis. Leonora was obliged to fly before the hatred of

her people and take refuge in Santarem. Among her escort were the two

Jewish grandees, Judah and David Negro, who had escaped from Lisbon

in disguise. Hither came King Juan of Castile; and Leonora, in order

to be enabled to take full vengeance on her enemies, renounced the

regency in his favor, and placed at his disposal all her adherents,

comprising the entire Portuguese nobility, together with a large number

of fortresses. The idea of the Castilian king in undertaking this

enterprise was to unite the crowns of Portugal and Castile; but for the

realization of this project a thorough understanding between Leonora

and her son-in-law and her ungrudging co-operation were indispensable.

This important harmony was disturbed by a question as to the

appointment of a chief rabbi, and owing to this dispute their agreement

was transformed into bitter and disastrous enmity.

The rabbinate of Castile became vacant in 1384. Leonora, desiring to

obtain the appointment for her favorite Judah, made application to the

king on his behalf. At the instance of his wife Beatrice, he conferred

the dignity upon David Negro. Leonora's anger at this rebuff was

expressed with vehemence. She is reported to have said to her circle

of adherents: "If the king refuses so trivial a favor, the first I

have asked of him, to me, a woman, a queen, a mother, one who has

done so much for him, what have I and what have you to expect? Even

my enemy, the Grand Master of Avis, would not have treated me thus.

You will do better to go over to him, your legitimate master." Leonora

transferred to her son-in-law, King Juan, all the hatred with which

she had formerly regarded the Grand Master of Avis. She organized a

conspiracy to murder him, the details of which she confided to the

former treasurer Judah. The plot was, however, discovered by the

chief rabbi elect, David Negro, who saved the king's life. Don Juan

immediately caused the queen dowager to be arrested and thrown into

prison. Judah also was imprisoned, and ordered to be executed, but at

the energetic intercession of his rival, David Negro, his life was

spared. This quarrel with and imprisonment of his mother-in-law cost

Don Juan all support in Portugal. Thenceforth he encountered resistance

on every side, and was obliged to resort to forcible measures for the

subjugation of the country. His plans, however, all failed, and in the

end he found himself compelled to renounce his hope of a union of the

two lands.

A few rabbis intrigued to obtain rabbinical office, and involved

their several communities in much unseemly strife, as, for example,

David Negro and Judah, Isaiah ben Abba-Mari and Jochanan in France,

Solomon Zarfati and En-Vidal Ephraim Gerundi in the Island of Majorca,

and Chasdaï ben Solomon and Amram Efrati in Valencia, but it must

be acknowledged that such incidents were of rare occurrence. To the

majority, the rabbinate was as a holy priesthood, the duties of which

they sought to discharge in all purity of heart and deed, with devotion

and self-denial. They were generally examples to their communities, not

only in learning and piety, but in high-mindedness, conscientiousness,

and the purity of their morals. Even the less worthy cannot be charged

with anything more serious than a desire for place, and a certain

degree of irascibility. It would be a gross libel on their memory to

compare them with the servants of the church during the same period.

At no time in its history had Christianity more reason to be ashamed

of its representatives than during the fourteenth and the succeeding

century. Since the papacy had established itself at Avignon, it had

become a perfect hot-bed of vice, the contagion of which spread over

the clergy down to the lowliest friar. Besides, there arose passionate

strife between pope and anti-pope, between one college of cardinals

and another, dividing the whole of Christendom into two huge, bitterly

hostile camps. It was only natural that the clergy should infect the

lay world with their immeasurable dissoluteness and vice. Yet these

degenerate, inhuman and degraded Christian communities presumed to

treat the modest, virtuous, pious Jews as outcasts and accursed of God.

Although superior in everything save wickedness and the virtues of a

robber chivalry, they were denied the commonest rights of man. They

were baited and slaughtered like beasts of the field. In Nördlingen the

entire Jewish community, including women and children, was murdered

(1384). All over Suabia they were persecuted, and in Augsburg they were

imprisoned until a ransom of 20,000 florins was paid. A characteristic

illustration is furnished by the following occurrence: The rabbis and

communal leaders of central Germany had determined to hold a synod at

Weissenfels, in Saxony, for the purpose of deliberating upon certain

religious questions, and adopting resolutions of public utility

(1386). They had provided themselves with safe-conduct passes from

the Saxon princes, it being unsafe for Christians to travel on the

public highroads, and, of course, much more so for Jews. Nevertheless,

a party of German robber-nobles, anticipating rich booty, waylaid the

travelers on their return journey, and, having plundered and ill-used

them, threw them into prison, and liberated them only on the payment of

a ransom of 5,000 groschen. The rabbis and their companions complained

to the princes of this attack, and the latter, indignant at the

disrespect with which their authority had been treated, summoned the

noble marauders to answer the charges urged against them. The line of

defense adopted by the spokesman of the accused was that they had no

idea of disregarding the safe-conduct passes of the princes, but that

they held the opinion that the Jews, the enemies of the church, did not

deserve the protection of Christian authorities. The speaker continued

that, for his own part, wherever he met the enemies of Christ, he would

give them no quarter. A defense of this kind could not fail to obtain

applause. Its spirit was that of the majority of the Christians of

that day. The accused were absolved from blame, and the Jews dismissed

without redress, "for the defense captivated the princes."

The art of poetry, which should beautify life, began to work like

poison on the moral atmosphere of the Jews. For some centuries past

romantic works had variously portrayed the character of a creditor,

who, as equivalent for a debt, claimed a certain portion cut from

the body of his creditor, either a liege lord from his vassal, or

a nobleman from a burgher. At first this was harmless fiction, but

afterwards it was turned against the Jews, as though only a Jewish

Shylock could be capable of such hardness of heart as to insist on the

payment of a pound of flesh from a Christian. Thus cannibal hatred of

Christians was foisted on the Jews, and received credence. Romances

took up the theme, and made it popular.

The depraved, dissolute clergy--a class of men who, in an age of

public decency, would have been objects of universal contempt, or might

have earned the corrections of a Bridewell--affected to feel insulted

by contact with the Jews, and, under the pretext that their cloth was

disgraced by them, caused new scenes of horror and cruelty. In Prague,

since the time of Charles IV the chief city of Germany, a bloody

persecution was set on foot by their agency. A local priest--perhaps

one of those whom Emperor Wenceslaus had caused to be pilloried with

their concubines--passed through the Jewish quarter on Easter Sunday

(April 18th, 1389) with the host, to visit a dying person. Jewish

children playing in the street--it was one of the latter days of the

Passover feast--were throwing sand at one another, and a few grains

happened to fall upon the priest's robe. His attendants immediately

turned upon the children, and cruelly beat them. Their cries quickly

brought their parents to their rescue, whereupon the priest fled to

the market-place, loudly proclaiming that his holy office had been

profaned by Jews. To invest the incident with the necessary importance,

he exaggerated it, and said that he was pelted with stones until forced

to drop the host. The citizens and lower orders of Prague immediately

banded themselves together, and, armed with murderous weapons of every

description, made a violent attack upon the houses of the Jews. As

usual, they offered their victims the choice between death and baptism,

but they found them steadfast in their faith. Many thousands perished

in the massacre, which lasted a whole day and night. Several of the

Jews, among them their venerable rabbi, first took the lives of their

wives and children, and then their own, to escape the cruelties of

their enemies. The synagogue was laid in ashes, and the holy books and

scrolls torn and trodden under foot. Not even the burial ground escaped

the fury of these Christian zealots. The corpses in the streets were

stripped of their clothing, left naked, and then burnt.

For the same offense--that is, for no offense at all--the

communities in the vicinity of the Bohemian capital were "confined,

oppressed, ill-treated and persecuted." The reigning pope issued a bull

condemning the outrages (July 2d, 1389), and based his action upon

the edict of Pope Innocent IV, which enacted that Jews should not be

forcibly baptized, nor disturbed in the observance of their festivals;

but he failed to produce an impression on the consciences of the

faithful. It was in vain, too, that the Jews appealed to their liege

lord, the German emperor Wenceslaus, in whose capital the persecution

had originated. This prince--who, had he not been an emperor, would

certainly have been a freebooter--was a man of sense only on the rare

occasions when he was not intoxicated. His reply to the representations

of his Jewish subjects was that they had deserved the attacks made upon

them, as they had had no right to show themselves outside their houses

on Easter Sunday. For the goods and chattels they had left behind them

he exhibited more concern, promptly ordering them to be appropriated

to his empty exchequer. This was the measure of his general attitude

towards the Jews. During several years he attempted to possess himself

of their monetary claims on his Christian subjects, and to carry out

his design he convened (1385) a conference of representatives of the

Suabian cities, which met at Ulm. Despite the impoverishment of the

German communities, he exacted from every Jew, even from every Jewish

youth and maiden, the so-called "golden penny" poll-tax, amounting to

one gulden annually. He openly declared that the possessions of the

Jews were his personal property, and forbade them to sell or mortgage

anything. And still Emperor Wenceslaus was not the worst of rulers in

the eyes of the Jews. The rabbi, Avigedor Kara, of Prague, boasted his

friendship; and the Jews of Germany whispered significantly to one

another that his allegiance to the teaching of Christ was very weak.

This storm of spoliation and persecution had no far-reaching

consequences in the history of the German Jews. It could not affect

their abject condition, for they had been too long accustomed to turn

their cheeks submissively to the smiter. Quite different were the

effects of a contemporary persecution in Spain. Here the very heart

of the Jewish race was attacked, and the results made themselves felt

in the history of the whole Jewish people. The Spanish Jews had until

then been more hated than despised; the horrors of this persecution,

however, so thoroughly cowed their spirits, so paralyzed their

energies, and humbled their pride, that they, too, became the scorn

of their oppressors. As in Prague, the outbreak was the work of an

ecclesiastic and a mob, but here it assumed the vastest proportions,

and developed permanent results, the operations of which were

disastrous in the extreme. It arose in Seville through the agitation

of a fanatical priest, Ferdinand (Ferrand) Martinez, who seemed to

consider implacable hatred of the Jews as the essence of his religion.

His discourses were devoted to stirring up the populace against them,

and he thundered against their hardened infidelity, their pride, their

heaped-up riches, their greed, and their usury. In Seville he found

the people only too ready to listen to him, for there the Jews were

hated with special intensity. The citizens could not forgive them the

important part they had played in the civil war between Don Pedro

and Don Henry II, and particularly the suspicious circumstances of

the death of Joseph Pichon, who had been so popular among them. As

long as Don Juan I lived, Martinez took care to restrain the mob from

open violence, for though the king regarded the Jews with but little

affection, he was in the habit of punishing lawless outbreaks with

the utmost severity. No sooner was he dead, however, than the bigoted

cleric thought he might dare the utmost. The circumstances of the

government were favorable to the development of his plans. The new

monarch, Henry III, was a boy of only eleven years of age, and in the

council of regency discord reigned, threatening to involve the country

in another civil war.

One day (March 15, 1391)--a memorable day, not only for the Jews and

for Spain, but for the history of the entire world, for on that day

the first germ of the monstrous Inquisition was created--Martinez,

preaching as usual against the Jews, deliberately incited the mob to

riot in the expectation that many Jews would abjure their religion.

The passions of the multitude became inflamed, and broke out in wild

uproar. The authorities of the city, the Mayor (Alguacil mayor), Don

Alvar Perez de Guzman, and two of the magistrates interposed to

protect the Jews, arresting two of the ringleaders in the riot, and

ordering them to be flogged. This proceeding excited the fanatical

mob only the more. In their fury they put a large number of Jews to

death, and threatened with a like fate the governor of the city, Don

Juan Alfonso, and the officials who were attempting to shield the

unfortunate Hebrews. A few of the leading Jews of Seville, perceiving

that the local authorities were not strong enough to grapple with the

rising, hurried to the court of the young king, and appealed to the

council of regency to stop the slaughter of their brethren. Their

representations were favorably received. Messengers were dispatched

forthwith to Seville with instructions to tell the populace to abstain

from further outrage. The local nobility seconded the action of the

king, and, ranging themselves on the side of the Jews, succeeded

in mastering the rioters. When the Christian inhabitants of the

neighboring towns showed a disposition to imitate the scenes enacted

in Seville, the council of regency also sent messengers thither armed

with the same powers. Thus, for a brief moment, the threatened Jew-hunt

was delayed, but by no means suppressed. It was soon renewed with

greater violence, and on a far more extended scale. The young king and

a few of the members of the council of regency were probably earnest

in their desire not to permit the massacres, but, unfortunately,

they were not sufficiently interested to take adequate precautions

against them. One such precaution should have been to silence the

outrage-monger, Ferdinand Martinez, or at least to prohibit his

inflammatory harangues; but they did nothing of the kind. They left

him perfectly free to level his poisonous eloquence at the Jews, and

he was not slow to take advantage of their inaction. Encouraged by the

dissensions in the government, and the disorder which consequently

reigned throughout the entire land, he again set himself to stir up

the rabble of Seville, and this time with greater success. Hardly three

months after the last outbreak, the mob resumed (June 6th, 1391) its

holy work of massacre by setting fire to the Jewish quarter (Juderia)

and slaughtering its inhabitants. The result was that, of the important

and wealthy community of Seville, which had numbered 7,000 families,

or 30,000 souls, but few remained. Murder counted not more than 4,000

victims, but to escape death the majority permitted themselves to be

baptized. Women and children were sold into Mahometan slavery by the

bloody rioters. Of the three synagogues of Seville two were transformed

into churches. Among the large number who sought refuge from fire and

sword at the baptismal font was Samuel Abrabanel, the ancestor of

the afterwards celebrated Abrabanel family, and an ornament of his

community in the reign of Don Henry II, with whom he possessed great

influence. He adopted the Christian name of Juan de Sevilla.

From Seville the persecution swept like a raging torrent over a large

portion of Spain. Its progress was stimulated more by a craving for

plunder than by fanatical eagerness to proselytize. Cordova, the parent

community of the Peninsula, the mold in which the high character of

Spanish Judaism had been cast, was the next scene of its activity.

Here also many Jews were cruelly murdered, and a large number forced

to embrace Christianity. On the fast day commemorating the fall of

Jerusalem (Tammuz 17th-June 20th) the population of the capital,

Toledo, rose against the largest Jewish community in Spain. The blood

of the believers in the unity of God, who steadfastly refused to change

their faith, deluged the streets. Among the many martyrs who fell at

Toledo were the descendants of the Asheri family. They met death with

the same unflinching courage as their German brethren. Jehuda ben

Asher II, one of Asheri's great-grandsons, who lived in Burgos, but

happened to be at Toledo, took with his own hands the lives of his

mother-in-law and wife, and then his own. Here also a large number

went over to Christianity. About seventy communities were visited by

this terrible persecution, among them those of Ecija, Huete, Logroño,

Burgos, Carrion, and Ocaña. At Ascalona not a single Jew remained

alive. The thoroughly maddened Christian population meditated a similar

fate for the Moors, or Mahometans, living in the kingdom of Seville.

The more prudent among them, however, pointed out the danger of such

a step, reminding them that the Christians living in the Mahometan

kingdom of Granada, or held as prisoners by the Moors on the other side

of the straits of Gibraltar, might be sacrificed in retaliation. The

massacre of the Moors was consequently abandoned. The Jews alone were

made to drain the cup of bitterness to the dregs, because they were

too weak to protect themselves. Nothing demonstrates more impressively

that the clergy had succeeded in transforming the people into a race of

cut-throats.

In the kingdom of Aragon, where both ruler and people were opposed to

Castile, and, as a rule, held that to be wrong which in the latter

state was considered right, the hatred and persecution of the Jews

were promoted with the same zeal. Here the government was in the

hands of the weak but well-meaning king, Juan I, who, absorbed by his

love of music and the chase, wielded but little authority, and was

the laughing-stock of his generally uncultured subjects. About three

weeks after the outbreak at Toledo, the inhabitants of the province of

Valencia rose against the Jews (Ab 7th-July 9th). Of the 5,000 souls

that constituted the Jewish community in the city of Valencia, not one

was left. Some 250 were murdered, a few saved themselves by flight,

and the rest embraced Christianity. Throughout the length and breadth

of the kingdom the defenseless Jews were attacked with fire and sword,

the community of Murviedro alone being spared.

The sanguinary madness then crossed the sea, and alighted on the island

of Majorca. In the capital, Palma, a crowd of roughs and sailors

paraded the Monte-Zion street, in which the Jews resided, and holding

aloft a cross, rudely formed by tying together two cudgels, shouted

"Death to the Jews" (August 2d-Ellul 1st). One sturdy Jew, assaulted

by the rabble, ventured to defend himself, and severely punished his

assailants. Hereupon the mob broke out in uncontrollable violence, and

300 martyrs fell to its fury. Among the victims was the rabbi, En-Vidal

Ephraim Gerundi, whose controversy with Solomon Zarfati has already

been referred to. A large number of Jews here also sought safety in

baptism.

Three days later, as if by previous arrangement, the Jew-massacres

began in Barcelona, one of the proudest homes of Jewish intelligence.

The great wealth which the Jews of this city had acquired by their

extensive maritime commerce appears to have excited the envy of the

Christians, and tempted them to outrage. On the 5th August, a Sabbath,

on which was held a minor festival in honor of Mary, the mob attacked

the Jews as if to honor their queen of heaven with human sacrifices.

In the first assault, close upon 250 victims fell. The larger portion

of the community were harbored and cared for in the citadel by the

governor of the town; but here again the rabble opposed the nobility.

They attacked the citadel with crossbows, laid siege to it in due form,

and ultimately set it on fire. When the imprisoned Jews saw that there

was no longer a chance of being saved, a large number slew themselves

with their own hands, or threw themselves from the walls. Others

sallied forth from the fortress to meet their assailants in the open

field, and fell in honorable combat. Among the martyrs was the noble

Chasdaï Crescas' young and only son, then on the eve of his marriage.

Eleven thousand Jews are said to have been baptized on this occasion.

Only a very few escaped, and not one remained in Barcelona. The same

fate befell the communities of Lerida, Gerona, and other towns, in

each case a large number of Jews being murdered, some being baptized,

and a very few escaping by flight. In Gerona, where the community was

distinguished for rigid piety, the number of converts to Christianity

was exceedingly small, the rabbis setting their flocks an example

by their steadfastness and contempt for death. In Catalonia, as in

Valencia, but few Jews were spared, and they owed their good fortune to

the protection received--in exchange, of course, for large sums of

money--in the castles of the nobility. In Aragon itself the outbreaks

were not so serious, as the Jewish communities had made a timely and

prudent offer of all their wealth for the protection of the court.

For three months fire and sword raged unresisted in the majority of

the Spanish Jewries. When the storm abated, the Jews remaining were

so broken in spirit that they did not venture forth from their places

of refuge. The sad occurrences were described in a heart-breaking,

tearful epistle to the community of Perpignan, which Chasdaï Crescas,

who had been robbed of an only son and his entire fortune, penned in

answer to their sympathetic inquiries. Thus, to Spanish Jews came

the tragical fate which had befallen their German brethren, hardly

half a century before, at the time of the Black Death. They also had

acquired materials for bitter songs of lamentation, which they inserted

in the Jewish liturgy. But the consequences of the persecution were

even more terrible than the persecution itself. Their pride was

completely crushed, and their spirit permanently darkened. They who

had formerly held their heads so proudly aloft, now slunk timidly

along, anxiously avoiding every Christian as a possible murderer or

instigator of murderous assaults. If hundred Jews were assembled, and a

single rough abused them, they fled like a flock of frightened birds.

This persecution gave them their first experience of the bitterness

of exile, for, notwithstanding many untoward circumstances, they had

always imagined themselves secure and at home in Spain. Now, for the

first time, their haughty demeanor was humbled. They were no longer

the men who had so valiantly wielded the sword in the armies of Don

Pedro. In Portugal alone the Jews were free from fanatical attacks.

Its king, Don João I, enjoyed a popularity to which, in a crisis, he

was able to appeal. As his instructions were cheerfully obeyed, he was

able to preserve order and put down outbreaks with a firm hand. The

chief rabbi, Don Moses Navarro, brought under his notice the two bulls

of the popes Clement VI and Boniface IX, in which force was forbidden

in converting Jews. The king immediately issued an order (July 17th,

1392) prohibiting persecutions. Wide publicity was given to the bulls

in every town in Portugal, and they were inserted among the statutes of

the realm. Portugal thus became an asylum for the persecuted Jews of

Spain.

The Jews of the south of France were not entirely exempted from the

horrors of this persecution. The tempest which had crossed the sea to

the island of Majorca also whirled over the snow-capped Pyrenees, and

caught up the Jews of Provence in its deadly eddies. No sooner was

intelligence received of the bloody massacres of the Jews of Spain than

the populace of Provence rose, and began to plunder and murder their

Jewish neighbors.

The Jews in France had been permitted to settle in the country only

for a specified time, and, although this term was frequently extended,

their thoughts were necessarily always directed towards possible

banishment. They were compelled to amass and keep in readiness

sufficient money to enable them, at any moment, to start life afresh

in another land. Like their ancestors in Egypt, they were ready for an

exodus, their loins girded, their shoes on their feet, and their staffs

in their hands. Although the acquisition of land was allowed them,

they were obliged to concentrate themselves on the money business,

and pursue the advantages offered by each moment. Necessity made

them usurers. Some among them charged a higher rate of interest than

permitted by the privileges granted them, and exacted even compound

interest from dilatory debtors. But it was the king himself who forced

them to immoderate, exasperating usury, by the extravagant demands

he made upon their purses to meet the expenses of his wars, and the

Jews could fulfill his demands only by transgressing the laws, but

their exactions naturally rendered them hateful in the eyes of the

general public. That Jewish creditors frequently had ill-intentioned

or tardy Christian debtors imprisoned to force them to discharge their

liabilities tended to increase the bitterness. The exercise of this

right was regarded as a triumph of "the children of the devil over the

children of heaven." The public became so angered at their possessing

the privilege that the king, Charles VI, was obliged to abolish it. On

the other hand, the necessity of maintaining the privilege was shown to

be so imperative--the Jews being threatened with the entire loss of

their outstanding debts--that the king and parliament had to grant it

a month later in a modified form. They permitted the Jews to imprison

only the debtors who, in their bonds, made themselves answerable with

their bodies.

A trifling circumstance sufficed to kindle into a flame these embers

of Jew-hatred in France. A wealthy Israelite, Denys Machault, of

Villa-Parisis, became a convert to Christianity, and then suddenly

disappeared. The affair became the subject of strange rumors. Some said

that he had been murdered by Jews; others that he had been hurried

abroad with a view to providing him with an easy means of returning to

Judaism. The clergy interested themselves in the mystery, fanatical

appeals were made to the people, and, eventually, the Paris tribunals

prosecuted seven prominent Hebrews. A commission of priests and

lawyers subjected the accused to the rack, and extorted the confession

that they had advised Denys Machault to abandon his new faith. The

commission condemned them to the stake as promoters of apostasy from

Christianity. Parliament substituted an apparently milder punishment.

It ordered the accused to be scourged in three of the public places

of Paris, kept in goal until Denys Machault re-appeared, and then,

stripped of all their possessions, expelled the country. From the

publicity given to this affair, it created an extraordinary sensation,

and still further inflamed the popular passions against the Jews.

For about three months the court extended a protecting wing over

the unfortunate Jews, but soon withdrew it in face of the stormy,

menacing clamor of the clergy and people. At last the enemies of the

Jews prevailed upon the king to promulgate the order of banishment.

Doubtless with malice aforethought the day chosen for the issue of

the decree was the solemn Fast of Atonement (September 17th, 1394),

when the Jews were afflicting their souls during the entire day in the

synagogues. The prolonged term granted for their sojourn in the country

not having expired, it became necessary to put forward an excuse for

ignoring the convention. The royal decree was not able to impute to

the Jews specific crimes or misdemeanors, and, consequently, confined

itself to vague generalities. It had been reported to his majesty

by trustworthy persons, including many of his lieutenants and other

officials, that complaints had been made concerning offenses committed

by the Jews against the Christian religion and the special laws drawn

up for their control. That meant that they had encouraged baptized

Jews to recant, and had practiced extortionate usury--the latter

Charles had partly approved and partly condoned. The decree then stated

that his majesty had made the irrevocable law that henceforth no Jews

should be allowed to reside or tarry in any part of France, either in

Languedoil or Languedoc (northern and southern France).

Thus, ninety years after their first expulsion by Philip le Bel, and

after a second sojourn of thirty-four years, the French Jews were

compelled once more to grasp the wanderer's staff. Charles, however,

dealt more leniently with them than his heartless ancestor. They were

not, as before, robbed of all their possessions, and turned adrift

stripped to the skin. On the contrary, Charles VI issued orders to

the prevôt of Paris and his provincial governors, instructing them to

see that no harm come to the Jews, either in their persons or their

chattels, and that they cross the frontier safely. Time was also

allowed them up to the 3d November to collect their debts. They did not

leave France until the end of 1394 or the beginning of the following

year. To some of the nobility and towns the expulsion was not a welcome

measure. Thus, the Count de Foix wished at all hazards to retain the

community of Pamier, and had to be forced by royal officers to expel

the Jews. In Toulouse twelve Jewish families, and in the vicinity

seven more, remained behind, so that they must have received special

indulgences. Jews also remained in the provinces not directly dependent

on the French crown--in the Dauphiné, in Provence proper, and in

Arles, these being fiefs of the German empire. The flourishing seaport,

Marseilles, possessed a Jewish community for a long time after the

expulsion. Even the popes of Avignon tolerated Jews in Avignon and

Carpentras, the chief towns of their small ecclesiastical province

of Venaissin; and here they remained until very recent times, using

a ritual of their own, which differed from that of their Spanish and

their French brethren. The papacy had now little to fear from the

helpless, enfeebled Jews; hence, doubtless, this parade of toleration.

The exiles who failed to find an asylum in the tolerant principalities

of France emigrated to Germany and Italy; only a few directed their

steps to Spain, formerly the most hospitable refuge for persecuted

Jews. Since the massacres of 1391 that country had become a purgatory

to the native Jews, and so long as foreign Jews could find a shelter

elsewhere, they naturally avoided its frontiers. French communities

migrated in a body to Piedmont, and settled in the towns of Asti,

Fossano, and Moncalvo, where they could maintain unchanged their old

synagogue ritual. The fate of the larger number of the French exiles

may be described in the words of Amos: "As if a man did flee from

a lion, and a bear met him; or went into the house, and leaned his

hand on the wall, and a serpent bit him." Almost everywhere they were

met with a storm of barbarity, not unfrequently stirred up against

them by baptized Jews. In Germany an apostate named Pessach, who,

with Christianity, had adopted the name of Peter, brought serious

accusations against his brethren in race, with a view to bringing

about another persecution. To the usual charges that the Jews called

Jesus the crucified or the hanged, and that they cursed the Christian

clergy in one of their prayers, Pessach-Peter added others. He stated

that an abusive allusion to Jesus was contained in the sublime Alenu

prayer, which pictures the future reign of God on earth, and he made

other lying and ludicrous charges. The result was that a large number

of the Jews of Prague were arrested and imprisoned (August 3d, 1399).

Among them was the foremost and, perhaps, only really learned German

Jew of the Middle Ages, Lipmann (Tab-Yomi) of Mühlhausen, a scholar

accomplished alike in Biblical and Talmudical lore, who had read not

only Karaite authors, but also the New Testament in a Latin version.

The clergy called upon him to answer Pessach-Peter's charges. His

defense was forcible, but seems to have had little effect, for on

the day Emperor Wenceslaus was deposed, and Rupert of the Palatinate

elected his successor (August 22d, 1400), seventy-seven Jews were

executed, and three weeks later three more led to the stake.