[8] Cp. "Mem. Sanct.," i. sec. 13.
[9] "Mem. Sanct.," Pref., sec. 4.
The third objection is a curious one, that the martyrs were not put to
death by idolaters, but by men worshipping God and acknowledging a
divine law,[1] and therefore were not true martyrs. Eulogius misses the
true answer, which is obvious enough, and scornfully exclaims:--"As if
they could be said to believe in God, who persecute His Church, and deem
it hateful to believe in a Christ who was very God and very man."[2]
Fourthly, the martyrs died a quick and easy death. But, as Eulogius
points out,[3] pain and torture give no additional claim to the martyr's
crown.
Lastly, it was objected that the bodies of these martyrs, as indeed was
to be expected, corrupted, and were even, in some cases, devoured by
dogs. "What matter," says Eulogius,[4] "since their souls are borne away
to celestial mansions."
[1] Eul. "Lib. Apol.," sec. 3.
[2] _Ibid._, sec. 12.
[3] _Ibid._, sec. 5.
[4] "Mem. Sanct.," i. sec. 17.
But it was not objections brought by fellow-Christians only that
Eulogius took upon himself to answer, but also the taunts and scoffs of
the Moslems. "Why," said they, "if your God is the true God, does He not
strike terror into the executioners of his saints by some great
prodigy? and why do not the martyrs themselves flash forth into miracles
while the crowd is round them? You rush upon your own destruction, and
yet you work no wonders that might induce us to change our opinion of
your creed, thereby doing your own side no good, and ours no harm."[1]
Yet the constancy of the martyrs affected the Moslems more than they
cared to confess, as we may infer from the taunts levelled at the
Christians, when, in Mohammed's reign, some Christians, from fear of
death, even apostatized. "Whither," they triumphantly asked,[2] "has
that bravery of your martyrs vanished? What has become of the rash
frenzy with which they courted death?" Yet though they affected to
consider the martyrs as fools or madmen, they could not be blind to the
effect that their constancy was likely to produce on those who beheld
their death, and to the reverence with which their relics were regarded
by the Christians. They therefore expressly forbade the bodies of
martyrs to be preserved[3] and worshipped, and did their best to make
this in certain cases impossible by burning the corpses and scattering
the ashes on the river, though sometimes they contented themselves with
throwing the bodies, unburnt, into the stream.
[1] "Mem. Sanct.," i. sec. 12.
[2] Eulog., "Mem. Sanct.," iii. sec. 6.
[3] See "De Translatione corporum Sanctorum Martyrum," etc.,
sec. 11. "Non enim, quos martyres faciunt, venerari Saraceni
permittunt." See above, p. 38. The bodies of earlier martyrs
were more freely given up at the request of the Christians. See
"Chron. Silen.," secs. 95-100; Dozy, iv. 119, for the surrender
of the body of Justus; and Eul., "Ad Wiliesindum," sec. 9,
where Eulogius mentions that he had taken the bodies of Saints
Zoilus and Austus to Pampluna. Later, Hakem II. (961-976) gave
up the body of the boy Pelagius at Ramiro III.'s request.
Mariana, viii. 5.
However, in spite of these regulations, many bodies were secretly
carried off and entombed in churches, where they were looked upon as
the most precious of possessions; and martyrs, who, by the admission of
their admirers themselves, had never worked any miracles when living,
were enabled, when dead, to perform a series of extraordinary ones,
which did not finally cease till modern enlightenment had dissipated the
darkness of the Middle Ages.
We happen to possess a very interesting account of the circumstances
under which the relics of three of these Cordovan martyrs were
transferred from the troubled scene of their passion to the more
peaceful and more superstitious cloisters of France.[1]
It was in 858 that Hilduin, the abbot of the monastery of St Vincent and
the Holy Cross, near Paris, learning that the body of their patron
saint, St Vincent, was at Valencia, sent two monks, Usuard and Odilard,
with the king's[2] permission, to procure the precious relics for their
own monastery. On their way to perform this commission, the monks learnt
that the body was no longer at Valencia. It had been, in fact,
carried[3] by a monk named Andaldus to Saragoza. Senior, the bishop of
that city, had seized it, and it was still held in veneration there, but
under the name of St Marinus, whose body the monk had stoutly asserted
it to be. Senior apparently doubted the statement, and tortured Andaldus
to get the truth out of him, but in vain; for the monk, knowing that St
Vincent had been deacon of Saragoza, feared that the bishop would never
surrender the body if aware of its identity. However, Usuard and Odilard
knew not but that the body was that of Marinus, as stated.
[1] De Translatione SS. martyrum Georgii, Aurelii, et Nathaliae
ex urbe Cordobae Parisios: auctore Aimoino.--"Migne," vol. 115,
pp. 939 ff.
[2] Charles the Bald.
[3] "Under a divine impulse," as usual.
Disappointed, therefore, in their errand, they lingered about at
Barcelona, thinking to pick up some other relics, when a friend, holding
a high position in that town, Sunifridus by name, mentioned the
persecution at Cordova, news of which does not seem to have travelled
beyond Spain. They determine at once to go to Cordova, relying on a
friend there, named Leovigild, to help them to obtain what they wished.
Travelling in Spain, however, seems to have been by no means safe[1] at
this period, and their bold resolution is regarded with fear and
admiration by their friends. The lord of the Gothic marches, Hunifrid,
being on friendly terms with the Wali of Saragoza, writes to him on
their behalf, and he entrusts them to the care of a caravan which
chanced to be just starting for Cordova.
[1] See sec. 2, and Eul., "Ad Wiliesindum," where he speaks of
the road to Gaul as "stipata praedonibus," and of all Gothia as
"perturbata funeroso Wilihelmi incursu."
On reaching Cordova, after many days, they go to St Cyprian's Church,
where lay the bodies of John and Adulphus. The rumour of their arrival
brings Leovigild (called Abad Salomes), who proves a very useful friend,
and Samson, who just at this juncture is made abbot of the monastery at
Pegnamellar, where the bodies of George, Aurelius, and Sabigotha were
buried--the very relics which they had decided to try and obtain.
The monks of the monastery naturally object to parting with such
precious possessions, but Samson contrives to get the bishop's
permission to give up the bodies.
This was all the more opportune, as a chance was now given them of
returning to Barcelona, by joining the expedition which Mohammed I. was
on the point of making against Toledo. Orders had been given that all
the inhabitants, strangers as well as citizens, except the city guard,
should go out with the King. However, the Frankish monks were met by an
unexpected difficulty. In the temporary absence of the abbot, the monks
of Pegnamellar refused to give up the relics, and it was only with much
difficulty that the bishop Saul was induced to confirm his former
permission to remove them.
The bodies were now exhumed without the knowledge of the Moslems, and
sealed with Charles' own seal, brought for that purpose. George's body
was found whole, but of the other two, only the head of Nathalia, and
the trunk of Aurelius' body. The two latter are united to form one
corpse, as it is written, "they two shall be one flesh." After a stay in
Cordova of eight weeks, they set out under the protection of some
Christians serving in the army. Leovigild, who had been away on the
King's business, now returns, and escorts them to Toledo. The approach
of the army having cleared away the brigands who infested those parts,
the monks with their precious freight got safely away to Saragoza, and
returned with their booty to France, where the relics worked numbers of
astonishing miracles.
Let us return from this digression to the steps taken by the moderate
party among the Christians, and by the Moslem authorities, to put an end
to what seemed so dangerous an agitation. That Reccafredus was not the
only ecclesiastic of high position who took exception to the new
movement we learn clearly enough from Alvar,[1] who tells us that
"bishops, priests, deacons, and 'wise men' of Cordova joined in
inveighing against the new martyrdoms, under the impulse of fear
wellnigh denying the faith of Christ, if not in words, yet by their
acts." We may, therefore, conclude that the greater part of the
ecclesiastical authorities were heart and soul with the Bishop of
Seville, while the party led by Eulogius and Saul was a comparatively
small one. However, strong measures were necessary, and Reccafredus did
not hesitate to imprison several priests and clergy.[2] Eulogius
complains that the churches were deprived of their ministers, and the
customary church rites were in abeyance, "while the spider wove her web
in the deserted aisles, tenanted only by a dreadful silence." In this
passage the writer doubtless gives reins to his imagination, yet there
must have been a certain amount of truth in the main assertion, for he
repeats it again and again.[3]
The evidence of Alvar is to the same effect: "Have not those who seemed
to be columns of the church, the very rocks on which it is founded, who
were deemed the elect of God, have they not, I say, in the presence of
these Cynics, or rather of these Epicureans, under no compulsion, but of
their own free will, spoken evil of the martyrs of God? Have not the
shepherds of Christ, the teachers of the Church, bishops, abbots,
priests, the chiefs of our hierarchy, and its mighty men, publicly
denounced the martyrs of our Church as heretics?"[4]
[1] "Life of Eulog.," ch. i. sec. 4.
[2] Alvar, "Life of Eulog.," ii. sec. 4--"Omnes sacerdotes quos
potuit carcerali vinculo alligavit." Eul., "Doc. Martyr," sec.
11--"Repleta sunt penetralia carceris clericorum catervis,
viduata est ecclesia sacro praesulum et sacerdotum officio ...
privata prorsus ecclesia omni sacro ministerio." Alvar, "Ind.
Lum.," secs. 14, 18--"Templa Christi a sacrificio desolata, et
loca sancta ab ethnicis exstirpata."
[3] Eul., "Doc. Mart.," sec. 16--"Eremitatem ecclesiarum,
compeditionem sacerdotum ... et quod non est nobis in hoc
tempore sacrificium nec holocaustum nee oblatio." Cp. Ep. ad
Wilies, sec. 10.
[4] Alvar, "Ind. Lum.," sec. 14.
Not content with imprisoning the fanatics, the party of order forced
them to swear that they would not snatch at the martyr's palm by
speaking evil of the Prophet.[1] Those who disobeyed were threatened
with unheard-of penalties, with loss of limbs, and merciless
scourgings.[2] This last statement must be taken with reservation, at
least if put into the mouth of the Christian party under Reccafredus.
It is extremely unlikely that Christian bishops and priests should have
had recourse to such treatment of their coreligionists: yet they had a
spiritual weapon ready to their hands, and they were not slow to use it.
They anathematised[3] those who aided and abetted the zealots; and
Eulogius himself seems to have narrowly escaped their sentence of
excommunication.[4]
[1] _Ibid._, sec. 15--"Ne ad martyrii surgerent palmam,
iuramentum extorsimus ... et maledictum ne maledictionibus
impeterent, evangelio et cruce educta, vi iurare improbiter
fecimus."
[2] _Ibid._, cp. Alvar, "Life of Eulog.," iv. sec. 12--"Duris
tormentis agitati, commoti sunt."
[3] Eulog., "Mem. Sanct." i. sec. 28--"Ne ceteri ad huiusmodi
palaestram discurrant schedulis anathematum per loca varia
damnari iubentur." Alvar, "Ind. Lum.," sec. 31--"Plerosque
patres anathematizantes talia patientes."
[4] Eulog., "Mem. Sanct.," iii. c. iv. sec. 5.
This action against the zealots was in all probability taken, if not at
the instigation of the Moslem authorities, yet in close concert with
them. Eulogius[1] attributes all the evils which had befallen the
Church, such as the imprisonment of bishops, priests, abbots, and
deacons, to the wrath of the King; and Alvar distinctly states that the
King was urged, even bribed, to take measures against the Christians.[2]
It is not likely that the King required much persuading. Mohammed at
least seems to have been thoroughly frightened by the continued
agitation against Mohammedanism. He naturally suspected some political
plot at the bottom of it; a supposition which receives some countenance
from the various references in Eulogius[3] to the martyrs as "Soldiers
of God" bound to war against His Moslem enemies; and from the undoubted
fact that the Christians of Toledo did rise in favour of their
coreligionists at Cordova.[4] However that may be, the King in 852
certainly took counsel[5] with his ministers, how the agitation should
be met, and he seems to have assembled a sort of grand council[6] of
the Church, when the same question was discussed. Stronger measures were
in consequence taken, and a more rigorous imprisonment resorted to. But
Mohammed went farther than this. He deprived of their posts all
Christians, who held offices in the palace,[7] or in connection with the
Court, and withdrew from the Christian "cadet corps,"[8] the royal
bounty usually extended to them. He ordered the destruction of all
churches built since the conquest, and of all later additions to those
previously existing. He made a severe enactment against those who
reviled Mohammed.[9] He even had in mind to banish all Christians from
his dominions.[10] This intention, together with the order respecting
the churches, was not carried out, owing probably to the opportune
revolt at Toledo.[11]
[1] Ep. ad Wilies, sec. 10.
[2] Alvar, "Ind. Lum.," sec. 35.
[3] See Dozy, ii. 136.
[4] Conde, i. 249: Dozy, ii. 161, says on Eulogius' authority,
that he incited them to revolt under Sindila.
[5] Eulog., "Mem. Sanct.," ii. c. xiv.
[6] Robertson calls it a Conciliabulum.
[7] Eulog., "Mem. Sanct.," ii. Sec. 2.
[8] "Militares pueros." Eulog. "Mem. Sanct.," iii. c. i.
[9] Eulog. "Mem. Sanct.," ii. c. xiv--"Tunc iam procul dubio
enecandi nos difficultas fuit adempta, si quisquam vatis sui
temerarius exprobator ultro occurreret." This seems to mean
that Christians and Saracens were bound to give up to justice
any who reviled the Prophet; or else to kill him on the spot.
[10] Eulog., "Doc. Mart.," sec. 18--"Moslemi ... omne regni
sui, sicuti cernitis, genus excludere moliuntur
Christicolarum."
[11] Eulog., "Mem. Sanct.," iii. c. iv.
In one of his works on this subject, Eulogius expresses a fear lest the
intervention of the martyrs should bring disaster on the Church in
Spain, just as the intervention of Moses in Egypt did much at first to
aggravate the hardships of the Israelites.[1] He ought not, therefore,
to have been surprised, when such a result actually did follow; nor
ought he to complain that now the Moslems would only let the Christians
observe their religion in such a way as they chose to dictate; and that
the Christians were subjected to all sorts of taxes and exactions.[2]
These combined measures of repression, taken by the King and the Bishop
of Seville, soon produced their effect. The extreme party were broken
up, some escaping to quieter regions, others hiding, and only venturing
abroad in disguise and at night--not, as Eulogius is careful to add,
from fear of death, but because the high prize of martyrdom is not
reserved for the unworthy many, but for the worthy few.[3]
[1] _Ibid._, ii. c. xvi.
[2] Eulog., "Doc. Mart.," sec. 18--"_Nunc_ pro suo libito
tantummodo exercere nos sinentes Christianismum ... _nunc_
publicum imponentes censum, _nunc_ rebus nos abdicantes
detrimentis atterunt rerum."
[3] Eulog., "Mem. Sanct.," ii. sec. 14--"Quia indigni sumus
martyrio, quod quibusdam et non omnibus datum est."
Some even apostatized,[1] while many of those who had applauded the
proceedings of the martyrs, now called them indiscreet, and blamed them
for indulging in a selfish desire to desert the suffering Church for an
early mansion in the skies.[2] Others, in order to retain posts under
Government, or to court favour with the King, dissembled their religion,
taking care not to pray, or make the sign of the cross in public.[3]
Eulogius himself was singled out at the meeting of the King's Council by
one of the royal secretaries, Gomez, son of Antonian, son of Julian,[4]
as the ringleader of the new seditious movement. This man was a very
worldly-minded Christian,[5] and was, no doubt, at this time, in fear of
losing his lucrative office at Court, which he had obtained by his
remarkable knowledge of Arabic. He did, in fact, lose his post with all
the other Christian officers of the Court, but regained it by becoming a
Moslem;[6] and such was the ardour of the new proselyte that he was
called "the dove of the mosque."[7]
The result of this council was, as we have seen, hostile to the party of
which Eulogius and Saul were the chiefs, but the former writer,
mentioning the actual decree that was passed, pretends that it was
merely a blind to deceive the king, and spoken figuratively; and he
acknowledges that such hypocrisy was unworthy of the prelates and
officers assembled.[8] Is it not more reasonable to suppose that
Eulogius and his supporters voted for it--as they seem to have
done--with a mental reservation, while their opponents honestly
considered such a step necessary?
[1] Eulog., "Mem. Sanct.," ii. c. xv. 1--"Fidem praevaricantur,
abdicant religionem, Crucifixum detestantur."
[2] Eulog., "Mem. Sanct.," ii. c. ii. sec. 6. Also in his
letter to Alvar sending the "Mem. Sanct.," he says, very few
remained firm to their principles.
[3] Alvar, "Ind. Lum.," sec. 9--"Cum palam coram ethnicis
orationem non faciunt, signo crucis oscitantes frontem non
muniunt ... Christianos contra fidei suae socios pro regis
gratia, pro vendibilibus muneribus et defensione gentilicia
praeliantes." Elsewhere he says: "Nullus invenitur qui iuxta
iussum Domini tonantis aetherii super montes Babiloniae,
caligosasque turres crucis fidei attollat vexillum, sacrificium
Deo offerens vespertinum."
[4] Eulog., "Mem. Sanct.," iii. c. iv. sec. 5: Alvar, "Ind.
Lum.," sec. 18. See above, p. 51.
[5] Ibn al Kuttiya--apud Dozy, ii. 137.
[6] Eulog., "Mem. Sanct.," iii. c. ii.
[7] Dozy, ii. 137.
[8] Eul., "Mem. Sanct.," ii. c. xv., sec. 3--"Aliquid
commentaremur, quod ipsius tyranni ac populorum serperet
aures." The "praemissum pontificate decretum" he calls
"allegorice editum."
CHAPTER VI.
THE MUZARABES.
The death of Eulogius was a signal for the cessation of the dubious
martyrdoms which had for some years become so common, though the spirit,
which prompted the self-deluded victims, was by no means stifled either
in Spain or the adjoining countries.[1] Yet the measures taken to put
down the mania for death succeeded in preventing any fresh outbreak for
some time.
Under the weak government of Abdallah (888-912) the Christians,
determining to lose their lives to better purpose than at the hands of
the executioner, rose in revolt, as will be related hereafter, in
several parts of Spain. After the battle of Aguilar, or Polei, in 891,
between the Arab and Spanish factions, 1000 of the defeated Christians
were given the choice of Islam or death, and all, save one, chose the
latter alternative.[2]
During the long reign of Abdurrahman III. (912-961) there were a few
isolated cases of martyrdom, which may as well be mentioned now. After
the great battle in the Vale of Rushes,[3] where Abdurrahman defeated
the kings of Navarre and Leon, one of the two fighting bishops, who were
taken prisoners on that occasion, gave, as a hostage for his own
release, a youth of fourteen, named Pelagius. The king, it is said,
smitten with his beauty, wished to work his abominable will upon the
boy, but his advances being rejected with disdain, the unhappy youth was
put to death with great barbarity, refusing to save his life by
apostasy.[4] A different version of the story is given by a Saxon nun of
Gaudersheim, named Hroswitha, who wrote a poem on the subject fifty
years later. She tells us that the king tried to kiss Pelagius, who
thereupon struck him in the face, and was in consequence put to death by
decapitation (June 26, 925).[5]
[1] See "Life of Argentea," secs. 3, 5.
[2] Dozy, ii. 287.
[3] Val du Junqueras, 920 A.D.
[4] Johannes Vasaeus ex Commentariis Resendi. Romey, iv. 257,
disbelieves this version of the story. Perhaps Al Makk., ii.
154, is referring to the same Pelagius when he mentions the
king's liking for a handsome Christian page.
[5] Sampiro, secs. 26-28.
In the death of Argentea (Ap. 28, 931) we have the last instance in
Spain of a Christian seeking martyrdom. She was the daughter of the
great rebel Omar ibn Hafsun,[1] and his wife Columba, and was born at
that chieftain's stronghold of Bobastro. Upon her mother's death Omar
wished her to take up her mother's duties in the palace, for Omar had
become a sort of king on his own domain. She declined, asking only for a
quiet retreat, where she might prepare her soul for martyrdom; and she
wrote to a devout Christian, whose wishes inclined him in the same
direction, suggesting that they should seek the crown of martyrdom
together.[2] On the destruction of Bobastro by Abdurrahman in 928, she
went to Cordova.[3] She there met with a Gaul named Vulfura, who had
been warned in a dream that in that city he should find a virgin, with
whom he was to suffer martyrdom. However, his object becoming known,
Vulfura is cast into prison by the governor of the city. Argentea goes
to visit him there, and is stopped by the guards, who, finding she is a
Christian, take her before the judge as a renegade, and she is
imprisoned with Vulfura. The alternative of Islam instead of death being
refused, they are both executed, but Argentea, as being an "insolens
rebellis," is first scourged with 1000 stripes, and her tongue cut out.
Her body was buried at the church of the three saints.
In the year 934[4] we hear of two hundred monks of Cardena being
massacred by the Berbers in Abdurrahman's army; and in some sense they
can be regarded as martyrs to their faith.
[1] Who on becoming a Christian, took the name of Samuel.
Florez, x. p. 564, ff.
[2] See "Life of Argentea," by an anonymous author.
[3] _Ibid._, sec. 4.
[4] Dozy, iii. 52. Mariana, viii. 6, gives 993, but says it may
have occurred in 893.
In 953 a martyr named Eugenia is said to have perished;[1] and thirty
years later, the last martyrs of whom we have any record under the Arab
rule. Dominicus Sarracinus, son of John, and his companions taken
prisoners at the capture of Simancas, were kept for two years and a-half
in prison.[2] They were then brought out and put to death, just when
Ramiro III., or his successor, had sent to ransom them.[3]
There is no evidence whatever to show that there was a persecution of
the Christians under the great Abdurrahman, and the statements of those
writers who intimate the contrary may be set aside as unsupported by
evidence.[4]
We will now turn back and take a general view of the Christian Church
and its condition under the Arabs in Spain, especially--for our
information is greatest as to those periods--under the two kings
Abdurrahman II. and III.
Under the former of these sovereigns the condition of the Christians,
until the persecution, which they themselves provoked, began, was very
tolerable, and the majority of the Christians were quite content with
their lot. They served in the army, both free men and slaves; they held
lucrative posts at Court, or in the houses of the Arab nobles, or as
government officials. But though the lay community was well off, the
clergy and stricter churchmen had something to complain of; for the
Church[5] could not be said to be free, though the worship was, since
the power of summoning councils had now passed to the Arab executive,
who, as we have seen, made even Moslems and Jews sit at these councils.
Sees were also put up to auction, and the scandalous spectacle was not
unknown, of atheists and heretics holding the titles, and drawing the
emoluments, of bishops.[6]
[1] Schott., iv. 246.
[2] Rohrbacher, xii. 192.
[3] Charter, apud Florez, xiv. 397.
[4] See above, p. 36, note 1. A letter also is mentioned of
John Servus Dei, Bishop of Toledo, to the Muzarabes with regard
to the late martyrdoms and apostasies, purporting to have been
written in 937.
[5] Dozy, ii. 47.
[6] Alvar, "Ep.," xiii. 3. Samson, "Apol.," ii. cc. ii.-iv.
As was to be expected, Arabic soon began to displace Latin throughout
the country, and even before the ninth century the Scriptures were
translated into the tongue of the conquerors [1] by Odoarius, Bishop of
Accita, and John of Seville. Hischem I. (788-796) forbade the use of any
language but Arabic, so that his Christian subjects had to use Arabic
Gospels;[2] and the Spaniards were soon not even permitted to write in
Latin.[3] Even if this statement be doubtful, we know that Latin came
gradually to be neglected and forgotten. Alvar utters an eloquent
protest against this: "Alas, the Christians are ignorant of their own
tongue, and Latins neglect their language, so that in all the College of
Christ[4] there is scarcely to be found one who can write an address of
welcome to his brother intelligibly in Latin, while numbers can be found
competent to mouth the flowery rhetoric of the Chaldeans."[5] In the
department of poetry--the peculiar boast of the Arabs--the Christians
seem even to have surpassed their masters; and to the rivalry of the two
nations in this art we may attribute the excellence and abundance of
native ballads of which Spain can boast.
We have seen how Eulogius did his best to check this neglect of Latin,
by introducing into Spain some of the masterpieces in that language; but
it is doubtful whether his efforts had much result. We can see from the
remains of the Spanish writers which we possess that the structure of
that language had considerably degenerated in Spain.[6]
[1] Murphy, "Hist. Mahom. Empire in Spain," p. 309.
[2] Yonge, p. 60.
[3] Conde, i. 239.
[4] "Omni Christi collegio."
[5] Alvar, "Ind. Lum.," sec. 35.
[6] See Elipandus and Alvar passim. Alcuin, on the other hand,
writes wonderfully good Latin.
Some sentences are so ungrammatical as to be scarcely intelligible.
Moreover, we find Samson[1] directly accusing Hostegesis, Bishop of
Malaga, of not being able to write Latin; and similarly Jonas of Orleans
(839) accusing Claudius, Bishop of Turin, who was himself a Spaniard, of
the same defect.
The neglect of Latin was accompanied by an increasing indifference to
the doctrinal basis of Christianity, educated Christians being led to
devote their time, which might have been more profitably spent on their
own Scriptures, to becoming acquainted with the Mohammedan religion, and
even to unravelling the intricacies of the controversial theology which
had grown up round, and overlaid, the original simplicity of the
Koran.[2] The great Fathers of the Church were laid aside unread, and
even the Prophets and Apostles, and the Gospel itself, found few to
study them. While the higher classes were indifferent to religion, the
lower were sunk in poverty[3] and ignorance.[4] The inevitable result of
this indifference, ignorance, and poverty, was a visible deterioration
in the character of Spanish Christianity, of which there are only too
many proofs.
[1] Samson, "Apol.," c. vii.
[2] Alvar, "Ind. Lum.," sec. 35--"Ac dum illorum sacramenta
inquirimus, et philosophorum sectas scire non pro ipsorum
convincendis erroribus sed pro elegantia leporis et locutione
luculenter diserta. Quis rogo hodie solers in nostris fidelibus
laicis invenitur, qui Scripturis sanctis intentus volumina
quorumcunque Doctorum Latine conscripta respiciat? Quis
Evangelico, quis Prophetico, quis Apostolico ustus tenetur
amore? Nonne omnes iuvenes Christiani vultu decori, linguae
diserti, habitu gestuque conspicui, Gentilicia eruditione
praeclari, Arabico eloquio sublimati, volumina Chaldaeorum
avidissime tractunt?"
[3] Florez, xix. 383, Charter of 993; see also "Dozy," iii. 31;
and for the condition of Christians in the Free States, Buckle,
"Hist. of Civiliz.," i. 443.
[4] Dozy (l.l.).
We find the abbot Samson distinctly accusing Hostegesis, Bishop of
Malaga, of simony, asserting that he sold the priesthood to low and
unworthy people;[1] while Alvar charges Saul, Bishop of Cordova, with
obtaining his bishopric by bribery.[2] Other irregularities imputed to
Hostegesis were that he held his see from his twentieth year, contrary
to the canons of the church, and that he beat priests, in order to
extort money from them, till they died under his hands.
Besides the election to the priesthood, by unworthy means, of unworthy
men, whose ignorance and impudence the congregation had to endure in
silence,[3] many were informally ordained without vouchers for character
being given, or the assent of their fellow-clergy and flocks being
obtained.[4] Many churches presented the unseemly spectacle of two rival
pastors, contrary to the ordinances received from the Fathers.[5]
Changes, too, were made in doctrine and ritual, for which no authority
could be alleged, in contravention of established custom and the
teaching of the Church. So far was this carried that Samson was accused
by his opponents of being a heretic and an idolator because he permitted
the marriage of cousins; dissented from the view that God was ever
enclosed in the chambers of the Virgin's heart;[6] asserted the
omnipresence of God, even in idols and the Devil, and this in an actual,
not a metaphysical, sense;[7] and denied that God sat upon an exalted
throne above his creatures. From this it is clear that Hostegesis and
those who thought with him[8] were infected with the anthropomorphite
heresy.
[1] Samson, "Apol.," Bk. ii., Pref. sec. 2.
[2] See "Letter to Saul," sec. 3--"Poterant enim quovis
asserente canonice incohationis vestrae primordia comprobari,
si quadringenti solidi non fuissent palam eunuchis vel aliis
exsoluti." Dozy, ii. 140, adds that the money was guaranteed on
the episcopal revenues, but this is a conjecture.
[3] Samson, "Apol.," ii. Pref. sec 5; Dozy, ii. 268.
[4] Alvar ad Saulum, sec. 3--"Sine testimonis, sine connibentia
clericorum."
[5] _Ibid._
[6] Samson, "Apol.," ii. Pref. sec. 7 and iii.--"Cubiculum
cordis Virginei." This appears to be a quotation from the
Gothic liturgy.
[7] "Per substantiam, non per subtilitatem."--_Ibid._
[8] Romanus and Sebastianus, Samson, Pref, sec. 6.
Not only did many of the clergy hold heretical views, but their
depravity was notorious. Hostegesis did not blush to spend the produce
of the church tithes and offerings, which he had with difficulty
extorted from his flock,[1] in bribing the court officials and the
king's sons, giving them feasts at which open and flagrant vice was
indulged in.[2] The clergy were not above pretending illness in order to
avoid paying the monthly tax to their Moslem rulers.[3] Some, even in
the highest positions in the Church, denied their Saviour and
apostatized to the Moslems; one of these renegades being Samuel, Bishop
of Elvira, the uncle of Hostegesis' mother, who, with a pervert's zeal,
persecuted the Church he had deserted, imprisoning the clergy, taxing
his former flock, and even forcing some to embrace Islam.[4]
It is not surprising, therefore, that bishops and clergy were sometimes
deposed. Samson, indeed, underwent this disgrace at the hands of a
hostile faction under Hostegesis, on the ground of his pretended heresy;
and, similarly, Valentius,[5] Bishop of Cordova, was deprived of his see
because he was a supporter of Samson. But these instances reflect more
discredit on the deposers than on their victims. Instances of deposition
are not wanting, in the free states the North. Sisenandus, seventh
Bishop of Compostella (940), was deposed by King Sancho for dissolute
living, and malversation of Church moneys.[6] On the king's death he
recovered his see, driving out his successor. Pelayo, another bishop of
Compostella, suffered the same punishment.[7]
[1] The offering of one-third for the Church was refused to
Hostegesis as being sacrilegious; so he proceeded to extort it,
"suis codicibus institutis."--Samson "Apol.," ii. Pref. sec. 2.
[2] _Ibid._ The state of the Church in the North was not much
better. See Yonge, p. 86.
[3] Leovigild de habitu Clericorum. Dozy, ii. 110.
[4] Samson, Pref. ii. 4.
[5] Succeeded Saul in 861, and was deposed in 864.
[6] Mariana, viii. 5. He went over to the Moslems. Southey,
"Chronicle of the Cid," p. 228. Yonge, p. 86.
[7] Mariana (1.1.).
When the kings of Castile gradually drove back the Moors, and when
Alfonso took Toledo in 1085, his wife, Constance of Burgundy, and her
spiritual adviser, a monk named Bernard, were horrified at the laxity in
morals and doctrine of the Muzarabic Christians. Their addiction to
poetry and natural science was regarded with suspicious aversion, and
the pork-eating, circumcision, and, not least, the cleanly habits,[1]
contracted from an intercourse with Moslems, were looked upon as so many
marks of the beast. In 1209 the Crusaders, who had swarmed to the wars
in Spain, even wished to turn their pious arms against these poor
Muzarabes, so scandalised were they at the un-Romish rites. Yet we are
told that Alfonso the Great, when building and restoring churches in the
territory newly wrested from the Moors, set up again the ordinances of
the Goths, as formerly observed at Toledo.[2]
The free church in the North had itself been in great danger of
extinction, when the armies of the great Almanzer (977-1002) swept
yearly through the Christian kingdoms like some devastating tempest.[3]
Fifty-two victorious campaigns did that irresistible warrior lead
against the infidels.[4] Barcelona, Pampluna, and Leon fell before his
arms, and the sacred city of Compostella was sacked, and for a time left
desolate, the bells of St James' shrine being carried off to Cordova to
serve as lamps in the grand mosque. We are not, therefore, surprised to
find that there were many bishops in the North who had lost their sees;
and this was the case even before the tenth century, for a bishop named
Sabaricus, being driven from his own see by the Arabs, was given that of
Mindumetum by Alfonso III. in 867,[5] and twenty years later a bishop
named Sebastian received the see of Auria in the same way.[6]
It is natural enough that the Moslems and the clergy of the Christian
Church should be hostile to one another, but it is surprising to
find--as we do find in some cases--the latter making common cause with
the Arabs in ill-treating their fellow-countrymen and coreligionists.
Thus, as we have seen, Hostegesis, relying on the support of the secular
arm,[7] beat and imprisoned the clergy for withholding from him the
Church tithes, dragging them through the city naked, with a crier crying
before them:--"Such is the punishment of those who will not pay their
tithes to their bishop."[8] Bishops were even found to make episcopal
visitations, getting the names of all their flock, as if with the
intention of praying for them individually, and then to hand in their
names to the civil power for the purpose of taxation.[9] Others obtained
from the Arabs the privilege of farming the revenues derived from
Christian taxation, and cruelly oppressed their coreligionists.[10]
[1] The Christians in the North were vulgarly supposed by the
Arabs not to wash. See Conde, i. 203--"It is related of these
people of Galicia ... that they live like savages or wild
beasts, and never wash either their persons or their garments."
[2] "Chron. Albeld.," sec. 58--"Ordinem Gothorum sicuti Toleto
fuerat statuit."
[3] "Chron. Silense," sec. 72--"Eadem tempestate in Hispania
omnis divinus cultus periit."
[4] He was not defeated in his last battle, as is generally
stated in histories.--See Al Makkari, ii. 197.
[5] Florez, "Esp. Sagr.," xviii. 312.
[6] _Ibid._, xvii. 244.
[7] "Praesidali manu fultus." Samson, ii. Pref. sec. 2.
[8] _Ibid._
[9] _Ibid._, and Eulog., "Mem. Sanct.," iii. c. iv. sec. 5.
[10] Eul., 1.1.
These nefarious measures were backed up, even if they were not
instigated, by Servandus, the Christian Count of Cordova. He was the son
of a serf of the Church,[1] and married a cousin of Hostegesis.[2]
Instead of championing the cause of the Christians, as his position
should have impelled him to do, he went so far in the opposite direction
as to call them up before him, and try to shake their attachment to
Christianity--a religion, nominally at least, his own also. Those who
held firm he forced to pay increased taxes, and even levied blackmail on
the churches. He did not scruple to drag forth the bodies of martyrs
from under the altars of churches, and, showing them to the king, to
remind him that it had been forbidden to Christians to bury their
martyrs.[3]
Following up the hostile measures instituted by Hostegesis against
Samson and Valentius, he proceeded to accuse them of inciting the
fanatics to revile Mohammed, urging that they should be tested with this
dilemma. They should be asked whether what the revilers said were true
or not. "If they answer, 'true,' let them be punished as well as the
reviler; if 'false,' bid them slay the man themselves; refusing which,
you will know that they have aided and abetted him to abuse your
Prophet. In that case, give me permission, and I will slay the three
myself."[4]
[1] Dozy, ii. 268.
[2] Samson, "Apol.," ii. Pref. sec. 5.
[3] Samson, 1.1.
[4] _Ibid._, sec. 9. This same Servandus, the meanest of
timeservers, seeing the Sultan's (Abdallah's) cause failing,
deserted to the rebel Omar and his Christian following, and was
killed at Polei(?)--Ibn Hayyan., apud Dozy, ii. 270. His Arab
name was Sherbil, and he was beheaded at Cordova by the
Arabs.--See De Gayangos' note on Al Mak., ii. 451, 2.
We have had occasion to mention one or two cases of Church, and
national, Councils held in Spain under the Arabs, and it will be worth
while to enumerate all the instances which are recorded, that we may
contrast them with those held under the Goths. It was one of the most
characteristic features of the Old Church in Spain that it was united
so closely with the civil power as almost to render the Government of
Spain a theocracy. This intimate connection of Church and State was
naturally overthrown by the Arab conquest; but the Moslem rulers, seeing
how useful such institutions as general councils were likely to be in
adjusting the relations between Mussulmans and Christians, both allowed
purely ecclesiastical councils to be called under their jurisdiction,
and also summoned others in which they took part themselves, together
with Jews, to the great scandal of the stricter Christians.[1]
To the purely ecclesiastical kind belong a council held at Seville by
Elipandus[2] to condemn the errors of Migetius; and another, held by
Cixila at Toledo in 776, against the errors of Egila, bishop of
Elvira.[3] Whether Egila abjured his error is not known, but it is
certain that he remained bishop.
Elipandus is also said, but on very doubtful authority, to have held a
council, whereat he renounced his own error of Adoptionism.[4]
[1] We even find in 962 that the bishops of Toledo and Cordova
had Moslem names, viz., Obeidollah ibn Kasim (Al Makkari, ii.
162), and Akbar ibn Abdallah. Dozy, iii. 99.
[2] The exact date is unknown. Fleury, ii. p. 235.
[3] "Pseudo Luitprand," sec. 236, says--"Ad concilium ex
omnibus Hispaniae partibus concurrunt." See also Pope Adrian
I.'s Letter to the bishops of Spain in 785. Very little is
known of this Egila, nor is it certain of what see he was the
bishop.
[4] See below, p. 131 ad fin. and 166 ff.
But the other class of councils, partly ecclesiastical and partly
political, seem to have been commoner, and we have already seen how
Reccafredus, Bishop of Seville, in conjunction with the Moslem
authorities, held such a council, in order to coerce the fanatical party
among the Christians; and we have a more particular account of another,
which was held by Hostegesis, Bishop of Malaga, and Servandus, Count of
Cordova.[1] This council seems to have had some connection with the
preceding one under Reccafredus, for Servandus was a strong and
unscrupulous opponent of the party led by Eulogius, while Samson was
their devoted supporter, though he did not carry his opinions so far as
to suffer martyrdom in his own person. Samson was now accused of
heresy[2] and sacrilege, as has been already mentioned. Hostegesis
forced his views on the assembled bishops by the help of the secular
arm, and a sentence of anathema and deposition was accordingly
pronounced against the unfortunate Abbot.[3] One of the apparently
consenting bishops was Valentius, Bishop of Cordova, but his judgement
had evidently been coerced, for after the close of the council he
sounded the other consenting bishops, and some who had not attended, as
to their opinions, and found that most of them were ready to affirm
Samson's orthodoxy, and a memorial was drawn up to that effect This
action of Valentius' brought upon him also a sentence of deposition, and
he was succeeded by Stephanus Flaccus,[4]--the election of the latter
being quite informal, as no metropolitan assisted thereat,[5] and
neither the clergy nor laymen of his diocese made a petition in his
favour.
[1] Samson, "Apol.," ii. Pref.
[2] On the ground, among others, that he recognised "nescio
quam similitudines (besides the Trinity) non creaturas sed
creatores." These appear (chap, ix.) to have been merely
qualities, such as wisdom, etc. See Samson, chap. iii.
[3] "Indiscreta simplicitate et metu impiorum in superbiae
fascibus sedentium."--_Ibid_. Samson was rendered incapable of
holding office, or even of belonging to the Church.--_Ibid_.
[4] In 864.
[5] See above, p. 8.
This fresh deposition was formally sanctioned by a new council, held at
the church of St Acislus; Flaccus, and some of those who had sided with
Valentius, but were now terrified into submission, being in attendance;
while the places of those who refused to come were taken by Jews and
Moslems.[1] These high-handed proceedings nearly led to an open rupture
in the Church.[2]
In 914 a council is said to have been held (but on doubtful authority)
by Orontius of Toledo,[3] and twenty years later by Basilius of Cordova.
These would fall under the reign of the greatest of the Umeyyade Khalifs
of Spain.[4]
[1] Sayones (?) in the Latin. Samson, chap. iii.
[2] _Ibid._, sec. 10.
[3] "Pseudo Luit," sec. 328.
[4] _Ibid._ sec. 341.
CHAPTER VII.
SPAIN UNDER ABDURRAHMAN III.
Abdurrahman III., Annasir Lidinillah (912-961), may be looked upon as
the Solomon of the Spanish Sultans. Succeeding to the throne when quite
a youth, to the exclusion of his uncles, the sons of the late Sultan, he
found the country torn by innumerable factions, and the king's power
openly defied by rebels, Arab, Berber, and Christian. In person, and
through his generals, he put down all these rebels, and though not
uniformly successful against the Christians in the North, yet he
defeated them in a series of great engagements.[1] He welded all the
discordant elements under his rule into one great whole,[2] thereby
giving the Arab domination in Spain another lease of life. In 929 he
took the title of Amir al Mumenin, or Commander of the Faithful. His
alliance was sought by the Emperor of the East,[3] and he treated on
equal terms with the Emperor of Germany and the King of France. To this
great king, with more truth than to his namesake Abdurrahman II., may be
applied the words of Miss Yonge:--[4]
"He was of that type of Eastern monarch, that seems moulded on the
character of Solomon--large-hearted, wise, magnificent, tolerant, and
peaceful. He was as great a contrast to the stern, ascetic,
narrow-minded, but earnest Alfonso or Ramiro, as were the exquisite
horse-shoe arches, filagree stonework lattices, inlaid jewellery of
marble pavements, and slender minarets, to their dark vault-like,
low-browed churches, and solid castles built out of hard unmanageable
granite."
[1] Mutonia (918); Calaborra; Vale de Junqueras (921).
[2] Dozy, ii. 351, from an Arab writer.
[3] A very interesting account of this embassy from Constantine
VII. (947) is given in Al Makkari, ii. 137, from Ibn
Khaldun.---See Conde, i. 442.
[4] P. 57.
We find in this king none of that suspicious jealousy which we saw in
Mohammed, even though Omar, the arch rebel, and Christian renegade,
still held out at Bobastro, when he ascended the throne; and his
treatment of Christians was, throughout his reign, tolerant and politic.
But his claims in this respect will be best seen from a very interesting
fragment that has come down to our own times, describing the embassy of
a certain John of Gorz, a monk from an abbey near Metz, who carried
letters from Otho, emperor of Germany, to the Spanish Sultan.[1]
In 950 Abdurrahman had sent an embassy to the emperor. A bishop who had
been at the head of this embassy died, and this seems to have caused a
delay in the answer. As the Khalif's letter contained blasphemies
against Christ, it was determined to write a reply in the king's name,
such as might perhaps convince Abdurrahman of the error of his ways. A
certain bishop, Adalbero, was appointed to be at the head of the return
embassy,[2] and he asks the abbot of the monastery of Gorz to give him
two assistants. Two are chosen, but one of these quarrels with his
superior, and is expelled from the body; whereupon John offers himself
as a substitute. The abbot only gives his consent to John's going with
great reluctance, knowing that the young monk had an ardent longing to
be a martyr, if he could only get the opportunity.
[1] See "Vita Johannis Abbatis Gorziensis," 973, by John, Abbot
of Arnulph. "Migne," vol. cxxxvii., pp. 239-310.
[2] In 953.
Going through Lyons, and by ship to Barcelona, the ambassadors reached
the frontier town, Tortosa, and at last got to Cordova, where they were
assigned a house two miles from the palace, and, though well
entertained, were informed, to their dismay, that, as the Moorish
ambassadors had been made to wait three years for an answer, Otho's
messengers would have to wait nine years. Moreover, they now discovered
that the king had been already apprised of the contents of the letter,
which Otho had sent, by a comrade of the late ambassador-bishop, whom
John and his companions had taken with them to Barcelona.
The king employs Hasdai, a Jew, as his go-between; who warns them not to
divulge the contents of the letter, as it would make them liable to
punishment; for the letter contained what Moslems would consider
blasphemy against their Prophet. Soon after this John, the Bishop of
Cordova, is sent to them to suggest that they should carry their gifts
to the king, and say nothing of the letter. But John of Gorz stoutly
refused to do this, saying that the delivery of the letter was his chief
duty, and that as Abdurrahman had begun by reviling Christ, he must not
be surprised at Otho's retaliating against Mohammed. However, John of
Cordova begs him to remember the position in which the Christians stood,
viz., under Pagan rule. "We are forbidden," he said, "by the apostle to
resist the powers that be. In our calamity, we have this one
consolation, we are allowed to observe our own laws and rites, and our
rulers, if they see us diligent in our religion, honour us, cherish us,
and delight in our society, while they abhor the Jews. As our religion,
then, suffers no harm at their hands, let us obey the Moslems in other
things." The bishop was anxious, therefore, that the letter should be
suppressed, as calculated to do harm to the Christian community, and no
good to Otho. His advice, however, fell on deaf ears. The monk of Gorz
was resolved on doing what he deemed his plain duty; nor was he content
to forego his chance of martyrdom, though his action might entail
disastrous consequences on the Christians subject to the Moors. He
taunted the bishop with giving his advice from a fear of man. "Better
die of hunger than eat the salt of unbelievers;" and expressed horror at
the fact that the bishop was circumcised, and also abstained from
certain meats in deference to Moslem scruples. It was in vain that the
bishop pointed out that otherwise they could not live with the Saracens.
John of Gorz now expressed his intention of delivering the letter
forthwith; but the king denied the ambassadors an audience, leaving them
to themselves for six or seven weeks. Early in 955, however, the king
sent to them, and asked if they held firm to their previous resolve, and
on receiving an answer in the affirmative, he threatened all the
Christians in his dominions with loss of privileges and even death. John
of Gorz merely answers that the guilt would be on the king's head; but
the latter is persuaded to milder counsels by his advisers, who remind
him of Otho's power, and the certainty that he would interfere in favour
of his ambassadors.
John of Gorz now proposes the only practicable course, that Abdurrahman
should send a fresh embassy to Otho and ask for instructions for his
ambassadors under the circumstances. Recemundus,[1] a Christian, offers
to go as ambassador, if a vacant bishopric be given him as a reward. He
sets out and reaches Gorz in February 956. Otho gives him a fresh
letter, with instructions to suppress the former one, to conclude an
alliance with the Sultan, and make an arrangement with him for putting
down the brigands who infested the marches.
[1] De Gayangos, on Al Makkari, ii. p. 464, identifies him with
Rabi, a bishop mentioned as an ambassador of Abdurrahman III.
in Al Makkari, i. 236, ii. 139; but Rabi may have been the
bishop who died during the embassy to Otho. Recemundus, as De
Gayangos (1.1.) says, was a katib or clerk of the palace.
Leaving Gorz with Dudo, the emperor's legate, on March 30, he reached
Cordova on June 1st, but the Sultan declined to receive the second
comers till he had received the earlier embassy. So, after three years
semi-captivity, John is released, and told to prepare himself for the
king's presence by shaving, washing, and putting on new apparel. He
declines to go in any otherwise than he is; and even when the king,
thinking his refusal due to poverty, sends him a sum of money, the monk
accepts the gift and distributes it to the poor, but says he will only
see the king as a poor monk. The king good-naturedly said: "Let him come
as he likes." On June 21, 956, the ambassadors were conducted to the
king's presence along a road thronged with sight-seers. The steps of the
palace were laid down with tapestry, and a guard of honour lined both
sides of the approach. On John's entrance, the king, as a great mark of
distinction, gave him his open palm to kiss, and beckoned him to a seat
near his own couch. After a silence Abdurrahman apologised to the monk
for the long delay which he had been obliged to impose on the embassy,
and which was in no sense due to disrespect for John himself, whose
virtue and wisdom he could not but acknowledge. As a proof that this was
no mere empty compliment, the king expressed his readiness to give him
whatever he asked. John's wrath vanishes at these gracious words, and
they talk amicably together. But when the monk asks leave to depart
Abdurrahman says:--"After waiting so long to see one another, shall we
part so soon?" He suggests that they should have at least three
interviews. At their next meeting they discourse on the respective power
of the empires of Otho and the Khalif himself; and the Sultan, taught by
the experience of Spain, points out the unwisdom of allowing feudal
subjects to become too powerful, by dividing kingdoms between them.
So ends this unique and interesting fragment, which throws so pleasant a
light on the character and the Court of the greatest of Spanish Sultans,
and proves that the Christians at that time enjoyed considerable
freedom, and even honour, at the hands of the Moslem Government.
The reason why the king was unwilling to receive the first letter
brought by John was not so much because he was reluctant to read words
against Mohammed, as because he would by so doing render himself liable
to the penalty of death, which was ordained by law to any Moslem--king
or slave--who listened to abuse of the Prophet without exacting summary
vengeance from the blasphemer. But--and here was the king's dilemma--he
could not punish the ambassadors without incurring the enmity of Otho.
The only possible alternative was that suggested by John, that Otho
should be asked to withdraw the objectionable letter, without the Sultan
having officially read it, and this Abdurrahman adopted. The moderation
of the king is conspicuous throughout, for we must regard the threat
against the Christians as merely a threat, never really intended to be
put into execution.
In showing tolerance towards their Christian subjects, the Spanish
khalifs might be thought to have forgotten the traditions of Islam; but,
as a matter of fact, Mohammed seems to have been very inconsistent in
his views with regard to Christians and Jews at different times of his
career, and while he enjoined the necessity of Holy Wars,[1] he
permitted the people of the book to be admitted to tribute.[2] In one
passage he even seems to allow the possibility of salvation to Jews,
Christians, and Sabians: "Verily they who believe, and those who
Judaize, and the Sabians, and the Christians--whoever of these believeth
in God and the last day, and doeth that which is right--there shall come
no fear on them, neither shall they be grieved."[3] And there is one
remarkable text to find in the mouth of Mohammed, "Let there be no
violence in religion." [4]
Moreover, some of the best Mohammedan rulers that have ever lived upheld
the same principle of toleration. Abbas II., one of the Persian Sufis,
is reported to have said: "It is for God, not for me, to judge of men's
consciences, and I will never interfere with what belongs to the
tribunal of the great Creator and Lord of the Universe."[5] Again,
Akbar, one of the greatest kings that ever lived, followed in practice
the principle thus expressed by his minister, Abul Fazl: "Persecution
after all defeats its own ends; it obliges men to conceal their
opinions, but produces no change in them."[6] Noble sentiments surely,
and such as we should expect from followers of Christ rather than of
Mohammed!
[1] Tradition attributes even stronger approval of Holy Wars to
Mohammed than can be found in the Koran,--_e.g._, "The sword is
the key of Paradise and Hell. A drop of blood shed in the cause
of God, a night spent in arms, are of more avail than two
months of fasting and prayer. Whoever falls in battle against
the infidel, his sins are forgiven him."
[2] Koran, xlvii., ad init.
[3] Koran, v., v. 73. This may be said in the general sense of
Acts x. 35.
[4] Koran, ii., v. 258.
[5] See Freeman's "Saracens," p. 230; from Malcolm's "Persia,"
i. p 583.
[6] _Ibid._, from "Ayeen Akbery," p. 11.
Yet far too often have portions of the Christian Church been conspicuous
for intolerance rather than tolerance. Alcuin, indeed, does say in his
letter to Aquila, Bishop of Winchester, that he does not approve of
punishing heresy with death, because God, by the mouth of His prophet,
had said: "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the
wicked turn from his way and live;"[1] but Alcuin was a man of unusual
mildness and sweet reasonableness, as his letters to Felix and Elipandus
testify. On the other hand, there were too many frantic bigots in the
Church, like Arnold of Citeaux, whose impious words, in connection with
the massacre of Albigensians, are not likely to be forgotten--"Slay all;
God will know His own."
In fact, so opposed did the Christian spirit come to be to the
Mohammedan in this respect, that their toleration was made a principal
argument against the Moors by the Archbishop of Valencia in his memorial
to Philip III. at the end of the sixteenth century.[2]
A very melancholy instance of bigotry and intolerance is afforded by
Bernard, a French monk, who was made Archbishop of Toledo by Alfonso, on
the capture of that city in 1085. By the treaty of capitulation certain
mosques had been expressly reserved to the Moslems, just in the same way
as certain churches had been reserved for the Christians by Musa in 712.
But Bernard, by way of showing his zeal in the cause of God, in defiance
of the king's plighted word, chose to perform mass in the chief mosque.
Alfonso was furiously angry when he heard of his archbishop's
proceedings, but the Moslems, with wonderful forbearance, seeing that
the king had not authorised Bernard's outrageous conduct, came forward
of their own accord and begged him to pardon the act, and even
voluntarily surrendered their mosque.[3]
Not only were the Christians allowed to practise their religion, but
even, as we have seen above, encouraged in it.[4] Almanzor, the champion
of Islam, allowed his Christian servants to rest on Sundays. Christians
in every reign held high posts at court[5] and throughout the land, and
not only timeserving Christians but men like Samson and Leovigild, who
were known to sympathise with the party of zealots, were employed by the
king to write letters to, and negotiate with, the neighbouring kings.
This was no doubt due to their general trustworthiness, their quickness,
and their knowledge of Arabic as well as Latin.
[1] Ezekiel xxxiii. 11.
[2] Prescott, "Ferd. and Isab.," p. 376, n.
[3] Mariana, ix. 10.
[4] See p. 57. Recent history affords a similar instance from
the Christian side. See "Gordon in Central Africa," p. 54--"I
have made them make a mosque, and keep the Ramadhan." _Ibid._,
p. 249, "I had the mosque cleared out and restored for worship,
and endowed the priests and crier, and had a great ceremony at
the opening of it.... They blessed me and cursed Zebehr Pasha
who took the mosque from them. To me it appears that the
Mussulman worships God as well as I do, and is as acceptable,
if sincere, as any Christian."
[5] Such as secretary, farmer of taxes, or even prime minister.
Among the great functionaries of state there was one who held the office
of Kitabatu-dh-dhimam, which, being interpreted, is "the office of
protection." The Christians and Jews were under his general
jurisdiction, and were called "the people of the protection."[1] But
besides this Arab "Secretary of State for the Christians," the latter
had their own counts--a relic of the Gothic system--who, however, did
not always stand up for their interests.[2] There were also Christian
censors,[3] but it is not known what position they held in the State.
The young Christian cadets of noble birth were brought up at Court, and
numbers of Sclavonian Christians served in the king's bodyguard, of whom
under Hakem I. (796-822) there were 2000.[4]
[1] Al Makk., i. p. 103; and De Gayangos' note, p. 398.
[2] _E.g._. Servandus. Cp. also Cyprianus.
[3] See above, p. 49.
[4] Conde, i. p. 260.
All things considered, it is a matter for surprise that these two
peoples, so unlike in race, habits, prejudices, and religion, lived so
comparatively quietly side by side in spite of a perpetual state of
warfare between the Arabs and the Christians in the North, which tended
to keep alive the animosities of the two races in that part of Spain
which was under Mohammedan rule.[1] Moreover, the pride of race was very
strong in the pure-blooded Arabs. Thus the poet Said ibn Djoud, in a
poem called the "battle of the town" (Polei), boasts that the conquerors
are of the pure race of Adnan and Kahtan, without any foreign admixture;
while he calls the defeated Spaniards miscreants, followers of a false
faith,[2] sons of the pale-faces. The haughty Arabs, in fact, were too
prone to look upon all the Spaniards, both renegades and Christians, as
mere canaille.[3]
But, in spite of this, the races to a certain extent amalgamated; and
Eulogius endeavours to prove that, but for the outbreak of fanaticism in
the middle of the ninth century, this amalgamation would have had
serious results for Christianity in Spain.[4]
The Arabs did not disdain to seek the alliance of the free Christian
States, nor were the latter averse from doing the same, when political
occasion demanded it. As early as 798 the Walis of the frontier cities
sought to make themselves independent by what the Arab writer describes
as "vile policy and unworthy acts," _i.e._, by seeking the friendship of
the Christian kings;[5] and there are many instances of these kings
asking aid, even servilely, from Arab princes.[6]
[1] Dozy, ii. 108, puts the distinction between the races very
forcibly:--"Ce peuple qui joignait a une gaite franche et vive
une sensualite raffinee devait inspirer aux pretres, qui
aimaient les retraites eternelles et profondes, les grands
renoncements et les terribles expiations, une repugnance
extreme et invincible."
[2] Dozy, ii. 223.
[3] "C'etait leur terme consacree." Dozy, ii. 211.
[4] "Heu pro dolor! quia esse sub Gentibus delicias computamus,
iugumque cum infidelibus ducere non renitimur. Et inde ex
cotidiano usu illorum sacrilegiis plerumque utimur et magis
ipsorum contubernia affectamus."--Eul., "Doc. Martyr," sec. 18.
[5] Conde, i. 244: "Chron. Alb.," vi. sec. 58: "Chron. Lib.,"
sec. 30.
[6] Al Makkari, ii. 161, Ordono the Bad and Hakem II.
Again, as was inevitable from the nature of the case, intermarriages
were common between the two races. The example was early set by the
widow of Roderic, the last Gothic king, marrying Abdulaziz, son of Musa.
The sons of Witiza also married Arab women, and Sarah, the daughter of
one of these princes, was the progenetrix of a noble family of Arabs,
one of her descendants being the historian, Ibn al Kuttiya, which means
son of the Gothic princess.[1] Abdurrahman Anassir, the greatest of all
the Spanish Sultans, was the son of a Christian slave, named Maria,[2]
and the mighty Almanzor had for grandmother the daughter of a renegade
Christian.[3] These are some instances, but it is not necessary to dwell
on what was so common an occurrence as intermarriage between the
peoples, and is forbidden neither by the Koran,[4] nor by the Bible.
However, there is one point in this connection which deserves a more
particular notice. The intermingling of the races has been supposed to
have been facilitated in part by the yearly tribute of 100 maidens paid
by the northern kings to the earlier Arab Sultans. Modern historians
mostly throw doubt upon the story, saying that of the early historians
none mention it, and that the Arabs do not even allude to it.[5] But if
Conde is to be trusted, an Arab writer does speak of it, as of a thing
well known. In a letter of Omar[6] ibn Alaftas Almudafar, King of
Algarve, to Alfonso VI., in 1086, occur the words:--"Do thou remember
the time of Mohammed Almanzor, and bring to thy mind those treaties
wherein thy forefathers offered him the homage even of their own
daughters, and sent him those damsels in tribute even to the land of our
rule."
[1] Al Makkari, ii. 15, 22, and De Gayangos' note, p. 454.
[2] Conde, i. 364.
[3] Dozy, iii. 124.
[4] Koran, v. 5:--"Ye are allowed to marry free women of those
that have received the Scriptures before you."
[5] Dunham, ii. 131: Romey's "Histoire d'Espagne," iii. 276.
[6] Conde, ii. 238: Al Makkari, ii. 256, calls him Omar ibn
Mohammed etc ibn Alafthas Almutawakkel, King of Badajos.
The maiden tribute is the subject of several ancient
ballads by the Christian Spaniards. The following are
two verses from one of these:--
"For he who gives the Moorish king a hundred maids of Spain
Each year when in the season the day comes round again;
If he be not a heathen he swells the heathen's train--
'Twere better burn a kingdom than suffer such disdain!
"If the Moslems must have tribute, make men your tribute-money,
Send idle drones to tease them within their hives of honey;
For, when 'tis paid with maidens, from every maid there spring
Some five or six strong soldiers to serve the Moorish king."[1]
Southey also says that the only old Portuguese ballad known to him was
on this subject. The evidence, then, of the ballads is strong for a fact
of this kind, telling, too, as it does, so much against the writers of
the ballads.[2]
As to the Christian chroniclers, it is quite true that we find no
mention of this tribute in the history of Sebastian of Salamanca and the
Chronicle of Albeldum, but there is a direct allusion to it in a
document included in the collection of Florez.[3] "Our ancestors," says
Ramiro, "the kings of the land--we blush to record it--to free
themselves from the raids of the Saracens, consented to pay them yearly
a shameful tribute of a hundred maidens distinguished for their beauty,
fifty of noble birth, and fifty from the people." It was to put an end
to this nefarious tribute that Ramiro now ordered a levy _en masse_.
This, if the document is genuine (and Florez gives no hint to the
contrary), is good evidence for the fact. Many succeeding writers
mention it. Lucas of Tuy[4] says that Ramiro was asked for the tribute
in 842. Johannes Vasaeus[5] speaks of it, as also Alfonso, Bishop of
Burgos;[6] and lastly, Rodrigo of Toledo[7] says that Mauregatus
(783-788), having obtained the throne of Leon by Saracen help, agreed to
send this tribute yearly.
On the whole, then, the evidence is in favour of the maiden tribute
being no myth, but of its having been regularly paid for more than fifty
years. Most of these Christian maidens probably embraced the religion of
their husbands, but in some cases they no doubt converted them to their
own faith.
From different causes, some of which will be mentioned elsewhere,
conversions were frequent from one religion to the other. Motives of
worldly interest naturally caused the balance in these to fall very much
against the Christians, but as the Mohammedan power declined the
opposite was the case. Though voluntary apostasy was, and is,
unpardonable, Mohammed seems to have made allowances for those who
apostatized under compulsion; for when one of his followers, Ammar ibn
Yaser, being tortured by the Koreish, renounced his belief in God and in
Mohammed's mission, but afterwards came weeping to the Prophet, Mohammed
received him kindly, and, wiping his eyes, said: "What fault was it of
thine, if they forced thee?"[8]
[1] Lockhart.
[2] Unless the ballads were written later than 1250--_i.e._,
after Rodrigo of Toledo had made the story known by his
history.
[3] "Espana Sagrada," xix. 329--"Privilegiam quod dicitur
votoram, anno 844 a rege Ranemiro I., ecclesiae B. Jacobi
concessae."
[4] Lucas Tudensis, "Chronicon Mundi," bk. iv.
[5] "Hispaniae Chronicon," 783 A.D.
[6] "Anacephalaiosis," sec. 51.
[7] III. c. 7.
[8] Koran, xvi. ver. 109, Sale's note.
CHAPTER VIII.
THE MUWALLADS.
That the conversions from Christianity to Islam were very numerous at
first we can sufficiently gather from the fact that the new converts
formed a large and important party in the State, and almost succeeded in
wresting the government of Spain from the Arabs. The disorder and civil
war which may almost be said to have been chronic in Spain during the
Arab dominion were due to the fact that three distinct races settled in
that country were striving for the mastery, each of these races being
itself divided into two bitterly hostile factions. The Arabs were split
up into the two factions of Yemenite or Beladi Arabs, the descendants of
Kahtan, and Modharites, the Arabs of Mecca and Medina, who claimed
descent from Adnan.[1] To the latter section belonged the reigning
family of Umeyyades. The Berbers, who looked upon themselves as the real
conquerors of Spain, and whose numbers were subsequently reinforced by
fresh immigrations, were composed of two hostile tribes of Botar and
Beranis. Thirdly, there were the Spaniards, part Christian, part
Mohammedan; the latter being either renegades themselves or the
descendants of renegades. These apostates were called by the Arabs
Mosalimah, or New Moslems,[2] and their descendants Muwallads,[3] or
those not of Arabic origin. The Christians were either tribute-paying
Christians, called Ahlu dh dhimmah; or free Christians, under Moslem
supremacy, called Ajemi;[4] or apostates from Islam,[5] called
Muraddin. The Muwallads, in spite of the Mohammedan doctrine of the
equality and brotherhood of Moslems, were looked down upon with the
utmost contempt by the pure-blooded Arabs.[6] Their condition was even
worse than that of the Christians, for they were, generally speaking,
excluded from lucrative posts, and from all administration of affairs--a
dangerous policy, considering that they formed a majority of the
population.[7] Stronger and more humane than the Berbers, they were
friends of order and civilization. Intellectually they were even
superior to the conquering Arabs.[8]
The natural result of their being Spaniards by race, and Arabs by
religion, was that they sided now with one faction and now with another,
and at one time, under the weak Abdallah (888-912), were the mainstay of
the Sultan against his rebellious subjects. After breaking with the
Sultan they almost succeeded in gaining possession of the whole kingdom,
and carried fire and desolation to the very gates of Cordova.[9]
[1] See above, p. 23, note 3.
[2] Cp. "New Christians."
[3] Pronounced Mulads, hence Mulatto. The word means "adopted."
[4] Al Makkari, ii. 446. De Gayangos' note.
[5] Al Makkari, ii. 458.
[6] Cp. "Gordon in Central Africa," p. 300. "... the only
regret is that I am a Christian. Yet they would be the first to
despise me if I recanted and became a Mussulman." An Arab poet
calls them "sons of slaves," Dozy, ii. 258.
[7] So Dozy, ii. p. 52. But perhaps he meant "of the Arab
population."
[8] Dozy, ii. 261.
[9] Al Makkari, ii. p. 458. De Gayangos' note.
As early as 805 the Muwallads of Cordova, incited by certain
theologians, revolted under Hakem I., but the rising was suppressed. In
814, however, they again rose, and the rebellion being put down with
great severity by the help of the Berbers, the Cordovan Muwallads were
exiled, 1500 going to Alexandria, and 8000 to Fez.[1] But though
exterminated in Cordova, the renegades still mustered strong in Spain.
At Elvira they rose in Abdallah's reign, under a chief named Nabil, and
threw off the Arab yoke;[2] and, previously to this, Abdurrahman ibn
Merwan ibn Yunas and Sadoun had headed similar revolts at Badajos and
Merida.[3] At Seville the Muwallad element was specially strong, as we
see from the many family names, such as Beni Angelino, Beni Sabarico,
which betray a Spanish origin. The majority of the inhabitants embraced
Islam early, and had their mosque by the middle of the ninth century,
but they retained many Spanish customs and characteristics. When the
Arabs of Seville revolted against the Sultan, the renegade party joined
the latter. At Saragoza, the Beni Kasi, descendants of a noble Gothic
family, set up an independent kindgom, waging war indifferently with all
their neighbours.
[1] Dozy, App. B to vol. ii. Hakem was called Al rabadhi (=he
of the suburb) from this.
[2] Ihn Hayyan, apud Al Makkari, ii. 446, ff.
[3] In 875. "Chron Albel.," sec. 62. Dozy, ii. 184.
It does not come within the scope of this inquiry to trace out the
history of all the revolts made by the Arabs or Berbers against the
Sultan's authority, but the policy and position of the Muwallads and
Christians are a necessary part of our subject. The latter, though well
treated on the whole, naturally looked back with regret to the days of
their own supremacy, and were ready to intrigue with anyone able to
assist them against their Arab rulers. Accordingly we find them
communicating with the kings of France; and there is still extant a
letter from Louis the Debonnaire to the people of Merida, written in
826, which is as follows:--"We have heard of your tribulation, which you
suffer from the cruelty of your king Abdurrahman, who has tried to take
away your goods, and has oppressed you just as his father Abulaz did.
He, making you pay unjust taxes, which you were not bound to pay, turned
you from friends into enemies, and from obedient to disobedient
vassels, inasmuch as he infringed your liberties. But you, like brave
men, we hear, are resisting the tyrant, and we write now to condole with
you, and to exhort you to continue your resistance, and since your king
is our enemy as well as yours, let us join in opposing him.
"We purpose to send an army to the frontier next summer to wait there
till you give us the signal for action. Know then that, if you will
desert him and join us, your ancient liberties shall be secured to you,
and you shall be free of all taxes and tributes, and shall live under
your own laws."[1]
The army promised was sent under the king's son, but seems to have
effected nothing.
During the period of religious disturbance at Cordova, when the
voluntary martyrdoms became so frequent, and just at the time of
Mohammed's accession, the Christians of Toledo, encouraged, we may
suppose, by their proximity to the free Christians, revolted in favour
of their coreligionists at Cordova. No wonder then that Mohammed
imagined that the outbreak of fanaticism in Cordova was but the signal
for a general mutiny of his Christian subjects. As we have already seen,
the king set out with an army against the Toledans, who appealed to
Ordono I. of Leon for help. Glad enough to get such an opportunity for
weakening the Arab government, Ordono sent a large auxiliary force, but
the Toledans and Leonnese were defeated with great slaughter by the
Sultan's troops.[2] Within twenty years, however, Toledo became
practically independent, except for the payment of tribute.[3]
[1] Apud Florez, "Espano Sagrada."
[2] Dozy, ii. 162.
[3] _Ibid_, p. 182.
From all this it will be clear that the Spanish part of the population,
whether Moslem or Christian, was opposed to the exclusiveness of the old
Arabs, and ready to make common cause against them. The unity of race
prevailed over the difference of creed, as it did in the case of the
English Roman Catholics in the war with Spain, and as it usually will
under such circumstances. The national party were fortunate enough to
find an able leader in the person of the celebrated rebel, Omar ibn
Hafsun, who came near to wresting the sovereignty of Spain from the
hands of the Umeyyades. Omar was descended from a Count Alfonso,[1] and
his family had been Christians till the apostasy of his grandfather
Djaffar. Omar, being a wild unmanageable youth, took up the lucrative
and honourable profession of bandit, his headquarters being at Bobastro
or Bishter, a stronghold somewhere between Archidona and Ronda, in the
sierra stretching from Granada to Gibraltar.[2] After a brief sojourn in
Africa, where his ambition was inflamed by a prophecy announcing a great
future, he returned to Spain, and at once began business again as
brigand at Bobastro with nearly 6000 men.[3] Being captured, he was
brought to Cordova, but spared on condition of enlisting in the king's
forces. But he soon escaped from Cordova, and became chief of all the
Spaniards in the South, Moslem and Christian,[4] whose ardour he aroused
by such words as these: "Too long have you borne the yoke of the Sultan,
who spoils you of your goods, and taxes you beyond your means. Will you
let yourselves be trampled on by the Arabs, who look upon you as their
slaves? It is not ambition that prompts me to rebel, but a desire to
avenge you and myself." To strengthen his cause he made alliances at
different times with the Muwallads in Elvira, Seville, and Saragoza,
and with the successful rebel, Abdurrahman ibn Merwan, in Badajos.
[1] Dozy, ii. 190.
[2] Al Makkari, ii. 437. De Gayangos' note.
[3] In 880 or 881.
[4] See a description of him quoted by Stanley Lane-Poole
("Moors in Spain," p. 107) from an Arab writer: "Woe unto thee,
Cordova! when the captain with the great nose and ugly face--he
who is guarded before by Moslems, and behind by idolaters--when
Ibn Hafsun comes before thy gates. Then will thine awful fate
be accomplished."
Openly defying the Sultan's forces, he was only kept in check by
Almundhir, the king's son, who succeeded his father in 886. Omar was
further strengthened by the accession to his side of Sherbil, the Count
of Cordova.[1] The death of Almundhir in 888 removed from Omar's path
his only able enemy, and, during Abdallah's weak reign, the rebel leader
was virtual king of the south and east of Spain. The district of
Regio[2] was made over to him by the king, and Omar's lieutenant, Ibn
Mastarna, was made chief of Priejo.
This protracted war, which was really one for national independence, was
carried on year after year with varying success. At one time Omar
conceived the intention of proclaiming the Abasside Khalifs,[3] at
another he grasped at the royal power himself; and Abdallah's empire was
only saved by a seasonable victory in 891 at Hisn Belay (or Espiel).[4]
The battle was fought on the eve of the Passover, and the Moslems
taunted their enemies with having such a joyful feast, and so many
victims to commemorate it with. This shows that a large, perhaps the
largest, part of Omar's army was Christian. Another indication of this
is found in a poem of Tarikh ibn Habib,[5] where, speaking of the coming
destruction of Cordova, he says: "The safest place will then be the hill
of Abu Abdu, where once stood a church," meaning that Omar's Christian
soldiers would respect that sanctuary, and no other. Indeed, it is
certain that Omar himself became a Christian some time before this
battle,[6] as his father had done before him. He took the name of
Samuel, and his daughter Argentea, as we have seen, suffered martyrdom.
This change of creed on Omar's part changed the character of the war,
and gave it more of a religious,[7] and perhaps less of a national,
character, for the Spanish Moslems fell off from him, when he became
Christian and built churches.
[1] Servandus. Al Makkari, ii. 456. De Gayangos' note.
[2] Where Islam was almost extinct. Dozy, ii. 335.
[3] Al Makkari, ii. p. 456. De Gayangos' note.
[4] Ibn Hayyan, apud Al Makk., ii. p. 452. This seems to be the
same victory as that which Dozy (ii. 284) calls Polei or
Aguilar.
[5] See Dozy, ii. p. 275.
[6] Ibn Hayyan, apud Dozy, ii. p. 326.
[7] In 896, on the capture of Cazlona by a renegade named Ibn
as Khalia, all the Christians were massacred.--Dozy, ii. p.
327.
Towards the close of his reign Abdallah was able to assert his
supremacy, though Omar and his followers still held out. Omar himself
did not die till 917, some years after Abdallah's death. The king's
successor, Abdurrahman III., was a different stamp of man from Abdallah,
and the reduction of Omar became only a question of time, though, in
fact, the apostasy of Omar from Islam had made the ultimate success of
the national party very doubtful, if not impossible. After Omar's death,
his son, Djaffar, thought to recover the support of the Spanish Moslems
by embracing Islam; but he thereby lost the confidence of the
Christians, by whom he was murdered. In 928 his brother Hafs
surrendered, with Bobastro, to the Sultan, and the great rebellion was
finally extinguished.
So ended the grand struggle of the national party, first under
the-direction of the Muwallads, and then of the Christians, to shake off
the Arab and Berber yoke. During the remainder of the tenth century the
strong administration of Abdurrahman III., Hakem II., and the great
Almanzor, gave the Christians no chance of raising the cry of "Spain for
the Spanish." The danger of a renewal of the rebellion once removed, the
position of the Christians does not seem to have been made any worse in
consequence of their late disaffection, and Abdurrahman, himself the
son of a Christian mother, treated all parties in the revolt with great
leniency, even against the wishes and advice of the more devout Moslems.
Almanzor, too, made himself respected, and even liked, by his Christian
subjects, and there is no doubt that his victories over the Christian
States in the North[1] were won very largely with the aid of Christian
soldiers. His death was the signal for the disruption of the Spanish
Khalifate, and from 1010-1031, when the khalifate was finally
extinguished, complete anarchy prevailed in Saracen Spain. The Berbers
made a determined effort to regain their ascendency, and their forces,
seconded by the Christians, succeeded in placing Suleiman on the throne
in 1013. A succession of feeble rulers, set up by the different
factions--Arab, Berber, and Slave--followed, until Hischem III. was
forced to abdicate in 1031, and the Umeyyade dynasty came to an end,
after lasting 275 years. By this time the Christians in the North had
gathered themselves together for a combined advance against the Saracen
provinces, never again to retrograde, scarcely even to be checked, till
in 1492 fell Granada, the last stronghold of the Moors in Spain.[2]
[1] Al Makkari, ii. p. 214.
[2] In 1630 there was not a single Moslem left in Spain.--Al
Makk., i. p. 74.
CHAPTER IX.
CHRISTIANS AND MOSLEMS IGNORANT OF ONE
ANOTHER'S CREED.
In spite of the close contact into which the Christians and Mohammedans
were brought in Spain, and the numerous conversions and frequent
intermarriages between the two sections, no thorough knowledge seems to
have existed, on either side, of the creed of the other party. Such, at
least, is the conclusion to which we are driven, on reading the only
direct records which remain on the subject among Arab and Christian
writers. These on the Christian side consist chiefly of quotations from
a book on Mohammedanism by the abbot Speraindeo in a work of his
disciple, Eulogius;[1] and some rather incoherent denunciations of
Mohammed and his religion by Alvar,[2] another pupil of the abbot's. In
these, as might be expected, great stress is laid on the sensuality of
Mohammed's paradise,[3] and the lewdness of the Prophet himself. As to
the latter, though many of Gibbon's coarse sarcasms do not rest on good
authority, very little can be said for the Prophet. But among other
blasphemies attributed by Speraindeo to Mohammed is one of which we find
no mention in the Koran--the assertion, namely, that he would in the
next world be wedded to the Virgin Mary. John, Bishop of Seville, is
equally incorrect when, in a letter to Alvar,[4] he alleges a promise on
the part of Mohammed that he would, like Christ, rise again from the
dead; whereas his body, being neglected by his relations, was devoured
by dogs. The Christian bishop does not hesitate to add--sepultus est in
infernum--he was buried in hell.[5]
[1] Eul., "Mem. Sanct.," i. sec. 7.
[2] Alvar, "Ind. Lum.," secs. 21-35.
[3] _Ibid._, secs. 23, 24. Mohammed's paradise was by no means
wholly sensual.--Sale's Koran. Introd., p. 78.
[4] Sec 9.
[5] This shows the hatred of Christians for Mohammed, whom,
says Eulogius ("Mem. Sanct.," i. sec. 20), it would be every
Christian's duty to kill, were he alive on earth.
It is generally supposed that Mohammed could neither read nor write, and
this appears to have been the opinion of Alvar;[1] but the same witness
acknowledges that the Koran was composed in such eloquent and beautiful
language that even Christians could not help reading and admiring it.[2]
On the important question of Mohammed's position with regard to
Christianity, Eulogius[3] at least formed a correct judgment. Mohammed,
he tells us "blasphemously taught that Christ was the Word of God,[4]
and His Spirit;[5] a great prophet,[6] endowed with much power from
God;[7] like Adam in His creation,[8] but not equal to God (the
Creator);[9] and that by reason of His blameless[10] life, being filled
with the Holy Spirit,[11] He showed marvellous signs and wonders through
the power of God,[12] not working by His own Godhead, but as a righteous
Man, and an obedient servant,[13] obtaining much power and might from
the Almighty God through prayer."
[1] Alvar, "Ind. Lum.," sec. 26.
[2] _Ibid._, sec. 29. This is more than can be said at the
present day.
[3] Eul., "Lib. Apol.," sec. 19.
[4] Koran, ch. iii. 40.
[5] Koran, ch. ii. 81, "strengthened with Holy Spirit."
[6] Kor., c. iii. 59.
[7] Kor., c. iii. 45.
[8] Kor., c. iii. 50.
[9] Kor., c. ix. 33.
[10] Kor., c. iii.
[11] This is a mistake of Eulogius. See Sale's note on Koran,
ch. ii. 81, note.
[12] Kor., ch. v. 110 ff.
[13] Koran, cc. iv. ad fin; xliii. 59.
Alvar is much more unfair to Mohammed than his friend Eulogius, and he
even seems to have had a prejudiced idea[1] that the Prophet set himself
deliberately to preach doctrines the opposite of those taught by Christ.
It would be nearer to the truth to say that the divergence between the
two codes of morals was due to the natural ignorance of an illiterate
Arabian, brought into contact only with an heretical form of
Christianity, the real doctrines of which he was therefore not likely to
know.
According to Alvar, the sixth day of the week was chosen for the
Mohammedan holy day, because Christ suffered on that day. We shall
realise the absurdity of this when we consider the reverence in which
Mohammed held the very name of Christ, going so far even as to deny that
Christ Himself was crucified at all.[2] The true reason for selecting
Friday, as alleged by Mohammed himself, was, because the work of
creation ended on that day.[3]
Again, sensuality was preached, says Alvar, because Christ preached
chastity. But Mohammed cannot fairly be said to have preached
sensuality, though his private life in this respect was by no means
pure.
Gluttony was advocated instead of fasting. A more baseless charge was
never made; for how can it be contended that Christianity enjoins
fasting, while Islam disapproves of it, in the face of such texts as
Matthew ix. 14,[4] and Isaiah lviii. 6--"Is not this the fast that I
have chosen? To loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy
burdens, and to let the oppressed go free?" on the one hand; and on the
other the express injunction of the Koran[5]:--"O true believers, a fast
is ordained you, as it was ordained to those before you ... if ye fast,
it will be better for you, if ye knew it. The month of Ramadan shall ye
fast." But Alvar goes on to make a more astonishing statement
still:--"Christ ordained that men should abstain from their wives during
a fast, while Mohammed consecrated those days to carnal pleasure."
Christ surely gives us no such injunction, though St Paul does say
something of the kind. The Koran[6] explicitly says--"It is lawful for
you on the night of the fast to go in unto your wives; they are a
garment unto you, and you are a garment unto them." We even find an
incident recorded by an Arabian writer, where Yahya ibn Yahya, the
famous faqui, imposed a penance of a month's extra fast on Abdurrahman
II. (822-852) for violating the Prophet's ordinance, that wives should
be abstained from during the fasting month.[7] Alvar, being a layman,
may perhaps be supposed not to have studied Mohammedanism critically,
and that his zeal was not according to knowledge is perhaps the best
explanation of the matter. In one place[8] he informs us of his
intention of writing a book on the Cobar,[9] but the work, if ever
written, has not survived. Nor is this much to be regretted, if we may
judge by the wild remarks he indulges in elsewhere[10] on this theme. In
that passage he seems to apply the obscure prophecy of Daniel[11] to
Mohammed, forgetting that verse 37 speaks of one who "shall regard not
the desire of women," a description hardly characteristic of Mohammed.
He identifies the God Maozim (Hebr. Mauzim), which our revised version
(v. 38) translates the "God of fortresses" with the Mohammedan
Cobar;[12] and the strange god, whom he shall acknowledge, Alvar
identifies with the devil which inspired the Prophet in the guise of the
angel Gabriel. All this, as the writer himself allows, is very
enigmatical.
[1] See Dozy, ii. 107.
[2] See Koran, cc. iii. 47; iv. 157; and Sale's notes.
[3] See Sale's note on Koran, c. lxii. 9.
[4] Cf. also Matt. xi. 19--"The Son of Man came eating and
drinking, and they say, Behold a gluttonous man and a
wine-bibber."
[5] Chapter ii. 180.
[6] Chapter ii. 185. The Mohammedan fast is confined to the day
time.
[7] From Ibn Khallekan, apud Dozy, ii. 108.
[8] "Ind. Lum.," sec. 25.
[9] _I.e._, the Caaba apparently.
[10] "Ind. Lum.," sec. 25, ff.
[11] C. xi. vv. 21, ff.
[12] ? Caaba.
Alvar does not scruple even to accuse the Moslems of idolatry, asserting
that the Arabian tribes worship their idol (the Caaba black stone[1]) as
they used to do of yore, and that they set apart a holy month, Al Mozem,
in honour of this idol.[2]
Finally, Mohammed is spoken of variously as the precursor of
Antichrist,[3] or as Antichrist himself.[4]
Let us now see how far we can gather the opinions of educated Moslems
with regard to Christian doctrine and worship. If we find these to be no
less one-sided and erroneous than the opinions of Christians as to
Mohammedanism, yet can we the more easily excuse the Moslems, for the
Koran itself, the very foundation and guide of all their religious
dogmas, is full of incorrect and inconsistent notions on the subject.
The most important of these mistakes was that the Christians worshipped
a Trinity of Deities--God, Christ, Mary.[5] The inclusion of the Virgin
Mary into this Trinity was perhaps due to the fact that worship was paid
to her even at that early date, as it certainly is among the Roman
Catholics at this day. As will have been seen from a passage quoted
above,[6] something very like adoration was already paid to the Virgin
in the churches of Spain.
[1] Sale, Introduction to Koran, p. 91.
[2] Alvar, "Ind. Lum.," sec. 25.
[3] _Ibid._, sec. 21.
[4] _Ibid._, sec. 53.
[5] See Koran, v. ad fin.:--"And when God shall say unto Jesus
at the last day: O Jesus, son of Mary, hast thou said unto men,
Take me and my mother for two Gods, beside God? he shall
answer, Praise be unto thee! it is not for me to say that which
I ought not."
[6] P. 56.
But the following extract from a treatise on Religions, by Ali ibn
Hazm,[1] the prime minister of Abdurrahman V. (Dec. 1023-March 1024),
will show that some educated Moslems knew enough of the Christian creed
to appreciate its difficulties:--"We need not be astonished," says Ibn
Hazm, "at the superstition of men. Look at the Christians! They are so
numerous that God only knows their numbers. They have among them men of
great intelligence, and princes of great ability. Nevertheless they
believe that three is one, and one is three; that one of the three is
the Father, another the Son, another the Spirit; that the Father is, and
is not, the Son; that a man is, and is not, God; that the Messiah is God
in every respect, and yet not the same as God; that He who has existed
from all eternity has been created.
"One of their sects, the members of which they call Jacobites, and which
number hundreds of thousands, believes even that the Creator Himself was
scourged, crucified, and put to death; so that the Universe for three
days was deprived of its Governor."
Another extract from an Arabic writer will show us what the Moslems
thought of the worship of St James, the patron saint of Spain, round
whose shrine rallied the religious revival in the north of the
Peninsula. It is Ibn Hayyan,[2] who, in his account of Almanzor's
fiftieth expedition against the Christians, says:--"Shant Yakoh
(Santiago)[3] is one of the sanctuaries most frequented, not only by the
Christians of Andalus, but of the neighbouring continent, who look upon
its church with a veneration such as Moslems entertain for the Caaba of
Mecca; for their Caaba is a colossal idol (statue) which stands in the
middle of the church. They swear by it, and repair to it in pilgrimage
from the most distant parts, from Rome, as well as other countries
beyond Rome, pretending that the tomb to be seen in the church is that
of Yakob (James), one of the twelve apostles, and the most beloved by
Isa (Jesus).--May the blessing of God be on him, and on our
Prophet!--The Christians call this Yakob the brother of Jesus, because,
while he lived, he was always with him. They say that he was Bishop of
Jerusalem, and that he wandered over the earth preaching the religion
[of Christ], and calling upon the inhabitants to embrace it, till he
came to that remote corner of Andalus; that he then returned to Syria,
where he died at the age of 120 solar years. They pretend likewise that,
after the death of Yakob, his disciples carried his body and buried it
in that church, as the most remote part, where he had left traces [of
his preaching]."
[1] II. 227, apud Dozy, iii. 342. Ibn Hazm was, says Dozy, "a
strict Moslem, _averse to judging divine questions by human
reasoning_."
[2] Al Makkari, ii. 293.
[3] Miss Yonge, p. 87, says the Arabs called him Sham Yakub,
but what authority has this statement?
In a country where literature and the arts were so keenly cultivated, as
they were in Spain during the time of Arab domination, and where the
rivalry of Christian, Jew, and Moslem produced a sustained period of
intellectual activity such as the world has rarely seen, controversial
theology could not fail to have been largely developed. But the books,
if any were written, from the Christian or Moslem standpoint, have all
perished, and we have only such slight and unsatisfactory notices left
to us as those already quoted.
In estimating, therefore, what influences the rival religions of Spain
had upon each other, we are driven to draw such inferences as we can
from the meagre hints furnished to us by the writers of the period; from
our knowledge of what Christianity was in Spain, and Mohammedanism in
Africa, before they were brought into contact in Andalusia, compared
with what they became after that contact had made itself felt; and from
the observed effects of such relations elsewhere. Upon a careful
consideration of these scattered hints we shall see that certain
effects were visible, which, had the amalgamation of the two peoples
been allowed to continue uninterruptedly for a longer period, and had
there been no disturbing element in the north of Spain and in Africa,
would in all probability have led to some marked modification in one or
both religions, and even to their nearer assimilation.
CHAPTER IX.
HERESIES IN SPAIN.
Such mixtures of religions are by no means without example in history.
The Sabians, for instance, were the followers of a religion, which may
have been a cross between Judaism, Christianity, and Magianism.[1] But
Mohammedanism itself has furnished the most marked instances of such
amalgamation. In Persia Islam combined with the creed of Zoroaster to
produce Babyism; while in India Hinduism and Mohammedanism, fused
together by the genius of Nanak Guru, have resulted in Sikhism.
It may be said that Mohammedanism has been able to unite with
Zoroastrianism and Hinduism owing to their very dissimilarity with
itself, whereas Christianity is too near akin to Islam to combine with
it in such a way as to produce a religion like both, and yet different
from either.[2] Christianity and Mohammedanism, each have two cardinal
doctrines (and two only) which cannot be abrogated if they are to remain
distinctive creeds. In one of these, the unity of God, they agree. In
the other they do, and always must, differ. The divinity of Christ on
the one side, and the divine mission of Mohammed on the other, are
totally incompatible doctrines. If the one is true, the other cannot be
so. Surrender both, and the result is Judaism. No compromise would seem
possible. Yet a compromise was attempted, if we can credit a statement
attributed by Dozy to Ibn Khaldun,[3] in recounting the history of the
successful rebel, Abdurrahman ibn Merwan ibn Yunas, who during the last
quarter of the ninth century, while all Moslem Spain was a prey to the
wildest anarchy, became a leader of the renegade or Muwallad party in
Merida and the neighbourhood. Thinking to unite the Muwallads and
Christians in one revolt, he preached to his countrymen a new religion,
which held a place halfway between Christianity and Islam. This is all
we are told of an endeavour, which might have led to the most important
consequences. That we hear no more of it is evidence enough that the
attempt proved abortive. The only other attempt, if it can be called so,
to combine Islam and Christianity has resulted in that curious compound
called the religion of the Druses.
[1] For an attempted compromise between Christianity and
Brahmanism, see the proceedings of Beschi, a Roman Catholic
priest, "Education and Missions," p. 14.
[2] Cp., however, the Druse religion.
[3] Dozy, ii. 184. Dozy adds that Abdurrahman was called the
Galician (el Jaliki) in consequence of this attempt of his: but
there is some error here, as Ibn Hayyan (see Al Makkari, ii.
439, and De Gayangos' note) says he was called ibn ul'jaliki,
_i.e._, of the stock of the Galicians.
But though no religion, holding a position midway between Islam and
Christianity, arose in Spain, yet those religions could hardly fail to
undergo considerable modifications in themselves by reason of their
close contact for several centuries.
In respect to Christianity we shall naturally find the traces (if any)
of such modification in the so-called heresies which may have arisen in
Spain during this period. These will require a somewhat strict
examination to be made to yield up their secret.
The Church of Spain seems to have gained a reputation for introducing
innovations[1] into the doctrines and practices of the true faith, and
even of priding itself on its ingenuity in this way. The very first
Council whose acts have come down to us, held at Elvira in Spain, early
in the fourth century, contains a canon censuring the use of pictures.
The very first heretics, who were punished for their error with death by
the hands of their fellow-Christians, were reared in the bosom of the
Spanish Church. The doctrine, novel then, but accepted now by all the
Western Churches, of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son as
well as from the Father, was first formulated in a Spanish Council at
the end of the sixth century, but not universally received in the West
until 600 years later.[2] And as we have seen, the use of pictures was
denounced long before the times of the Iconoclasts.
We will now take in order the several heresies that made themselves
noticeable in Spain, or Gothic Gaul, during the Arab supremacy, and see
if we can trace any relation between them and the Moslem faith.
To take an unimportant one first, a heresy is mentioned as having arisen
in Septimania (Gothic Gaul), presumably during the eighth century.[3] It
was more practical than speculative, and consisted in a denial of the
need of confession to a priest, on the (unimpeachable) ground that men
ought to confess to God alone. This appears to us Protestants a wholly
laudable and reasonable contention; but not so to the worthy abbe who
records it: cette doctrine, _si favorable a libertinage_, trouva un
grand nombre de partisans, et excite encore le zele d'Alcuin.[4]
[1] Alcuin ad Elipandum, iv. 13---"Audi me, obsecro, patienter,
scholastica Hispaniae congregatio, tibi loquentem, quae novi
semper aliquid audire vel praedicare desideras, non contenta
ecclesiae universalis Catholica fide, nisi tu aliquid per te
invenies, unde tuum nomen celebrares in mundo."
[2] Lateran Council, 1215.
[3] See, however, Alcuin's letter to the clergy of the
province, Ep., 71. Migne, vol. ci. p. 1594.
[4] Rohrbacher, "Hist. Univ. de l'Eglise Cathol.," ix. 309.
That this error was due in any sense to the influence of the Arabs in
the neighbouring territories of Spain, it is of course impossible to
affirm, but at all events the reform was quite in the spirit of the
verses of the Koran: "O ye who have received[1] the Scripture come to a
just determination between us and you, that we worship not any except
God, and associate no creature with Him: and that the one of us take not
the other for lords, beside God." And "They take their priests and monks
for their lords besides God."[2]
[1] Chap. iii. p. 39. See Sale's note: "that is, come to such
terms of agreement as are indisputably consonant to the
doctrine of all the prophets and Scriptures, and therefore
cannot reasonably be rejected."
[2] Chap. ix. Mohammed charged the Jews and Christians with
idolatry both on other grounds and because "they paid too
implicit an obedience to their priests and monks, who took upon
them to pronounce what things were lawful and what unlawful,
and to dispense with the laws of God." See Sale, _Ibid._
_Cp._--
Haughty of heart and brow the warrior came,
In look and language proud as proud might be,
Vaunting his lordship, lineage, fights, and fame,
Yet was that barefoot monk more proud than he.
And as the ivy climbs the tallest tree,
So round the loftiest soul his toils he wound;
And with his spells subdued the fierce and free.
Till ermined age and youth in arms renowned
Honouring his scourge and hair-cloth meekly kissed the ground.
And thus it chanced that valour, peerless knight,
Who ne'er to king or kaiser veiled his crest,
Victorious still in bull-feast or in fight,
Since first with mail his limbs he did invest,
Stooped ever to that anchoret's behest;
Nor reasoned of the right, nor of the wrong,
But at his bidding laid the lance in rest,
And wrought fell deeds the troubled world along,
For he was fierce as brave, and pitiless as strong.
--SCOTT'S "Don Roderick," xxix. xxx.
Let us next consider an heretical view of the Trinity attributed to
Migetius (_circa_ 750). According to the rather obscure account, which
has come down to us,[1] he seems to have regarded the Three Persons of
the Trinity, at least in their relations with the world, as corporeal,
the Father being personified in David, the Son in Jesus, and the Holy
Ghost in Paul. It is difficult to believe that the doctrine, thus
crudely stated by Elipandus, was really held by anyone. We may perhaps
infer[2] that Migetius revived the error of Priscillian (itself a form
of Sabellianism), and reducing the Three Persons of the Trinity to one,
acknowledged certain [Greek: energeiai], or powers, emanating from Him,
which were manifested in David, Jesus, Paul respectively. As the first
and last of these three recipients of the Divine powers were confessedly
men, it follows that Migetius was ready to strip Jesus of that Divinity,
which is the cardinal doctrine of Christianity, and which more than any
other doctrine distinguishes it from the creed of Mohammed. Accordingly
he appears to have actually denied the divinity of the Word,[3] and in
this he made an approach to Mohammedanism.[4]
[1] Elipandus to Migetius, sec. 3. See Migne, vol. 96, p. 859.
[2] With Enhueber. Dissert, apud Migne, ci., p. 338 ff., sec.
29.
[3] Enhueber, sec. 32.
[4] Neander, v. 216, n., says, Migetius held that the [Greek:
Logos] became personal with the assumption of Christ's
humanity; that the [Greek: Logos] was the power constituting
the personality of Christ. Hence, says Neander, he was accused
of asserting that Christ, the son of David according to the
flesh, and not Christ, the Son of God, was the Second Person of
the Trinity.
A similar, but seemingly not identical, error was propagated by those
who, as we learn from a letter of Alvar to Speraindeo, did not believe
the Three in One and One in Three, "denying the utterances of the
prophets, rejecting the doctrine of learned men, and, while they claimed
to take their stand upon the Gospel, pointing to texts like John xx. 17,
'I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, unto my God and your God,' to
prove that Christ was merely man."[1] In his answer to Alvar's letter,
Speraindeo says, "If we speak of the Trinity as one Person, we Judaize;"
he might have added, "and Mohammedanize." These heretics, according to
the abbot, spoke of three powers (_virtutes_) forming one Person, not,
as the orthodox held, three Persons forming one God.[2] Here we see a
close resemblance to the error mentioned in the preceding paragraph; but
the heretics we are now dealing with make an even closer approach to the
teaching of Mohammed in their quotation of John xx. 17 given above, as
will be seen, if we compare with that text the following passages of the
Koran, put into the mouth of Christ: "Verily, God is my Lord, and your
Lord; therefore serve him:"[3] "They are surely infidels who say,
verily, God is Christ, the Son of Mary, since Christ said, O children of
Israel, serve God, my Lord and your Lord:"[4] and, "I have not spoken
unto them any other than what thou didst command me--namely, worship
God, my Lord and your Lord."[5]
[1] Alvar's letter. Florez, xi. 147. Another text quoted in
defence of this doctrine of Agnoetism was Matt. xxiv. 36: "Of
that day and that hour knoweth no man; no, not the angels of
heaven, but my Father only." In answer to this, Speraindeo
refers to Gen. iii. 9, where God the Father seems not to know
where Adam is.
[2] Speraindeo's illustration of the Trinity cannot be called a
happy one. He likens it to a king, whose power is one, but made
up of the man himself, his diadem, and his purple.
[3] Koran, c. iii. v. 46.
[4] Kor., c. v. 77.
[5] Kor., c. v. 118.
We come next to the famous Adoptionist heresy, the most remarkable and
original of those innovations to which Alcuin taunts the Spanish Church
with being addicted. Unfortunately we derive little of our knowledge of
the new doctrine from the originators and supporters of it--our
information on the subject coming chiefly from passages quoted by their
opponents (notably our own Alcuin) in controversial works. But that the
heresy had an important connection with the Mohammedan religion has been
the opinion of many eminent writers on Church history. Mariana, the
Spanish historian, and Baronius, the apologist for the Roman Church,
held that the object of the new heresiarchs was, "by lowering the
character of Christ, to pave the way for a union between Christians and
Mohammedans."[1] Enhueber,[2] also, in his treatise on this subject,
quotes a tract, "De Primatu Ecclesiae Toletanae," which attributes the
heresy to its author, Elipandus, being brought into so close a contact
with the Saracens, and living on such friendly terms with them.[3]
Neander[4] thinks that there are some grounds for supposing that Felix,
one of the authors of the heresy, had been employed in defending
Christianity against objections brought against it from the Moslem
standpoint,[5] and in proving the divinity of Christ, so that they might
be induced to accept it. Felix, therefore, may have been led to embrace
this particular doctrine, called Adoptionism, from a wish to bring the
Christian view of Christ nearer to the Mohammedan opinion.
There is considerable doubt as to who first broached the new theory, the
evidence being of a conflicting character, and pointing now to
Elipandus, bishop of Toledo and primate of all Spain, now to Felix,
bishop of Urgel, in Catalonia.[6]
[1] Mariana, vii. 8. Baronius, "Ann. Eccl." xiii. p. 260. See
Blunt, "Dictionary of Religions," etc., article on Adoptionism;
and Migne, vol. xcvi. p. 847--"deceptus uterque contagione
forsan insidentiurn cervicibus aut e proximo blasphemantium
Mohametanorum commercio."
[2] Enhueber, sec. 26. Mansi, "Coll. Concil," x. 513, sec. 4.
[3] "Usus enim frequenti Maurorum commercio."--_Ibid_.
[4] V. 219.
[5] This perhaps refers to a "disputatio cum sacerdote" which
the Emperor Charles the Great had heard of as written by Felix.
Alcuin (see "Ep.," 85) knows nothing of it. In his letter to
Charles, Alcuin, speaking of a letter from Felix, says: "Inveni
peiores errores, quam ante in eius scriptis legerem."
[6] The prevailing opinion seems to be that the new doctrine
arose out of Elipandus' controversy with Migetius.
The claims of Felix[1] are supported by Eginhard,[2] Saxo, and Jonas of
Orleans; while Paulinus of Aquileia, in his book entitled
"Sacrosyllabus," expressly calls Elipandus the author of the baneful
heresy; and Alcuin, in his letter to Leidrad,[3] says that he is
convinced that Elipandus, as he was the first in rank, so also was the
chief offender.
The evidence being inconclusive, we are driven to follow _a priori_
considerations, and these point to Elipandus as the author. According to
Neander,[4] he was a violent, excitable, bigoted man; and he certainly
uses some very strong language in his writings against his opponents,
and stands a good deal on his dignity as head of the Spanish Church. For
instance, speaking of his accusers, Etherius, Bishop of Osma, and
Beatus,[5] a priest of Libana, he says of the former that he wallows in
the mire of all lasciviousness;[6] that he is totally unfit to officiate
at God's altar;[7] that he is a false prophet[8] and a heretic; and,
forgetting the courtesies of controversy, he doesn't hesitate, in
another place, to call him an ass. Beatus also he accuses of gross
sensuality, and calls him that iniquitous priest of Astorga,[9]
accusing him of heresy, and giving him the title Antiphrasius, which
means that instead of being called Beatus, he should have been named the
very opposite.[10]
[1] See "Froben Dissertation," Migne, vol. ci. p. 305.
[2] "Annals," 792.
[3] Alcuin, "Epist. ad Leidradum," says that the heresy arose
in Cordova, and he appeals to Elipandus' letter to Felix after
the latter's recantation.
[4] Neander (v. p. 217) seems to infer these qualities from his
writings. An author, quoted by Enhueber (Tract, de Primata
Eccl. Tolet), describes him as "parum accurate in sacris
litteris versatus."
[5] Died in 798. Fleury v., p. 236.
[6] Elipand. Epist., iv. 2, "Carnis immunditia fetidus."
[7] "Ab altario Dei extraneus." Neander, v., p. 226, takes this
to mean that he was deposed.
[8] He gave the Revelation of St John a Moslem application: and
prophesied the end of the world in the near future. See letter
of Beatus, book i., sec. 23--"Novissima hora est ... nunc
Antichristi multi facti sunt. Omnis spiritus qui solvit Jesum
est illius Antichristi, quem audistis quoniam venit, et nunc in
mundo est." See also Alcuin's letter to the Spanish bishops.
[9] "Elipandus and bishops of Spain to those of Gaul," sec. 1.
[10] This practice of punning on names is very common in these
writers. "Infelix Felix" is a poor witticism which constantly
occurs. So Samson says of Hostegesis that he ought to be called
"hostis Jesu"; and in the account of the Translation of the
bodies of Aurelius, etc., we find Leovigild spoken of as a very
"Leo vigilans."
But in spite of outbreaks like these we must beware of judging the
venerable Elipandus too hardly. Alcuin himself, in his letter to the
bishop, written, as he says, "with the pen of charity," speaks of him as
most blameless,[1] and confesses that he has heard much of his piety and
devotion, an admission which he also makes with regard to Felix, in a
letter to him.[2] Yet in his book against Elipandus, he exclaims, not
without a touch of bathos: "For all the garments of wool on your
shoulders, and the mitre upon your brow, wearing which you minister to
the people, for all the daily shaving of your beard[3] ... if you
renounce not these doctrines, you will be numbered with the goats!"
Another testimony (of doubtful value, however) in Elipandus' favour is
to be found in the anonymous life of Beatus,[4] where Elipandus is said
to have succeeded Cixila in the bishopric of Toledo, because of his
reputation for learning and piety, which extended throughout Spain.
[1] "Sanctissime praesul," sec. 1. Cp. sec. 6, "Audiens famam
bonam religiosae vitae de vobis."
[2] "Celeberriman tuae sanctitatis audiens famam." The "Pseudo
Luitprand" calls him "Vir humilis, prudens, ae in zelo fidei
Catholicae fervens."
[3] Beards were the sign of laymen, see Alvar, "Ep.," xiii.,
and probably the distinction was much insisted on because of
the Moslem custom of wearing long beards. For the distinctive
dress of the clergy see the same letter of Alvar, ... "Quern
staminia et lana oviuin religiosum adprobat."
[4] See Migne, xcvi., 890 ff.
Elipandus, who boasted of having refuted and stamped out the Migetian
errors, and who also took up so independent an attitude with regard to
the See of Rome, was not the man to endure being dictated to in the
matter of what was, or what was not, sound doctrine, and, in the letter
quoted above, he scornfully remarks that he had never heard that it was
the province of the people of Libana to teach the Toledans. Here, as in
the defiant attitude taken up towards the Pope, we may perhaps see a
jealousy, felt by the old independent Church of Spain under its own
primate, towards the new Church, that was growing up in the mountains of
the North, the centre of whose religious devotion was soon to be
Compostella, and its spiritual head not the primate of Spain, but the
bishop of Rome.
It is now time to explain what the actual heresy advocated by Elipandus
and Felix was. Some have held the opinion that Adoptionism was merely a
revival of the Bonosian errors, which had long taken root in Spain;[1]
others, that it was a revival of the Nestorian[2] heresy, a new phase of
the controversy between the schools of Antioch and Alexandria;[3] or
that it was an attempt to reform Christianity, purging it from later
additions.[4] Alcuin, however, speaks of its followers as a new sect,
unknown to former times.[5] Stated briefly, the new doctrine was that
Jesus, in so far as His manhood was concerned, was son of God by
adoption. This error had been foreseen and condemned in advance by Cyril
of Alexandria (348-386):[6] by Hilary of Arles (429-449).[7] The
Eleventh Council of Toledo had also guarded against this same error a
hundred years before this (675), affirming that Christ the Son of God
was His Son by nature, not by adoption.
[1] Enhueber, Diss., sec. 25. The errors of Bonosus were
condemned at Capua in 389. For their development in Spain, see
"Isidore of Seville."
[2] Condemned at Ephesus, 431. For connection of Adoptionism
with this, see letter of Adrian to bishops of Spain (785?).
[3] Neander, v., p. 216.
[4] _Ibid._, vi., p. 120, see letter of Alvar to Speraindeo.
[5] Alcuin contra Felicem, i., sec. 7. Elipandus denied that it
had anything to do with other heresies. "Nos vero
anathematizamus Bonosum, qui filium Dei sine matre genitum,
adoptivum fuisse adfirmat. Item Sabellium, qui ipsum esse
Patrem, quem Filium, quem et Spiritus sanctus (_sic_) et non
ipsud, delirat. Anathematizamus Arium, qui Filium et Spiritum
Sanctum creaturas esse existimat. Anathematizamus Manichaeum
qui Christum solum Deum et non hominem fuisse praedicat.
Anathematizamus Antiphrasium Beatum carnis lasciviae deditum,
et onagrum Etherium, doctorem bestialem ...," etc.
[6] "Lectures on the Catechism," xi. "Christ is the Son of God
by nature, begotten of the Father, not by adoption."
[7] De Trinit, v., p. 7, "The Son of God is not a false God--a
God by adoption, or a God by metaphor (nee adoptivus, nec
connuncupatus)."
It is a mistake to suppose Adoptionism to be a mere resuscitation of
Nestorianism.[1] It agreed with the latter in repudiating the term
"Mother of God" as applied to the Virgin Mary,[2] but it differed from
it in the essential point of acknowledging the unity of person in
Christ. What Felix--and on him devolved the chief onus of defence in the
controversy--wished to make clear, was that the predicates of Christ's
two natures could not logically be interchanged.[3] He therefore
reasoned thus: Christ in respect to His Deity is God, and Son of God;
with respect to His Manhood He is also God and Son of God, not indeed in
essence, but by being taken into union with Him, who _is_ in essence
God, and Son of God. Therefore Christ, unless He derived His humanity
from the essence of God, must as man, and in respect of that humanity,
be Son of God only in a nuncupative sense. This relation of Jesus the
Man to God he preferred to describe by the term Adoption--a word not
found in Scripture in this connection, "but," says Felix, "implied
therein,[4] for what is adoption in a son, if it be not election,
assumption _(susceptio)_." The term itself was no doubt found by Elipandus
_in_ the Gothic Liturgy;[5] and he most likely used it at first with no
thought of raising a metaphysical discussion on so knotty a point. Being
brought to task, however, for using the word by those whom he deemed his
ecclesiastical inferiors, he was led to defend it from a natural dislike
to acknowledge himself in the wrong. "We can easily believe," says
Enhueber, "that Elipandus, who appears to have been the chief author of
the heresy at this time, fell into it at first from ignorance and
inadvertently, and did not appear openly as a heretic, till, admonished
of his error, he arrogantly and obstinately defended a position which he
had only taken up through ignorance."[6]
Elipandus also seems to have applied to Felix[7] for his opinion on
Christ's Sonship; and the latter, who was a man of great penetration and
acuteness, first formulated the new doctrine, stating in his answer that
Christ must be considered with regard to His Divinity as truly God and
Son of God, but with regard to His Manhood, as Son of God in name only,
and by adoption.
[1] See Blunt, "Dict. of Relig.," article on Adoptionism.
[2] Neander, v. 223. Blunt (1.1.) says just the contrary.
[3] Neander, v. 220.
[4] Alcuin contra Felicem, iii. c. 8.
[5] "Elipand. ad Albinum," sec, 11. Adoptio assumptio ([Greek:
analepsis]) occurs _(a)_ in the Missa de coena Domini:
_adoptivi hominis passio;_ _(b)_ in the prayer de tertia feria
Pascha: _adoptionis gratia;_ _(c)_ in that de Ascensione:
_adoptionem carnis._ The Council of Frankfurt (794) branded the
authors of the liturgy as heretics (so also did Alcuin) and as
the main cause of the Saracen conquest! See Fleury, v. 243.
[6] Enhueber, "Dissertatio," sec. 26. Neander, v. 217, has the
same remark in other words.
[7] See Blunt, Art. on Adoptionism.
To give an idea of the lines on which the controversy was carried on, it
will be necessary to state some of the arguments of Felix, and in
certain cases Alcuin's rejoinders. These are:--