His Manhood be derived from the essence of God and consequently must be
something different from the manhood of men."[1] To this Alcuin can only
oppose another dilemma, which, however, is more of the nature of a
quibble. "If," he says, "Christ is an adopted Son of God, and Christ is
also God, then is God the adopted Son of God?"[2] Here Alcuin confounds
the predicates of Christ's two natures--the very thing Felix protested
against--and uses the argument thus obtained against that doctrine of
Felix, which was based on this very denial of any interchange of
predicates.
_(b.)_ Christ is spoken of sometimes as Son of David, sometimes as Son
of God. One person can only have two fathers, if one of these be an
adoptive father. So is it with Christ. Alcuin answers: "As a man (body
and soul) is called the son of his father, so Christ (God and man) is
called Son of God."[3] But to those who deny that a man's soul is
derived from his father, this argument would carry no weight.
_(c.)_ Christ stood in a position of natural dependence towards God over
and above the voluntary submission which He owed to His Father as
God.[4] This dependence Felix expresses by the term _servus
conditionalis_, applied to Jesus.[5] He may have been thinking of Matt.
xii. i8, "Behold my servant, whom I have chosen;" and St Paul's Ep. to
Philipp. ii. 7, "He took upon. Him the form of a servant, and was made
in the likeness of men."[6] Or perhaps he had in his mind, if the theory
of the influence of Mohammedanism is true, those passages of the Koran
which speak of Christ as a servant, as, "Christ doth not proudly disdain
to be a servant unto God,"[7] and, "Jesus is no other than a
servant."[8]
(_d._) To prove that Scripture recognises a distinction between Christ
the Man and Christ the God, Felix appeals to Luke xviii. 19, "Why
callest thou Me good? There is none good, save one, even God;" Mark
xiii. 32, "Of that day, or that hour, knoweth no one, not even the
angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." Texts such as these
can only be met by a reference to other texts, such as John iii. 16,
where God is said to have given His only begotten Son to suffer death
upon the Cross.
[1] Alcuin contra Felicem, ii. sec. 12.
[2] Alcuin (_ibid.,_ i. sec. 13) also answers: "If Christ be
the adopted Son of God, because as man, he could not be of
God's substance: then must he also be Mary's adopted son in
respect to his Deity. But then Mary cannot be the mother of
God." But this Alcuin thinks an impious conclusion. Cp. also
Contra Felic., vii. sec. 2.
[3] Contra Felic, iii. sec. 2.
[4] Cp. 1 Corinth, xi. 3, "The Head of Christ is God." This
position of dependence was due, says Felix, "ad ignobilitatem
beatae Virginis, quae se ancillam Dei humili voce protestatur."
[5] Cp. Elipandus' "Confession of Faith": "... per istum Dei
simul et hominis Filium, adoptivum humanitate et nequaquam
adoptivum Divinitate ... qui est Deus inter Deos (John x. 35)
... quia, si conformes sunt omnes sancti huic Filio Dei
secundum gratiam, profecto et cum adoptione (sunt) adoptivi, et
cum advocato advocati, et cum Christo Christi, et _cum servo
servi_."
[6] Cf. Acts iii. 13.
[7] Koran, iv. v. 170.
[8] Koran, xliii. v. 59.
Conceiving, then, that it was logically necessary to speak of Christ the
Man as Son of God by adoption, Felix yet admits that this adoption,
though the same in kind[1] as that which enables _us_ to cry Abba,
Father, yet was more excellent in degree, and even perhaps specifically
higher. It differed also from man's adoption in not being entered into
at baptism, since Christ's baptism was only the point at which His
adoption was outwardly made manifest by signs of miraculous power, which
continued till the resurrection. Christ's adoption--according to Felix,
was assumed at His conception, "His humanity developing in accordance
with its own laws, but in union with the Logos."[2] It will be seen
that though Felix wished to keep clear the distinction between Christ as
God, and as Man, yet he did not carry this separation so far as to
acknowledge two persons in Christ. "The Adoptionists acknowledged the
unity of Persons, but meant by this a juxtaposition of two distinct
personal beings in such a way that the Son of God should be recognised
as the vehicle for all predicates, but not in so close a manner as to
amount to an absorption of the human personality into the Divine
Person."[3] The two natures of Christ had been asserted by the Church
against the Monophysites, and the two wills against the Monothelites,
but the Church never went on to admit the two Persons.[4] With regard to
the contention of Felix, we are consequently driven to the conclusion
that either the personality ascribed to Christ was "a mere abstraction,
a metaphysical link joining two essentially incompatible natures,"[5] or
that the dispute was only about names, and that by adopted son Felix and
the others meant nothing really different from the orthodox doctrine.[6]
[1] See John x. 35. Cp. Neander, v. p. 222.
[2] Neander (l.l.) Blunt, Art. on Adopt., puts this
differently: "There were (according to Felix) two births in our
Lord's life--(a) the assumption of man at the conception; (_b_)
the adoption of that man at baptism. Cp. Contra Felic., iii.
16: "Qui est Secundus Adam, accepit has geminas generationes;
primam quae secundum carnem est, secundum vero spiritatem, quae
per adoptionem fit, idem redemptor noster secundum hominem
complexus, in semet ipso continet, primam videlicet, quam
suscepit ex virgine nascendo, secundam vero quam initiavit in
lavacro [ ] a mortuis resurgendo."
[3] Blunt, article on Adopt.
[4] Cp. Paschasius: "In Christo gemina substantia, non gemina
persona est, quia persona personam consumere potest, substantia
vero substantiam non potest, siquidem persona res iuris est,
substantia res naturae."
[5] Blunt, _ibid._ Cp. also Alcuin contra Felic., iv. 5, where
he says that Felix, although he shrank from asserting the dual
personality of Christ, yet insisted on points which involved
it.
[6] So Walchius.
The first mention of the new theory appears in a letter of Elipandus to
the Abbot Fidelis, written in 783,[1] but it did not attract notice
till a little later. The pope Adrian, in his letter to the orthodox
bishops of Spain (785), speaks of the melancholy news of the heresy
having reached him--a heresy, he remarks, never before propounded,
unless by Nestorius. Together with Elipandus, he mentions Ascarius,[2]
Bishop of Braga, whom Elipandus had won over to his views. The new
doctrine seems to have made its way quickly over a great part of
Spain,[3] while Felix propagated it with considerable success in
Septimania. The champions of the orthodox party in Spain were Beatus and
Etherius, whom we have mentioned above, and Theudula, Bishop of Seville;
while beyond its borders Alcuin, Paulinus of Aquileia, and Agobard of
Lyons, under the direction of Charles the Great and the Pope, defended
the orthodox position.
[1] See Migne, 96 p. 848.
[2] Fleury, v. 236, mentions a letter of his to Elipandus,
asking the latter's opinion on some doubtful points in the new
doctrine.
[3] Jonas of Orleans, in his work against Claudius, says: "Hac
virulenta doctrina uterque Hispaniam magna ex parte infecit."
Felix, being bishop in a province of which Charles claimed the
overlordship, was amenable to his ecclesiastical superiors, and suffered
for his opinions at their hands; but Elipandus, living under a
Mohammedan government, could only be reached by letters or messages. He
seems even to have received something more than a mere negative support
from the Arabs, if we are right in so interpreting a passage in the
letter of Beatus and Etherius.[1] But it is hard to believe that
Elipandus was on such friendly terms with the Arab authorities; indeed,
from passages in his writings, we should infer that the opposite was
rather the case.[2] Neander suggests that it may have been a Gothic
king in Galicia who supported Elipandus, but this seems even more
unlikely than the other supposition.
The first council called to consider this question was held by the
suggestion of the Emperor and the Pope at Narbonne in 788, when the
heresy was condemned by twenty-five bishops of Gaul.[3]
A similar provincial council was held by Paulinus at Friuli in 791, with
the same results.[4] But in the following year the heresy was formally
condemned at a full council held at Ratisbon, under the presidency of
the Emperor. Here Felix abjured his error, and was sent to Rome to be
further condemned by the Pope, that the whole Western Church might take
action in the matter. Felix was there induced to write a book condemning
his own errors, but in spite of this he was not restored to his see.[5]
On his return, however, to Spain, Felix relapsed into his old heresy,
which he had never really abjured.[6]
[1] I. sec. 13. "Et episcopus metropolitanus et princeps terrae
pari certamine schismata haereticorum, unus verbi gladio, alter
virga regiminis ulciscens, de terra vestra funditus
auferantur." See on this passage Neander, v. 227, and cp. sec.
65, "haereticus tamen scripturarum non facit rationem, sed cum
potentibus saeculi ecclesiam vincere quaerit."
[2] Elip. ad. Albinum, sec. 7--"Oppressione gentis afflicti non
possumus tibi rescribere cuncta;" also, Ad Felic. "quotidiana
dispendia quibus duramus potius quam vivimus."
[3] There are some doubts about this council.
[4] Fleury, v. 236. Hefele dates it 796.
[5] See letter of Spanish bishops to Charles, asking for
Felix's restoration (794).
[6] Leo III. said of him, at a council held in Rome (799):
"_Fugiens ad paganos consentaneos_ perjuratus effectus est."
See Froben, "Dissert," sec. 24; apud Migne, ci, pp. 305-336.
In 792 Alcuin was summoned from England to come and defend the orthodox
position. He wrote at once to Felix a kindly letter, admonishing him of
his errors, and acknowledging that all his previous utterances on
theology had been sound and true. Felix answered this letter, but his
reply is not preserved. To the same, or following, year belongs the
letter of Elipandus and the bishops of Spain to Charles and the bishops
of Gaul, defending their doctrine, and asking for the restoration of
Felix.
In 794 was held another council at Frankfurt, at which Alcuin and other
English clergy were present. Felix was summoned to attend, and heard his
heresy again condemned and anathematised, the decree to this effect
being sent to Elipandus.[1] Alcuin's book was read by Charles, and sent
into Septimania by the hands of the abbot Benedict.
The next council was held at Rome in 798 to confirm the one at
Frankfurt.[2] In 799 came out Felix's answer to Alcuin, sent by him
first to Elipandus, and, after being shewn to the Cordovan clergy, sent
on to Charles. Alcuin is charged to answer it, with Paulinus and the
Pope as his coadjutors.
In the same year another council was held at Aix, where Alcuin argued
for a week with Felix, and apparently convinced him, for Felix again
recanted, and even wrote a confession of faith discarding the word
adoption, but still preserving the distinction of predicates belonging
to the two natures.[3] Alcuin's book, after being revised by Charles,
was published 800 A.D. Previously to this he had written to Elipandus,
who answered in no measured terms, accusing Alcuin, among other things,
of enormous wealth. This letter was sent through Felix, and, in answer,
Alcuin wrote the book against Elipandus, which we now have, and which
was the means of converting twenty thousand heretics in Gothic Gaul.[4]
But in spite of Emperor or Pope, of the books of Alcuin, or the
anathemas of the councils, neither Felix nor Elipandus really gave up
his new doctrines, and even the former continued to make converts.
Elipandus, though very old[5] at this time (800 A.D.), lived ten years
longer, and Felix survived him eight years;[6] and they both died
persisting in their error.[7]
[1] Fleury, v. 243, says there was no anathema; but Migne,
xcvi. 858, gives us the canon: "Anathematizata esto impia ac
nefanda haeresis Elipandi Toletanae sedis Episcopi, et Felix
(_sic_) Orgellitani, eorumque sequacium."
[2] Neander, v. 228.
[3] _Ibid._, p. 232.
[4] Froben, sec, 82. Neander says 10,000.
[5] Alcuin adv. Elip. Preface to Leidrad: "Non pro eius
tantummodo laboravi salute, quem timeo forsan citius vel morte
praereptum esse propter decrepitam in eo senectutem."
[6] Or perhaps six.
[7] No reliance can be placed in the statement of the
Pseudo-Luitprand, who, in a letter to Recemundus, speaking of
Elipandus, says: "Postquam illius erroris sui de adoptione
Christi sero et vere poenituit, ad quod manifestandum concilium
(795) episcoporum ... collegit; et coram omnibus abiurato
publice errore _fidem sanctae ecclesiae Romanae_ confessus
est." These words in italics reveal a later hand. Cp. also sec.
259 and Julianus. Alcuin, in a letter to Aquila, bishop of
Salisbury, says that Elipandus in 800 A.D. still adhered to his
error.
We have dealt somewhat at length with the Adoptionist heresy, both from
its interest and importance, and because, as mentioned above, there are
some reasons for thinking that it was the outcome of a wish to
conciliate Mohammedan opinion. It will be as well to recapitulate such
evidence as we have obtained on this point. But we must not expect to
find the traces of Mohammedan influence in the development, so much as
in the origination, of the theory. What we do find is slight enough,
amounting to no more than this:--
(_a._) That the one point, which repelled the Mohammedan from genuine
Christianity--setting aside for a moment the transcendental mystery of
the Trinity--was the Divinity of Christ. Anything, therefore, that
tended to emphasise the humanity of Jesus, or to obscure the great fact
of Christ the Man, being Son of God, which sounded so offensive to
Mohammedan ears, would so far bring the Christian creed nearer to the
Mohammedan's acceptance, by assimilating the Christian conception of
Christ, to that which appears so often in the Koran.[1] There can be no
doubt that the theory of adoption, if carried to its logical
conclusion, did contribute to this result:
(_b._) That Elipandus was accused of receiving the help of the secular
arm in disseminating his heretical opinions:
(_c._) That the application of the term _Servant_ to Christ, besides
being authorised by texts from Scripture, is countenanced in two
passages from the Koran:
(_d._) That Leo III., speaking of, Felix's return to Spain, and his
relapse into error, implies that it was due to his renewed contact with
infidels who held similar views:
(_e._) That in a passage, quoted by Enhueber, Elipandus is said to have
lost his hold on the truth in consequence of his close intercourse with
the Arabs:
(_f._) That Elipandus accused Etherius of being a false prophet, that
is, for giving, as has been conjectured, a Mohammedan interpretation to
the Beast in the Revelation of St John.
Something must now be said of one more doctrine, which, though it did
not arise in Spain, nor perhaps much affected it, yet was originated by
a Spaniard, and a disciple of Felix,[2]--Claudius, Bishop of Turin. Some
have seen in this doctrine, which was an offshoot of Iconoclasm, traces
of Adoptionism, a thing not unlikely in itself.[3]
Of the relations of Claudius to the Saracens we have the direct
statement of one of his opponents, who said that the Jews praised him,
and called him the wisest among the Christians; and that he on his side
highly commended them _and the Saracens_.[4] Yet his tendency seems to
have been against the Judaizing of the Church.[5]
[1] Fifty years later Alvar ("Ind. Lum.," sec. 9), accuses
certain Christians of dissembling their religion under fear of
persecution:--"Deum Christum non aperte coram eis (_i.e._
Saracenis) sed fugatis sermonibus proferunt, Verbum Dei et
Spiritum, ut illi asserunt, profitentes, suasque confessiones
corde, quasi Deo omnia inspiciente, servantes."
[2] Jonas of Orleans (Migne, cvi. p. 330) calls him so, and
says elsewhere, "Felix resuscitur in Claudio."
[3] Neander, vi. 119.
[4] Fleury, v. 398.
[5] Neander, vi. 125.
The great Iconoclastic reform, which arose in the East, undoubtedly
received its originating impulse from the Moslems. In 719 the Khalif
destroyed all images in Syria. His example was followed in 730 by the
Eastern Emperor, Leo the Isaurian. He is said to have been persuaded to
this measure by a man named Bezer, who had been some years in captivity
among the Saracens.[1] In 754 the great council of Constantinople
condemned images. Unfortunately neither the great patriarchates nor the
Pope were represented, and so this council never obtained-the sanction
of all Christendom; and its decrees were reversed in 787 at the Council
of Nicaea. In 790 appeared the Libri Carolini, in which we rejoice to
find our English Alcuin helping Charles the Great to make a powerful and
reasonable protest against the worship of images.[2] In 794 this protest
was upheld by the German Council of Frankfurt. But the Pope, and his
militia,[3] the monks, made a strenuous opposition to any reform in this
quarter, and the recognition of images became part and parcel of Roman
Catholic Christianity.
Claudius was made bishop of Turin in 828.[4] Though placed over an
Italian diocese, he soon shewed the independence, which he had imbibed
in the free air of Spain, where the Mohammedan supremacy had at least
the advantage of making the supremacy of the Pope impossible. Finding
that the people of his diocese paid worship to their images, Claudius
set to work to deface, burn, and abolish, all images and crosses in his
bishopric. In respect to the crosses he went further than other
Iconoclasts, in which we can perhaps trace his Adoptionist training.[5]
These new views did not, as might be expected, find favour with the
Catholic party, whose cause was taken up by Theodemir, abbot of Nimes, a
friend of Claudius', by Jonas of Orleans, and Dungal, an Irish priest.
But, as in the case of Felix, the heresiarch was more than a match for
his opponents in argument.[6]
[1] Fleury, xl. ii. 1, says he was an apostate. See Mendham,
Seventh General Council, Introd., pp. xii. xiv.
[2] "Adorationem soli Deo debitam imaginibus impertire aut
segnitiae est, si utcumque agitur, aut insaniae, vel potius
infidelitatis, si pertinaciter defenditur."--III. c. 24.
"Imagines vero, omni cultura et adoratione seclusa, utrum in
basilicis propter memoriam rerum gestarum sint, nullum fidei
Catholicae afferre poterunt praeiudicium, quippe cum ad
peragenda nostrae salutis mysteria nullum penitus officium
habere noscantur."--III. c. 21.
[3] Prescott.
[4] Neander says 814, Herzog 820.
[5] Neander, v. 119. The Spanish Christians were not free from
the charge of adoring the cross, as we can see from the answer
of the Khalif Abdallah (888) when advised to leave his
brother's body at Bobastro: shall I, he said, leave my
brother's body to the mercy of those who ring bells and adore
the cross. Ibn Hayyan, apud Al Makk., ii. 446.
[6] Fleury, v. 398, confesses that the case of the
image-worshippers rests mainly on tradition and the usage of
the Church--meaning that they can draw no support from the
Bible. He might have remembered Matt. xv. 7--"Ye make void the
Word of God because of your tradition."
Claudius' own defence has been lost, but we gather his views from his
opponents' quotation of them.
Briefly expressed, they are as follows:--
_(a.)_ Image-worship is really idol-worship:
_(b.)_ If images are to be adored, much more should those living beings
be adored, whom the images represent. But we are not permitted to adore
God's works, much less may we worship the work of men:[1]
_(c.)_ The cross has no claim to be adored, because Jesus was fastened
to it: else must we adore other things with which Jesus was similarly
connected; virgins, for example, for Christ was nine months in a
virgin's womb; mangers, asses, ships, thorns, for with all these Jesus
was connected. To adore the cross we have never been told, but to bear
it,[2] that is to deny ourselves. Those generally are the readiest to
adore it, who are least ready to bear it either spiritually or
physically.[3]
Claudius also had very independent views on the question of papal
supremacy.[4] Being summoned before a council, with more wisdom than
Felix, he refused to attend it, knowing that his cause would be
prejudged, and contented himself with calling the proposed assembly a
congregation of asses. He died in 839 in secure possession of his see,
and with his Iconoclastic belief unshaken.
Such were the heresies which connect themselves with Spain during the
first three hundred years of Arab domination, and which seem to have
been, in part at least, due to Mohammedan influence. One more there was,
the Albigensian heresy, which broke out one hundred and fifty years
later, and was perhaps the outcome of intercourse with the Mohammedanism
of Spain.[5]
[1] Jonas of Orleans, apud Migne, vol. cvi. p. 326.
[2] Luke xiv. 27.
[3] Jonas, apud Migne, vol. cvi. p. 351.
[4] See Appendix B, pp. 161-173.
[5] So Blunt. It found followers in Leon. See Mariana, xii. 2,
from Lucas of Tuy.
CHAPTER X.
SOCIAL INFLUENCE OF CHRISTIANITY.
Having considered the effects of Mohammedanism on doctrinal Christianity
(there are no traces of similar effects on doctrinal Mohammedanism), it
will fall within the scope of our inquiry to estimate the extent to
which those influences were reciprocally felt by the two religions in
their social and intellectual aspects; and how far the character of a
Christian or a Mohammedan was altered by contact with a people
professing a creed so like, and yet so unlike.[1] This influence we
shall find more strongly manifested in the action of Christianity on
Islam, than the reverse.
It is well known that Mohammed, though his opinion as to monks seems to
have varied[2] from time to time, is reported to have expressly declared
that he would have no monks in his religion.[3] Abubeker, his
successor,--if Gibbon's translation may be trusted,--in his marching
orders to the army, told them to let monks and their monasteries
alone.[4] It was not long, however, before an order of itinerant
monks--the faquirs--arose among the Moslems. In other parts of their
dominions these became a recognised, and in some ways privileged, class;
but in Andalusia they did not receive much encouragement,[5] though they
were very numerous even there. Most of them, says the Arabian
historian,[6] were nothing more than beggars, able but unwilling to
work. This remark, however, he tells us, must not be applied to all,
"for there were among them men who, moved by sentiments of piety and
devotion, left the world and its vanities, and either retired to
convents to pass the remainder of their days among brethren of the same
community, or putting on the darwazah, and grasping the faquir's staff,
went through the country begging a scanty pittance, and moving the
faithful to compassion by their wretched and revolting appearance." That
Moslem monkeries did exist, especially in rather later times, we can
gather from the above passage and from another place,[7] where a convent
called Zawiyatu l'Mahruk (the convent of the burnt) is mentioned. On
that passage De Gayangos[8] has an interesting note, in which he quotes
from an African writer an account of a monastic establishment near
Malaga.[9] The writer says: "I saw on a mountain, close to this city, a
convent, which was the residence of several religious men living in
community, and conversant with the principles of Sufism: they have a
superior to preside over them, and one or more servants to attend to
their wants. Their internal regulations are really admirable; each
faquir lives separately in a cell of his own, and meets his comrades
only at meals or prayers. Every morning at daybreak the servants of the
community go round to each faquir, and inquire of him what provisions he
wishes to have for his daily consumption.... They are served with two
meals a day. Their dress consists of a coarse woollen frock, two being
allowed yearly for each man--one for winter, another for summer. Each
faquir is furnished likewise with a regular allowance of sugar, soap to
wash his clothes, oil for his lamp, and a small sum of money to attend
the bath, all these articles being distributed to them every Friday....
Most of the faquirs are bachelors, a few only being married. These live
with their wives in a separate part of the building, but are subject to
the same rule, which consists in attending the five daily prayers,
sleeping at the convent, and meeting together in a lofty-vaulted
chamber, where they perform certain devotions.... In the morning each
faquir takes his Koran and reads the first chapter, and then that of
the king;[10] and when the reading is over, a Koran, previously divided
into sections, is brought in for each man to read in turn, until the
whole is completed. On Fridays and other-festivals these faquirs are
obliged to go to the mosque in a body, preceded by their superior....
They are often visited by guests, whom they entertain for a long time,
supplying them with food and other necessaries. The formalities observed
with them are as follows:--If a stranger present himself at the door of
the convent in the garb of a faquir, namely, with a girdle round his
waist, his kneeling-mat suspended between his shoulders, his staff in
his right hand, and his drinking vessel in his left, the porter of the
convent comes up to him immediately, and asks what country he comes
from, what convent he has resided in, or entered on the road, who was
the superior of it, and other particulars, to ascertain that the visitor
is not an impostor.... This convent was plentifully endowed with rents
for the support of its inmates, for besides the considerable revenue in
lands which was provided by its founder, a wealthy citizen of Malaga,
who had been governor of the city under the Almohades, pious men are
continually adding to the funds either by bequests in land or by
donations in money."
The resemblance between these faquirs and Christian monks is
sufficiently obvious, and need not be dilated upon: and though this
particular convent was established at a later time, we cannot doubt that
the influence, which produced such a modification of the very spirit of
Islam, must have made itself felt much earlier. This is apparent in the
analogous case of Moslem nuns, as a passage from an Arab writer seems to
shew,[11] where it is said that the body of the Moorish king, Gehwar
(1030-1043), was followed to the grave even by the damsels who had
retired into solitude.
[1] Mohammedanism is even called a _heresy_ by a writer quoted
by Prescott, "Ferdin. and Isab.," p. 244.
[2] Kor. v. 85--"Thou shalt find those to be most inclinable to
entertain friendship for the true believers who say, We are
Christians. This comes to pass, because there are priests and
monks among them." Kor. lvii. 27--"As to the monastic state
(Deus loquitur), the Christians instituted the same (we did not
prescribe it for them) only out of desire to please God, yet
they observed not the same as it ought truly to be observed."
See also Kor. ix. 34--"Verily many of the priests and monks
devour the substance of men in vanity, and obstruct the way of
God;" and Kor. xxiii. 55.
[3] Kor. v. 89. Sale's note.
[4] So Almanzor spared the monk of Compostella. Al Makkari, ii.
209.
[5] See the interesting account, _ibid._, i. 114.
[6] Al Makkari.
[7] Al Makkari, i. 115.
[8] _Ibid._, i. p. 406, note.
[9] In the fourteenth century.
[10] ? Chapter 67.
[11] Conde, ii. 154. Unless the writer is referring to
Christian nuns.
But over and above copying the institutions of Christianity, Islam
shews signs of having become to a certain extent pervaded with a
Christian spirit. It is easy to be mistaken in such things, but the
following anecdotes are more in keeping with the Bible than the Koran.
Hischem I. (788-796) in his last words to his son, Hakem I., said:
"Consider well that all empire is in the hand of God, who bestoweth it
on whom He will, and from whom He will He taketh it away.[1] But since
God hath given to us the royal authority and power, which is in our
hands by His goodness only, let us obey His holy will, which is no other
than that we do good to all men,[2] and in especial to those placed
under our protection. See thou therefore, O my son, that thou distribute
equal justice to rich and poor, nor permit that any wrong or oppression
be committed in thy kingdom, for by injustice is the road to perdition.
Be clement, and do right to all who depend upon thee, for all are the
creatures of God."[3]
The son was not inferior to the father, and capable, as the following
story shews, of the most Christian generosity.[4] One of the faquirs who
had rebelled against Hakem being captured and brought into the presence
of the king, did not shrink in his bigotry and hate from telling the
Sultan that in hating him he was obeying God. Hakem answered: "He who
bid thee, as thou sayest, hate me, bids me pardon thee. Go, and live in
God's protection."[5]
[1] Daniel, iv. 25, and Koran, ii. v. 249--"God giveth His
kingdom unto whom He pleaseth;" and Koran, iii. v. 24.
[2] Galatians vi. 20--"Let us do good unto all men, especially
unto them that are of the household of faith."
[3] Conde, i. 240.
[4] It is fair to state that Hakem I. was not always so
generous.
[5] Lane-Poole, "Story of the Moors," p. 77.
Prone as the Mohammedans were to superstition, and many as are the
miracles and wonders, which are described in their histories, it must be
acknowledged that their capacity for imagining and believing in
miracles never equalled that of Christian priests in the Middle Ages.[1]
We hear indeed of a vision of Mohammed appearing to Tarik, the invader
of Spain;[2] of a miraculous spring gushing forth at the prayer of Akbar
ibn Nafir;[3] of the marvellous cap of Omar;[4] of the wonders that
distinguished the corpse of the murdered Hosein; of the vision shewing
the tomb of Abu Ayub;[5] but nothing that will bear a comparison with
the invention of St James' body at Ira Flavia (Padron), nor the clumsy
and unblushing forgery of relics at Granada in the year of the
Armada.[6] Yet the following story of Baki ibn Mokhlid, from Al
Kusheyri,[7] reminds us forcibly of similar monkish extravagancies. A
woman came to Baki, and said that, her son being a prisoner in the hands
of the Franks, she intended to sell her house and go in search of him;
but before doing so she asked his advice. Leaving her for a moment he
requested her to wait for his answer. He then went out and prayed
fervently for her son's release, and telling the mother what he had
done, dismissed her. Some time after the mother came back with her son
to thank Baki for his pious interference, which had procured her son's
release. The son then told his story:--"I was the king's slave, and used
to go out daily with my brother slaves to certain works on which we were
employed. One day, as we were going I felt all of a sudden as if my
fetters were being knocked off. I looked down to my feet, when lo! I
saw the heavy irons fall down broken on each side." The inspector
naturally charged him with trying to escape, but he denied on oath,
saying that his fetters had fallen off without his knowing how. They
were then riveted on again with additional nails, but again fell off.
The youth goes on:--"The Christians then consulted their priests on the
miraculous occurrence, and one of them came to me and inquired whether I
had a father. I said 'No, but I have a mother.' Well, then, said the
priest to the Christians, 'God, no doubt, has listened to her prayers.
Set him at liberty,'" which was immediately done. As a set-off to this
there is a remarkable instance of freedom from superstition recorded of
King Almundhir(881-2).[8] On the occasion of an earthquake, the people
being greatly alarmed, and looking upon it as a direct interposition of
God, this enlightened prince did his best to convince them that such
things were natural phenomena, and had no relation to the good or evil
that men did,[9] shewing that the earth trembled for Christian and
Moslem alike, for the most innocent as well as the most injurious of
creatures without distinction. They, however, refused to be convinced.
[1] See the story of Atahulphus, Bishop of Compostella, and the
bull--Alfonso of Burgos, ch. 66: a man swallowed up by the
earth--Mariana, viii. 4: Sancho the Great's arm withered and
restored--_Ibid._, c. 10: a Sabellian heretic carried off by
the devil in sight of a large congregation--Isidore of Beja,
sec. 69: the miracle of the roses (1050)--Mar. ix. 3.
[2] Cardonne, i. p. 72.
[3] _Ibid_, p. 38.
[4] See Ockley.
[5] Gibbon, "for such are the manufacture of every religion,"
p. 115.
[6] See Geddes, Miscell. Tracts, "an account of MSS. and relics
found at Granada." But we must remember that these miraculous
phenomena appear much earlier in the history of Islam than of
Christianity.
[7] Al Makkari, ii. 129; cp. Conde, i. 355.
[8] Conde, i. 317.
[9] Cp. Matt. v. 45: Luke xiii. 4.
This independence of thought in Almundhir was perhaps an outcome of that
philosophic spirit which first shewed itself in Spain in the reign of
this Sultan's predecessor.[1] The philosophizers were looked upon with
horror by the theologians, who worked upon the people, so that at times
they were ready to stone and burn the free-thinkers.[2] The works of
Ibnu Massara, a prominent member of this school, were burnt publicly at
Cordova;[3] and the great Almanzor, though himself, like the great
Caesar, indifferent to such questions,[4] by way of gaining the support
of the masses, was ready, or pretended to be ready, to execute one of
these philosophers. At length, with feigned reluctance, he granted the
man's life at the request of a learned faqui.[5]
Even among the Mohammedan "clergy"--if the term be allowable--there were
Sceptics and Deists,[6] and others who followed the wild speculations of
Greek philosophy. Among the last of these, the greatest name was
Averroes, or more correctly, Abu Walid ibn Roshd (1126-1198), who
besides holding peculiar views about the human soul that would almost
constitute him a Pantheist, taught that religion was not a branch of
knowledge that could be systematised, but an inward personal power:[7]
that science and religion could not be fused together. Owing to his
freedom of thought he was banished to a place near Cordova by Yusuf abu
Yakub in 1196. He was also persecuted and put into prison by Abdulmumen,
son of Almansur,[8] for studying natural philosophy. Another votary of
the same forbidden science, Ibn Habib, was put to death by the same
king.
[1] Dozy, iii. 18.
[2] Al Makk., i. 136, 141. They were called Zendik or heretics
by the pious Moslems. See also Said of Toledo, apud Dozy, iii.
109.
[3] Al Makk., ii. 121.
[4] He was supposed to be in secret addicted to the forbidden
study of Natural Science and Astrology.--Al Makk., i. 141. Yet
he let the faquis make an "index expurgatorius" of books to be
burnt.--Dozy, iii. 115. His namesake, Yakub Almansur
(1184-1199), ordered all books on Logic and Philosophy to be
burnt.
[5] Dozy, iii. 261.
[6] Dozy, iii. 262, 263.
[7] See article in the "Encyclop. Britann."
[8] Al Makk., i. 198. De Gayangos, in a note, points out that
this was a mistake: for Abdulmumen was grandfather of Yakub
Almansur, and could not be the king meant here. He therefore
reads, "Yakub, one of the Beni Abdulmumen."
Side by side with, and in bitter hostility to, the earlier freethinkers
lived the faquis or theologians. The Andalusians originally belonged to
the Mohammedan sect of Al Auzai[1] (711-774), whose doctrines were
brought into Spain by the Syrian Arabs of Damascus. But Hischem I., on
coming to the throne, shewed his preference for the doctrines of Malik
ibn Aus,[2] and contrived that they should supplant the dogmas of Al
Auzai. It may be that Hischem I. only shewed a leaning towards Malik's
creed, without persuading others to conform to his views, but at all
events the change was fully accomplished in the reign of his successor,
Hakem I., by the instrumentality of Yahya ibn Yahya Al Seythi, Abu
Merwan Abdulmalek ibn Habib,[3] and Abdallah Zeyad ibn Abdurrahman
Allakhmi, three notable theologians of that reign. Yahya returned from a
pilgrimage to the East in 827, and immediately took the lead in the
opposition offered to Hakem I. on the ground of his being a lax
Mussulman, but, in reality, because he would not give the faquis enough
power in the State.[4]
In the reign of Mohammed (852) these faquis had become powerful enough
to impeach the orthodoxy of a well-known devout Mussulman, Abu
Abdurrahman ibn Mokhli, but the Sultan, with a wise discretion, as
commendable as it was rare, declared that the distinctions of the Ulema
were cavils, and that the expositions of the new traditionist "conveyed
much useful instruction, and inculcated very laudable practices."[5]
Efforts were made from time to time to overthrow this priestly
ascendency, as notably by Ghazali, the "Vivificator," as he was called,
"of religious knowledge." This attempt failed, and the rebel against
authority was excommunicated.[6] Yet the strictly oxthodox party did not
succeed in arresting--to any appreciable extent--the progress of the
decay which was threatening to attack even the distinctive features of
the Mohammedan religion.[7] It is a slight indication of this, that the
peculiar Moslem dress gradually began to be given up, and the turban was
only worn by faquis,[8] and even they could not induce the people to
return to a habit once thought of great importance.[9]
[1] Al Makk., i. 403. De Gayangos' note.
[2] Died 780. Al Makk., i. 113, 343, ascribes the change to
Hakem I.; and an author quoted, i. p. 403, ascribes it to
Abdurrahman I.
[3] Al Makk., ii. 123.
[4] Al Makk., i. 113, implies the reverse of this. Dozy, ii. p.
59.
[5] Conde, i. 294.
[6] Dozy, iv. 255.
[7] In spite of Al Makkari's statement, i. 112, where he says
that all innovations and heretical practices were abhorred by
the people. If the Khalif, he says, had countenanced any such,
he would have been torn to pieces.
[8] Dozy, iii. 271.
[9] Al Makkari, ii. 109.
But in other and more important respects we can see the disintegrating
effect which intercourse with Christians had upon the social
institutions of the Koran.[1]
_(a.)_ Wine, which is expressly forbidden by Mohammed,[2] was much drunk
throughout the country,[3] the example being often set by the king
himself. Hakem I. seems to have been the first of these to drink the
forbidden juice.[4] His namesake, Hakem II. (961-976), however, set his
face against the practice of drinking wine, and even gave orders for all
the vines in his kingdom to be rooted up--an edict which he recalled at
the instance of his councillors, who pointed out that it would ruin many
poor families, and would not cure the evil, as wine would be smuggled in
or illicitly made of figs or other fruit. Hakem consequently contented
himself with forbidding anew the use of spirituous liquors in the most
stringent terms.[5] Even the faquis had taken to drinking wine, and they
defended the practice by saying that the prohibition might be
disregarded by Moslems, who were engaged in a perpetual war with
infidels.
_(b.)_ Music was much cultivated, yet a traditionary saying of Mohammed
runs thus: "To hear music is to sin against the law; to perform music is
to sin against religion; to enjoy music is to be guilty of
infidelity."[6] Abdurrahman II. (822-852) in especial was very fond of
music, and gave the great musician Ziryab or Ali ibn Nafi a home at his
Court, when the latter was driven from the East by professional
jealousy. Strict Mohammedans always protested against these violations
of their law. The important sect of Hanbalites in particular, like our
own Puritans, made a crusade against these abuses. They "caused a great
commotion in the tenth century in Baghdad by entering people's houses
and spilling their wine, if they found any, and beating the
singing-girls they met with and breaking their instruments."[7]
_(c.)_ The wearing of silk, which had been disapproved of by Mohammed,
became quite common among the richer classes, though the majority do not
seem to have indulged themselves in this way.[8]
_(d.)_ The prohibition of sculptures, representing living creatures, was
disregarded. We find a statue, raised to Abdurrahman's wife Zahra, in
the Medinatu'l Zahra, a palace built by Abdurrahman III. in honour of
his beloved mistress. Images of animals are mentioned on the
fountains,[9] and a lion on the aqueduct.[10] We also hear of a statue
at the gate of Cordova.[11]
_(e.)_ The Spanish Arabs even seem to have given up turning towards
Mecca: for what else can we infer from a fact mentioned by an Arab
historian,[12] that Abu Obeydah was called Sahibu l'Kiblah as a
distinctive nickname, because he did so turn?
_(f.)_ A reformer seems even to have arisen, who wished to persuade his
coreligionists to eat the flesh of sows, though not of pigs or
boars.[13]
[1] Al Makkari, ii., App. 28. Author quoted by De Gayangos: The
Moslems in the eleventh century "began to drink wine and commit
all manner of excesses. The rulers of Andalus thought of
nothing else than purchasing singing-women and slaves,
listening to their music, and passing the time in revelry and
mirth."
[2] Kor. v. 93--"Surely wine, lots, and images are an
abomination of the work of Satan ... avoid them."
[3] Al Makkari, ii. p. 171.
[4] Cardonne, i. p. 252.
[5] Al Makkari, i. p. 108; ii. p. 171.
[6] Yonge, "Moors in Spain," p. 71.
[7] Sale, Koran, Introduc., p. 122. (Chandos Classics.)
[8] Al Makkari, ii. p. 109. In 678 Yezid, son of Muawiyah, was
objected to as a drunkard, a lover of music, and a wearer of
silk. See Ockley, p. 358. (Chandos Classics.)
[9] Al Makkari, i. p. 236.
[10] _Ibid._, p. 241.
[11] Akbar Madjmoua. Dozy, ii. p. 272.
[12] Al Malckari, 1. 149.
[13] Hamim, a Berber, in 936. He was crucified by the faquis.
Conde, i. 420.
There is good reason to suppose that all this relaxation of the more
unreasonable prohibitions of the Koran was due to contact with a
civilised and Christian nation, partly in subjection to the Arabs, and
partly growing up independently side by side with them. But in nothing
was this shewn more clearly than in the social enfranchisement of the
Moslem women, whom it is the very essence of Mohammed's teaching to
regard rather as the goods and chattels than as the equals of man; and
also in the introduction among the Moslems of a more Christian
conception of the sacred word--Love.
Consequently we become accustomed to the strange spectacle--strange
among a Mohammedan people--of women making a mark in the society of men,
and being regarded as intellectually and socially their equals. Thus we
hear of an Arabian Sappho, Muatammud ibn Abbad Volada, daughter of
Almustakfi Billah;[1] of Aysha, daughter of Ahmad of Cordova--"the
purest, loveliest, and most learned maiden of her day;"[2] of Mozna, the
slave and private secretary of Abdurrahman III.[3]
Again, contrary to the invariable practice elsewhere, women were
admitted into the mosques in Spain. This was forbidden by Mohammedan
law,[4] the women being obliged to perform their devotions at home;
"if," says Sale, "they visit the mosques, it must be when the men are
not there; for the Moslems are of opinion that their presence inspires a
different kind of devotion from that which is requisite in a place
dedicated to the service of God." Sale also quotes from the letter of a
Moor, censuring the Roman Catholic manner of performing the mass, for
the reason, among others, that women were there. If the evidence of
ballads be accepted, we shall find the Moorish ladies appearing at
festivities and dances.[5] At tournaments they looked on, their bright
smiles heartening the knights on to do brave deeds, and their fair hands
giving the successful champion the meed of victorious valour.[6] Their
position, in fact, as Prescott remarks, became assimilated to that of
Christian ladies.
[1] Murphy, "Hist. of Moh. Empire in Spain," p. 232.
[2] Conde, i. p. 457.
[3] For others see Conde, i. 483, 484.
[4] Sale, Introd., Koran, p. 84. (Chandos Classics.)
[5] Prescott, "Ferd. and Isab.," p. 158.
[6] See a picture in the Alhambra, given in Murphy's "Moorish
Antiquities of Spain," Lockhart, Pref., p. 13; and the ballad
called "The Bullfight of Ghazal," st. v. p. 109.
The effect of this improvement in the social position of women could not
fail to reflect itself in the conception of love among the Spanish
Arabs; and, accordingly, we find their gross sensuality undergoing a
process of refinement, as the following extract from Said ibn Djoudi,[1]
who wrote at the close of the ninth century, will shew. Addressing his
ideal mistress, Djehama, he says:--
"O thou, to whom my prayers are given,
Compassionate and gentle be
To my poor soul, so roughly driven,
To fly from me to thee.
"I call thy name, my vows outpouring,
I see thine eyes with tear-drops shine:
No monk, his imaged saint adoring,
Knows rapture like to mine!"
Of these words Dozy[2] says:--"They might be those of a Provencal
troubadour. They breathe the delicateness of Christian chivalry."
This Christianising of the feeling of love is even more clearly seen in
a passage from a treatise on Love by Ali ibn Hazm, who was prime
minister to Abdurrahman V. (Dec. 1023-Mar. 1024). He calls Love[3] a
mixture of moral affection, delicate gallantry, enthusiasm, and a calm
modest beauty, full of sweet dignity. Being the great grandson of
Christian parents, perhaps some of their inherited characteristics
reappeared in him:--"Something pure, something delicate, something
spiritual which was not Arab."[4]
[1] Killed, 897.
[2] II. 229.
[3] Quoted by Dozy, iii. 350.
[4] Dozy, 1.1.
CHAPTER XI.
INFLUENCE OF ISLAM ON CHRISTIANITY.
We have so far investigated the influence of Christianity on the social
and intellectual character of Mohammedanism; let us now turn to the
analogous influence of Mohammedanism on Christianity under the same
aspects. This, as was to be expected, is by no means so marked as in the
reverse case. One striking instance, however, there is, in which such an
influence was shewn, and where we should least have thought to find it.
We have indisputable evidence that many Christians submitted to be
circumcised. Whether this was for the sake of passing themselves off on
occasion as Mussulmans, or for some other reason, we cannot be certain:
but the fact remains.[1] "Have we not," says Alvar,[2] "the mark of the
beast, when setting at nought the customs of the fathers, we follow the
pestilent ways of the Gentiles; when, neglecting the circumcision of the
heart,[3] which is chiefly commanded us, we submit to the corporeal
rite, which ought to be avoided for its ignominy, and which can only be
complied with at the cost of no small pain to ourselves."
Even bishops did not shrink from conforming to this Semitic rite,[4]
whether voluntarily, or under compulsion, we cannot say; but we know
that the Mohammedan king, under whom this occurred, had at one time the
intention of forcing all his Christian subjects to be circumcised.[5]
Another sign of an approximation made by Christians to the outward
observances of Moslems, was that some among them thought it necessary to
abstain from certain meats,[6] those, namely, forbidden by the
Mohammedan law.
A bishop, being taxed with compliance of this kind, gave as his excuse
that otherwise the Christians could not live with the Saracens.[7] This
was, naturally, not considered a good reason by the stricter or more
bigoted party, who regarded with alarm and suspicion any tendency
towards amalgamation with Mohammedans. If we can credit certain
chroniclers, a council was even held some years before this time by
Basilius, Bishop of Cordova, for considering the best method of
preventing the contamination of the purity of the Christian faith by its
contact with Mohammedanism.[8]
[1] See John of Cordova, in the "Life of John of Gorz," above,
p. 89.
[2] Alvar, "Ind. Lum.", sec. 35.
[3] Romans ii. 29; Galatians v. 2.
[4] See "Life of John of Gorz," sec. 123.
[5] See "Life of John of Gorz," sec. 123; Samson, "Apolog.,"
ii. c. 4. Cp. "Loys de Mayerne Turguet," xvii. 13. The king,
Halihatan (Abdurrahman III.), 950 published an edict, "par
lequel il estait mande a tous Chrestiens habitans es terres et
villes a luy subjectes de laisser la religion de Jesu, et se
faisans circoncire prendre cette de Mahomet, sur peine de vie."
[6] See Appendix B, p. 167; and Koran v. _ad init._--" You are
forbidden to eat that which dieth of itself, and blood, and
swine's flesh ... and that which hath been strangled."
[7] "John of Gorz," 1.1.
[8] "Pseudo-Luit.", sec. 341. Cp. "Chron. Juliani," sec. 501.
"Viritanus coegit concilium Toleto ad inveniendum remedium ne
Muzarabes Toletani, imo totius Hispaniae, Saracenis conjuncti,
illorum caeremoniis communicarent."
Sometimes, however, the contact with Islam acted by way of contraries,
and Christian bigots, such as the monks often were, would cling to some
habit or rite of their own from a mere spirit of opposition to a reverse
custom among Moslems. Thus we know that the monks in the East became the
more passionately devoted to their image-worship, because Iconoclasm
savoured so much of Mohammedanism. In the same way, but with far more
objectionable results, the clergy in Spain did their best to impress the
people with the idea that cleanliness of apparel and person, far from
being next to godliness, was incompatible with it, and that baths were
the direct invention of the devil.[1] Later on we know that Philip II.,
the husband of our Queen Mary, had all public baths in his Spanish
dominions destroyed, on the ground that they were relics of
infidelity.[2]
Celibacy of the clergy, again, was strongly advocated as a contrast to
the polygamy of Mohammedans; and an abbot, Saulus, is mentioned with
horror as having a wife and children, one of whom afterwards succeeded
him, and also married.[3]
One of the last acts of a Gothic king had been to enforce the marriage
of the clergy, and though this act was repealed by Fruela I. (757-768)
in the North, yet concubinage became very common among the clergy;[4]
and it was perhaps to remedy a similar state of things that Witiza
wished to compel the clergy to have lawful wives.
[1] Miss Yonge, p. 67.
[2] Lane-Poole, "Story of the Moors," p. 136.
[3] Florez, "Esp. Sagr.," xviii. 326--"Conventus Episcoporum
pro restoratione monasterii." The children are called "Spinae
ac vepres, nec nominandi proles."
[4] Prescott, "Ferd. and Isab.," p. 16. From Samson, "Apol.,"
ii. cc. 2, 6, we learn that Christians had begun to imitate the
Moslems in having harems.
We have left to the last the great and interesting question of the
origin of chivalry. Though forming no part of the doctrines of
Christianity or Islam, chivalry and its influences could not with
justice be wholly overlooked in a discussion like the present. The
institution known by that name arose in the age of Charles the Great
(768-814),[1] and was therefore nearly synchronous with the invasion of
Europe by the Arabs. Its origin has been, indeed, referred to the
military service of fiefs, but all its characteristics, which were
personal and individual, such as loyalty, courtesy, munificence, point
to a racial rather than a political source, and these characteristics
are found in an eminent degree among the Arabs. "The solitary and
independent spirit of chivalry," says Hallam,[2] "dwelling as it were
upon a rock, and disdaining injustice or falsehood from a consciousness
of internal dignity, without any calculation of the consequences, is not
unlike what we sometimes read of Arabian chiefs or American Indians."
Whatever the precise origin of chivalry may have been, there can be no
doubt that its development was largely influenced by the relative
positions of Arabs and Christians in Spain, and the perpetual war which
went on between them in that country.
Though not a religious institution at the outset, except perhaps among
our Saxon forefathers,[3] chivalry soon became religious in character,
and its golden age of splendour was during the crusades against the
Moslems of Spain and Palestine. Spain itself may almost be called the
cradle of chivalry; and it must be allowed that even in the first flush
of conquest the Arabs shewed themselves to be truly chivalrous enemies,
and clearly had nothing to learn from Christians in that respect. The
very earliest days of Moslem triumph, saw the same chivalrous spirit
displayed at the capture of Jerusalem, forming a strange and melancholy
contrast to the scene at its recapture subsequently by the Crusaders
under the heroic Godfrey de Bouillon.
[1] Hallam, "Mid. Ages.," iii. 392.
[2] _Ibid._ Cp. p. 402. "The characteristic virtues of chivalry
have so much resemblance to those which Eastern writers of the
same period extol, that I am disposed to suspect Europe for
having derived some improvement from imitation of Asia."
[3] Hallam, "Mid. Ages" (1.1.).
Similarly the last triumph of the Moors in Spain, at the end of the
tenth century, furnished an instance of generosity rarely paralleled.
The Almohade king, Yakub Almansur, after the great victory of Alarcos
(1193), released 20,000 Christian prisoners. It cannot, however, be
denied that the action displeased many of the king's followers, who
complained of it "as one of the extravagancies proper to monarchs,"[1]
and Yakub himself repented of it on his deathbed.
In many passages of the Arabian writers we find those qualities
enumerated which ought to distinguish the Moorish knight--such as piety,
courtesy, prowess in war, the gift of eloquence, the art of poetry,
skill on horseback, and dexterity with sword, lance, and bow.[2]
Chivalry soon became a recognised art, and we hear of a certain Yusuf
ben Harun, or Abu Amar, addressing an elegant poem to Hakem II.
(961-976) on its duties and obligations;[3] nor was it long before the
Moorish kings learnt to confer knighthood on their vassals after the
Christian fashion, and we have an instance of this in a knighthood
conferred by the king of Seville in 1068.[4]
[1] Conde, iii. 53.
[2] Al Makk., ii. 401, from Ibn Hayyan. Cp. Prescott, "Ferd.
and Isab.," p. 159.
[3] Conde, i. 477.
[4] Conde, ii. 173.
As the ideal knight of Spanish romance was Ruy Diaz de Bivar, or the
Cid, so we may perhaps regard the historic Almanzor as the Moorish
knight _sans peur et sans reproche;_ and though, if judged by our
standards, he was by no means _sans reproche_, yet many are the stories
told of his magnanimity and justice. On one occasion after a battle
against the Christians, the Count of Garcia being mortally wounded, his
faithful Castilians refused to leave him, and were hemmed in by
Almanzor's men. When the latter was urged to give the word, and have the
knot of Christians put to the sword, he said: "Is it not written? 'He
who slayeth one man, not having met with violence, will be punished like
the murderer of all mankind, and he who saveth the life of one man,
shall be rewarded like the rescuer of all.'[1] Make room, sons of
Ishmael, make way; let the Christians live and bless the name of the
clement and merciful God." [2]
On another occasion Almanzor is asked by the Count of Lara for wedding
gifts for an enemy[3] of the Arabs, another Christian count, and he
magnanimously sends the gifts; or we see him releasing the father of the
Infantes of Lara, on hearing of the dreadful death of his seven sons.[4]
It must be admitted that these instances savour too much of the romantic
ballad style, but anecdotes of generosity do not gather round any but
persons who are noted for that virtue, and though the instances should
be false in letter, yet in spirit they may be eminently true. However
this may be as respects Almanzor's generosity, of his justice we have
unimpeachable evidence. The monk who wrote the "Chronicle of Silo," says
that the success of his raids on the Christian territories was due to
the large pay he offered his soldiers, and also to his extreme justice,
"which virtue," says the chronicler, "as I learned from my father's
lips, Almanzor held dearer, if I may so say, than any Christian."[5]
[1] Koran, v. 35.
[2] Yonge, p. 110.
[3] _Ibid._, p. 80.
[4] Johannes Vasaeus, 969.
[5] "Chron. Sil.," sec. 70.
In connection with chivalry there is one institution which the Christian
Spaniards seem to have borrowed from the Moors--those military orders,
namely, which were so numerous in Spain. "The Rabitos, or Moslemah
knights," says Conde,[1] "in charge of the frontier, professed
extraordinary austerity of life, and devoted themselves voluntarily to
the continual exercise of arms. They were all men of high distinction;
and bound themselves by a vow to defend the frontier. They were
forbidden by their rules to fly from the enemy, it being their duty to
fight and die on the spot they held."
In any case, whether the Christian military orders were derived from the
Moorish, or the reverse, one thing is certain, that it was the Moors who
inoculated the Christians with a belief in Holy Wars, as an essential
part of their religion.[2] In this respect Christianity became
Mohammedanized first in Spain. Chivalry became identified with war
against the infidel, and found its apotheosis[3] in St. James of
Compostella, who--a poor fisherman of Galilee--was supposed to have
fought in person against the Moors at Clavijo.[4] In the ballad we hear
of Christian knights coming to engage in fight from exactly that same
belief in the efficacy and divine institution of holy wars, as animated
the Arab champions. The clergy, and even the bishops, took up arms and
fought against the enemies of their faith. Two bishops, those of Leon
and Astorga,[5] were taken prisoners at the battle of Val de Junqueras
(921).[6] Sisenandus of Compostella was killed in battle against the
Northmen (979); and the "Chronicle of the Cid" makes repeated mention of
a right valiant prelate named Hieronymus.[7]
[1] Conde, ii. p. 119, note--"It seems highly probable that
from these arose the military orders of Spain in the East." Cp.
Prescott, "Ferd. and Isab.," p. 122. The military orders of
Spain were mostly instituted by papal bulls in the last half of
the 12th century.
[2] Islam made Christianity military, Milman, "Lat. Chr.," ii.
pp. 220-2. Lecky, "Hist. Eur. Moral," p. 262, ff.
[3] Presc., "Ferd.," p. 15.
[4] Mohammed also imagined celestial aid in battle, see Kor.
iii., ad init.
[5] "Rodrigo of Toledo," iii. p. 4. Johannes Vasaeus says they
were the bishops of Tuy and Salamanca.
[6] Mariana, viii. 5. See also _Ibid._, c. 6.
[7] "Chronicle of Cid" (Southey), p. 371.
Yet, in spite of all this, in spite of the fanaticism which engendered
and accompanied it, chivalry proved to be the only common ground on
which Christian and Moslem, Arab and European, could meet. It was in
fact a sort of compromise between two incompatible religions mutually
accepted by two different races. Though perhaps not a spiritual
religion, it was a social one, and served in some measure to mitigate
the horrors of a war of races and creeds. Chivalry culminated in the
Crusades, and Richard I. of England and Saladin were the Achilles and
the Hector of a new Iliad.
With this short discussion of the origin and value of chivalry as a
compromise between Christianity and Mohammedanism, we will now conclude.
In discussing the relations between Christianity and Mohammedanism, we
have been naturally led to compare not only the religions but their
adherents, for it is difficult to distinguish between those who profess
a creed, and the creed which they profess; but at least we may have thus
been enabled to avoid missing any point essential to the proper
elucidation of the mutual relations which existed between the two
greatest religions of the world, and the influence they had upon each
other.
APPENDIX.
A.
THE JEWS IN SPAIN.
The persecution of the Jews by the Gothic Spaniards naturally made them
the implacable enemies of the Christians. Being a very numerous colony
in Spain--for Hadrian had transported thither many thousand
families--the Jews gave the Arabs very effective help in conquering the
country, both by betraying places to them, and garrisoning captured
towns while the Arabs went on to fresh conquests. Consequently the
relations between the Jews and Moslems were for a long time very
cordial, though this cordiality wore off in the course of time. Their
numbers seem to have been considerable under the Moslem occupation, and
whole towns were set apart as Jewries.[1]
In France the prejudice against the Jews shewed itself very strongly
among the clergy, though Louis I. and his wife Judith favoured them.
They were generally ill-treated, and their slaves were induced by the
clergy to be baptized. Thereupon they became free, as Jews were not
allowed to have Christian slaves.[2] But it must be admitted that the
Franks had reason for disliking the Jews, as it was well known that they
sold Christian children as slaves to the Moslems of Spain.[3]
[1] Al Makkari, ii. 452.
[2] Fleury, v. 408.
[3] _Ibid._
They also seem to have been able to make some proselytes from among the
Christians, and we hear of one apostate of this kind, named Eleazar, to
whom Alvar addressed several letters under the title of "the
transgressor." This man's original name was Bodon. A Christian of German
extraction,[1] he was brought up with a view to Holy Orders. In 838,
while on his way to Rome,[2] he apostatised to Judaism,[3] and opened a
negotiation with the Jews in France to sell his companions as slaves,
stipulating only to keep his own grandson. The next year he let his hair
and beard grow, and went to Spain, where he married a Jewess, compelling
his grandson at the same time to apostatise. In 845 or 847 his attitude
became so hostile to the Christians in Spain, that the latter wrote to
Charles, praying him to demand Eleazar as his subject, which however
does not seem to have been done. There seems good reason to believe that
Eleazar stirred up the Moslems against the Christians, and the deaths of
Prefectus and John may have been due to him.[4] After this we hear no
more of Eleazar; but the position of the Jews with regard to the Arabs
seems to have been for long after this of a most privileged character.
Consequently the Jews in Spain had such an opportunity to develop their
natural gifts as they have never had since the capture of Jerusalem by
Nebuchadnezzar; and they shewed themselves no whit behind the Arabs, if
indeed they did not outstrip them, in keeping alive the flame of
learning in the dark ages.[5] In science generally, and especially in
the art of medicine they had few rivals, and in learning and
civilisation they were, no less than the Arabs, far ahead of the
Christians.[6]
[1] "Ann. Bertin.," 839.
[2] Orationis gratia, "Ann. Bert," 1.1.
[3] Florez, xi. p. 20 ff.
[4] The "Ann. Bert." say that he induced Abdurrahman II. to
give his Christian subjects the choice between Islam, Judaism,
or death. See Rohrbacher, xii. 4.
[5] Prescott, "Ferd. and Isab." p. 153.
[6] _Ibid._, p. 134.
The good understanding between the Jews and the Arabs with the gradual
process of time gave place to an ill-concealed hostility, and at the
beginning of the twelfth century there seems even to have been a project
formed for forcing the Jews to become Moslems on the ground of a promise
made by their forefathers to Mohammed that, if in five centuries their
Messiah had not appeared, they would be converted to Mohammedanism.[1]
Perhaps this was only a pretext on the part of the Moslems for extorting
money; at all events the Jews only succeeded in evading the alternative
by paying a large sum of money. Even in the early years of the conquest
they were subject to the rapacity of their rulers, for when, on the
rumour of the Messiah having appeared in Syria, many of the Spanish
Jews, leaving their goods, started off to join him, the Moslem governor,
Anbasa, seized the property so left, and refused to restore it on the
return of the disappointed emigrants.
From their contact with Arabs and Christians the Jews seem to have lost
many of their distinctive beliefs, and in the twelfth century
Maimonides,[2] the greatest name among the Spanish Jews, wrote against
their errors. One of these seems to have been that the books of Moses
were written before the Creation;[3] another, that there was a series of
hells in the next world.[4]
Many Jews attained to very high positions among the Arabs, and we hear
of a certain Hasdai ibn Bahrut, who was inspector of customs to
Abdurrahman III., ambassador to the King of Leon in 955, and the king's
confidential messenger to the monk, John of Gorz, a few years later. He
was also distinguished as a physician.[5]
[1] Conde, ii. 326.
[2] Fleury, v. 409.
[3] Cp. the Moslem belief about the Koran. Sale, Introduc., p.
50. (Chandos Classics.)
[4] _Ibid._, p. 72.
[5] Al Makk., i., App. v. p. xxiv. Note by De Gayangos.
While the Arabs still retained their hold on the fairest provinces of
Spain, the lot of the Jews, even in Christian territories, was by no
means unendurable. They were sometimes advanced to important and
confidential posts, and it was the murder of Alfonso VI.'s Jewish
ambassador by the King of Seville which brought about the introduction
of the Almoravides into Spain.
There is a strange story told of the Jews at the taking of Toledo by the
Christians in 1085. They waited on Alfonso and assured him that they
were part of the ten tribes whom Nebuchadnezzar transported into Spain,
and not the descendants of those Jerusalem Jews who crucified Christ.
Their ancestors, they said, were quite free from the guilt of this act,
for when Caiaphas had written to the Toledan synagogue for their advice
respecting the person who claimed to be the Messiah, the Toledan Jews
returned for answer, that in their judgment the prophecies seemed to be
fulfilled in Him, and therefore He ought not by any means to be put to
death. This reply they produced in the original Hebrew.[1] It is
needless to say that the whole thing was a fabrication.
Gradually, as the Christians recovered their supremacy in Spain, the
tide of prejudice set more and more strongly against the Jews. They were
accused of "contempt for the Catholic worship, desecration of its
symbols, sacrifice of Christian infants,"[2] and other enormities.
Severe laws were passed against them, as in the old Gothic times, and
their freedom was grievously curtailed in the matters of dress,
residence, and profession. As a distinctive badge they had to wear
yellow caps.[3]
[1] Southey, "Roder.," i. p. 235, note.
[2] Prescott, "Ferd. and Isab.," pp. 134, 135.
[3] Al Makk., i. 116.
At the end of the fourteenth century the people rose against them, and
15,000 Jews were massacred in different parts of Spain. Many were
nominally converted, and 35,000 conversions were put to the credit of a
single saint. These new Christians sometimes attained high
ecclesiastical dignities, and intermarried with the noble families--the
taint of which "mala sangre" came afterwards to be regarded with the
greatest horror and aversion.
It was against the converted Jews that the Inquisition was first
established, and they chiefly suffered under it at first. In 1492, on
the final extinction of the Arab dominion in Spain, a very large number
of Jews were expelled from Castile,[1] the evil example being afterwards
followed in other parts of Spain. The story of the treatment of Jews by
Christians is indeed one of the darkest in the history of Christianity.
[1] Variously estimated at 160,000 or 800,000.
B.
SPAIN AND THE PAPAL POWER.
Perhaps no part of the history of Spain affords so interesting a study
as the consideration of those gradual steps by which, from being one of
the most independent of Churches, she has become the most subservient,
and therefore the most degraded, of all. The question of how this was
brought about, apart from its intrinsic interest as illustrating the
development of a great nation, is well worth investigating, from the
momentous influence which it has had upon the religious history of the
world at large. For it is not too much to say that Rome could never have
made good its ascendency, spiritual no less than temporal, over so large
a part of mankind, had not the material resources and the blind devotion
of Spain been ready to back the haughty pretensions and unscrupulous
ability of the Italian pontiffs.
In fact, Spain is the only country, apart from Italy, that as a nation,
has accepted the monstrous doctrines of Rome in all their
entirety--doctrines which the whole Christian East repudiated from the
first with scorn, and which the North and (with the exception of Spain)
the West of Europe--the birthplace and cradle of the mighty Teutonic
races--have agreed with equal disdain to reject and trample under their
feet.
This result is all the more remarkable, from the fact that in early
times the Church of Spain, from its rapid extension, its greatness, and
its prosperity, held a position of complete equality with the Roman and
other principal churches. The See of Cordova held so high a rank in the
fourth century that Hosius, its venerable bishop, was chosen to preside
at the important councils of Nice (325) and Sardica (347).
The Gothic invasion at the beginning of the fifth century made Spain
still less likely to acknowledge any supremacy of Rome, for the Goths,
besides being far more independent in character than the Romanized
Kelts, were Arian heretics, and cut off, in consequence, from all
communion with Rome. The orthodox party, however, gradually gained
strength, and in 560 the remnants of the Suevi abjured Arianism, and the
Gothic king's son Ermenegild, with their help, revolted against his
father. He was finally put to death for his treason, but his brother,
Recared, on ascending the throne in 589, avowed his conversion to the
orthodox creed, his example being followed by most of his nobles and
prelates.
The reception of Recared and his Court into the Catholic fold was the
signal for an attempt to establish the papal authority, which was the
more dangerous now, as the popes had gained a great increase of power
since Spain was cut off from orthodox Christendom by the invasion of the
Arian Goths.
One of Recared's first acts was to write to the pope and, saluting him,
ask him for his advice in spiritual matters. The papal authority thus
acknowledged was soon exercised in--
_(a.)_ Deciding ecclesiastical appeals without regard to the laws of the
land;
_(b.)_ Sending to Spain pontifical judges to hear such cases;
_(c.)_ Sending legates to watch over the discipline of the Church;
_(d.)_ Sending the pall to metropolitans.
These metropolitans, unknown in the earlier history of the Spanish
Church, came gradually to be recognised, owing to the papal practice of
sending letters to the chief bishops of the country. They became
invested in consequence with certain important powers, such as those of
convoking provincial councils; of consecrating suffragans; of holding
ecclesiastical courts, and watching over the conduct of bishops.[1]
But though a certain authority over the Spanish Church _was_ thus
conceded to the pope, yet owing to the independent spirit of the Spanish
kings and clergy, he contented himself with a very sparing use of his
power. In two points, in especial, the claims of the pope were
strenuously resisted.
_(a.)_ The purchase of dispensations from Rome was expressly forbidden.
_(b.)_ Papal infallibility was a dogma by no means admitted. Thus the
prelates of Spain in the fifteenth and sixteenth councils of Toledo,
defended the orthodoxy of their fellow-bishop, Julian, against the
strictures of the then pope, Bendict II.; and Benedict's successor, John
V., confessed that they had been in the right.[2]
This spirit of opposition to the supremacy of the pope we find
manifested to the last by the Spanish kings, and there is some reason
for thinking that in the very year of the Saracen invasion the king,
Witiza, held a synod, which emphatically forbade appeals to Rome.[3]
One author even goes so far as to say that the Gothic king and his
clergy being at variance with the pope, the latter encouraged and
favoured the Saracen invasion.[4]
[1] Masdeu, xi. p. 167, ff., quoted by Dr Dunham.
[2] Dunham, i. p. 197.
[3] See Hardwicke's "Church in the Middle Ages," p. 42. He
quotes Gieselar, "Ch. Hist.," iii-132.
[4] J.S. Semler, quoted by Mosheim, ii. 120, note.
However that may have been, and it certainly looks very improbable, the
invasion did not help the pope much directly, though indirectly, and as
events turned out, the Arab domination was undoubtedly the main cause of
the ultimate subjection of Spain to the papal yoke, which happened in
this way:--The Christian Church in the North being, though free, yet in
a position of great danger and weakness, would naturally have sought
help from their nearest Christian neighbours, the Franks. But the
selfish and ambitious policy of the latter, who preferred extending
their temporal dominion to fighting as champions of Christianity in
defence of others, naturally forced the Spanish Christians to look to
the only Christian ruler who could afford them even moral assistance;
and the popes were not slow to avail themselves of the opportunity thus
offered for establishing their authority in a new province. It was by
the intervention of the popes that the war against the Arabs partook of
the nature of a crusade, a form of warfare which carried with it the
advantage of filling the treasury of the Bishops of Rome. By means of
indulgences, granting exemption from purgatory at 200 maravedis a head,
the pope collected in four years the sum of four million maravedis.[1]
The first important instance of the Pope's intervention being asked and
obtained was in 808, when, the body of St James being miraculously
discovered, Alfonso wrote to the pope asking leave to move the see of
Ira Flavia (Padron) to the new church of St lago,[2] built on the spot
where the relics were found. The birth of the new Spanish Church dates
from this event, which was of ominous import for the future independence
of the Church in that country. What the claims of Rome had come to be
within a quarter of a century of this epoch, we may see from the
controversy which arose between Claudius, Bishop of Turin, and the papal
party. Claudius was himself a Spaniard, and a pupil of the celebrated
Felix, Bishop of Urgel, one of the authors of the Adoptionist heresy.
Among other doctrines obnoxious to the so-called Catholic party,
Claudius stoutly resisted the papal claim to be the head of Christendom,
resting his opposition, so far as we can gather from what remains to us
of his writings,[3] on the grounds, first, that Christ did _not_ say to
Peter, "What thou loosest in heaven, shall be loosed upon earth;"
meaning by this that the authority vested in Peter was only to be
exercised during his life; secondly, in answer to the supposed efficacy
of a pilgrimage to Rome, Claudius retorts on his accuser, Theodomir,
abbot of a monastery near Nimes:--"If a doing of penance to be effectual
involves a journey to Rome, why do you keep so many monks in your
monastery and prevent them from going--as you say is necessary--to Rome
itself?" As to the journey itself, Claudius said that he neither
approved nor disapproved of it, knowing that it was not prejudicial to
all, nor useful to all: but this he was assured of, that eternal life
could not be gained by a mere journey to Rome; thirdly, as to the pope
being the Dominicus Apostolicus, as his supporters called him,
apostolic, says Claudius, is a title that does not belong to one "who
fills the see of an apostle, but who fulfils the duties thereof."
[1] Prescott, "Ferd. and Isab.," p. 64, n.
[2] Romey, "Hist. d'Esp.," iii. 420.
[3] Jonas of Orleans, iii., apud Migne, vol. civ. p. 375 ff.
Fleury, v. 398.
Being summoned to appear before a council, the bishop proved
contumacious, and refused to go, calling the proposed assemblage a
congregation of asses. In spite of his independence of spirit Claudius
remained Bishop of Turin till his death in 839.
The pope's authority being once recognised in Spain, the sphere of his
interference rapidly enlarged, and we soon find the king unable even to
call a council of bishops without a papal bull. This became the
established practice.[1] In the tenth century Bermudo II. (982-999), in
confirming the laws of the Goths, took the opportunity to make the
canons and decrees of the pope binding in secular cases.[2]
Meanwhile, even before the free Christians in the North had established
their independence, the weakness of the Christian Church under Arab
domination seemed to afford a good opportunity for obtaining from them a
recognition of the authority of the pope. We accordingly find that an
appeal was made to the pope towards the close of the eighth century to
give an authoritative decision with regard to what the appellants deemed
to be certain irregularities which had found their way into the practice
of those Christians who were under the Arab yoke. The Pope Adrian
readily undertook to define what was, and what was not, in accordance
with Christianity. In a letter addressed to the Bishops of Spain he
inveighs against the following errors, countenanced by a certain
Migetius, and by Egila, Bishop of Elvira, and sometimes called in
consequence the Migetian errors:--
_(a.)_ The wrong celebration of Easter. This had already been noticed
and condemned by Peter, a deacon of Toledo, in a letter to the people of
Seville (750).[3] The error was not the same as that of the
Quarto-decimani, but consisted apparently in deferring Easter to the
twenty-second day, if the full moon fell on the 14th, and the following
day was Sunday. Curiously enough this very error had been held by the
Latin Church itself till the sixth century.[4] The fulminations of the
Pope failed in suppressing the error. As late as 891 it was sufficiently
general in Andalusia to cause the date of a battle which took place at
the Easter of that year to be placed in the year of the Hegira 278,
which only began on April 15th, whereas had Easter been observed
according to the usage of the Latin Church, the Paschal feast would have
been already past.[5]
_(b.)_ The eating of pork and things strangled.[6] With respect to these
innocent articles of food, the pope goes so far as to threaten anathema
against those who will not abstain from them. It is curious to find the
Christian Church upholding the eating of pork, when brought into contact
with the Moslems, and forbidding it elsewhere.
_(c.)_ Intermarriage with Jews and Moslems, which had become very
common, is denounced and forbidden.[7]
_(d.)_ The Pope cautions the Spanish Church against consecrating priests
without due preparation, and speaks as if there were many false priests,
wolves in sheep's clothing, dealing havoc in the flock.
_(e.)_ One doubtful authority,[8] who tells us that Adrian ordered
Cixila, Bishop of Toledo, to hold a council and condemn Egila for not
fasting on Sundays, according to the decrees of previous popes.
[1] "Chron. Sil.," sec. 13, who says that in 1109 a legate was
in Spain holding a council at Leon. "Chron. Sampiri," (Florez,
xiv.), sec. 6 (a later addition), says that in 869 Alfonso IV.
sent Severus and Sideric, asking the leave of Pope John VIII.
to hold a council and consecrate a church. Cp. Mariana, vii. 8.
[2] Mariana, viii. 6.
[3] Isid. Pac, sec. 77. See Migne, vol. xcviii. pp. 339, 376,
451.
[4] See Victorius Aquitanus, quoted by Noris "de Paschali
Latinorum Cyclo." (iii. 786), apud Migne.
[5] Dozy, ii. p. 355, note.
[6] Florez, "Esp. Sagr.," v. 514: Fleury, ii. 235.
[7] Adrian's Letter to the Spanish Bishops.
[8] The Pseudo-Luitprand, sec. 236--"Ex mandatis litterisque
Adriani papae contra Egilanum ... nolentem Dei Sabbate a
carnibus abstinere" (776 A.D.).
But though there was a strong party in Spain favouring the pretensions
of the pope, yet many of the clergy and laity, headed by the venerable
Elipandus, Bishop of Toledo (782-810), boldly resisted the encroachments
of the Bishop of Rome. Elipandus himself, as Primate of all Spain, wrote
to Migetius condemning him for certain heresies, and boasts of having
completely refuted and silenced him;[1] but at the same time Elipandus
shewed his independence of the Roman Pontiff by characterising those who
abstained from pork and things strangled as foolish and ignorant men;
though Migetius in this matter was in thorough accord with the pope,[2]
and could justify his views by a reference to the decision of the Church
of Jerusalem in the earliest days of Christianity.[3]
Another doctrine combated by Elipandus was the unscriptural one, that it
was unlawful to eat with unbelievers, or even to take food touched by
them. It was easy for him to quote texts such as: "Not that which
entereth into the mouth defileth the man; but that which proceedeth out
of the mouth, this defileth the man;" [4] or "to the pure all things are
pure;"[5] and to point out that Christ ate with publicans and sinners.
But the assumption which Elipandus, like his fellow-countrymen, Claudius
of Turin, later, especially attacked, was that which regarded the Roman
See as alone constituting the Catholic Church and the power of God.[6]
This he very properly calls a heresy; and indignantly denies that
Christ's words, "Thou art Peter," &c., apply to the Church of Rome
alone, affirming that they were spoken of the whole Church. "How," he
adds, "can the Roman Church be, as you say it is, the very power of God
without spot or blemish, when we know that at least one bishop of Rome
(Liberius) has been branded as a heretic by the common voice of
Christendom."
[1] Epilandus, Letter to Migetius. Migne, xcviii. p. 859. See
Neander, v. 216 ff. n. Enhueber, "Dissert," secs. 29, 33, apud
Migne, vol. ci.
[2] See Adrian's Letter to Egila.
[3] Acts xv. 19, 29. See, however, Epist. to Timothy, i. 3.
[4] St Matt. xv. 11.
[5] Titus i. 15.
[6] See also letter to Alcuin, and Felix's answer to Alcuin's
first book, where he gives us his idea of a _Catholic_ church
founded on our Lord Christ (and not on the pope), ... which
Catholic church may even consist of few members. Neander, v.
230.
Had the Arab domination embraced the whole of Spain, and continued to be
established over it, Spain could never have become the priest-ridden
country which it now is; but the gradual advance of the Christian arms
in the North brought in its train a more and more complete subserviency
to the pope.
As the kings of Castile and Leon gradually won back towns and provinces
from the Arabs, some difference was observed to exist between the
religious usages of the newly freed Christians and of those who had set
them free. This was specially apparent in the old Gothic liturgy, which
the Muzarabic Christians had used all along, and were still using,
whereas the Christians of Leon and the Asturias had imported a newer
recension from Rome.
Rumours of these discrepancies in religious ritual reached Rome, and
accordingly a legate,[1] named Zanclus, was sent to Spain in 925 from
John X. to inquire into matters of religion, and particularly into the
ceremony of the mass, the opinion being prevalent at Rome that the mass
was incorrectly performed according to the Gothic liturgy, and that
false doctrines were taught. However, Zanclus found that the divergence
was not sufficiently wide to warrant the suppression of the ancient
ritual. It may be that the power of the Roman Church was not established
so securely as to admit of an interference so unpalatable to the ancient
church. She was content to bide her time; for such a standing witness
to the primitive usage[2] of the Church against the innovations of the
Roman See could not long be allowed to continue. Accordingly, we find
that very soon after the fall of Toledo in 1085, the question of the old
Gothic liturgy came up for discussion again. The Gothic and the Roman
books were subjected, after the absurd fashion of the times, to two
ordeals--by water and by fire; but in spite of the fact that the Gothic
liturgy, thanks to its greater solidity and stronger binding, resisted
both those elements incomparably better than its younger rival, and so,
if the ordeal went for anything, should have been hailed victorious, the
old native liturgy was partially suppressed at the bidding of the pope,
and by the consent of the Spanish king Alfonso VI. of Leon,[3] and
Sancho IV. of Aragon. Yet the Muzarabic Christians were loath to give up
their customary liturgy, and it remained in use in several churches of
Toledo till late in the fifteenth century.
[1] Mariana, vi. 9. Pseudo-Luit. gives the legate the name of
Marinus, and says he was sent in 932 to Basilius, Bishop of
Toledo.
[2] Cp. the monstrous way in which the Portuguese Roman
Catholics, under Don Alexis de Menezes, destroyed the sacred
books and memorials of the ancient Syrian Church on the Malabar
coast in India.
[3] And I. of Castile.
But the interference of the pope was not confined to matters relating to
the Spanish Church at large, his heavy hand fell upon the king himself,
and at the end of the twelfth century Alfonso IX. and all his kingdom
were laid under an interdict by Celestine III. because he had married
within forbidden limits, and refused to divorce his wife at the bidding
of the pope. He did in the end divorce her, but only to repeat the same
offence with a second wife, Berengaria, and incur the same penalty at
the hands of Innocent III. Encroachments on the king's power went on
apace, and gradually appeals came to be referred to Rome from the king's
courts, and the pope took upon himself to appoint to benefices and
bishoprics; a usurpation which was countenanced by Alfonso X.
(1252-1284).[1] But this result was not attained without remonstrances
from the Cortes, and finally, under Ferdinand and Isabella, the question
came to an open rupture between the Spanish Court and the reigning pope,
Sixtus IV. Isabella, though so ready to submit herself in matters of
personal religion to the pope and his legates, refused, like her later
namesake of England, to bate one jot of her ecclesiastical rights; and
the pope had to give way, contenting himself with the barren power of
appointing those nominated by the sovereigns of the land. But if the
sovereign was jealous of his rights, no less so were the barons of
theirs, and when in the war of the barons with Henry IV. (1454-1474),
the papal legate threw his influence on to the king's side, and
excommunicated the rebellious barons, they firmly answered that "those
who had advised the pope that he had a right to interfere in the
temporal concerns of Castile had deceived him; and that they, the barons
of the kingdom, had a perfect right to depose their sovereign on
sufficient grounds, and meant to exercise it."[2]
A similarly independent spirit shewed itself in Aragon. In 1213 Pedro
II. died fighting against the papal persecutor of the Albigensians, and
down to the time of Charles V., the princes of Aragon were at open
enmity with the Roman See,[3] and the Aragonese strenuously resisted the
establishment of the Inquisition.[4]
[1] Prescott, "Ferd. and Isab.," p. 15.
[2] Prescott, p. 72. Cp. the charter of Aragon, whereby the
king, if he violated the charter of the realm, might be
deposed, and any other _Pagan_ or Christian substituted.
_Ibid_, p. 23.
[3] Lockhart, Introduction to Spanish ballads, p. 9. (Chandos
Classics.)
[4] Prescott, "Ferd. and Isab.," p. 26, n.
That fatal instrument of religious bigotry, the cause of more unmerited
suffering and more unmixed evil than any other devised by man, whereby
more innocent people passed through the fire than were perhaps ever
sacrificed at the altar of Moloch, was first put into action in
September 1480, during the reign of the pious and noble-minded
Isabella.[1] The festival of Epiphany in the following year was selected
as an appropriate date for the manifestation of the first auto da fe,
when six Jews were burnt at Seville; for it was against that unfortunate
people that this inhuman persecution was devised, or at least first
used. That one year witnessed the martyrdom of 2000 persons, and the
infliction on 17,000 others of punishments only less than death itself.
During the administration of Thomas of Torquemada, which lasted eighteen
years, more than 10,000 persons perished at the stake, nearly 100,000
were, as the phrase went, reconciled.[2] The confiscation of property
which accompanied all this burning and imprisoning brought in enormous
sums into the coffers of the Inquisitors.
The Jews being burnt, converted, or expelled the country, the
Inquisition was turned upon the wretched Moriscoes, as the Moors under
Christian government were called, who were oppressed and persecuted in
the same way as the Jews, and finally driven from Spain.
But a more important conquest than these--more important, that is, to
the supremacy of the Roman See--was the undoubted conquest achieved by
the Inquisition over the reforming doctrines which in the sixteenth
century began to find their way into Spain from Germany and England.
Finding a congenial soil, the reformation began to spread in Spain with
wonderful rapidity. The divines sent by Charles V. into England were
themselves converted, and returned full of zeal for the Protestant
faith--"Their success," says Geddes,[3] "was such that had not a speedy
and full stop been put to their pious labours by the merciless
Inquisition, the whole kingdom of Spain had in all likelihood been
converted to the Protestant religion, in less time than any other
country had ever been before."[4] So untrue is it to say that
persecution always fails of its object! In Spain it has riveted the
fetters, which the weakness and superstition of the earlier kings of
Leon and Castile, together with the piety and misdirected enthusiasm of
Isabella, placed upon a proud and once peculiarly independent people.
Plunged in the depths of ignorance and imbecility, social, religious,
and political, Spain affords a melancholy but instructive spectacle to
the nations.
[1] The inquisitional code was drawn up in 1233, and introduced
into Spain, 1242. Prescott.
[2] Prescott, "Ferd. and Isab.," p. 146.
[3] Miscell. Tracts. Pref. to "Spanish Martyrs," pp. 1, ff.
[4] Geddes, Pref. to "Spanish Martyrs," p. 3, 4, quotes a
Romanist author, who says: "the number of converts was so great
that had the stop which was put to that evil been delayed but
two or three months longer, I am persuaded that all Spain had
been put into a flame by them."
LIST OF AUTHORITIES CONSULTED.
I. ORIGINAL AUTHORITIES:--
A. Arab (in translations):
(1.) _Ibn abd el Hakem._ "History of the Conquest of Spain." with notes
by J.H. Jones, Ph.D., 1858. This work only goes down to 743.
(2.) _J.A. Conde._ "History of the Domination of the Arabs in Spain,"
translated from the Spanish by Mrs Foster. 3 vols. Bohn, 1854. The
author (Preface, p. 2) says that "he has compiled his work from Arabian
memorials and writings in such sort that those documents may be read as
they were written;" (p. 18), "The student of history may read this book
as written by an Arabic author."
Older writers used to speak very highly of this work, but their modern
successors cannot find a good word for it.[1] De Gayangos, the learned
translator of the Arabic history of Al Makkari, though not blind to the
"unmethodical arrangement of the whole work, the absence of notes and
citations of authorities, and the numerous errors and
contradictions,"[2] yet does not hesitate to call Conde's book the
foundation of all our knowledge of the history of Mohammedan Spain. It
certainly is astonishing that Conde, who points out[3] the errors of his
predecessors, makes precisely the same kind of mistakes himself, not
only once, but constantly. Claiming to be above all things faithful to
his authorities, he is found, where those authorities can be identified,
not to be faithful.
[1] Stanley Lane-Poole, Preface to "Moors in Spain" (1887).
Dozy, Preface to "Mussulmans in Spain," p. 6: "Conde ... qui
manquait absolumment de sens historique."
[2] As to these he might plead Al Makkari's excuse, that in
transcribing or extracting the accounts of different historians
some facts are sure to be repeated, and others entirely
contradicted. See Al Makk., i. p. 29.
[3] Pref., p. 13 ff.
(3.) _J.C. Murphy._ "History of the Mahometan Empire in Spain," with
additions by Professor Shakespear, 1816. This work is based on
Mohammedan sources, those, namely, which are mostly to be found in Al
Makkari's compilation. The concluding chapters on the influence,
scientific and literary, exercised by the Arabs in Europe, are
exhaustive and interesting.
(4.) _Ahmed ibn Mohammed Al Makkari_. "History of the Mohammedan
Dynasties in Spain," being an extract from a larger work by that author,
translated by Pascual de Gayangos. 2 vols. London, 1840. This work,
which Dozy finds fault with for certain inaccuracies, is on the whole
very trustworthy, and its notes form a perfect mine of information for
the student wandering helplessly among the mazes of Arab history. Al
Makkari, a native of Africa, flourished at the beginning of the
seventeenth century; but he quotes from many old Arabic writers, whose
evidence is most valuable. Among these are--
[Greek: a.] _Abu Bekr Mohammed ibn Omar, Ibn al Kuttiyah_, descended
from the grand-daughter of Witiza; died, 877.
[Greek: b.] _Ahmed ibn Mohammed ibn Musa Arrazi_, flourished in the
reign of Abdurrahman III.
[Greek: g.] _Ibn Ghalib Temam ibn Ghalib_, of Cordova; died, 1044.
[Greek: d.] _Abu Mohammed Ali ibn Ahmed ibn Said ibn Hazm_, born at
Cordova, 994; died, 1064.
[Greek: e.] _Abu Merwan Hayyan ibn Khalf ibn Huseyn ibn Hayyan,_ born at
Cordova, 1006.
[Greek: z.] _Abul Kasim Khalf ibn Abdilmalik ibn Mesud ibn Musa Al
Anssari_, Cordova, 1101-1183.
[Greek: e.] _Abul hasan Ali ibn Musa ibn Mohammed ibn Abdalmalik ibn
Said_ of Granada, 1214-1286.
[Greek: th.] _Abu Zeyd Abdurrahman ibn Mohammed ibn Khaldun. Ishbili,_
born at Tunis, 1332; died, 1406.
B. Christian (in Latin). These are to be found in--
(1.) _Schott's_ "Hispania Illustrata," 3 vols. Frankfort, 1603.
(2.) _Florez,_ "Espana Sagrada," 26 vols., containing a most useful
collection of Spanish writers, together with much information about
them, written in Spanish.
(3.) _Migne's_ "Patrologia," Latin and Greek, a most invaluable
collection in several score volumes. The following is a list of those
consulted:--
([Greek: a].) _Isidore of Beja_, "Epitome Imperatorum vel Arabum
Ephemerides atque Hispaniae Chronographia," being a continuation of the
Chronicle of Isidore of Seville.
Sidenote: Migne, xcvi pp.1246-1280.
([Greek: b].) Chronicon _Sebastiani_, "Salmanticensis Episcopi," 866.
(Conde, Pref., p. 7, says 672-886.)
Sidenote: _Ibid._, cxxix. pp. 1111-1124.
([Greek: g].) Chronicon _Albeldense_, 866-976. (Conde, _ibid._, says to
973.) This is also called Chronicon Emilianense. It was perhaps begun by
Dulcidius, Bishop of Salamanca, and carried on by the monk Vigila.
Sidenote: _Ibid._ 1146.
([Greek: d].) Chronicon _Sampiri_ "Asturicensis Episcopi" (written about
1000), 869-982.
Sidenote: Florez, "Esp. Sagr.," xiv. 438-457.
([Greek: e].) _Chronicon regum Legionensium_, 982-1109, by Pelagius,
Bishop of Oviedo--a very doubtful authority, and branded with the
epithet "fabulosus."
Sidenote: _Ibid._, pp. 466-475.
([Greek: z].) Chronicon _Silensis_ Monachi, written _circa_ 1100.
Sidenote: _Ibid._, xvii. 270-330.
([Greek: e].) _Lucas of Tuy_, "Chronicon Mundi," written _circa_ 1236.
Sidenote: Schott, iv. 1-116.
([Greek: th].) _Alfonso_, Bishop of Burgos, "Anacephalaiosis rerum
Hispanarum," etc.
Sidenote: _Ibid._, i. 246-291.
([Greek: i].) _Luitprand_, died 972. The Chronicon and Adversaria
attributed to him are by a later hand, and extend over the years
606-960. The author of these is generally called the Pseudo-Luitprand,
and very little credit can be placed in his statements.
Sidenote: Migne, cxxxvi. pp. 770-1179.
([Greek: k].) _Rodrigo_, Archbishop of Toledo, "History of the Arabs
from Christian and Arabic Sources, carried down to 1140." He died in
1245. The work is full of irrelevant references to Scripture and to
profane history. He does not even mention the Christian martyrdoms in
the ninth century.
Sidenote: Schott, "Hisp. Illustr.," i. pp. 121-246
([Greek: l].) _Annales Bertiniani_, from the French point of view.
Sidenote: Florez, x. 570-579.
([Greek: m].) _Johannes Vasaeus_, "Hispaniae Chronicon."
Sidenote: Schott, i. 700 ff.
The above writers must not be regarded as of equal value. Some are
valuable, but all are meagre to the last degree; others are nearly
worthless.
Other authorities there are of a different kind--not historians, but
writers on incidental subjects, whose works throw great light on the
history of the time. Among these are--
(_a._) _Elipandus_, Bishop of Toledo; died 810. Letters--
Sidenote: Migne, xcvi.
to Migetius.
Sidenote: pp. 859-867.
to Charles the Great.
Sidenote: pp. 867-869.
to Albinus (Alcuin).
Sidenote: pp. 870-882.
to Fidelis, an abbot (783).
Sidenote: pp. 918,919.
(_b_.) _Felix_, Bishop of Urgel; died 816. Confessio fidei (799).
Sidenote: Migne, xcvi. pp. 882-888.
(_c_.) _Beatus_, Priest of Libana (or Astorga). Letter to Elipandus.
Sidenote: " 894-1030.
(_d_.) _Letters of Spanish Bishops_ to Bishops of Gaul.
Sidenote: _Ibid._, ci. 1321-1331.
(_e_.) _Alcuin_. Letters--
Sidenote: _Ibid._, c. and ci.
Ad Felicem haereticum (793).
Ad Elipandum.
Ad Carolum Magnum (800), sending his work against Felix.
Epistle XC. (800),
Epistle CXIII. (800).
Ad Aquilam Pontificem (800).
Books--
Adversus Felicis haeresin ad abbates et monachos.
Gothiae missus (libellus), vii. books.
Adversus Elipandum, iv. books.
Epistola ad Leidradum et Nefridium Episcopum.
Altera ad eosdem.
(_f._) _Adrian_, Pope.
Sidenote: _Ibid._, xcviii. p. 373.
Epistola Episcopis per universam Spaniam commorantibus
directa, maxime tamen Elipando, vel Ascarico (785).
Ad Egilam Episcopum (in Spania) seu Johannem presbyterum
(782).
Sidenote: _Ibid._, p. 336.
Ad Carolum Magnum. Epistle lxiv.
(_g_.) Letter from _Louis the Debonnaire_ to the Christians of Merida
(826).
Sidenote: Florez, xiii. 416.
(_h_.) _Etdogius_, priest of Cordova, and bishop-designate of Toledo.
Died 859.
Sidenote: Migne, cxv. 703-966.
Letter to Alvar, sending his book.
"Documentum Martyrii," dedicated to Flora and Maria, Virgins
and Martyrs, Oct. 851.
Letter to Alvar: another letter to the same, sending "Memorialis
Sanctorum Liber," 3 books.
"Liber Apologeticus Martyrum" (857).
"De Vita et Passione SS. Virginum Florae et Mariae."
(_i_.) _Alvar_, Paulus,[1] of Cordova, and, according to his letters,
both of Jewish birth and Gothic lineage. Died, 869, according to the
Pseudo-Luitprand.
Sidenote: Florez, "Esp. Saagr.", xi.
[1] Robertson says Peter.
Confessio.
Sidenote: pp. 62-81.
Letter to John of Seville,
Sidenote: " 81-88.
To the Same.
Sidenote: " 88-91.
To John of Seville.
Sidenote: " 101-129.
To the Same.
Sidenote: " 129-141.
To Speraindeo.
Sidenote: "Florez, "Esp. Sagr.," xi. pp. 147,148.
To Romanus, a doctor (860).
Sidenote: " 151-156.
To Saul of Cordova.
Sidenote: " 164-165.
To the Same.
Sidenote: " 167-171.
To Eleazar, a transgressor.
Sidenote: " 171-177.
To the Same.
Sidenote: " 178-189.
To the Same.
Sidenote: " 189-217.
To the Same.
Sidenote: " 218-219.
To Eulogius.
Sidenote: " 291-292.
To Eulogius.
Sidenote: " 296-299.
Life of Eulogius.
Sidenote: _Ibid._, x. 593 ff.
Indiculus Luminosus, so called because "Luminasse quae sequenda
sunt docet, et apertis indiciis hostem ecclesiae, quem
omnis vitare Christianitas debet, ostendit."
Sidenote: _Ibid._, xi. 219-275.[1]
[1] Ascribed by Luitprand, sec. 309, to Bonitus, Bishop of
Toledo. Morales doubts Alvar's authorship, from there being no
mention of Eulogius; but see sec. 19, where _praesul_ is spoken
of.
(_k_.) _John of Seville_.
Letter to Alvar.
Sidenote: Florez, xi. pp. 91-101.
To the Same.
Sidenote: _Ibid._, 142-147.
(_l_.) _Speraindeo_, Abbot, flourished 820.
Letter to Alvar (853).
Sidenote: _Ibid._, 148-151.
(_m_.) _Saul_ of Cordova.
Letter to other Bishops.
Sidenote: _Ibid._, xi. pp. 156-164.
To the Same.
Sidenote: " 165-167.
(_n_.) _Eleazar_, an apostate to Judaism.
Letter to Alvar.
Sidenote: " 177-178.
To the Same.
Sidenote: " 189, 190.
To the Same.
Sidenote: " 217, 218.
(_o_.) _Leovigildus_, priest of Cordova, flourished 860. "De habitu
Clericorum."
Sidenote: Migne, cxxi. p. 565.
(_p_.) _Cyprianus_, arch-priest of Cordova. "Epigrammata." Sidenote:
_Ibid._, p. 567.
(_q_.) _Samson_, priest of St Zoilus at Cordova, Abbot of the Monastery
of Pegnamellar, died 890. (See Epigram or Epitaph of Cyprianus.)
"Apologeticus Liber contra perfidos" (Jan. 1, 863).
(_r_.) _Jonas Aurelianensis_. "De cultu imaginum." An Answer to
Claudius, Bishop of Turin (842).
Sidenote: Florez, xi. 300-516.
(_s_.) _De Translatione SS. Martyrum Georgii_ Monachi, Aurelii et
Nathaliae ex urbe Cordubae Parisios auctore _Aimoino_ monacho: from
Usuard and Odilard, monks.
Sidenote: Migne, cxv. pp. 939 ff.
(_t_.) _Vita Johannis Abbatis Gorziensis_ (died 973), by John, Abbot of
St Arnulph.
Sidenote: _Ibid._, cxxxvii. pp. 239-310.
(_u_.) _John of Cirita_, Abbot of Tharauca, in Spain.
Sidenote: _Ibid._, clxxxviii. pp. 1661-1671.
(_v_.) _Life of St Rudesindus._
Sidenote: Florez, xviii. 379 ff.
(_w._) _Passio St Nicholai Alsamae_ regis filii et sociorum martyrum qui
passi sunt apud Ledesmam. A purely fabulous account.
Sidenote: Florez, xiv., 392.
(_x._) _Vita et passio B. Virginis Argenteae_ et comitum eius qui passi
sunt Cordobae, Id. Maii.
Sidenote: Florez.
(_y._) _Life of Beatus_, by an anonymous author. Not very
trustworthy,--_e.g._, death of Elipandus placed in 798 (sec. 8):
mythical council mentioned (sec. 7).
Sidenote: Migne, xcvi. 890-894
And the following _Charters_, etc.:--
Of Alfonso III. to the Church of Auria, 826.
Sidenote: Florez, xvii. 244.
Of the same to the Church of Mindumnetum, 867.
Sidenote: _Ibid._, xviii. 312.
Of Bermudo II. (982-999) to the Church of Compostella.
Sidenote: _Ibid._, xvii. 397.
Assembly of Bishops pro restauratione monasterii St Mariae de Logio a
parentibus Rudesindi instaurati, 927.
Sidenote: _Ibid._, xvii. 326
II. SECONDARY AUTHORITIES:--
(1.) "Histoire generale d'Espagne" par _Loys de Mayerne Turguet_. Book
xvi. (1608.)
Sidenote: Schott.
(2.) _John de Mariana_.[1] "History of Spain." Books vi.-xi., translated
from the Spanish by John Stevens. (1699.)
[1] Dr Dunham says of his work: "It is well that it is sunk in
oblivion. No one reads it in Spain."
(3.) _Fleury_, "History of the Church," translated from the French.
(1727.) Vol. v. Books xli. ff.
(4.) _Morales_. "Remarks on the State of the Christian Religion under
the Arabs at Cordova."
Sidenote: Migne, cxv. p. 917.
(5.) _Froben_. "Dissertatio Historica de haeresi Elipandi et Felicis."
Sidenote: _Ibid._, 305-336.
(6.) _Enhueber's_ "Dissertation against Walchius' view of Adoptionism."
Sidenote: _Ibid._, 338-438.
(7.) _Dunham_. "History of Spain and Portugal" (Lardner), 1832. Buckle,
"Civilization in England," p. 430, says of this history, very
extravagantly, that it is "perhaps the best history in the English
language of a foreign modern country." It certainly has the merit--no
small one in so confused a period--of being clear and succinct; but he
has a bias against the Moors.
(8.) _W.H. Prescott_. "Ferdinand and Isabella." An excellent work. The
parts chiefly bearing on the present subject are the Introduction and
chapter viii. The great drawback to the work is the want of direct
citations of authorities used.
(9.) _Hardwicke's_ "History of the Christian Church in the Middle Ages,"
1853.
(10.) The Abbe _Rohrbacher_. "Histoire Universelle de l'Eglise
Catholique." Paris, 1844. Vols. xi., xii., xiii.
(11.) _Neander_. "General History of the Christian Religion and Church"
(Bohn's Translation). Vol. v. pp. 218-233, 461-475; vol. vi. 119-132.
(12.) "Histoire d'Afrique et de l'Espagne sous la domination des
Arabes," par _M. Cardonne_. 3 vols., 1765. A history based chiefly on
Arab writers, but not very trustworthy, as Conde (Pref., p. 14) and
Murphy (notes, passim) have shown.
(13.) _Dozy_. "Histoire des Mussulmans d'Espagne jusqu' a la conquete de
l'Andalousie par les Almoravides, 711-1110." 4 vols., Leyden, 1861. An
invaluable history of the time, being both lucid and thorough.
(14.) _E.A. Freeman_. "History and Conquests of the Saracens." Six
lectures (ed. 1870). Spanish affairs are treated rather as a [Greek:
parergon] in Lecture v. An unprejudiced and accurate writer, with a
strong bias, however, against chivalry (see Lecture v., p. 182).
(15.) _Ockley_. "History of the Saracen Empire" (Reprint in
the Chandos Classics).
(16.) _Gibbon_. The parts relating to the Saracens are conveniently
reprinted in the "Chandos Classics."
(17.) _Robertson's_ "History of the Christian Church." Vol. iii.
(18.) _Milman's_ "Latin Christianity." Bk. ix.
(19.) _Stanley_. "Lectures on the Eastern Church." Lect.
viii.
(20.) _Hallam's_ "Middle Ages." Vol. iii. (Chivalry).
(21.) _Geddes_. Expulsion of the Moriscoes, in his Miscellaneous Tracts.
1730. Also Account of MSS. and Relics found at Granada in 1588; and View
of Court of Inquisition in Portugal.
(22.) _Lecky's_ "Rise and Influence of Rationalism in Europe."
2 vols.
(23.) _Buckle_. "History of Civilisation in England," chap. viii.
"Spanish Intellect from Fifth to Nineteenth Centuries." Vol. ii. pp.
425-597.
(24.) _Carlyle_. "Hero Worship. The Hero as Prophet."
(25.) _C.M. Yonge_. "Christians and Moors in Spain." "Golden Treasury"
Series. 1878. Obscure in method, and often inaccurate in facts. To give
one instance only out of many--The authoress says (p. 29), that Ali, the
son-in-law of the Prophet rebelled and died in battle. It is well known
(Gibbon, vi. 274, 276) that he did neither.
(26.) _R. Bosworth Smith._ "Mohammed and Mohammedanism." 1874. A
brilliant, but essentially unfair book, Christianity being extolled in
theory, but sneered at in practice. We are too forcibly reminded of
"Brutus is an honourable man." His own accusation of others falls upon
himself. P. 61, he says--"Most other writers have approached the subject
only to prove a thesis. Mohammed was to be either a hero or an impostor:
they have held a brief for the prosecution or the defence."
(27.) _S. Lane-Poole._ "The Moors in Spain." "Story of the Nations"
Series. 1887. A clever and popular compilation from De Gayangos'
translation of Al Makkari, Dozy, Southey's "Chronicle of the Cid," and
Washington Irving's "Granada."
(28.) _Blunt._ "Dictionary of Sects, Heresies, and Schools of Thought."
1874. The articles on Mohammedanism, the Adoptionists, and others I have
found very useful. There is, however, nothing said of the
Priscillianists (of Spain), or the Druses.
(29.) _Hughes._ "Dictionary of Islam."
(30.) _The Koran._ Sale's edition.
(31.) _Encyclopaedia Metropolitana._ Vol. xi.
(32.) _Encyclopaedia Britannica._ Article on Averroes.
III. POETRY:--
(_a._) _Lockhart's_ "Spanish Ballads." 1823. Reprint, with Introduction,
in the "Chandos Classics."
(_b._) _Southey's_ "Chronicle of the Cid." Reprinted, with Introduction,
in the "Chandos Classics." A truly admirable
translation.
(_c._) _Southey's_ "Roderic," with many interesting notes.
(_d._) _Scott's_ "Don Roderic."
IV. REFERRED TO:--
(_a._) _Romey._ "Histoire D'Espagne." 1839. 4 vols.
(_b._) _Reinaud._ "Invasion des Sarrasins." 1836.
(_c._) _Moshieim._ "Institutes of Ecclesiastical History." Translated
by Murdoch. 1845.
PRINTED BY
TURNBULL AND SPEARS,
EDINBURGH.