A.D. 980-1100.
THE JEWS IN SPAIN.—IN ENGLAND.—THE CRUSADES.
With the downfall of the Carlovingian dynasty, a period of seven
centuries began, during which the Jews underwent the most terrible
wrongs and sufferings in almost every European country. In some
lands persecution showed itself earlier, in others later; in some it
reached a greater height, in others it lasted longer. But several
generations passed before it was displayed in all its horrible
deformity. During the interval we have now under consideration, A.D.
980 to 1100, though acts of injustice and cruelty were occasionally
perpetrated, and a fierce spirit of intolerance manifested—which, it
was but too evident, needed only to be roused by some popular tumult,
to run to the most fearful heights—yet none of the terrible tragedies
were enacted by which the succeeding generations were disgraced.
It is somewhat strange that the first massacre should have occurred
among a people heretofore remarkable, not merely for their toleration
of the Jews, but for the kindness and consideration uniformly shown
them. But in 1068 an insurrection broke out in Granada, during which
1500 families were slaughtered. It had been caused partly by the
pride of Rabbi Joseph, the chief minister of the Moorish king. His
father, Rabbi Samuel, had gained the royal favour by his knowledge
and ability; and at his death the same high office had been continued
to his son. But the latter differed in character from his father,
who had ever shown himself humble-minded and forbearing. The hauteur
and implacable temper of the son raised him up enemies among the
grandees, who were ever on the watch for an occasion to effect his
fall. About the same time a fanatical zealot provoked an insurrection
by attempting to convert the Moorish people of Granada to the Jewish
faith. This is an act forbidden by the laws of every Moslem State,
under penalty of death. The indiscretion was taken advantage of by
the enemies of Joseph. He was assassinated by the insurgents; the
preacher was hanged, and the mob, not satisfied with this revenge,
and doubtless in no way unwilling to despoil the wealthy Jews,
attacked and pillaged their houses, massacring them, as the reader
has heard, to the number probably of seven or eight thousand persons.
Monstrous and barbarous as this outbreak was, it must be allowed that
it was mainly provoked by the Jews themselves; but in what ensued a
few years afterwards at the Court of Ferdinand the First, called the
Great, the aggression was wholly unprovoked. This monarch, who united
under his sway the crowns of Leon and Castile, had resolved on a
religious war for the extirpation of the Moslem power in Spain. But,
before entering on this, he was advised by his queen, Donna Sancha,
that the surest way to call down the blessing of Heaven upon his
enterprise, would be to massacre all the Jews in his dominions! It is
a redeeming feature in the sad history of that time, that the Spanish
bishops interfered, and forbade the massacre on pain of spiritual
penalties, and the reigning Pope, Alexander II., upheld them in their
action. Ferdinand’s successor, Alphonso VI., adopted a totally
different policy. He found himself so hardly pressed by the action
of the Moors in Africa, that the help of the Jews became a matter of
pressing necessity with him.[100] He in consequence not only avoided
all persecuting measures, but bestowed on them so many favours and
privileges, that Pope Alexander’s successor severely censured him for
his policy, which he declared to be ‘a submission of the Church to
the synagogue of Satan.’
At this period we have to mention, as we have not done previously,
the position of the Jews in England. It is a popular mistake to
suppose that they made their appearance there, for the first time,
in the train of William the Norman. Many Jews, no doubt, settled in
England at that time; but others had been resident there, though
probably in scanty numbers, before this date. A canon of Egbert
of York (made A.D. 740) prohibits Christians from taking part in
the Jewish festivals. There is mention of them a hundred years
later in a charter granted to the monks of Croyland. The laws of
Edward the Confessor (A.D. 1041) declare them to be the property
of the sovereign, as was the case at that time in France. But it
was not until the reign of William Rufus that they took any part
in English history. Then we find that that king, who cared little
for religion in any shape, and entertained a bitter dislike to the
clergy, permitted the Jews publicly to uphold their religion in any
way they pleased. Nay, he proclaimed a formal disputation between
the advocates of the rival religions in London, and swore, if the
Rabbins got the better of the Bishops, ‘by St. Luke, he would turn
Jew himself!’ The Jews are said to have claimed the victory, though
we do not hear of the king keeping his vow. At Rouen, afterwards, he
entertained a complaint made by certain Jews, that their children had
been beguiled into professing Christianity, offering at the same
time to pay a handsome sum if the children returned to their ancient
faith. The king took the money, and ordered the converts to abjure
their new profession. Failing in one or two instances to effect this,
we are told he was very unwilling to refund the money paid him.
These incidents, scandalous as doubtless they are, show nevertheless
that the Jews at this time enjoyed immunity from persecution;
unless, indeed, the heavy and lawless exactions made on them by the
Norman kings themselves are to be regarded as acts of persecution.
The property of the Jews was by no means secure from _them_, but
it was secure from all other spoilers. We are told that in London
and York they dwelt in splendid mansions, resembling the castles
of the barons; while in Oxford they possessed three halls for the
education of their youth,—Lombard Hall, Moses Hall, and Jacob Hall;
nor does their presence seem to have been objected to.[101] They had
a cemetery at St. Giles’s, Cripplegate.
But it will now be proper to enter on a consideration of the causes
which led to the renewal of popular bitterness against the Hebrew
race in all the countries of Europe. First among these must be noted
the prevalence of the Feudal System. This singular institution was,
we must allow, in theory, both comprehensive and consistent. The
position and duties of every man were defined, the rights of every
man secured and protected. The serf tilled his feudal superior’s
lands; the freeman fought his battles. Both received in return
maintenance and protection, while from the feudal baron there lay an
appeal to the sovereign. But at the same time we must also allow,
as a matter of fact, that under it the very extremity of lawless
injustice prevailed—that every feudal castle was practically the
stronghold of an arbitrary and irresponsible despot, whose soldiers
executed his pleasure, however iniquitous or barbarous, without
scruple and without remorse. Still, all classes had nominally the
guardians of their rights and interests, with the single exception of
the Jews. The latter could not be feudatories. The law of the land
and the prejudice of the people would not have suffered that; nor
could they be serfs or vassals. They never practised agriculture,
and the noble profession of arms would have been thought disgraced
by their admission to it. Consequently, they had no place in
society, nor were there any to whom they could appeal for justice or
protection, except where they were directly the dependants of the
sovereign himself. But even where this was the case, any attempt to
obtain justice was precarious and perilous. If one of the robber
barons seized a Jew who might be travelling through his domains,
and subjected him to agonizing tortures until he had obtained his
release by paying a large sum of money—there was practically no
remedy. The attempt to obtain it would probably end in twofold loss
and suffering to himself. Any sympathy shown him by the peasantry
or townsfolk would bring, in all likelihood, the vengeance of the
aggressor on them. If they concerned themselves in any way with the
sufferer, it would probably be by following the example set them by
their superiors, and maltreating and plundering him. In this manner
the Jews became the outcasts of society; and all classes of men were
willing enough to adopt the ignorant and rancorous intolerance of the
clergy of the day, who (with some noble exceptions) inveighed against
them as the enemies of Christ, finding in the odium thus cast on them
an excuse for them own lawless rapacity and violence.
Another reason for the general dislike in which they were held was
their wealth, and the manner in which it had been amassed. They were,
as has been already intimated, the only bankers, almost the only
traders, of the day. They had become an absolute necessity of life to
many classes of men. If the sovereign wished to negotiate a marriage,
or embark in a foreign war, a large sum of money was required, which
the Jews alone could supply. The same was the case with the nobles
and land-owners of lesser rank; and even the Christian merchant
could sometimes save his credit only by a timely loan, which was to
be obtained from none but Hebrew coffers. It was affirmed that the
usury exacted for these was inordinate; that the Jews took advantage
of their opportunity to accumulate enormous gains, to the total ruin
of their debtors. The rate of interest demanded was, as a general
rule, extortionate. Yet it should be borne in mind that the monstrous
injustice often shown them, when they were,—on any pretext, or on
no pretext at all,—despoiled of their money, if it did not render
the exaction of these terms necessary to secure to the lender, in
the long run, his fair profit, it did offer a strong temptation for
exaction, and gave him a ready excuse for offering only the hardest
terms to the borrower.[102] Whatever value, however, this argument
may possess, it was utterly disregarded by the enemies of the Jews
in those days, who took into account only two facts—one, that the
Jews demanded an enormous amount of usury, which brought them immense
wealth, and the other, that its payment reduced themselves to poverty.
These influences had been for a long time at work, causing the Jews
to be regarded with ever-increasing disfavour. But it may be doubted
whether they would ever have burst forth into the furious volcano
of persecution which the next generation witnessed, if it had not
been that the element of religious fanaticism was now added to
those already at work. The cry that Christ was dishonoured through
the profanation of the scenes of His birth and crucifixion by the
unhallowed rites of the Infidels, and that it was the bounden duty of
all faithful Christians to wrest the holy places from their grasp,
now resounded through Christendom, and roused an enthusiasm of which
the world had never before beheld the like.
It may surprise us, not that this feeling should have been awakened,
but that it should not have been awakened _before_. Three hundred
and fifty years had elapsed since the conquest of Jerusalem by the
Saracens; and ever since then it had been in the occupation of the
unbelievers. Why was the possession of the Holy City by them a
greater outrage on the feelings of Christian men in one generation
than in another? Or are we to suppose that men were more zealous
for God’s honour in the eleventh than they had been in the seventh
century? No, not so. The causes which provoked the Crusades were
different from these, and they are of importance to us, because they
throw a light on the feeling which simultaneously arose against the
Jews also.
During the first two centuries of the occupation of the Holy City by
the Saracens, the latter had been ruled by the Ommiad or Abasside
Caliphs—men who, for the most part, governed equitably, and were
courteous and tolerant in their dealings with strangers. The number
of pilgrims who visited Palestine was small, and they were uniformly
received with friendliness. But in the tenth century, when the idea
was widely entertained throughout Western Europe that the world was
on the very point of coming to an end, and further, that all who
died in the Holy Land would certainly be saved, the number of those
who travelled thither was greatly multiplied. Those who returned
brought back with them tales of outrage and unprovoked insult, which
everywhere roused indignation. Jerusalem had passed into the hands of
the Turks, a fierce and uncultured race, who had adopted Islamism in
its most fanatic spirit. The murder of men, and the outrages offered
to women, were good deeds in their eyes; and where they abstained
from this extremity of violence, it was only to display their hate
and scorn under some other form. The resentment which these wrongs
called forth had spread through all European countries. The air
was, as it were, everywhere charged with inflammable vapour, and it
needed only the torch which Peter the Hermit had lighted to cause it
to burst forth in one consuming flame. ‘Death to the Infidels. It
is the will of God!’ was the cry that rang throughout Europe. All
men hastened to obey the call. From the king on his throne to the
journeyman in his workshop, they bound the cross on their shoulders,
and went forth to rescue the Holy Land from the profane grasp of the
unbelievers.
This is the age of the five celebrated Talmudists, called ‘the Five
Isaacs,’ all of them bearing that name. They are distinguished as
Isaac of Cordova, of Lucena, of Barcelona, of Pumbeditha, and of Fez.
The Spanish Poet Halevi was born towards the close of this period.
From the middle of the eleventh century, Spain was for four hundred
years the chief seat of Rabbinical learning. The great schools were
at Barcelona, Granada, and Toledo.
To this era also belongs the renowned Solomon Gabriol, poet and
philosopher, author of ‘The Fountain of Life.’ He was born at Malaga,
1021, and died A.D. 1070.
FOOTNOTES:
[100] It was this Alphonso who wrote the singular letter to Yusef,
king of the Almoravides, inviting him to fight a pitched battle
on the ensuing Monday, ‘because,’ he said, ‘Friday would not suit
the Mahometans in his army, or Saturday the Jews, or Sunday the
Christians.’
[101] There appears, indeed, to have been at that time an amount
of toleration which may well surprise us. One Mossey, a Jew of
Wallingford, was wont, we are told, openly to ridicule the miracles
of St. Frideswide. He would crook his fingers as if they were
paralysed, and presently straighten them, or limp like a cripple, and
then suddenly leap or dance, crying out ‘A miracle!’ This was a calm
on the edge of a storm such as has rarely been seen!—‘Rise, Fall, and
Future Restoration of Jews,’ ch. iii.
[102] It is plainly intimated by Bernard of Clairvaulx that there
were Christians (he probably meant Lombard merchants) who exacted
more excessive usury than the Jews themselves.