A.D. 1100-1200.
THE CRUSADES.—JEWS IN FRANCE, SPAIN, GERMANY, AND HUNGARY.
‘Death to the infidel. It is the will of God!’ Such was the cry
that rang through Europe—‘Death to the Moslem, whose unhallowed
shrine overshadows the holy place, in which the Saviour Himself has
worshipped, whose blasphemies awake the same echoes which His Divine
preaching once called forth!’ Yes. But were these the only shrines
where false worship was offered? were they in Jerusalem the only ones
who blasphemed the Lord? If the slaughter of the unbelieving Turk was
acceptable to the Most High, why not that of the unbelieving Jew?
It was strange that this peril should not have been dreaded by the
Jews dwelling in the lands which the mania called forth by Peter the
Hermit overspread. But it does not seem to have done so; they made no
attempt to escape from the approaching danger. They even continued
the ordinary course of their business, making the same enormous gains
out of the Crusaders’ necessities, which they had done out of every
other political movement for generations past. The great baron, who
had vowed to lead his hundreds, or it might be his thousands, of
armed followers to the rescue of the Holy Sepulchre, mortgaged his
lands, or his jewels, or perhaps sold them outright, to the Jews, on
such terms as we can hardly believe that the one could have asked or
the other agreed to. Poorer men parted with their all on the like
terms. But that there were some shrewd men left among the Christians,
who were not carried away by the tide of popular excitement, the
whole wealth of the community would have passed into the hands of the
Jews. It is needless to add that the bitter feelings towards this
isolated race—who were for ever battening on the wants and sufferings
of others—were greatly aggravated by these proceedings, and it was
not long before this burst out into a flame.
All over Northern France and Germany, the Jews seem to have been
numerous at this time; but in what is now Rhenish Prussia, and along
the banks of the Moselle, they were to be found in the greatest
abundance. It was near the city of Treves that the first vast
multitude of undisciplined fanatics assembled, under the leadership
of Walther von Habenicht and Peter the Hermit. As they set forth,
under the guidance of a goat and a goose, to find their way to the
Holy Land, a cry was suddenly raised, doubtless by some enemy of
the Jews, that while they were marching to destroy the enemies of
the Lord Jesus in Palestine, they were leaving unassailed at home
those who were not only His enemies, but His murderers—the Jews! The
cry was instantly caught up, the frantic crowd rushed into Treves,
and began a general pillage of the Jews’ houses, and a massacre
of their occupants. Taken by surprise, the authorities offered
no interference; indeed, no interference they could have offered
would have been of the slightest avail. The unhappy Jews, equally
unprepared, could neither resist nor escape. Scenes too shocking
for description ensued. Women tied heavy weights round their necks,
and threw themselves into the rivers to avoid the last dishonour.
Men slew their own children, to save them from the tortures to
which they would be subjected; their own lives they yielded up in
despairing silence. Some fled to the citadel, hoping to be protected
against the violence of their assailants; but the Bishop of Treves
received them with threats and reproaches, refusing to interfere in
their behalf, unless they would accept baptism. The same scenes took
place in Cologne, Worms, Spires, and Mayence. Everywhere the only
hope of escape from torture and death was baptism; except, indeed,
where a heavy bribe had been paid for episcopal protection, or where,
as at Spires, the Jews armed themselves and sold their lives dearly.
The tide of murder rolled on, sweeping the shores of the Maine and
the Danube, the same scenes being everywhere repeated. In Bavaria,
it is said that as many as 12,000 Jews were slaughtered. The Emperor
Henry IV. seems to have been the only potentate whom these atrocities
struck with horror. He issued a decree, repairing, so far as was
possible, the wrongs that had been done, and forbidding them for the
future. But, for the most part, the historians of those times relate
the horrors that took place with a _sangfroid_ which speaks volumes
as to the light in which they were regarded by those who witnessed
them.
But the three mighty hosts, led by Peter and his two colleagues,
passed on and perished, and the exhaustion succeeded which such a
drain on the population must necessarily occasion. It was not until
half the twelfth century had passed away that the crusading mania
was again roused. Then a fanatic monk, named Rodolph, commenced
a mission through the German cities, calling on all men, by the
watchword ‘Hep, Hep’ (the initials of the words _Hierosolyma est
perdita_) to assist in slaying and crushing the enemies of God. The
Jews knew too well, by past experience, that they were included under
this latter term, and many effected a timely retreat. Nevertheless,
a frightful carnage took place in Strasburg, Mayence, and the other
Rhine cities, encouraged, unhappily, by too many of the clergy. It
is like a bright gleam of sunshine on a dark November day, to read
the protest addressed by the saintly Bernard of Clairvaulx, to his
brother clergy against the blind and savage spirit by which Rodolph
was possessed.[103]
‘The Jews,’ he writes, ‘ought not to be persecuted; they ought not to
be put to death, they ought not to be driven into banishment. What
says the Scripture? “Slay them not, lest My people forget.” The Jews
are living monuments to remind us of the sufferings of the Lord.
Therefore it is that they are scattered.... Therefore they endure a
hard bondage under Christian princes; yet, in the eventide of the
world, they will be converted, and He will remember them. Addressing
Rodolph himself, he says, ‘You are of another mind from Him who said,
“Put up thy sword into the sheath, for he that taketh the sword shall
perish with the sword.” Does not the Church triumph more gloriously
over the Jews when she refutes and converts them, than if she slew
them with the edge of the sword?’ It is satisfactory also to learn
that Pope Eugenius III. advocated the same view, and that Rodolph was
ordered back to his convent, though not before he had occasioned the
most terrible crimes and sufferings.
But the condition of the Jews grew no better, but rather worse, as
the century advanced. The calumny—whether it was the revival of
an ancient accusation against the Jews, or one newly invented at
this period—of crucifying boys at their Passover, in mockery of the
Saviour’s passion, was widely diffused and credited. It was reported
that, about A.D. 1180, during the youth of Philip Augustus, they had
in this manner murdered one Richard, a youth belonging to Pontoise;
and, in confirmation of the truth of the story, the body, when it
was conveyed to Paris, worked many miracles. Philip had no sooner
ascended his throne than he put forth an edict, A.D. 1182, whereby
all debts due to Jews were annulled, and all pledges held by them
were to be restored to the original owners. Not satisfied with this
display of somewhat cheap generosity, he made a second proclamation,
confiscating all their property which was not removable, and
commanding them to sell everything else belonging to them, and depart
from his dominions. In vain they appealed for mercy. King and nobles
and bishops alike closed their ears. The twofold offence of holding
heretical opinions and mortgages on estates was not to be forgiven.
It will readily be credited that at the enforced sale of their goods
the prices bidden were of the lowest. The unhappy Jews were compelled
to depart, amid the execrations of the populace, from the homes in
which their whole lives had been passed, carrying with them little
but their wives and children. It was not enough that they had been,
by the most high-handed injustice, stripped of their possessions;
they were not to be allowed to remain in the land where the wrong had
been done, and so remind the doers of their crime!
It will surprise no one to be told that their removal did not
increase the wealth or relieve the public burdens of the nation.
It was found that the expulsion of the Jews was, as Fouché said of
the murder of the Duke d’Enghien, ‘more than a crime, for it was a
blunder.’ Within twenty years Philip found it necessary to issue
a new edict, permitting their return. But it _does_ occasion our
wonder to hear that the Jews consented to the step. It speaks volumes
for the depth of the misery to which they had been reduced, that
they could be prevailed on to trust themselves again to the justice
and mercy of a king who had so flagrantly proved his disregard of
both.[104] Not long after their return, we are told that they held
an assembly by permission of the Queen’s mother, at a castle on the
Seine. Here the old charge of scourging, crucifying, and crowning
with thorns a youth whom they had seized was once more alleged
against them. Philip repaired in person to the spot, where he
condemned eighty of the accused to be burned alive.[105]
In Spain, during this century, the Jews were still equitably dealt
with, though there were signs of the change of feeling towards them
which was gradually taking possession of the public mind. For this
two causes may be assigned. In the first place, the power of the
Mahometans, who had always been the protectors of the Jews, was fast
waning; and the Christian sovereigns no longer dreaded the enmity
of the Jews, who in previous generations might have been dangerous
allies to their rivals. In the second, the downfall of the Ommiad
Caliphs, who had uniformly been just and generous in their dealings
with the Jews, proved most disastrous to them. The Almohades,
who, A.D. 1150, superseded them, were fierce and bloody fanatics,
inclined to force the faith of Islam on all with whom they came in
contact. One of the first edicts of Abdel-Mumen, the founder of the
dynasty, required all his subjects, of whatsoever creed, to profess
Mahometanism. The usual consequences followed. Many Jews went into
voluntary exile; many more made an outward profession of their
persecutor’s creed, still secretly retaining their own. The happy
days of the Spanish Jews were over. Moorish rule was ended.
In the Christian kingdom, however, justice and right still prevailed.
The royal authority was uniformly exerted for the protection of
peaceable and unoffending men. But there were occasions on which this
power proved insufficient to restrain the violence of the people, who
had probably learned from their neighbours to regard the Jews with
disfavour. Thus, a riot occurred at Toledo, A.D. 1108, instigated,
in all likelihood, by the crusaders, who were just on the point of
setting out for Palestine. The populace, under the usual pretext of
slaying the enemies of Christ, attacked and burned the houses of the
Jews, wrecked the synagogues, immolating the Rabbins, as it were, on
their own altars, and made a general massacre of the common people.
Alphonso tried in vain, first to repress, and then to punish, the
offenders.
But this occurrence, shocking as it was, was a mere temporary
outburst of popular fury. It was not repeated, not even in the reign
of his descendant, Alphonso VIII., in 1171, when, above all other
times, a Jewish massacre might have been looked for. This king
had become deeply enamoured of a beautiful Jewess, named Rachel
Fermosa. For her society he neglected his queen, and withdrew himself
from public business. Grave misfortunes ensued: his forces were
defeated at Alarcos, and the kingdom menaced by the hostility of
the neighbouring states. The people believed that these calamities
were due, not to the bad administration of public affairs, but to
the indignation of Heaven at the king’s unhallowed affection for an
unbeliever. Their jealousy was also roused by the favour shown to
her countrymen. A rebellion broke out, the rioters burst into the
king’s palace, and assassinated Fermosa before the eyes of her lover.
But they satisfied themselves with her death, and did not molest the
Jewish favourites whom she had patronized.
Alphonso IX. showed even greater favour to the Jews than had been
bestowed on them by his predecessors. Innocent III. repeated in
his instance the charge which Gregory VII. had brought against his
ancestor, ‘of elevating the Synagogue at the cost of the Church.’
He relieved both Jews and Moors, we are told, from the payment of
tithes, and allowed them to hold landed property,—a rare privilege
in those days. One of his laws—which allowed a Jew, in the event of
one of his slaves being converted to Christianity, to claim, at the
hands of the person who had converted him whatever indemnity he
might think proper—seems to be as unfair to the Christians as the
legislation of those times usually was to the Jews.
In Hungary, Germany, and Bohemia, their condition, during the period
we have under consideration, appears to have been prosperous.
Ladislas, King of Hungary, convened, we are told, a Synod in 1092,
in which various regulations relating to the Jews were made. It
was ordered that if a Jew bought a Christian slave of either
sex, the slave should be set at liberty, and the price paid for
him confiscated to the bishop. His son Coloman re-enacted this
prohibition against the use of Christian slaves, but permitted the
Jews to purchase and cultivate lands, on condition of employing
Jewish or pagan labour, and settling in such places only as were
under the jurisdiction of a bishop. These laws prove that the Jews
must have been both a numerous and wealthy part of the population.
In Germany and Bohemia they had many stately synagogues, particularly
in the great towns, and were not interfered with by the government.
Nevertheless, they did not escape persecution. A fanatic priest,
named Gotesel, incited a band of lawless ruffians, amounting in
number to fifteen thousand, to attack the Jews; and he was supported,
it is believed, in secret, by persons high in authority. He plundered
the property of the Jews, outraged their women, and massacred the
men all over Franconia. He then entered Hungary, and commenced
perpetrating the like atrocities; when he was attacked and slain,
together with the greater part of his followers. Soon afterwards
the Landgrave of Leiningen declared in like manner a religious war
against the Jews, and having assembled a body of troops, committed
great havoc among them, pursuing them at last, like his predecessor,
into Hungary; where, like his predecessor again, he was defeated and
slain.[106]
In Russia, early in the twelfth century (A.D. 1113), there was a
savage outbreak in the city of Kief, against the Jews. The same cry
seems to have been raised which has so frequently been heard in other
lands, their accumulation of wealth, at the cost, it was supposed, of
their neighbours. The merciful Vladimir, who succeeded to the throne,
tried to protect them, but could only do so by assenting to their
expulsion from Russia. This was their first, and their longest, term
of banishment from any European country. They were not allowed to
return for 600 years.
During this period lived Solomon, called Rashi, or as it is more
commonly written, Jarchi. He was the most renowned of the many
commentators on the Talmud. It is said that no edition of that work
has appeared since his time which had not his commentary appended to
it. He was born A.D. 1040, and died A.D. 1105.
FOOTNOTES:
[103] Arnold, Archbishop of Cologne, also did his best to
discountenance the persecutors. He gave them the fortress of
Wolkenstein as a refuge, and they there made an armed and successful
defence.
[104] They were not readmitted without the enactment of several laws
which materially affected their future position. Among others, they
were obliged to wear a distinctive badge; and the persons to whom
they might lend money, the articles they might receive in pledge,
and the amount of interest they might require, were all settled by
statute.
[105] See a full discussion of this charge and its probable origin.
Appendix V.
[106] Rabbi Joseph has given us (vol. i. 30, 35) a long and terrible
picture of the barbarous cruelties inflicted at this period on his
countrymen, in consequence of their refusal ‘to submit to the proud
waters, or enter the House of Error’ (_i.e._, to be baptized, or be
admitted to the Church). Comp. Psalm cxxiv. 4.