A.D. 1300-1400.
THE JEWS IN ITALY.
The attentive reader cannot fail to have noticed how scant has been
the mention in these pages of the condition of the Jews in Italy.
Little has been recorded of them, except that under the rule of the
Lombard kings they were uniformly treated with humanity and justice,
and that some few of the popes had issued decrees, advising what in
these times we should regard as stern measures to be adopted for
their conversion, while others forbade any such severities to be
employed. But the silence of history respecting them is in itself
significant, showing that no social convulsions disturbed the order
of their daily lives, no flagrant wrongs and cruelties called out for
mention. This is, at first sight at least, surprising. Considering
that the clergy throughout what are called the Middle Ages were the
persistent adversaries of the Jews, and that Italy was the very
centre and source whence the clergy derived their inspiration, we
should certainly have expected that the Jews of that country would
experience the very extremity of intolerance and harshness. The fact
that they received milder treatment than their neighbours is due to a
variety of causes, which may be briefly touched on.
In the first place, the condition of Italy was different, during
those ages, from that of other European countries. The feudal system,
the source, as we have seen, of so many of the wrongs and miseries
of the Jews, was never so firmly established there as in the other
European countries, and it died out much earlier. The great free
cities exercised an authority of their own, independent of any feudal
superior, and in these the rights of the Jews were maintained almost
as inflexibly as those of the Christians. The continued strife
between Pope and Emperor, Guelf and Ghibelline, so largely engaged
the attention of the Italian nation as to allow them little leisure
to trouble themselves with the affairs of a people who were contented
to live in peace, and whose aid was often found extremely serviceable
by the dominant party. It is certain again, whatever may have been
the reason, that the fanatical spirit which was so easily roused, and
in such fatal excess, in France and Germany, languished and soon died
out on the Italian side of the Alps. The cry that the Holy Sepulchre
had again fallen into the possession of the infidels found but a
feeble echo in the streets of Naples,[135] Rome, and Florence; nor
do the people seem to have argued, as they did throughout France and
Germany, and even occasionally in Spain, that the outrages charged
upon the Mahometans of Palestine were to be expiated by the Jews of
Europe.
Again, as a rule, though doubtless with many exceptions, the popes
were more merciful to them than were the sovereigns of any other
Christian land. Some pontiffs, as, for example, Gregory I., Innocents
II. and IV., Alexander IV., Nicolases III. and V., Martin V., and
others, showed them marked favour; while others, if they evinced
no partiality, at least discouraged persecution, disregarded idle
charges, and would allow no violence. Some doubtless issued harsh
decrees and curtailed the privileges granted by their predecessors,
but such oppression as John of England, Philip Augustus, and Philip
the Fair of France exhibited in their dealings with their Hebrew
subjects may fairly be said to have been unknown among them. This was
in most instances due to the fact that the popes, however low may
have been the moral standard of many among them, were as a rule men
of cultivation and intelligence, in whose ears the popular charges
against the Jews must needs have sounded as idle calumnies.[136] Many
among them also were wise enough—if it was only worldly wisdom—to
know that conversions effected by force were many degrees worse
than unconverted obstinacy, and on that ground forbade such to be
attempted.[137]
But there was another and a weightier reason for the immunity from
persecution enjoyed by the Jews; and that was, that they were not
the sole—in truth, not even the chief—usurers and money-lenders in
Italy. The Caorsini, as the Italian bankers were called (presumably
from their having first practised their calling in Cahors), were the
persons employed by the popes to collect their revenues, an office
almost everywhere else entrusted to the Jews. The Caorsini carried on
business, though only to a trifling extent, comparatively speaking,
in other lands, notably France and England. Henry III. would have
expelled them from England if they had not claimed the protection of
the Holy Father. It is probably to them that Bernard of Clairvaulx
refers when he speaks of usurers more exorbitant in their demands
than the Jews themselves. If indeed it is true that their practice
was to demand five per cent. per month (after the first month[138])
for their loans, this charge is justifiable enough. These Italian
usurers drove a trade in their native land, which, if it did not
monopolize the business of the country, at all events threw all
competition into the shade. They farmed the tribute and taxes of all
kinds levied by the popes on the Christian kingdoms of Europe. They
provided subsidies for crowned heads, advanced sums on mortgage
to the nobles, and loans to merchants and small traders, and were
popularly said to be worse Jews than the Hebrews themselves. There
were doubtless many Jewish merchants—and wealthy ones—in the great
Italian cities, who carried on an extensive and profitable business
in money-lending. But they were not, as in neighbouring lands, the
universal creditors, and therefore escaped the general detestation
entertained for their brethren elsewhere.
Indeed, the mere fact that the grandson of Peter Leonis, a converted
Jew, was not only allowed to mix in familiar intercourse with the
noblest families in Rome, but was actually raised to the papal chair
(A.D. 1130), under the title of Anacletus II., sufficiently shows
in how widely different a light the Jews were regarded in Italy and
other European countries. No doubt his Hebrew origin was continually
thrown in his teeth by his adversaries. But his election to the
pontificate is a fact beyond dispute.[139]
We may note also the different course pursued in Naples (A.D. 1260)
by the Italian rulers from that ordinarily adopted on such occasions
in other countries. At Trani, in the Neapolitan territory, the Jews
had been protected and favoured by Frederick II., to whom they had
rendered many signal services. On his death-bed he commended them
to the protection of the States, who, however, adopted the opinion,
common enough in those times, that the greatest service they could
do the Jews was by obliging them to turn Christians. To avoid the
persecution which was imminent, they agreed to change their faith,
conditionally on being allowed to intermarry with the noblest
families in the kingdom. A good deal of indignation was excited by
this permission, and this rose to a greater height when several
relapses took place. To punish them a monk at Trani buried a cross
in a dunghill, and then accused a Jew belonging to the city of the
sacrilege. A riot was the result, in which not only the supposed
criminal, but all his countrymen in the town, were murdered. The
outbreak extended to Naples, and similar scenes of bloodshed would
have ensued, if the authorities had not intervened. Alexander IV.,
the reigning pope, issued a proclamation requiring the rioters
to desist; the king and the nobles lent their authority, and the
_émeute_ was suppressed before much blood had been shed.
In the fourteenth century, which we have now more especially under
consideration, the first thing we have to note is, the proposal of
Pope Clement V., who in 1308, three years after his accession to
office, removed the seat of papal government to Avignon, where the
popes continued to exercise undisputed authority for a period of
seventy years. Clement V. is a ruler for whom little admiration or
respect can be obtained. Nevertheless, his suggestion—if it did not
amount to an order—that a Hebrew professorship should be established
in every European university, in order that the Church might gain a
complete knowledge of the Hebrew language and literature, and so be
enabled the more effectually to promote the conversion of the Jews,
deserves our notice and respect. The words may have proceeded out of
the mouth of iniquity and falsehood, but they are nevertheless the
words of righteousness and truth.
Clement’s successor, John XXII. (A.D. 1316), adopted a different
policy towards the Jews, having been incited to it, it is said, by
his sister, who accused them of having insulted a cross which was
being carried in a procession in which she herself, in company with
some bishops, was taking part. He straightway published an edict
banishing all Jews from the territories of the Church; but the edict
was revoked soon afterwards, Robert of Jerusalem having interceded in
their behalf, and a bribe of one hundred thousand florins paid to the
pope’s sister.
Clement VI. (A.D. 1342) bears a character in history for luxury and
dissipation which is hardly surpassed by the vilest of the occupants
of the papal chair; but his single good point—kindness of heart—was
exhibited in his endeavours to suppress the persecution of the Jews,
and the friendly shelter which he afforded to such of the unhappy
race as sought refuge in his dominions.
The absence from Rome of the popes during the seventy years which
elapsed between the settlement of Clement V. at Avignon, and the
appointment, in 1378, of an antipope in the person of Urban VI.,
renders the history of the Jews during this century unusually meagre.
But they appear to have lived unmolested in the various Italian
towns. They must have been on good terms with the pope’s legate at
Bologna, where they presented him with a copy of the Old Testament
Scriptures, said to have been written by Ezra himself. This is still
preserved, we are told, in the library of the Dominicans in that
city. They were protected also by the Venetian government, which
allowed them to settle as bankers in their city. They were careful,
however, to maintain a strict supervision over them, and in 1385
obliged them to live within the Ghetto, as the Jewish quarter in an
Italian city is usually styled.
Learning flourished in Italy among the Jews during this century. The
recently founded universities were thronged with Jewish students,
and classical literature was especially studied. There were several
scholars among them of great repute. Pre-eminently conspicuous are
Immanuel ben Solomon and Moses Rieti. The former of these, regarded
by the Jews as the greatest of their poets, and said to have been
the friend of Dante, wrote a work on Paradise and Hell which is an
imitation of the _Divina Commedia_ of the great Italian. He wrote
also religious poetry and several commentaries on the Old Testament
Scriptures.
FOOTNOTES:
[135] In the Norman kingdom of Naples, where the feudal system had
a firmer hold than in any other part of Italy, the Jews were more
severely treated; but even there, as we shall see, persecution was
promptly and firmly checked.
[136] The absurd charges alleged against the Jews were not confined
to the crucifying of Christian boys, poisoning of rivers, and insults
offered to the consecrated wafer. In Innocent III.’s pontificate they
were accused of selling the milk of their women as common milk, in
order that Christian children might be brought up on it, and so (it
is presumed) imbibe Jewish opinions. It was said that they trampled
the grapes in the winepresses in linen stockings, drawing out the
best wine for themselves and leaving the refuse for the Christians,
in the hope that they would use it in the administration of the Holy
Eucharist!
[137] It is a curious fact that the Jews sometimes received the
severest treatment from pontiffs whose characters stood high for both
justice and mercy, and sometimes were equitably and leniently dealt
with by those from whose general character nothing but intolerance
and harshness might have been expected. Innocent III. (A.D. 1198)
was one of the greatest and best of those who have filled the papal
chair—wise and far-sighted, just and merciful. Yet his language
respecting the Jews is in the highest degree harsh and intolerant.
He repeats the familiar charge that they are guilty of the blood of
the Redeemer, and as such are branded with the curse of Cain. He
denounces their employment by the State, even as collectors of the
taxes, and threatens the severest chastisement to those who show
them any favour. On the other hand, Innocent IV. (A.D. 1243), who
succeeded to the papacy some fifty years afterwards, an inflexible
and haughty bigot, issued a bull in favour of the Jews which is a
perfect marvel for its humanity and justice. He denounces the cruelty
and lawless violence with which they were treated. He treats with
merited scorn the monstrous charges of sacrificing Christian boys
in order to use their blood in the Paschal rites, and forbids such
charges to be received. Nay, he adds that if the accuser cannot
sustain his charge by the evidence of three Christians and three
Jews, he must himself undergo the punishment due to a murderer.
Sometimes the pontiff and his edicts accord. Martin V.’s acts (A.D.
1417) towards the Jews bear the stamp of his generous character. He
orders that all synagogues shall be protected, the Jewish worship
permitted, all privileges, customs, and institutions maintained,
unless any of these should be found subversive of public morality, or
insulting to the Catholic faith. No compulsion is to be used to bring
any Jew to baptism. No one is to disturb them in the celebration
of their festivals. He repeals the order issued by the Dominicans,
requiring them to hear controversial sermons. He gives them full
licence to trade. The nineteenth century, in the most enlightened
countries, has done little more for them.
[138] They charged no interest for the first month, thinking in that
way to escape the odium of usury.
[139] Bernard of Clairvaulx, a zealous partisan of the rival pope,
Innocent V., dilates on the outrage offered to Christ through the
occupation of the seat of St. Peter by ‘Judaica Soboles.’—_Bern.
Epist._ 134.