of Nevers. Although, he says, the Jews, against whom the blood of Jesus Christ cries aloud, are not to be slain, lest Christians should forget the divine law, yet are they to be scattered as wanderers over the earth, that their faces may be filled with ignominy and they may seek the name of Jesus Christ. Blasphemers of the Christian name are not to be cherished by princes, in oppression of the servants of the Lord, but are rather to be repressed with servitude, of which they rendered themselves worthy when they laid sacrilegious hands on Him, who had come to give them true freedom, and they cried that His blood should be upon them and their children. Yet when prelates and priests intervene to crush their malice, they laugh at excommunication and nobles are found who protect them. The Count of Nevers is said to be a defender of the Jews; if he does not dread the divine wrath, Innocent threatens to lay hands on him and punish his disobedience.' The Cistercian Cæsarius of Heisterbach, in his dialogues for the moral instruction of his fellow monks, tells several stories which illustrate the utter contempt felt for the feelings and rights of Jews, and in one of them there is an allusion to the curious popular belief that the Jews had a vile odor, which they lost in baptism-a belief prolonged, at least in Spain, until the seventeenth century was well advanced. Even so enlightened a prelate as Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly, in 1416, reproves the sovereigns of Christendom for their liberality towards the Jews, which he can attribute only to the vile love of gain; if Jews are allowed to remain, it should be only as servants to Christians. General prohibitions of maltreatment availed little when prelate and priest were busy in inflaming popular aversion and popes were found to threaten any prince hardy enough to interpose and protect the unfortunate race.

3

Of course under such impulsion there was scant ceremony in dealing with these outcasts in any way that religious ardor might suggest. When, in 1009, the Saracens captured Jerusa

1 Innocent. PP. III, Regest. x, 190. Cf. Epistt. Select. Sæc. XIII, T. I, p. 414 (Pertz).

2 Cæsar. Heisterb. Dial. Mirac. Dist. II, cap. xxiv, xxv.-Bernaldez, Hist. de los Reyes Católicos, cap. xliii.-Vicente da Costa Mattos, Breve Discurso contra a heretica Perfidia do Judaismo, fol. 131, 132, 134 (Lisboa, 1623).—Bodleian Library, MSS. Arch. S. 130.

3 P. de Alliaco Canon. Reformat. cap. xliii (Von der Hardt, Concil. Constant. I, VIII, 430-1)

lem and destroyed the church of the Holy Sepulchre, the rage and indignation of Europe assumed so threatening a form that multitudes of Jews took refuge in baptism.' When religious exaltation culminated in the Crusades, it seemed to those who assumed the cross a folly to redeem Palestine while leaving behind the impious race that had crucified the Lord, and everywhere, in 1096, the assembling of crusaders was the signal for Jewish massacre. It would be superfluous to recount in detail the dreary catalogue of wholesale slaughters which for centuries disgraced Europe, whenever fanaticism or the disappearance of a child gave rise to stories of the murder rite, or a bloodstained host suggested sacrilege committed on the sacrament, or some passing evil, such as an epidemic, aroused the populace to bloodshed and rapine. The medieval chronicles are full of such terrible scenes, in which cruelty and greed assumed the cloak of zeal to avenge God; and when, in rare instances, the authorities protected the defenceless, it was ascribed to unworthy motives, as in the case of Johann von Kraichbau, Bishop of Speyer, who, in 1096, not only saved some Jews but beheaded their assailants and was accused of being heavily bribed; nor did Frederic Barbarossa and Ludwig of Bavaria escape similar imputations. It was safer and more profitable to combine piety and plunder as when, in April, 1182, Philip Augustus ordered all Jews to leave France by St. John's day, confiscating their landed property and allowing them to take their personal effects. His grandson, the saintly Louis, resorted without scruple to replenishing his treasury by ransoming the Jews and the latter's grandson, Philippe le Bel, was still more unscrupulous in 1306, when, by a concerted movement, he seized all the Jews in his dominions, stripped them of property, and banished them under pain of death. In England King John, in 1210, cast Jews into prison and tortured them for ransom, and his grandson, Edward I, followed the example of Philip Augustus so effectually that Jews were not allowed to return until the time of Cromwell.3

1 Chron. Turonens. ann. 1009.

2 Berthold. Constant. ann. 1096.-Otton. Frisingens. de Gest. Frid. I, Lib. I, cap. 37.-Vitoduran. Chron. ann. 1336.-Gesta Treviror. Archiepp. ann. 1337. 3 Rigord. de Gest. Phil. Aug. ann. 1182 -Vaissette, Hist. Gen. de Languedoc, VIII, 1191-2 (Ed. Privat).—Nich. Trivetti Chron. ann. 1189.-Guill. Nangiac. Contin. ann. 1306.-Matt. Paris. Hist. Angl. ann. 1210.-Matt. Westmonast. ann. 1290.

Spain remained so long isolated from the movements which agitated the rest of Christendom that the abhorrence for the Jew, taught by the Church and reduced to practice in so many ways by the people, was late in development. In the deluge of the Saracen conquest and in the fierce struggles of the early Reconquest, the antipathy so savagely expressed in the Gothic legislation seemed to pass away, possibly because there could have been but few Jews among the rude mountaineers of Galicia and Asturias. It is true that the Wisigothic laws, in the Romance version known as the Fuero Juzgo, remained nominally in force; it is also true that a law was interpolated in the Fuero, which seems to indicate a sudden recrudescence of fanaticism after a long interval of comparative toleration. It provides that if a Jew loyally embraces the faith of Christ, he shall have license to trade in all things with Christians, but if he subsequently relapses into Judaism his person and property are forfeit to the king; Jews persisting in their faith shall not consort with Christians, but may trade with each other and pay taxes to the king. Their houses and slaves and lands and orchards and vineyards, which they may have bought from Christians, even though the purchase be of old date, are declared confiscated to the king, who may bestow them on whom he pleases. If any Jew trades in violation of this law he shall become a slave of the king, with all his property. Christians shall not trade with Jews; if a noble does so, he shall forfeit three pounds of gold to the king; on transactions of more than two pounds, the excess is forfeit to the king, together with three doblas; if the offender is a commoner, he shall receive three hundred lashes.1

The date of this law is uncertain, but it presupposes a considerable anterior period of toleration, during which Jews had multiplied and had become possessed of landed wealth. To what extent it may have been enforced we have no means of knowing, but its observance must only have been temporary, for such glimpses as we get of the condition of the Jews up to the fourteenth century are wholly incompatible with the fierce proscription of the Gothic laws. As the Spanish kingdoms organized themselves, the Fuero Juzgo for the most part was superseded by a crowd of local fueros, cartas-pueblas and customs defining the franchises of each community, and we have seen in the preceding chapter how in these both Moor and Jew

1 Fuero Juzgo, Lib. XII, Tit. ii, ley 18.

were recognized as sharing in the common rights of citizenship and how fully the freedom of trade between all classes was permitted. In 1251 the Fuero Juzgo was formally abrogated in Aragon by Jaime I, who forbade it to be cited in the courts -a measure which infers that it had practically become obsolete.1 In Castile it lingered somewhat longer and traces of its existence are to be found in some places until the end of the thirteenth century. These, however, are not to be construed as referring to the provisions respecting Jews, which had long been superseded.

3

In fact, the Jews formed too large and important a portion of the population to be treated without consideration. The sovereigns, involved permanently in struggles with the Saracen and with mutinous nobles, found it necessary to utilize all the resources at their command, whether in money, intelligence, or military service. In the first two of these the Jews stood pre-eminent, nor were they remiss in the latter. On the disastrous field of Zalaca, in 1086, forty thousand Jews are said to have followed the banner of Alfonso VI, and the slaughter they endured proved their devotion, while, at the defeat of Ucles in 1108, they composed nearly the whole left wing of the Castilian host. In 1285 we hear of Jews and Moors aiding the Aragonese in their assaults on the retreating forces of Philippe le Hardi.‘ As regards money, the traffic and finance of Spain were largely in their hands, and they furnished, with the Moors, the readiest source from which to derive revenue. Every male who had married, or who had reached the age of 20, paid an annual poll tax of three gold maravedís; there were also a number of imposts peculiar to them, and, in addition, they shared with the rest of the population in the complicated and ruinous system of taxation-the ordinary and extraordinary servicios, the pedidas and ayudas, the sacos and pastos and the alcavalas. Besides this they assisted in supporting the municipalities or the lordships and prelacies under which they lived, with the tallas, the pastos, the ninths or elevenths of merchandise and the peajes and barcajes, the pontazgos and portazgos, or tolls of various kinds

1 Marca Hispanica, p. 1439.

'Coleccion de Privilegios, VI, 96 (Madrid, 1833).-Memorial hist. español, I, 38, 124; II, 71.

Amador de los Rios, I, 185-6, 189.

• Contin. Gerardi de Fracheto, ann. 1285 (Dom Bouquet, XXI, 7).

which were heavier on them than on Christians, and, moreover, the Church received from them the customary tithes, oblations, and first-fruits.1 The revenues from the Jewish aljamas, or communities, were always regarded as among the surest resources of the crown.

The shrewd intelligence and practical ability of the Jews, moreover, rendered their services in public affairs almost indispensable. It was in vain that the council of Rome, in 1078, renewed the old prohibitions to confide to them functions which would place them in command over Christians and equally in vain that, in 1081, Gregory VII addressed to Alfonso VI a vehement remonstrance on the subject, assuring him that to do so was to oppress the Church of God and exalt the synagogue of Satan, and that in seeking to please the enemies of Christ he was contemning Christ himself.2 In fact, the most glorious centuries of the Reconquest were those in which the Jews enjoyed the greatest power in the courts of kings, prelates and nobles, in Castile and Aragon. The treasuries of the kingdoms were virtually in their hands, and it was their skill in organizing the supplies that rendered practicable the enterprises of such monarchs as Alfonso VI and VII, Fernando III and Jaime I.3 To treat them as the Goths had done, or as the Church prescribed, had become a manifest impossibility.

Under such circumstances it was natural that their numbers should increase until they formed a notable portion of the population. Of this an estimate can be made from a repartimiento, or assessment of taxes, in 1284, which shows that in Castile they paid a poll tax of 2,561,855 gold maravedís, which at three maravedís per head infers a total of 853,951 married or adult males. This large aggregate was thoroughly organized. Each aljama or community had its rabbis with a Rabb Mayor at its

1 Amador de los Rios, II, 67.-Benavides, Memorias de Fernando IV, II, 331. It indicates the independent position of Jews and Moors that they refused to pay tithes on lands acquired from Christians and their liability was enforced only after a vigorous and prolonged struggle.-See Cap. 18, Extra, Lib. v, Tit. xix (Concil. Lateran. IV).-Innocent. PP. III, Regest. vIII, 50; x, 61.--Concil Tarraconens. ann. 1291 (Aguirre, VI, 292).—Concil. Zamorens. ann. 1313, cap. x (Amador de los Rios, II, 564).—Memorial hist. español, I, 33, 160.--Fernández y González, pp. 348, 355, 380, 389.-Benavides, op. cit. II, 539, 541.

2 Concil. Roman. V, ann. 1078 (Migne's Patrologia, CXLVIII, 799).—Gregor. PP. VII, Regest. IX, 2.

Amador de los Rios, I, 28-9.

Ibidem, II, 58.