2. Toynbee, Arnold J., A Study of History, 2nd ed., 12 vols. (Oxford, 1935–61), 1:6.Google Scholar

3. PL. 129:857; the letter is also reprinted in Princedom, pp. 382–83.

4. Princedom, pp. 50–58, 72–73, 86, 89, 100.

5. Migne, loc. cit., lists the letter as one of Stephen VI. S. Baron, SRH, 4:260, n. 60, suggests that it might have been written by Stephen V or Stephen VI, and other scholars see its origin as even later; see Princedom, p. 52, n. 8.

6. Carbonel, P., Hisloire de Narbonne (Narbonne, 1954), p. 112.Google Scholar

7. Princedom, pp. 10, n. 6; 17, n. 18.

8. Lewis, Charlton T.andCharles, Short, A Latin Dictionary (1879; reprint ed., Oxford, 1969), p. 853.Google Scholar

9. Zuckerman dates Stephen's letter before the death of Pepin on August 24, 768, the same month in which the pope was consecrated; see Princedom, p. 56.

10. Princedom, pp. 52–53, 89.

11. As will be seen further below, Zuckerman must date the Gesta in the middle of the thirteenth century to preserve its independence from other documents containing similar stories. He acknowledges, though, that some authorities do maintain an earlier date for the epic, Princedom, pp. 61–62, 67, n. 36; see also Grabois, A., “The Legendary Figure of Charlemagne in Medieval Hebrew Sources [Hebrew],” Tarbiz 36 (1966): 31–38Google Scholar, and FEd, Schneegans, ed., Gesta Karoli Magni ad Carcassonam et Narbonam (Halle a. S., 1898), pp. 39–40.Google Scholar

12. Schneegans, Gesta. pp. 176–91; Zuckerman reprints most but not all of the relevant passages, Princedom, pp. 379–81.

13. Princedom, p. 68.

14. Princedom, p. 69. See also Nitze, William A. and Prestondargan, E., A History oj French Literature, 3rd ed. (New York, 1938), p. 20, who call the French war epic and chanson de geste “the immediate product of the warlike conditions of the eleventh and twelfth centuries in France” and label Charlemagne's part in them merely a recollection of the past.Google Scholar

15. Princedom, p. 70.

16. Princedom, p. 100, n. 57.

17. For the king tells the Jews, “et ego vos recipio in mei jurisdictione et custodia…,” Schneegans, Gesta, p. 178, 1. 2350; see also Princedom, p. 92, n. 41.

18. Stephen's letter to Aribert, PL. 129:857, speaks of the privileges that the Jews “periculose mercati sunt”; see Princedom, p. 72.

19. Princedom, pp. 67–68.

20. Schneegans, Gesta, p. 176, 11. 2327–28.

21. Princedom, p. 67.

22. Charles du Cange, Glossarium mediae et infimae latinilalis, 10 vols. (1883–87; reprint ed. 1954), 7:534.

23. Schneegans, Gesta, pp. 178–80, 11. 2354–58, emphasis added.

24. During the battle, the Franks “venerunt ad Portam Regiam et Judei permiserunt intrare. Et Aymericus venit ad palacium regium et Judei reddiderunt ei eum et posuerunt vexillum Karoli superius.” After the victory, Charlemagne, “sedens in palatio in sede regali ceptrum eciam tenens circumdatus infinita multitudine virorum nobilium Aymericum de Narbona fecit coram se venire dicens ei: Aymerice, terciam partem civitatis dedi archiepiscopo, aliam terciam Judeis; reliqua pars erit vestra.” Schneegans, Gesta, p. 186,11. 2434–37, and p. 188,11.2461–66.

25. Princedom, pp. 131–33.

26. Schneegans, Gesta, pp. 176–78, 11. 2333–41: “Et ipse indignatus respondit quod hoc nullo modo faceret et asseruit quod tale et tarn bonum succursum haberet et in brevi, quod Karolum devinceret et se et suos occideret; et de hoc erat certus per proprios nuncios Almassoris. At illi responderunt quod hec consolatio non valebat et quod ipsi, antequam interficerentur, redderent se Karolo et ejus voluntatem in omnibus adimplerent. Et ipse prohibuit eis, ne hoc facerent.”

27. p. 180, 11. 2367–69.

28. Zuckerman, Princedom, pp. 93–96 and elsewhere, himself emphasizes how important a role the lack of a reigning Jewish king played in Christian polemics against the Jews. Surely the two leading Christian clerics would have recognized the theological implications of allowing a Jewish king in Narbonne.

29. Princedom, p. 39.

30. Schneegans, Gesta, p. 188, 11. 2448–89.

31. Ibid p. 188, 11. 2455–57.

32. Carbonel, Histoire de Narbonne, p. 101.

33. Alexandre Dumége, “Memoire sur quelques inscriptions hebraiques decouvertes a Narbonne,” Memoires de la Societe royale des anliquaires de France, 8 (1829): 340n.

34. Princedom, pp. 138–39 and n. 57.

35. Schneegans, Gesta, p. 178, 1. 2357.

36. p. 178, 1. 2342, and p. 180, 1. 2358.

37. p. 178, 1. 2342.

38. Princedom, p. 140.

39. Georg Heinrich Pertz, ed., Einhardi annales, MGH, Scriptores 1:190. The text speaks of one “Isaac Iudaeus, quern imperator ante quadriennium ad memoratum regem Persarum cum Lantfrido et Sigimundo legatis suis miserat….”

40. Princedom, p. 139.

41. Princedom, p. 139, n. 58.

42. In Schneegans, Gesta, p. 180,11. 2358–59, the Jewish delegation to Charlemagne tells the king that their prince “mittit vobis per nos LXX milia marchas argenti et, si plus vultis, plus habebitis….” For the value of the mark, 230 grains of silver, see MarcBloch, Land and Work in Medieval Europe, trans. Anderson, J.E. (Berkeley, 1967), p. 222, n. 43.Google ScholarPhilip, Grierson, “Commerce in the Dark Ages: A Critique of the Evidence,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser., 9 (1959): 134, writes of the amounts of one or two thousand silver pounds, paid by cities in tribute to Justinian, that “such large sums were no doubt exceptional.”Google Scholar

43. Schneegans, Gesta, p. 178, 11. 2341–43.

44. Princedom, p. 140.

45. Schoenhof, J., A History of Money and Prices (New York, 1896), p. 95;Google Scholardelmar, Alexander, History of Monetary Systems (London, 1895), p. 190;Google ScholarJosef, Kulischer, Aligemeine Wirtschaftsgeschichte des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1954), 1:318.Google Scholar

46. MJC, 1:82–84; reprinted also in Princedom, pp. 384–86.

47. Princedom, pp. 142–43.

48. Princedom, pp. 62–63, 141.

49. Princedom, p. 118 and n. 11.

50. Princedom, p. 130 and n. 36.

51. Princedom, p. 143.

52. Princedom, pp. 146–74.

53. Princedom, pp. 61–62 and n. 23.

54. Dumege, “Memoire,” p. 340n.

55. MJC, 1:82:

56. Du Cange, Glossarium, 4:228–29.

57. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma83a:see also Gittin 14b.

58. Princedom, pp. 193–97, 285.

59. Princedom, pp. 188ff.

60. Solomon Katz, The Jews in the Visigothic and Frankish Kingdoms of Spain and GaulGoogle Scholar (Cambridge, Mass., 1937), pp. 88–91; James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue (London, 1934), pp. 379ff.

61. SRH, 4:9.

62. MJC, 1:83.

63. Princedom, pp. 61–62 and n. 23.

64. MJC, 1:83:

65. For such a meaning of Tim see commentaries of Ibn Ezra to Exodus 14:7 and Psalms 89:20 and of Rashi to Song of Songs 5:15; see also Eliezerben, Yehuda, A Complete Dictionary of Ancient and Modern Hebrew [Hebrew], 8 vols. (1908–59; reprint ed., New York, 1959), 1:501.Google Scholar

66. See above, n. 11.

67. Princedom, p. 60, n. 22.

68. MJC,

69. See Abrahamibn, Daud, The Book of Tradition (Sefer, ha-Qabbalah), ed. Gerson D.Cohen (Philadelphia, 1967), pp. 142 and Hebrew x, xi, xxi, where Cohen dates the Adler manuscript on the basis of its watermark. This gloss, as well as other elements unique to the manuscript see English pp. xiv, xxi make it clear that it was the only version of SHQ available toGoogle ScholarRabbi, Abraham Zacuto while writing a similar work in 1510. Zacuto accordingly summarizes the gloss on Narbonne, Liber Juchassin [Hebrew], ed. H., Filipowski (London,1857), p. 84.Google Scholar

70. MJC, 1:78.

71. Ibn Daud, Book, Hebrew pp. 46ff.

72. Cohen, Gerson D., “The Story of the Four Captives,” PAAJR 29 (1960–61): 71Google Scholar

73. p. 123.

74. On the independent cultural identity held by the Jews of Provence, especially as opposed to that of Spanish Jewry, see Benedict, B.Z., “On the History of the Torah-Centre in Provence Hebrew”, Tarbiz 22 (1951): 90–3.Google Scholar

75. Ibn Daud, Book, Hebrew p. 48.

76. Hebrew pp. 49, 51.

77. Hebrew p. 66.

78. Adolph, Neubauer, “Documents inedits,” Revue des etudes juives 10 (1885): 98–99; Neubauer also gives a fairly accurate French translation. Zuckerman reprints the Hebrew, Princedom, pp. 387–88, and translates it into English, pp. 65–67.Google Scholar

79. Neubauer, “Documents,” pp. 98–99:

80. Princedom, p. 65 and n. 33.

81. Neubauer, “Documents,” p. 99, translates, “qui etaient leurs allies.”

82. Princedom, pp. 65–66 and n. 34.

83. Neubauer, “Documents,” p. 98: Zuckerman himself sees in Meir's account a royal plea for Jewish immigration into Frankland, Princedom, p. 84.

84. Princedom, p. 138.

85. Neubauer, “Documents,” p. 99:

86. p. 98:

87. p. 99: Zuckerman translates this passage incorrectly as speaking of “another reason … but for which the King and all his descendants would have been obligated forever to perform numerous kindnesses to all the Jews in his realm and to protect their person and their substance,” Princedom, p. 294, n. 14; ellipsis is Zuckerman's.

88. Princedom, p. 70.

89. For a good account of all this literature, see Grabois, “Legendary Figure of Charlemagne,” pp. 22–58.

90. Joseph ben Joshua ha-Kohen, for enample, in his 'Emeq ha-Bakha, ed. M. Letteris (Cracow, 1895), p. 23, writes of persecuted ninth century Jewry: A sixteenth century Hebrew responsum reports that king Charles (the Simple?) brought Rabbi Moses the Elder from Lucca to the Rhine valley in the early tenth century; see Solomon ben Yehiel Luria, Sefer She'elot u-Teshuvot (Fuerth,1768), p. 14b. See also Grabois, “Legendary Figure of Charlemagne,” pp. 51–52, and Katz, The Jews. p. 161.

91. Iohannes M. Lappenburg, ed., Thietmari chronicon, MGH, Scriptores 3.765: “Imperator autern cum Ottone prefato caeterisque effugiens, ad mare venit, vidensque a longe navim, salandriam nomine, Calonimi equo Iudei ad earn properavit. Sed ea preteriens, suscipere hunc recusavit. Ille autem littoris presidia petens, invenit adhuc Iudeum stantem, seniorisque dilecti eventum sollicite exspectantem.” Zuckerman also notes that a vassal of Louis the Pious was known for giving up his horse in battle to save the life of the king at the expense of his own, Princedom, pp. 66, n. 35; 124.

92. Aronius, J., “Karl der Grosse und Kalonymos aus Lucca,” Zeitschrift fuer die Geschichte der Juden in Deutschland 2 (1888): 87.Google Scholar

93. The Gesta speaks of “Judei…permanentes in sortibus suis” who tell Charlemagne, “Nam Matrandus nichil habet in nobis nee aliquid tenemus ab ipso, nisi quia pro amparancia dabamus ei certam pecuniam annuatim,” Schneegans, Gesta, pp. 176–78, 11. 2327, 2352–54.

94. Grabois, “Legendary Figure of Charlemagne,” pp. 31–35.

95. p. 55.

96. Benjamin, Lewin, ed., Iggeret R. Scherira Gaon (Haifa, 1921), p. 104; the Spanish version reads: Zuckerman reprints both this and a French version, containing no significant variants, in Princedom, pp. 389–90.Google Scholar

97. Princedom, pp. 79–80.

98. Princedom, p. 82.

99. Eliezer, Ashkenazi, Ta'am Zeqenim (Frankfurt am Main, 1854), p. 55a.Google Scholar

100. Princedom, pp. 80–81 and n. 16.

101. Lewin, Iggeret, p. 104.

102. Heinrich, Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, 3rd ed., 11 vols. (Leipzig, 1873–1900), 5:174–75;Google ScholarLouis Ginzberg, Geonica, 2 vols. (New York, 1909), 1:17, n. 2. Gerson D. Cohen, in ibn Daud, Book, p. 63, translates Ma'arav as Maghreb, “the portion of northern Africa west of Ifriqiya.”Google Scholar

103. While Ashkenazi, Ta'am Zeqenim, p. 55a, mentions $arefat, Ginzberg, loc. cit., citing a Parma Manuscript, points out that this is simply a printer's error for Sefarad; the correct version appears also in Judahben, Barzillai, Commentar zum Sepher Jezira [Hebrew], ed. S.J., Halberstam (Berlin, 1885), pp. 103–4,Google Scholar and see parallel references in idem, Sefer ha-'lttim, ed. Jacob, Schor (Cracow, 1903), pp. 256, 267.Google Scholar In any case, when at times Sefarad and Sarefat are confused in geonic texts, neither one ever refers to Provence; see Henri, Gross, Gallia judaica(Paris, 1897), p. 537. One might note that Zuckerman's reference to this passage, Princedom, p. 81, n. 16, (1) refers only to the introduction to Sefer ha-'lttim by its editor Jacob Schor and (2)confusingly connects this reference to a passage in the text of Sefer ha-'lttim, p. 256, without at all informing the reader of this.Google Scholar

104. Princedom, p. 79; Graetz, Geschichte, 5:386–87; and Ginzberg, Geonica, 1:18–19. See above, n. 96, for the text of Sherira's statement. Ginzberg conclusively demonstrates that means not, as Zuckerman translates, “Malka … deposed Natronai,” but that he installed him. With Zuckerman's reading, the following sentence of his own translation is superfluous: “But the two Academies assembled in a joint session together with Exilarch Zakkai and deposed him” (i.e., Natronai).

105. See also SRH, 5:15, 47.

106. If Natronai would have sought a biblical name to emphasize his Davidic lineage, why Makhir and not a name emanating from the House of David? Makhir was the son of Manasseh, the son of Joseph; see Numbers 26:29.

107. Marcus N. Adler, “The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela,” Jewish Quarterly Review, o.s., 16 (1904): 459: See Princedom, p. 58 and n. 19, where Zuckerman “chooses” to accept a textual variant of “rulers of the country” (moshelei ha-'aref) instead of “ruler of the city” (moshel hair).

108. Princedom, p. 64 and n. 29.

109. Princedom, p. 64 and n. 30.

110. Monmouth, Thomas, The Life and Miracles of St. William of Norwich, ed. Augustus Jessopp and Montague R. James (Cambridge, 1896), p. 93: “In argumentum quoque fidei ac veritatis interserimus quod a Theobaldo, quondam iudeo et monacho postmodum (nostro?) referente audivimus.”Google Scholar

111. p. 94: “Qua de re principes et rabite iudeorum qui Hispaniam inhabitant apud Narbonam, ubi semen regium et eorum maxime viget gloria, pariter conveniunt, atque universarum regionum quas iudei inhabitant sortes ponunt.”

112. Peter the Venerable, Tractalus adversus Judaeorum inveteratam duritiem 3, PL, 189:560: “Produc igitur mihi de propagine Judae regem, aut, si hoc non potes, saltern ostende ducem. Sed non ego, ut aliquid ridendum ponam, regem ilium suscipiam, quern quidam tuorum apud Narbonam Galliae urbem, alii apud Rothomagum se habere fatentur. Non ego, inquam, quemlibet in Gallia, quemlibet in Germania, quemlibet in Italia, seu in remotis Orientis, Africae, aut Aquilonis partibus, vel ubilibet habitantem Iudaeum, pro rege Judaeorum suscipiam. Non suscipiam Judaeum pro rege Judaeorum nisi habitantem et regnantem in regno Judaeorum.”

113. Adler, “The Itinerary,” p. 467. On the similar usage of the term nasi in twelfth and thirteenth-century Ashkenaz, see Baer, Y.F., “The Religious-Social Tendency of Sepher Hassidim' [Hebrew],” Zion 3 (1937): 47, n. 62.Google Scholar

114. Schneegans, Gesta, p. 178, 1. 2357.

115. Salo, Wittmayer Baron, The Jewish Community, 3 vols. (Philadelphia, 1942), 1:187.Google Scholar

116. Theodor, J. and Albeck, Ch., eds., Bereschit Rabba mil Kritischen Apparat und Kommentar[Hebrew], 2nd ed., 3 vols. (Jerusalem, 1965), 3:1258–59 [98.8].Google Scholar

117. Princedom, p. 97 and n. 51.

118. Princedom, p. 98.

119. Albeck, Bereschit Rabba, 3:1185, and introduction, p. 103; see also Albeck's comment in his revised Hebrew edition of Leopold Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vortrdge der Juden historisch entwickelt (Jerusalem, 1954), p. 124. Zuckerman has also erred in stating that no one has yet been able to determine the identity of this Makhir. Albeck himself, Bereschit Rabba3:1258–59, offers two possible explanations: that this Makhir was (1) the son of Manasseh, who begged Hezron, the son of Judah, to marry his daughter (1 Chronicles 2:21), or (2) the son of Ammiel who received David during his flight from Absalom (2 Samuel 17:27ff.). Either would fit the context of the midrash, which notes about Makhir “that he came and prostrated himself” (nithabbef) before the feet of a descendant of Judah, the son of Jacob being blessed by his father in Genesis 49:10 in this case Hezron or David. Zuckerman, Princedom, p. 97, mistakenly translates, “and we will continue to prostrate ourselves before him.”

120. Judah Even Shemuel, ed., Midreshei Ge'ullah (Jerusalem, 1954), pp. 148–52.

121. pp. 144–47.

122. p. 148, 11. 5–8.

123. pp. 149–50, 11. 22–24.

124. pp. 150–51, 11. 32–33.

125. p. 151, 11. 36–38.

126. Princedom, pp. 105–11. We might point out that there again Zuckerman misrepresents his evidence, since these textual references do not all appear in any single manuscript or version of the aggadah; see Even Shemuel, Midreshei Ge'ullah, pp. 149–51.

127. Princedom, pp. 104 and n. 6; 110.

128. Even Shemuel, Midreshei Ge'ullah, p. 149n.

129. p. liii; SRH, 3:24, 32, 40, 240, n. 28.

130. Princedom, p. 107, n. 12.

131. Princedom, p. 80.

132. Princedom, p. 109.

133. Joseph, Klausner, The Messianic Idea in Israel, trans. Stinespring, W.F. (New York,1955), p. 496. Zuckerman, Princedom, p. 104 and n. 6, mistakenly asserts that the Davidic Zerubbabel of the tribe of Judah served as the archetype of the Messiah of Joseph; in his prooftext, another apocalyptic vision entitled Sefer Zerubbavel, Zerubbabel appears as a character entirely distinct from either of the two messiahs. See Even Shemuel, Midreshei Ge'ullah, pp. 57–60, 75–77.Google Scholar

134. Jacob Mann, Texts and Studies in Jewish History and Literature, 2 vols. (Cincinnati, 1931), 1:27–30.

135. p. 30, 1. 19.

136. p. 29, 1. 8.

137. p. 29, 1. 9.

138. Ada sanctorum Mali (Paris and Rome, 1866), pp. 145–59; pp. 145–49 deal specifically with the Jews.

139. Princedom, pp. 350–53; see also Zuckerman's, “The Nasi of Frankland in the Ninth Century and the Colaphus Judaeorum in Toulouse,” PAAJR 33 (1965): 51–82.Google Scholar

140. Jones, Charles W., Saints’ Lives and Chronicles in Early England (Ithaca, 1947), p. 75;Google ScholarHippolyte, Delehaye, The Legends of the Saints, trans. V.M., Crawford (Notre Dame, 1961), p.10, chap. 3 passim.Google Scholar

141. Zuckerman, “Nasi,” p. 62.

142. p. 63.

143. The entire verse reads:

144. Mann, Texts and Studies 1:28–29, II. 20–23:

145. pp. 16–21.

146. Princedom, pp. 18–21.

147. Princedom, p. 20.

148. Karl Zeumer, ed., Formulae merovingici et karolini aevi, MCH, Leges 5.1:309–10.

149. Emphasis added.

150. Princedom, p. 19 and n. 32.

151. Zeumer, Formulae, pp. 311–12.

152. Princedom, p. 18 and n. 30.

153. Zeumer, Formulae, p. 325.

154. Princedom, p. 19 and n. 33.

155. Du Cange, Glossarium, 6:148ff.

156. Guido, Kisch, The Jews in Medieval Germany (Chicago, 1949), p. 426, n. 27.Google Scholar

157. Zeumer, Formulae, p. 325: “si etiam aliquae causae adversus eum vel homines suos …” cannot be decided in a normal court proceeding, they may be appealed directly to the king.

158. p. 325.

159. pp. 309, 310.

160. Princedom, p. 21.

161. Princedom, pp. 17, 20–21.

162. Charles, Odegaard Edwin, Vassi and Fideles in the Carolingian Empire (Cambridge, Mass., 1945), pp. 5, 56, 75–79.Google Scholar

163. Idem, , “Carolingian Oaths of Fidelity,” Speculum 16 (1941): 284ff.; see also Alfred Boretius and Victor Krause, eds., Capitularia regum Francorum, MGH, Leges 2.1.1:63.Google Scholar

164. Boretius and Krause, eds., Capitularia regum Francorum, 2.2:101–2.

165. Schwarzfuchs, S., “France and Germany under the Carolingians,” in World History oj the Jewish People, ed. Cecil, Roth, ser. 2, vol.2 (Tel Aviv, 1966), p. 126.Google Scholar

166. Princedom, pp. 193–97, 285.

167. In addition to the religious relics over which they were taken, the earliest extant oaths of fidelitas, sworn to Charles the Bald, often mentioned the saints and the sancta ecclesia in their texts; see Boretius and Krause, Capitularia, pp. 342, 348.

168. Baron, SRH, 4:49, writes regarding the sentence in Abraham's charter quoted above: “Louis had clearly stated that Abraham ‘had entrusted himself into Our hands, and after an oath We have received and hold him under Our protection.'” This, however, is an obvious mistranslation of “sub sermone tuitionis nostre,” a common expression in Carolingian charters meaning “under the guarantee of our protection”; see du Cange, Glossarium, 7:438.

169. Odegaard, Vassi, p. 54.

170. Claude, Devic and Joseph, Vaissette, Hisloire generate de Languedoc, 15 vols. (Toulouse, 1872–92), 2:211–12.Google Scholar

171. Princedom, p. 19.

172. Zeumer, Formulae, pp. 310–11: “et nemo saepe dictis Hebreis flagellis cedere praesumat, nisi probati fuerint secundum legem eorum, eos capitula, quae a nobis eis observanda promulgata sunt….”

173. Princedom, pp. 19, 293.

174. Princedom, p. 16.

175. Zeumer, Formulae, p. 325; emphasis added.

176. Kisch, Jews in Medieval Germany, p. 424, n. 20.

177. Boretius and Krause, Capitularia, pp. 258–59.

178. See above, n. 172.

179. Kisch, Jews in Medieval Germany, pp. 136–37; Princedom, p. 18.

180. Princedom, p. 245.

181. E. Duemmler, ed., Epistolae karolini aevi III. MGH, Epistolae 5:164–66, 179–201.

182. See Zuckerman, , “The Political Uses of Theology: The Conflict of Bishop Agobard and the Jews of Lyons,”in Studies in Medieval Culture III, ed. John, Sommerfeldt R. (Kalamazoo, 1970), pp.23–51.Google Scholar

183. Princedom, p. 97; here we find a major contradiction in the logic of Zuckerman's argument. In the same breath, Princedom, pp. 93–99, he discusses (1) the taunts of the Christians at the Jews, based on Genesis 49:10, denying legitimacy to Judaism since it could not boast of a ruling king and (2) how the patriarchate of Narbonne helped satisfy the Jewish need for such a prince (a fact of which Pepin was aware, p. 109). How would a Christian monarch, who, according to Zuckerman, pp. 29–34, himself desired to be the sole successor to the Davidic kingship of the Old Testament, have allowed the Jews to pursue their own messianic goals at his expense? For the importance of this interpretation of Genesis 49:10 to the Christians during our period, see Adolf, Posnanski, Schiloh (Leipzig, 1904), pp. 293–99.Google Scholar

184. Princedom, pp. 93–101.

185. Duemmler, Epistotae, pp. 185–99.

186. pp. 199–201.

187. Katz, The Jews, pp. 95–96, 125, believes this so precisely because the Jews did not have a large enough labor force on account of the ban against their holding Christian slaves; not even Agobard's fanatical pupil Amulo mentioned Jewish landownership.

188. A ban on Jews holding public office had existed in Roman law from the days of the Theodosian Code and had been reaffirmed by various Church councils.pp. 118–19; Parkes, Conflict, pp. 38Off.

189. Duemmler, Epistolae, p. 165: “Nam si secundum vestram iussionem ille considerat fidelitger ministerium nostrum, sicut nos ei honorem exhibere volumus in ministerio suo, nulla esset necessitas iniuriam facere interrogando, nisi propter augmentum doctrinae.”

190. p. 182: “Venerunt Gerricus et Fredericus, quos precucurrit Evrardus, missi quidem vestri …, ” and p. 200: “temptaverunt porro quidam missi et Evrardus maxime….

191. On the chansons' lack of historical credibility, see above, n. 14.

192. Princedom, pp. 131–32.