^{page 3 note 1} Le Bulletin de l'Alliance Israélite Universelle (Janvier, 1880), pp. 32–33Google Scholar and Nahon, Moise, ‘Les Israélites du Maroc’, Revue des Etudes Ethnographiques et Sociologiques, vol. 2 (1909), pp. 270–4, are just two examples of accounts detailing the difficult existence of most Moroccan Jews.Google Scholar

^{page 3 note 2} See Khadduri, Majid and Liebesny, Herbert J. (eds.), Law in the Middle East (Washington D.C., vol. 1 pp. 362–4.Google Scholar

^{page 3 note 3} Chouraqui, André, La Condition juridique de l'Israélite marocain (Paris, 1950), pp. 48–49;Google ScholarBensimon-Donath, Doris, Evolution du Judaīsme marocain (Paris, 1968), pp. 15–16;Google ScholarSlouschz, Nahum, Travels in North Africa (Philadelphia, 1927), pp. 374–5;Google ScholarDrWeisgerber, F., Au seuil du Maroc moderne (Rabat, 1947), pp. 29–30.Google Scholar

^{page 3 note 4} Aubin, Leon Eugè;ne [pseud. Descos], trans., Morocco of Today (London, 1906), pp. 285–92;Google ScholarBensimon-Donath, Evolution, p. 16;Google ScholarAbbou, I. D., Musulmans andalous et judeo-espagnols (Casablanca, 1953), pp. 385–6. Unofficially, some Jews did own land outside the mallâhGoogle Scholar

^{page 4 note 1} Chouraqui, André, Between East and West: A History of the Jews of North Africa, trans. Bernet, Michael M. (Philadelphia, 1968), pp. 54–5. The author makes a clear distinction between the mam-Ler in which Muslim North Africa viewed the Jews and the manner in which Christian Europe regarded the Jews. He points out that there ‘was never at any time in the Moslem Maghreb a philosophy and tradition of anti-Semitism such as existed in Europe from the Middle Ages down to modern times. Accounts of such innate traditions among the Moslems of North Africa that have been published by European writers reflect on the whole the anti-Semitic prejudices of the writers, and show a lack of understanding of the realities of North African attitudes. During most periods of history, the Jews of North Africa were happier than those in most parts of Europe, where they were the objects of unrelenting hate; such extreme sentiments did not exist in the Maghreb. The scorn that the adherents of the different faiths expressed for each other could not obliterate the strong bonds of a common source of inspiration and a way of life intimately shared.’Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 2} Hay to Salisbury, no. 13, 2 February 1880, Great Britain, Public Record Office, Foreign Office Series 99, vol. 191 (hereafter cited as F.O. –/–). All dispatches are from the British minister in Tangier to the foreign minister in London unless otherwise indicated. Weisgerber, Au seuil, pp. 27–8;Google ScholarMoulièras, Auguste, Fez (Paris, 1902), p. 220;Google ScholarMiège, Jean Louis, Le Maroc et I'Europe 1830–1894 (Paris, 1961), vol. 2, p. 561.Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 1} For a discussion of the question of Muslim protégés of foreign powers, see my ‘The Impact of the Protégé System in Morocco’, Ohio University Center for International Studies. Papers in International Studies, Africa Series, no. 11 (1970).Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 2} Aubin, Morocco, p. 293;Google ScholarBénech, José, Essai d'explication d'un mellah (Ghetto marocain) (Paris, 1940), p. 66;Google ScholarSlouschz, Travels, pp. 380–1.Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 3} Documents diplomatiques, Conferences de Madrid, 1880. Droit de protection au Maroc (Madrid, 1880), protocol 16, meeting of 3 July 1880, pp. 10–6 (hereafter cited as Docs. Dip.: Conf. de Madrid);Google ScholarSubhî, Hasan Muhammad, al-Tanâfus al-Isti'mâri al-Urubbî fî 'l-Maghrib (European Imperialist Rivalry in Morocco) (Cairo, 1965), pp. 22–4.Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 4} Docs. Dip.: Conf. de Madrid, p. 76.Google Scholar

^{page 6 note 1} Chouraqui, La Condition, pp. 65–2;Google Scholaridem, History, pp. 177–9; Bensimon-Donath, Evolution, PP. 503–4.Google Scholar

^{page 6 note 2} Ordega to Challemel-Lacour, no. 3, 1 August 1883, France, Ministère des Affaires étrangères, Correspondance politique, Le Maroc, vol. 7 (hereafter cited as CP/M –). All dispatches are from the French minister in Tangier to the foreign minister in Paris unless otherwise indicated. There is considerable evidence which suggests that Ordega attempted to foment a rebellion against the sultan of Morocco. On this consult Miège, Le Maroc, vol. IV, PP. 47–66. For a discussion of the naturalization of Jews in Algeria, see Ansky, Michel, Les juifs d'Algerie du décret Crémieux à la liberation (Paris, 1950), PP. 38–44,Google Scholar and Chouraqui, History, pp. 146–50. According to the Crémieux decree of 1870, Algerian Jews were naturalized en masse and became French citizens. Muslim Algerians remained French subjects, not citizens - a subtle but important distinction - as they fell under the jurisdiction of Muslim law rather than French civil law. Moroccan Jews desirous of naturalization had little problem bribing officials to grant them papers stating they had been born in Algeria, when in fact they had not. Interestingly enough, Adoiphe Crémieux, after whom the decree was named, was president of the Alliance Israélite Universelle.Google Scholar

^{page 7 note 1} Ordega to Challemel-Lacour, no. 3, 1 August 1883, CP/M 47.Google Scholar

^{page 7 note 2} Abû Sa'îd to the diplomatic corps in Tangier, enclosed in Nicolson to Salisbury, no. 126, 16 November 1899, F.O. 99/361. The sultan may well have been reluctant to single out individual cases for expulsion because of the diplomatic entanglements which this might have created with the foreign power granting naturalization. Yet the French legation, which was the one most frequently involved, would probably have been sympathetic to the announcement of the expulsion of naturalized persons who refused to revert to Moroccan citizenship after the stipulated time.Google Scholar

^{page 7 note 3} Aubin, Morocco, p. 298;Google ScholarLe Tourneau, Roger, Fès avant le protectorat: étude economique et sociale d'une yule de l'occident musulman (Casablanca, 1949), pp. 18, 350–2,Google Scholar says disappointingly little about the role of this influential group of Jews. See also Slouschz, Travels, pp. 376–7.Google Scholar

^{page 8 note 1} Goulven, Joseph, Les Mellahs de Rabat-Salé (Paris, 1927), pp. 141–2.Google Scholar He points out that many Jews, having suffered humiliation and discrimination in the past, could not resist the opportunity to strike back at the Muslims via usury; Bénech, Essai, p. 39.Google Scholar

^{page 8 note 2} de Foucauld, Charles, Reconnaissance au Maroc en 1883–1884 (Paris, 1888). This brilliant French explorer-missionary delivered some very harsh strictures against the Jews of Morocco, not all of which were deserved. His denunciation of the abuses of the moneylenders, however, finds an echo in the European diplomatic archives of the time. See also Hay to Salisbury, no. 13, 2 February 1880, F.O. 99/191 and Feraud to Freycinet. no. 138, 5 June 1886, CP/M 51.Google Scholar

^{page 8 note 3} Khadduri and Liebesny (eds), Law, vol. 1, pp. 199–200; Bénech, Essai, p. 37; Le Tourneau, Fès, p. 379;Google ScholarFlamand, Pierre, Les Communautés Israélites du Sud marocain (Casablanca, n.d.), pp. 87–8;Google ScholarAbbou, Musulmans, p. 429;Google ScholarMiege, , Le Maroc, vol. 3, pp. 441–6.Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 1} Feraud to Freycinet, no. 75, 6 January 1886, CP/M 50; Feraud to Flourens, no. 268, 19 December 1887, CP/M 54; Patenôtre to Spuller, no. 69, 9 August 1889, CP/M 59.Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 2} Feraud to Flourens, no. 268, 19 December 1887, CP/M 54.Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 3} Feraud to Freycinet, no. 120, 22 April 1886, CP/M 50.Google Scholar

^{page 10 note 1} Patenôtre to Spuller, no. 69, 9 August 1889, CP/M 59.Google Scholar

^{page 10 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 10 note 3} Patenôtre to Spuller, no. 15, 22 February 1890, CP/M 60. He pointed out that the British did not support commercial claims and suggested that the French government follow suit. The latter vacillated and ultimately decided ti continue the policy of pressing commercial claims.Google Scholar

^{page 11 note 1} Ibid. and Patenôtre to Ribot, no. 63, 31 August 1890, CP/M 60. The most detailed account of claims is found in the latter dispatch.

^{page 11 note 2} Ibid. His italics, not mine.

^{page 11 note 3} The Globe, London, 27 August, 1890.Google Scholar

^{page 11 note 4} Patenôtre to Ribot, no;. 2, 11 January 1891, CP/M 61.Google Scholar

^{page 11 note 5} Patenôtre to Ribot, no. 66, 1890, CP/M 60, and no. 7, 4 February 1891, CP/M 61.Google Scholar

^{page 11 note 6} D'Aubigny to Develle, no. 32, 6 March 1893, CP/M 66.Google Scholar

^{page 12 note 1} Ridgeway to Rosebery Memo on Claims, no. 109, 10 July 1893, FC 413/20.Google Scholar

^{page 12 note 2} Ibid. In an economy measure the British had abolished the paid consular service in 1872. All British ministers in Tangier felt that this decision had been unwise, given the subsequent decline in efficiency and honesty of the consulates. Numerous pleas were made for the restoration of the paid consular service, but they fell on deaf ears in London.

^{page 13 note 1} Ibid.

^{page 13 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 13 note 3} Hay to Salisbury, no. 10, 24 January 1880, F.O. 99/191; de Vemouillet to Waddington, telegram, 26 January 1880, CP/M 44. Hay stressed that in recent years it had been increasingly rare for a Muslim to be imprisoned for the murder of another Muslim. The payment of blood money had often been practised.Google Scholar

^{page 13 note 4} de Vernouillet to Waddington, telegram, 26 January 1880, CP/M.Google Scholar

^{page 14 note 1} Ministère des Affaires étrangères, Documents diplomatiques, Question de la protection diplomatique et consulaire au Maroc, Paris, 1880, pp. 12–15 (hereafter cited as Docs. Dip.: Quest. de Pro.). Erckman, the head of the French military mission in Fez, was concerned that Hay's argument would be used very effectively in an effort to restrict naturalization. Both Erckman and the French minister in Tangier de Vernouillet had serious doubts about the validity of the naturalization of the Jew in question. These points are found in a dispatch from de Vernouillet to Freycinet, no. 2, 13 January 1880. The quotation from Sir John Hay is found in Hay to Salisbury, no. 13, 2 February 1880, F.O. 99/191.Google Scholar

^{page 14 note 2} White to Rosebery, no. 45, 17 July 1886, F.O. 99/228; Feraud to Freycinet, no. 138, 5 June 1886, CP/M 51.Google Scholar

^{page 14 note 3} Ahmad ibn al-Nâsirî, Kitâb 'l-Istiqâ' li-akhbâr duwal al-Maghrib al'Aqsâ (Casablanca, 1956), vol. IX, pp. 182–4,Google Scholar or trans. Fumey, E., ‘Chronique de la dynastie alaouie du Maroc’, Archives marocaines, vol. 10 (1907), pp. 339–42;Google ScholarNahon, ‘Les Israélites’, p. 271; Chouraqui, L'Alliance, p. 116; Feraud to Freycinet, no. 134, 27 May 1886, CP/M 50. The sultan Múlây Hasan was commended both by Jewish groups and European diplomats for taking prompt and effective action to protect the mallâh.Google Scholar

^{page 14 note 4} White (ch. d'aff.) to Rosebery, no. 45, 17 July 1886, F.O. 99/228.Google Scholar

^{page 15 note 1} Feraud to Freycinet, no. 138, 5 June 1886, CP/M 51.Google Scholar

^{page 15 note 2} Schaar, Stuart, ‘Conflict and Change in Nineteenth Century Morocco’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, 1965), p. 166, feels that Jews were rarely harmed in nineteenth-century Morocco.Google Scholar

^{page 15 note 3} Le Bulletin, pp. 32–3, gives the figure of 249 Jews killed in Morocco between 1864 and 1880. Miège Le Maroc, vol. III, p. 279, n. 8, and Nahon, ‘Les Israélites’, provide the figure of 307.Google Scholar

^{page 15 note 4} The Royal Palace Archives in Rabat are in the process of being catalogued under the direction of the respected historian Muhammad Dâ'ud. However, it may be several years before all the materials are open to foreign researchers. The Turrîs correspondence available at the National Library in Tetouan sheds little light on the subject under discussion.Google Scholar

^{page 15 note 5} Hay to Granville, no. 6, 10 January 1885, F.O. 99/221; Feraud to Ferry, no. 8, 26 March 1885, CP/M 48; The Times of Morocco, 18 December 1884; Bénech, Essai, p. 26;Google ScholarFlamand, Pierre, Un mellah en pays berbere: Demnate (Paris, 1952), pp. 18–19.Google Scholar

^{page 15 note 6} Hay to Granville, no. 94, 7 December 1883, F.O. 99/207.Google Scholar

^{page 16 note 1} Hay to Granville, no. 6, 10 January 1885, F.O. 99/221. The tone of this differs somewhat from the view of Chouraqui, who held that Muslims did not generally feel an intense hatred toward the Jews.Google Scholar

^{page 16 note 2} Hay to Granville, no. 23, 26 March 1885, F.O. 99/225; Flamand, Demnate, 19; Chouraqui, L'Alliance, pp. 115–16; Nahon, ‘Les Israélites’, p. 272.Google Scholar

^{page 16 note 3} Feraud to Ferry, no. 10, 4 April 1885, CP/M 48. Both Hay and Feraud were frequently criticized by the European and Tangier press for being too sympathetic to the Muslims. In fact, the ministers merely tried to be even-handed in their approach to problems involving Muslims and Jews.Google Scholar

^{page 16 note 4} Flamand, Demnate, 19; Hay to Salisbury, no. 58, 17 July 1885, F.O. 99/222.Google Scholar

^{page 17 note 1} Hay to Rabbi Amar of Demnate, 17 March 1886 enclosed in Hay to Rosebery, no. 9, 23 March 1886, F.O. 99/228.Google Scholar

^{page 17 note 2} Feraud to Freycinet, no. 44, 30 September 1885, CP/M 49.Google Scholar

^{page 17 note 3} Flamand, Demnate, pp. 19–20; Chouraqui, L'Alliance, p. 117; Nahon, ‘Les Israélites’, p. 271.Google Scholar

^{page 17 note 3} The Jewish elders of Tangier to Hay, 22 June 1886, enclosed in White (ch. d'aff.) to Rosebery, no. 42, 1 July 1886, FC 99/228; Chouraqui, L'Alliance, pp. 115–17; Flamand, Demnate, pp. 19–20. The French newspaper in Tangier, La Réveil du Maroc, and the English newspaper in Tangier, The Times of Morocco, both criticized their respective legations for a lack of forcefulness in supporting the Jewish point of view in any dispute with the Moroccan government.Google Scholar

^{page 18 note 1} Hay to Salisbury, no, 44, 16 March 1880, F.O. 99/256. The relative misery of the Muslims vis-à-vis the Jews was also observed by Chouraqui, who had the following to say: ‘There are degrees of poverty just as there are degrees of affluence, and if life in the mallâh appeared at first glance as a drama of destitution, it was prosperous by comparison with the utter penury of the Moslem milieu.’ (See Chouraqui, History, p. 537.)Google Scholar

^{page 18 note 2} Weisgerber, Au seuil, p. 32.Google Scholar