2 For a systematic compilation of these statutes see (Cohn), Max Conrat, Breviarium Alaricianum. Römisches Recht im fränkischen Reich in systematischer Darstellung (Leipzig, 1903) 156–160.Google Scholar [On the Breviarium Alaricianum see also: Wolff, H. J., Roman Law. An Historical Introduction (Oklahoma, 1951) 137, 175, 184Google Scholar; Calasso, F., Medio Evo del Diritto (Milan, 1954) vol. 1, p. 72 s.Google Scholar; Longo, G., “Lex Romana Wisigothorum” Novissimo Digesto Italiano (1963) vol. 9, p. 818Google Scholar; Gaudemet, J., “Code Théodosien et Bréviaire d'Alaric (comparaison des L.X. des deux compilations)” St. Grosso (1971) vol. 4, p. 360 s.].Google Scholar

3 In particular Sent. 5. 22. 3 and 4. [On circumcision].

4 As the Jews were considered to be Romans (cf. infra nn. 243 and 226), the proper place of statutes concerning them was within the codification generally applicable to Romans. There were two classes of Romans within the realm, Catholics and Jews. It is therefore strange that, while upholding Roman law as applicable to his Roman subjects, Alaric also maintained the relations as they existed throughout the Empire between Jews and Catholics. Cf. e.g., Nov. III §3, where the newly erected synagogue was turned into a catholic church, see infra n. 180.

[See the translation of Novella III of Theodosius II in Pharr, C., The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmodinian Constitution (Princeton, 1952) 488 s.Google Scholar: “Jews, Samaritans, Heretics and Pagans”; and this is the Novella's Interpretation: “This law specifically orders that no Jew and no Samaritan can attain any honor of the imperial service or of an administrative office. In no manner can they undertake the office of defender or be guards of a prison, lest perchance under the pretext of any duty they may dare to harass with outrage on some occasion the Christians or even their priests, or lest the above mentioned persons who are enemies of Our law might presume to condemn or to judge some person by Our own laws.

They shall not dare to construct a synagogue anew. For if they should do this, they shall know that this structure will profit the Catholic Church and that the authors of the construction must be fined fifty pounds of gold. But they shall know that the concession is made to them that they must repair the ruins of their synagogues.

The regulation is also specifically included in this law that no Jew shall dare to convert a Christian, either slave or freeborn, to his own religion by any persuasion whatsoever. If he should commit this offense, he shall forfeit his property and suffer capital punishment.

As for the remainder, this law condemns the sects whose names are listed and contained in the law.” (Pharr's translation).

On Theodosius II, the Theodosian Code and the Jews, see: Gaudemet, J., L'Eglise dans l'Empire Romain (IV–V^e siècles) (Paris, 1958) 632 s.Google Scholar; Blumenkranz, , Juifs et Chrétiens 295 s.Google Scholar; Rabello, A.M., “Theodosius II” Judaica vol. 15, col. 1101 s.Google Scholar; Rabello, A.M., “The First Law of Theodosius II and Celebrations of Purim (C.Th. 16.8.18)” (1974) 24 Christian News from Israel 159 s.Google Scholar Generally, on the importance of the Theodosian Code in the West see: Vinogradoff, P., Roman Law in Medieval Europe (Oxford, 1929) 11 s.Google Scholar; Calasso, F., Medio Evo del Diritto, op. cit., at p. 47 ss.Google Scholar; Watson, A., The Law of the Ancient Romans (Dallas, 1972) 94 s.].Google Scholar

5 I.e., the most recent statutes of the Theodosian Code, and mainly that of Nov. III by which Theodosius ultimately determined the legal position of the Jews. This accounts for the considerable reduction in the number of statutes concerning the Jews, as they were condensed from the Theodosian Code into Alaric's Summary—from 53 to 10. Thus the five statutes from Title 9 of the Code were reduced to two in the corresponding Title of the Breviarium; as were the 29 from Title 8 of the Code. [See further Conrat, Max, Westgotischer and katholische Auszüge des sechszehntes Buchs des Theodosianus, ZSS. Kanon. Abt. 32 (1911) 85 s.Google Scholar]. Therefore:

1. By adopting Nov. III it became unnecessary to repeat the statutes of the Theodosian Code disqualifying Jews from public office (C.Th. 16. 8. 16, 22, 25, 27), without exempting them from curial duties (C.Th. 12. 1. 99, 157, 158, 165; 16. 8. 3. 22, 24).

2. The statutes of the Theodosian Code display a whole gamut of measures applicable to Jews, of which Alaric only reproduced those which he meant to enforce: C.Th. 2. 1. 10 replaces 16. 8. 8; C.Th. 2. 8. 2 makes 16. 8. 20 superfluous; C.Th. 3. 1. 5; 16. 9. 1 and 2 supersedes all the other laws on a Jew's right to own Christian slaves; 3. 7. 2 replaces 16. 8. 6; 2. 8. 26 is similar to 8. 8. 8 and 3. 7. 2 to 9. 7. 5; 16. 7. 2 is substituted for 16. 8. 19.

3. By adopting Paul's Sententiae making provision for cases also covered by the laws of the Theodosian Code, the latter could be omitted. Thus instead of C.Th. 16. 8. 19 (but cf. supra subsec. 2.) 22, 26, 16. 9. 2 and 4, the rules of Sent. 5. 22. 3 and 4 will be applied; and instead of C.Th. 16. 8. 1, possibly Sent. 5. 22. 1.

4. Certain statutes have been omitted as having become devoid of object, such as those concerning the Patriarchs (C.Th. 16; 8. 11 and 20), the navicularii (13. 5. 8), and as regards the aurum coronarium of the Patriarch, C.Th. 16. 8. 11 and 22.

5. Some other statutes have not been reproduced since they related to conflicts that were no longer likely to arise. Thus the Arians did not attack the Jews nor did they destroy their synagogues; neither did the Catholics under Arian rule dare to do so; thence the deletion of C.Th. 16. 8. 9, 12, 20, 21, 25, 27; ordinary police measures were sufficient to prevent disorderly conduct by the Jews, which made superfluous the special regulations contained in C.Th. 16. 5. 44, 46; 16. 8. 18.

6. Certain statutes containing unfair regulations were deleted, such as C.Th. 16. 8. 28 on the rights of a baptized Jew to the estate of his parents remaining Jews; C.Th. 16. 8. 29 on the levying of the aurum coronarium (16. 8. 11 and 22 having become void); C.Th. 9. 45. 2 on asylia of Jews.

7. On the other hand, the omission should be noted, with surprise, of the statutes on the privileged status of the Jewish priesthood, C.Th. 16. 8. 2, 3, 13, 15; of the statute on the privilege of autonomous marketing, C.Th. 16. 8. 10; of that allowing a Jew to revert to Judaism, C.Th. 16. 8. 23: one cannot refrain from saying with Conrat, loc. cit., at p. 86, n. 1, that these statutes were excluded from the Breviarium in a spirit of hostility to the Jews.

6 The mere absence of explicit documentary evidence would not by itself be conclusive proof. But in the Leges Visigothorum the statutes made before 586 fail to indicate the name of the king by whom they were promulgated and are commonly called Antiquae. The latter form 3/5 of the Leges, cf. Zeumer, (1897) 23 Neues Archiv 433 and Brunner, op. cit. I², 489, 491, and not one of them concerns the Jews. Nevertheless clear proof is lacking and the fact might be explained by the change in the Visigothic policy toward the Jews as from 586: if earlier statutes had conceivably been favourable to the Jews, they would obviously have been out of place in a code promulgated by a king like Recesswinth or Erwig [Astuti, G., “Lex Wisigothorum” (1963) 9 NNDI 825 s.Google Scholar].

7 Cf. Zeumer, (1897) 23 Neues Archiv 485 s., 493 s. [On the conversion of the Visigoths to Catholicism see Thompson, E. A., “The Conversion of the Visigoths to Catholicism” (1960) 4 Nottingham Mediaeval Studies, 4 ss.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hillgarth, J.N., “La conversión de los visigodos” (1961) 34 AST 21 s.Google Scholar On the confirmation of the Council's resolutions by the king, see King, P. D., Law and Society 17, 125 s.Google Scholar; Thompson, , Goths 37 s.Google Scholar, 94 s., 104 s.]

8 Helfferich, , Westgoten Recht 41 s.Google Scholar; Görres, F., “König Rekared der katholische und das Judentum (586–601)” (1897) 40 Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie 284–296.Google Scholar [Parkes, , Church and Synagogue, 353 s.Google Scholar; Blumenkranz, , Juifs et Chrétiens, 107 s.Google Scholar; King, , Law and Society, 132Google Scholar: “By the conversion of 589 there came into being a true societas fidelium Christi, a unitary body bound together by a common faith and ruled over by a divinely sanctioned head. With the creation of such politico-religious unity, it is understandable that attention should have become focused upon the Jews, who, by their very existence, stood in the way of a virtually absolute identification of regnum and ecclesia and detracted from the full theocratic character of the monarchy. The conversion provided the strongest impetus to persecution in that both the unitary and the Christian premises of Visigothic society were denied by the survival of a large group within the territorial boundaries of the kingdom but beyond its ideological confines.” Thompson, , Goths, 110 s., 165.].Google Scholar

9 See infra n. 198.

10 We know nothing about the policy of Liuva II (601–604), of Witterich (603–610) who was a tolerant king (cf. Görres, F., “Religionspolitik Witterich's” (1898) 41 Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theologie 102–105)Google Scholar and of Gondemar (610–612). [errata-corrige: Liuva II (601–603); see: King, , Law and Society 16 n. 4Google Scholar: “But Witteric's murder of Liuva II in 603 may have been connected with an Arian reaction”. On the policies of Liuva II and Witteric see Thompson, , Goths 157 s.Google Scholar; of Gundemar, , Thompson, , Goths 159 s.Google Scholar On their relation to Jews, see Thompson, , Goths 165, 167.Google Scholar See Leges Visigothorum 12. 2. 13.].

11 Cf. Görres, F., “Sisebut”, in Herzog-Hauck, , Real-Enzyklop. f. protest. Theologie,³ vol. XVIII, pp. 397–399.Google Scholar [Parkes, , Church and Synagogue 355Google Scholar; Goubert, P., “Influences byzantines sur l'Espagne Wisigothique” (1946) 4 Revue des Etudes Byzantines 111 s.Google Scholar, 120, believes that Heraclius inspired Sisebut's policy; contra King, , Law and Society 133Google Scholar n. 4 who writes that “Heraclius himself only (sic!) coerced the Jews to baptism…”; Blumenkranz, , Juifs et Chrétiens 107Google Scholar; Thompson, , Goths 166 n. 1Google Scholar: “…it is not supported by evidence”.].

12 See infra n. 199.

13 Isidore of Seville, in spite of his judeo-phobia—he presided over the 4th Council of Toledo which decided on so many anti-Jewish measures—was not in favour of compulsory baptism. See the following note. He was the author of a short anti-Jewish tractate, De Fide Catholica ex Vetert et Novo Testamento contra Judaeos, PL 83, 449–538. [Séjourné, P., Saint Isidore de Séville. Son rôle dans l'histoire du droit canonique (Paris, 1929)Google Scholar; Mullins, S. P. J., The Spiritual Lije According to Saint Isidore of Seville (Washington, 1940)Google Scholar; Parkes, , Church and Synagogue 355 s.Google Scholar; Blumenkranz, , Juifs et Chrétiens 108Google Scholar; Blumenkranz, B., Les auteurs chrétiens latins du Moyen Age sur les Juifs et le Judaisme (Paris, 1963)Google Scholar; King, , Law and Society 133Google Scholar; Thompson, , Goths 166 s.Google Scholar, 316.]. Shortly before Isidore, a bishop of Toledo, Aurasius—who was still alive at the beginning of Sisebut's reign—is supposed also to have written an anti-Jewish essay, as would appear from the following remark inserted in the edition made by Ildefonso of Toledo of De vir. ill., c. 5, by Florez reproduced in PL. 96. 201: “We still have the manuscript of his (Aurasius') letter to a certain Frogan defending the case of the Jews. At the same time Joh. Bap. Perez saw it and had a copy made of it from the ancient Codex of the Library of St. Lawrence, and supplied it with notes”. [Aurasius, “Epist. ad Froganem” Monumenta Germaniae Historica Ep. 3, p. 689, 690; Lambert, A., “Aurasius” Dictionnaire d'Histoire et de Géographie ecclésiastique (1914) vol. 5, p. 694 sGoogle Scholar; Blumenkranz, , Juifs et Chrétiens 61, 70, 106, 210Google Scholar; Thompson, , Goths 157, 167.].Google Scholar

14 [According to Blumenkranz it is wrong to say that Sisebut “issued a decree requiring the Jews of the realm either to leave it forever or to become Christians”. Cf. Blumenkranz, , Juifs et Chrétiens 108 n. 166Google Scholar: “L'ordre ne prévoyait que le baptême et que si un assez grand nombre de Juifs avait émigré c'est qu'ils avaient réussi à fuir”. See also Ben-Sasson, H. H., “Anusim” Judaica vol. 3, col. 170.].Google Scholar Isidore of Seville, Hist. Gothorum c. 60 (MGH. Auct. Ant. XI, p. 291), “This (Sisebut), inducing the Jews, at the beginning of his reign, to convert to the Christian faith shewed some zeal for God, but not in the ways of wiseness: he made use of his power towards those whom it is proper to encourage by persuasion”. The same author, Chron. No. 416: “He also converted to the Christian faith the Jewish subjects of the realm” (M.G.H., Auct. Ant. XI, 480). Appendix Marti Episcopi Avintic. Chron., ed. Arndt, G., 1878, Leipzig, p. 16Google Scholar: “He converted to the Christian faith the Jews, save those that took to flight.” [Williams, A. Lukyn, Adversus Iudaeos (1935)Google Scholar; Fontaine, I., Isidore de Séville et la culture classique dans l'Espagne Wisigothique (Paris, 1959)Google Scholar; Editor, “Isidore of Seville” Judaica vol. 9, col. 91.] Cf. also 4th Council of Toledo (633), can. 57: “As to those already forced into Christianity, as was done in the time of the most devout prince Sisebut”, Gonzalez, Coll. can. 383=Mansi, Conc. 10, 633. [Vives, Concilios 27.] See the comments made by chroniclers, Jewish on these events in Isid. Loeb, “Joseph Hacohen et les chroniqueurs juifs” (1888) 16 Rev. des études juives 212.Google ScholarCf. mainly Joseph Hacohen, Emek Habakha ou la Vallée des Pleurs, chronique des souffrances d'Israël depuis sa dispersion par Maistre Joseph Hacohen, médecin d'Avignon, 1575 (first published in French, with notes and historical texts, by Julien Sée, 1881, Paris) 8: “Sisebut… enjoignit rigoureusement aux Juifs des villes de son royaume de se convertir à son Dieu et devint ainsi une pierre d'achoppement pour les enfants d'Israël, qui furent comme des chevreuils tremblants, car il voulait les convertir, et plusieurs d'entre eux faillirent alors”. [Kupfer, E., “Joseph ha-Kohen” Judaica vol. 10, col. 242.].Google Scholar

15 Gesta Dagoberti 6, 30 (MGH. S.S. Merov. 2. 400): “He (Sisebut) compelled the Jews of the realm to acknowledge the Christ, but several thousands of them fled to France”. [How many Jews were forcibly baptized? And how many succeeded in finding refuge in Gaul or out of Spain? This cannot be assessed and no reliance can be placed on the passage of Gesta Dagoberti. See the dictum of Marius d'Avenches: Sisebut converted the Jews of his kingdom to Christianity praeter eos qui fuga lapsi sunt ad Francos. P.L. 72, 801; Blumenkranz, , Juifs et Chrétiens 108 s.Google Scholar; Thompson, , Goths 167Google Scholar: “A number of Jews saved themselves by migrating from Spain to France. But it is unlikely that more than a small percentage of Spanish Jews left the country; and the devout King's laws were not strictly enforced by his immediate successor on the throne. Perhaps he himself did not press home his persecution throughout the whole of his reign: the date of his laws and the words of Isidore show that, although the laws remained permanently in force, his harsher measures were probably confined to the early years of the reign”.].

16 Cf. Görres, F., “Die Religionspolitik des spanischen Westgothenkönigs Swinthila, des ersten katholischen ‘Leovigild’ (621–631)” (1906) 49 Zeitschrift für wissensch. Theologie 253–270.Google Scholar

17 This harmonizes with his general policy of tolerance and is supported by the authority of the 16th century historian Joseph Hacohen, of Avignon, who writes in his Emek-habakha (“Valley of Tears”), at p.8: “Sontila s'assit sur le trône royal, rappela les Juifs qui avaient été bannis et beaucoup revinrent alors à leur Dieu”. This information is perhaps traceable to some reliable Jewish source which has since been lost. [Blumenkranz, Juifs et Chrétiens, supposes that Joseph Hacohen “ait tout simplement extrapolé ses connaissances du C. 57 au IVe Concile de Toledo”.].

18 4th Council of Toledo, can. 57: “In respect to Jews, this holy synod has resolved, that in future no one shall be compelled to receive our faith; for God hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth; as such persons are not saved unwillingly, but by consent, that the attribute of justice be preserved entire. For as man perished by his own free will in submitting to the serpent, so when the grace of God calleth, every man is saved by believing, by the conversion of his own mind”. Gonzalez, , Coll. can. 382 s.Google Scholar = Mansi, , Conc. 10, 633.Google Scholar [Vives, , Concilios 210Google Scholar; Monzó, S., “El bautismo de los judios en la Espania Visigod. En torno al canon 57 del Concilio IV de Toledo”, Cuadernos de trabajos de derecho (1953) vol. 2, p. 111 ss.].Google Scholar

19 4th Council of Toledo, can. 57 (sequel to the passage quoted in the preceding note) and can. 59 (quoted infra n. 150). It will be noted that this Council, convened by the king, did not obtain the edict of confirmation (cf. supra, n. 7), but some of the canons did receive the royal assent, as stated in their own text, such as can. 59, 65, 66. [Blumenkranz, , Juifs et Chrétiens 110.].Google Scholar

20 See infra nn. 153, 154 and 254.

21 4th Council of Toledo, can. 58: “The avarice of some persons is so great, that, as the Apostle saith, through covetousness they have erred from the faith. Many ecclesiastics and laymen have, by accepting presents from the Jews, bestowed their protection on infidelity; such persons are deservedly to be held as belonging to Antichrist, who thus act contrary to Christ. Therefore, whoever henceforth, whether bishop, ecclesiastic, or layman, shall afford them his protection for reward or favour, to the disparagement of the Christian faith, let him become an alien from the Catholic Church and the Kingdom of God, as a truly profane and sacrilegious person; for it is right that he should be severed from the body of Christ, who makes himself a patron of Christ's enemies”. Gonzalez, , Coll. can. 383Google Scholar = Mansi, , Conc. 10, 634.Google Scholar [Vives, , Concilios 211].Google Scholar

22 See infra n. 66.

23 6th Council of Toledo, can. 3 in fine, Gonzalez, , Coll. can. 403Google Scholar = Mansi, Conc. 10, 659.Google Scholar [Vives, , Concilios 237].Google Scholar

24 6th Council of Toledo, can. 3: “The inflexible treachery of the Jews has by piety and divine grace been overcome; for inspired by the most high God, our most excellent and Christian prince, inflamed with ardour for the faith, together with the clergy of his kingdom, has resolved to destroy their prevarication and superstition to the utmost, by not permitting the residence of any person in the land who is not a Catholic.” Gonzalez, , Coll. can. 402Google Scholar = Mansi, , Conc. 10, 659.Google Scholar [Vives, , Concilios 236].Google Scholar

25 Was this approval of the Council's resolutions due to an intervention of the Pope Honorius I, who encouraged the clergy in its struggle against the perfidi? In his Letter 31, replying to that (since lost) of the Pope, Braulio, (see Florez-Risco, , España sagrada (Madrid, 1775) vol. XXX, p. 350)Google Scholar, he forwards to the Pope, on behalf of the 6th Council, a record of its proceedings to prove that the Spanish bishops are not staying idle and that whatever leniency they may have shown was inspired neither by fear nor laxity, but by sagacity in the hope of inducing the sinners to repentance. But does this refer to the Jews? In favour of the affirmative, see Gams, op. cit. at pp. 2, 225 s. and Görres, F., “Der Spanisch-westg. Episkopat and d. röm. Papstum” (1902) 45 Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol. 65 s.Google Scholar, and the authorities cited; cf., by the same author, “Papst Honorius I” (1903) 46 ibid., at pp. 290–294. [Blumenkranz, , Juifs er Chrétiens 113 s.Google Scholar On perfidi Judaei see: Canet, L., “La prière ‘pro Judaeis’ de la lithurgie catholique romaine” (1911) 61 Revue des Etudes Juives 211 s.Google Scholar, Blumenkranz, B. “Perfidia” (1952) 22 Archivium latinitatis medii aevi 157 s.Google Scholar On Pope Honorius I see Thompson, , Goths 184 s.Google Scholar, 241].

26 6th Council of Toledo, can. 3: “… We hereby deliberately resolve, that whoever in future shall obtain the sovereignty, shall not ascend the throne before he has sworn not to permit the Jews to infringe this holy faith, and in nowise to be seduced, either through neglect or cupidity to favour their perfidy…”. Gonzalez, , Coll. can. 402–403Google Scholar = Mansi, , Conc. 10, 659.Google Scholar [Vives, , Concilios, 236].Google Scholar

27 Some reference to it was made in L. Visig. 12.2.17, but the document itself was only discovered in 1870 and published by Fidel Fita in the periodical (1870) 4 La Ciudad de Dios 189–201. It was also quoted i.a. by Rafael de Ureña y Smenjaud, op. cit., at pp. 570–575. (The document seems to have been overlooked by Zeumer, who omits to mention it in his edition of the Leg. Visig.). The end of the placitum carries the date. [On placitum see Berger, , E.D., 632Google Scholar; Baron, , History 3, 249, n. 52Google Scholar: “The term placitum, as defined by some jurists, in contrast to pactum, designated an agreement which, although involuntarily entered into, nevertheless had to be scrupulously observed”. Cf. Isidore, Etym. v. 24.19, “alii dicunt pactum esse quod volens quisque facit; placitum vero etiam nolens compellitur…”. See also: Blumenkranz, , Juifs et Chrétiens 116 s.Google Scholar, 119 s.; Thompson, , Goths 186.Google Scholar]

28 L. Visig. 12.2.16, cf. infra n. 126. It is inaccurate to say, as does Graetz (West. Gesetzg. 11 s. and Gesch. 5. 155 = 5⁴. 142) that Chindaswinth protected the Jews. [Blumenkranz, , Juifs et Chrétiens 62.Google Scholar].

29 Note the wording of L. Visig. 12.2.16: Christiani a Christianis parentibus orti (Christians born of Christian parents). [Parkes, , Church and Synagogue 359Google Scholar: “It is not likely that this is a law against the Judaising of Gentile Christians, as Juster takes it, for by 640 it is perfectly natural that a generation should be growing up who were—technically, at least—born the Christian children of Christian parents, parents who had been forcibly baptised by Sisebut or who had accepted Christianity even earlier.” In conformity with Juster see Thompson, , Goths 196 s.].Google Scholar

30 See Zeumer, , Leg. Visig. 474Google Scholar=Mansi, , Conc. 10. 1709.Google Scholar

31 8th Council of Toledo, can. 10: “They shall be adherents to the Catholic faith, protecting it from that threatening perfidy of the Jews and the injuries of the heresies.” Gonzales, , Coll. can. 438Google Scholar=Mansi, , Conc. 10. 1208.Google Scholar [Vives, , Concilios, 283].Google Scholar

32 Ibid., can. 12: “…and therefore, with a view to comply most devotedly with the clemency of the prince, whose wish it is that our Lord may consolidate his royal throne by winning over for the Christian faith the multitudes of the mortals, and holding it to be unworthy of a prince of the orthodox faith to rule over sacrilegious subjects, lest the flock of the faithful be contaminated by contact with the unbelieving, nothing else was established in regard to the latter in this our decree, than that we ourselves as well as our successors do confirm and give full effect to the resolutions of the Council of Toledo that was held during the reign of King Sisenand, of blessed memory. And whoever wishes to disagree with the resolutions of that synod, let him know that he shall be convicted of actual sacrilege.” Gonzalez, , Coll. can. 439Google Scholar=Mansi, , Conc. 10. 1208.Google Scholar [Vives, , Concilios 285Google Scholar; See Parkes, , Church and Synagogue, 360].Google Scholar

33 Cf. supra n. 19.

34 L. Visig. 12.2.17, of March 654 (the text of this placitum is also reproduced at the conclusion of the 12th Council of Toledo, Mansi, , Conc. 10, 1209Google Scholar). [See Parke's translation in Church and Synagogue 394: “To our most merciful and tranquil lord Recceswinth the King, from us the Jews of Toledo as witnessed or signed below. We well remember how we were long and rightly constrained to sign this Declaration promising in the name of King Chinthila's holy memory to support the Catholic faith; and we have done so. However, because our pertinacious lack of faith and the ancient errors of our fathers held us back from believing wholly in Our Lord Jesus Christ or accepting the Catholic truth with all our hearts, we therefore make these promises to your greater glory, on behalf both of ourselves and our wives and children, through this our Declaration, undertaking for the future not to become involved in any Jewish rites or customs nor to associate with the accursed Jews who remain unbaptised. We will not follow our habit of contracting incestuous unions or practising fornication with our own relatives to the sixth degree. We will not on any pretext, either ourselves, our children or our descendants, choose wives from our own race; but in the case of both sexes we will always link ourselves in matrimony with Christians. We will not practise carnal circumcision, or celebrate the Passover, the Sabbath or the other feast days connected with the Jewish religion. We will not keep to our old habit of discrimination in the matter of food. We will do none of the things which the evil tradition of long custom and intercourse urges upon us as Jews. Instead, with utter faith and grace in our hearts, and with complete devotion towards Christ the Son of the Living God, as the apostolic tradition enjoins, shall we believe in Him and confess Him. Every custom of the holy Christian religion, feast days, marriage, and what is lawful to eat, indeed every ceremony thereof, we shall faithfully hold and embrace with all our hearts, reserving no hint within ourselves of resistance, no suspicion of deception, whereby we may come to repeat those errors we now deny, or fulfil with little or no sincerity that which we now promise to do. With regard to swines' flesh we promise to observe this rule, that if through long custom we are hardly able to eat it, we shall not through fastidiousness or error refuse the things that are cooked with it. And if in all the matters touched on above we are found in any way to transgress, either presuming to work against the Christian Faith, or promising in words to perform actions suitable to the Catholic religion, and in our deeds deferring their performance, we swear by that same Father, Son and Holy Ghost, who is One God in Three, that whoever of us is found to transgress shall either perish by the hands of our fellows, by burning or stoning, or if your splendid piety shall have spared our lives, we shall at once lose our liberty and you shall give us along with all our property to whomever you please into perpetual slavery, or dispose of us in any other manner that seems good to you. To this end you have free authority, not only on account of your royal power, but also arising out of the stipulations of this our guarantee. This Declaration is given at Toledo in the name of the Lord, on the 18th of February in the sixth year of your glorious reign.” See Blumenkranz, , Juifs et Chrétiens 116Google Scholar; Thompson, , Goths 206.Google Scholar].

35 In the year 654, cf. L. Visig. 2.1.5 and 6. [On abolition of Roman Law see Thompson, , Goths 206, 296Google Scholar; Vives, J.V., Approaches to the History of Spain (Berkeley, 1970) 26.].Google Scholar

36 L. Visig. 12.2.3: “For while the virtue of God, by the sword of his Word, extirpated all other heresies, root and branch, we have to lament that the soil of our kingdom is still only defiled by the infamy of the Jews. Therefore … we decree by this law, which shall be forever observed, and by the mandate of the Holy Scriptures, that our edicts, as well as those promulgated by our royal predecessors against the perfidy and persons of the Jews, shall be forever inviolate, and shall be obeyed for all time. And if anyone should violate these laws, he shall be liable for the damages provided by them, and to the punishments especially prescribed for their infraction.” The entire system of Recceswinth is contained in the laws forming Title II of Book xii of the Visigothic Laws. [Garcia Gallo, A., Curso de Historia del Derecho Español (Madrid, 1948) 76Google Scholar and Blumenkranz, , Juifs et Chrétiens 119 and 301Google Scholar, n. 19 believe that the titles 2 and 3 of Book 12 of L. Visig. (of Recceswinth (654) and of Erwig (681) are not status of the Jews but “statutes concerning the Jews forcibly converted”; contra Melicher, Th., Der Kampf zwischen Gesetzes- und Gewohnheitsrecht im Westgotenreich (Weimar, 1930) 199 s.Google Scholar, 202 s. who adopts Juster's view; Parkes, , Church and Synagogue 359 sGoogle Scholar: “It is evident that such a Jew does not exist…”; Thompson, , Goths 250 sGoogle Scholar: “In fact, to be a practising Jew now was a capital crime”. See also King, , Law and Society 130 s.Google Scholar: “But if heresy posed no real problem, Judaism did. No less than forty-three capitula were directly dedicated to matters concerning the Jews, laws which by their ferocity of language and punishment alike bear abundant and appalling witness to the disgust…”].

37 The traditional interpretation was correct in applying to any Jew those laws of Recceswinth merely mentioning Iudaei (Jews); but it was wrong in leading to the inference that by prohibiting Jewish ceremonies Recceswinth had reverted to the system of compulsory baptism. On the other hand, H. Graetz, in his monography (cited supra), took pains to show that Recceswinth tolerated Jewish forms of worship among the Jews who had never been baptized and that the laws prohibiting Jewish ceremonies only applied to baptized Jews. Graetz's arguments are—

(a) the fact that these laws (12. 2. 5, 6, 7), whose Latin text only mentions Iudaei, carry in their Castillan translation the additional words “Jews having become Christians” (Ningun judio que es fecho Christiano, cf. Fuerio juzgo castellano en latin e castellano (Madrid 1815) p. 178, nn. 36 and 43 s.; p. 179, n. 6);

(b) only by this interpretation do the laws of Recceswinth logically make sense and shed the appearance of despotism and fanatical intolerance (“Durch diese Auffassung gewinnen diese und ähnliche Gesetze erst den richtigen Sinn und verlieren theilweise den Schein von Willkür und fanatischer Intoleranz”, Graetz, , Westg. Gesetzg., p. 20)Google Scholar;

(c) an argument e silentio—the laws of Recceswinth do not mention Jewish taxation, which would have been the case if they had applied to unbaptized Jews; and

(d) the order in which the laws enacted by Recceswinth follow each other would indicate that 5–8 refer to baptized Jews; 9–10, to Jews and baptized Jews; while 11 prescribes the sanction of all the preceding rules.

But none of these arguments appears convincing—

(a) the Castillan version is a 11th century translation and cannot serve to decide on points of such importance; nor is it of any assistance to construe laws that were made five centuries earlier,—to say nothing of the fact that the addition relied upon is only to be found in two manuscripts (Malpica II and Escurial);

(b) the second argument is valueless. Recceswinth's system is milder than that of several of his predecessors, who gave the Jews no other option than either baptism or exile: instead, a Jew may decline baptism and yet remain in the kingdom, so long as he refrains from observing the Jewish rites. Of the latter, some (like circumcision) had occasionally been prohibited in the Roman Empire, and others (the Sabbath and Jewish holidays) had likewise been proscribed in Greek cities (cf. Juster, op. cit. Chap. II, sec. iii), and yet the latter neither expelled the Jews from their territory, nor did they coerce them into observing the cult of pagan deities;

(c) there is no point in the third argument, rather confusedly developed by the author, for the earliest mention of this tax is to be found in L. Visig. 12. 2. 18, that is to say, in a statute of king Egica;

(d) from all the above it is clear that Graetz arbitrarily ascribes to Recceswinth an arrangement which the latter never had in mind.

To sum up, Graetz fails to adduce any argument to support his view; and the following additional grounds can be brought to refute it—

(e) the explicit terms of the statute, which clearly distinguish between Jews and baptized Jews, when imposing upon either group the prohibition to observe Jewish ceremonies (Thus, in 12. 2. 10: “Jews, whether baptized or unbaptized”; 12. 2. 15: “any Jew, whether baptized or not baptized”); and whenever a provision relates to baptized Jews only, this is explicitly mentioned (thus, in 12. 2. 4: “No Jew who has received the sacred rite of baptism…”); (f) Graetz might have found another argument in the use, instead of the term Iudaei, of expressions like De Iudaeis or Ex Iudaeis, as referring, not to the denomination of Jew, but only to Jewish origin (e.g., 12, 2. 5 “Nullus… de Iudaeis”; 12. 2.6: “Nemo ex Iudaeis”; cf. also 12. 2. 4 and 7: “Nullus Iudaeorum”— and contrast passages where the reference to Jews in undeniable, such as 12. 2. 8 and 12: “Nulli Iudaeo”). But there is a conclusive text, which clearly proves that the legislator used the word Iudaei as including both baptized and unbaptized Jews and prohibits either of them from observing Jewish rites, viz. L. Visig. 12. 2. 15: “…any Jew, whether baptized or not baptized, to remain in the practice of his detestable faith and customs… or shall induce those who have been baptized to return to the observance of their perfidious ceremonies”: this passage must have greatly embarrassed Graetz, for he eluded the difficulty by passing rapidly over it and giving it, incidentally, an improper meaning (Graetz, , Gesch. 5, 158).Google Scholar

38 That is to say, a statute of Reccared (L. Visig. 12. 2. 12); two statutes of Sisebut (L. Visig. 12. 2. 13 and 14). These laws specifically concern the Jews. As for L. Visig. 12. 2. 16, of Chindaswinth, also re-enacted by Recceswinth, it only refers to Christians who practice Judaism. [Contra. Blumenkranz, , Juifs et Chrétiens 119Google Scholar, n. 196. Recceswinth, he says, did not deviate from the resolutions of the 8th and 10th Councils of Toledo; that king's statute, in his view, only affected converted Jews.].

39 See infra n. 143.

40 L. Visig. 12. 2. 15: “Lest the Jews should, by means of any artifice, and through their unremitting perseverance, obtain the legal sanction for their profane rites so much desired by them, we hereby decree that no person belonging to any religious order or rank whatsoever, or any of the royal officials, of high or low degrees, or any individual of any station or family, or any prince, or person in authority, shall encourage any Jew, whether baptized or not baptized, to remain in the practice of his detestable faith and customs; or shall conceal the fact that he is doing so; or shall induce those who have been baptized to return to the observance of their perfidious ceremonies. No one shall attempt, under any pretext, to defend such persons in the continuance of their depravity, even should they be under his patronage. No one, for any reason, or in any manner, shall attempt by word or deed, to aid or protect such persons, either openly or secretly, in their opposition to the Holy Faith and the Christian religion. If any bishop or other ecclesiastic should be guilty of such an offence, or if any member of the laity should be convicted of the same, he shall be excluded from the society of Christians, be excommunicated, and forfeit the fourth of all his property, which shall be confiscated for the benefit of the royal treasury.” [On this law see Parkes, , Church and Synagogue 355, 360sGoogle Scholar; King, , Law and Society 127 ss.].Google Scholar

41 Cf. infra n. 63.

42 9th Council of Toledo, can. 17: “Baptized Jews, wherever they may be during the rest of the year, we order that the principal holidays established in the New Testament and such other days as are solemnized by virtue of ancient law, they shall celebrate in the towns in public reunions, together with the highest priests of God, so that the bishop may now take notice of their mode of proceeding and their faith, and find out the truth on that point. The transgressor of this edict shall be subjected to either scourging or fasting, as his age permits”. Gonzalez, , Coll. can. 453–454Google Scholar=Mansi, , Conc. 11, 23sGoogle Scholar. [Vives, , Concilios 305.].Google Scholar

43 Cf. infra nn. 232 and 233.

44 Julian, of Toledo, , Hist. Rebellionis Pauli adv. Wambam c. 5Google Scholar (PL. 96. 766 = MGH. SS Merov. 5. 504). See the same story as told (with amplifications) by Luc of Tuy (Luca Tudensis) at c. 6 (PL. 96, 767). [Parkes, , Church and Synagogue 362Google Scholar; Blumenkranz, , Juifs et Chrétiens 36, 62Google Scholar; Thompson, , Goths 225 ss.Google Scholar; King, , Law and Society 197 s.].Google Scholar

45 Ibid., and cf., by the same author, Insultano vilis storici in tyrannidem Galliae, c. 1 (PL. 96, 797 = MGH. SS. Merov. 5. 526).

46 Julian, , Hist, rebeli Pauli c. 28Google Scholar (PL. 96, 794 = MGH. SS. Merov. 5. 524: “Judaeos abegit” (=he drove the Jews away). The role of the Jews in the revolt of Septimania has been surprisingly exaggerated by Bédarride, J., Les Juifs en France, en Italie, en Espagne (Paris, 1859) 56–57.Google Scholar For a well-balanced report see Devic, Cl. and Vaissette, J., Histoire générale du Languedoc (Toulouse, 2d ed., 1874) I. 713 s.Google Scholar (= I. 350 s. in the 1st ed.). [See also Blumenkranz, , Juifs et Chrétiens 36, n. 224.].Google Scholar

47 Cf. also Paul à Wengen, , Julianus Erzbischof von Toledo, Sein Leben und seine Wirksamkeit unter den Königen Erwig und Egica (thesis, Basle, publ. St. Gall 1891) 32–39.Google Scholar [On Erwig and the Jews see Parkes, , Church and Synagogue 362 s.Google Scholar; Blumenkranz, , Juifs et Chrétiens 120 s.Google Scholar, 164 s., 199, 323 s; Thompson, , Goths 234 ss.Google Scholar; King, , Law and Society 132 ss.Google Scholar, 142 ss.].

48 It would be too long to quote and translate in full the passage of the tomus concerning the Jews.

49 12th Council of Toledo, can. 9 (Gonzalez, , coll. can. 498–500Google Scholar=Mansi, , Conc. 11. 1035)Google Scholar. This canon repeats—most accurately—only the titles of the statutes contained in the Leges Visigothorum, as already noted by Helfferich, , Westgoten-Recht, p. 192Google Scholar. [Vives, , Concilios 397].Google Scholar

50 L. Visig. 2. 1. 1, cf. Zeumer, in (1897) 23 Neues Archiv 494 s.Google Scholar

51 L. Visig. 12. 3. 3: “… where any Jew of those who have not yet been baptized, or have themselves delayed their own baptism; or have, under any pretext, neglected to send their children or slaves to the priest, in order to be baptized; or have removed their slaves in order to avoid their baptism; and the said Jew, after the lapse of one year from the promulgation of this law, shall not have been baptized; said transgressor, whoever he may be, shall receive a hundred lashes, and, having had his head shaved, shall be driven into exile. His property shall be forfeited to the king, and shall be bestowed upon whomever he may direct, as the life of said Jew has shown him to be obstinate and incorrigible”.

52 L. Visig. 12. 3. 14, bearing the title “The Confession of Jews; and In What Way Each One of Them, who is Converted, Must Write Down the Profit of his Conversion.”: Abjuration of Judaism; recital of the symbol of Nicaea-Constantinople I (381) can. 7; followed by the promise never to revert ad vomitum superstitio7iis judaicae, to avoid consorting with Jews and to seek the company of pious Christians, to take Christian food and to attend church regularly on Sundays and Holidays. This declaration was to be duly signed, cf. the two following notes.

53 L. Visig. 12. 3. 15, entitled “Conditions Under which Jews Must Make Oath, when, Having been Converted, They Give in Their Confession of Faith”. The legislator repeatedly refers to this formula under the name of conditiones; cf. e.g., the following note; and see infra n. 239.

54 L. Visig. 12. 3. 28: “And we add to this law, as being a necessary part of it, that all written confessions and agreements which any Jew, at any time, has delivered to his priest, shall be carefully preserved by the latter, among the archives of his church, in order that it may be evidence against any Jew who may thereafter venture to resume the practice of his impious rites.”

55 These sanctions apply whenever a Jew does not submit to baptism; but do they also apply if he refuses to subscribe to the professio and to accept its conditiones? At first sight the question may appear futile, but special privileges are reserved to such of the baptized Jews who did write and sign the said formulas, such as the right to own Christian slaves, cf. infra n. 239. Moreover, these formulas (L. Visig. 12. 3. 14 and 15) form a sort of appendix to 12. 3. 10–13 on the possession of Christian slaves by Jews, instead of forming a sequel to statute 12. 3. 3 concerning compulsory baptism, which would have been the logical location. Nevertheless, the text of the final statute 12. 3. 28 shows that every baptized Jew is required to sign the formulas, cf. supra nn. 52 and 53, a duty probably sanctioned by 12. 3. 3. Whatever be the correct reading, it is obvious that our legislator excels neither in clarity nor in logical thinking.

56 Cf. preceding note.

57 L. Visig. 12. 3. 1: “And, as we are about to promulgate new edicts for the suppression of these errors, it is now proper first to confirm those which have been enacted by our predecessors; and in order the better to adapt the same to the offences of the Jews, it is necessary for us to revise all preceding edicts; so that, in this way, the new laws being collated with the old ones, those which should be approved may be confirmed, as is fitting; and, at the same time, the new statutes may be drawn up so that they shall not conflict with those already in force, but that all may be united, and the entire body of laws made clear for the administration of justice.” This is followed by the enumera tion of the statutes promulgated by Recceswinth, of which Erwig means to adopt only that part which incriminates certain acts, without imposing the same sanction as that fixed by Recceswinth. [On Erwig's legislation also Blumenkranz says that it was directed against the converted Jews and not against the Jews “qui, théoriquement, depuis presque trois générations n'existent plus en tant que tels en Espagne…” (165); “…au sujet des juifs, entendez Juifs convertis” (199).

C'est dans la perspective du baptême imposé de force qu'il faut comprendre toute la série des lois qui suivent. Ce ne sont pas les Juifs à qui la pratique de leur religion sera interdite ainsi, puisque théoriquement il n'y en a plus, ou bien il n'y en aura plus, au bout d'un an, dans le pays (123). Juster, Condition légale … 15, est dans l'erreur en prétendant que l'observance de rites juifs était aussi défendue aux Juifs non baptisés. De Juifs non baptisés, la loi n'en connaît plus que ceux qui se trouvent dans les lieux de relégation. Comme la même peine de la relégation frappe aussi certains délits graves des Juifs baptisés, l'on peut se demander si l'exécutif a pris soin d'assigner des lieux différents aux uns et aux autres; le législatif est muet à ce sujet. Mais, en tout cas, nous ignorons absolument le nombre possible et les conditions particulières—certainement peu humaines — de ces relégations”. (123 n. 109); King, , Law and Society 134 n. 4.].Google Scholar

58 Cf. infra text at n. 102.

59 It goes without saying that this term of one year was not meant to make the practice of Jewish rites lawful in the meantime. This is not said explicitly, but it is not the sole instance of obscurity to be found in the statute. Indeed the rites had already been prohibited by Recceswinth; and, for their practice to become lawful, it would have been necessary so to declare them, which is exactly what Erwig did not do, his first act being to maintain in force the laws of Recceswinth. Cf. supra text at n. 47 ss.

60 Cf. infra text at nn. 172, 235 ss.

61 It will be noted that the distinction made by Recceswinth (cf. supra n. 37) has been eliminated. It will further be noted that the legislator grants to those having sincerely converted to Christianity one single advantage, that of owning Christian slaves; and even this seems to be a premium for adopting the Christian faith within sixty days after the promulgation of the statute, without waiting for the year's term to expire: cf. infra n. 239. [See also Parkes, , Church and Synagogue 364Google Scholar: “Having ordered all unbaptised Jews to leave his Kingdom, he was presumably referring to Christians of Jewish origin in speaking of Iudaei in the rest of his Code”.].

62 L. Visig. 12. 3. 28: “The perversity of a deceitful mind is accustomed to make use of the pretence of ignorance, when it asserts that it has no knowledge of the law, and declares that it is exempt from punishment because it is ignorant of the New Testament. Now, for the purpose of removing this false and malicious excuse, we hereby order all bishops and priests to explain to the Jews within their jurisdiction, the decrees which we have heretofore promulgated concerning their perfidy; and also to give them a copy of this book, which is ordinarily read to them publicly, in the congregations of the Church, and which they must always carry with them as evidence of their instruction. And if, after this book shall have been read to them publicly as aforesaid, or given into their hands, any of them should claim that he was not present when it was read, or should assert that he is ignorant of the laws contained therein, no excuse of his shall thereafter be received; but if, ever subsequently, he should be detected in the breach of any of the said laws, under no circumstances shall he escape punishment for the same”. This public reading must have been performed all over the Kingdom. For Toledo the fact is certain, for several manuscripts of the L. Visig. contain, at the end of Book XII, Title xii, the following phrase: “The above statutes have been read to all the Jews at the Church of the Holy Mary in Toledo on the sixth day of the calends of February in the first year of the glorious reign of our Lord King Erwig”, i.e., on 27 January, 681. [King, , Law and Society 139 s.].Google Scholar

63 See infra n. 172.

64 See infra nn. 173 and 213.

65 See infra text at n. 109 ss.

66 True, the Jews and their religion still enjoyed a high prestige. Literature hostile to them still consisted in discourses for the defence of Christianity (cf. supra n. 13 and infra nn. 76 and 77), whose object was to set the conscience of the Christians at rest (see infra n. 77). It was found necessary to legislate to prevent the Jews from presenting an apology of their own religion (see infra nn. 123, 132 and 161) and the Christians not only from adopting Jewish customs but even Judaism in its entirety,—a prohibition that had to be reiterated several times (see infra n. 126 ss.). Noblemen themselves were contaminated by the “Jewish disease” (morbus iudaïcus, cf. supra n. 45). Other motives for Christians to extend their protection to the Jews include mere friendship, sympathy and a sense of justice; but these disinterested motives would not have been sufficient for the Jews to resist laws which Montesquieu described as frightful (“effroyables”, Esprit des Lois Book 28. c. 7): it was self-interest, the power of money. Moreover, the commoner's protection would have been useless. To be effective, it had to come from the nobility and the clergy; and the latter, who did assist the Jews, would not have done so gratis. Offering their help was for them, independently of the opportunity to demonstrate their independence, a source of ample profit. The Jews were paying cash and, in addition, they helped the noblemen in the management of their estates (cf. supra n. 21 and infra n. 91 and text at n. 207) and served the clergy as skilled trade advisers (cf. supra n. 43). Indeed, what irritates kings and Church Councils is this “cupidity” (cf. supra n. 21 and infra nn. 72, 94, text at nn. 213, 232 and 233). The clearest indication of the role of Jewish money as an obstacle to the enforcement of the laws is the fact that, when the Jews were reduced to poverty, they no longer found any protector (see infra n. 94). That is why we have said and repeated (cf. supra nn. 23 and 41) that such protection had been given for valuable consideration. [Blumenkranz, , Juifs et Chrétiens 159 ss.Google Scholar].

67 L. Visig. 12. 3. 23: “We decree that, hereafter, priests shall observe whatever is included in our laws and that they shall not suffer a Jew to be protected by anyone in the practice of his rites, but that all such Jews shall be exempt from the favour of those by whom they are shielded; and that said priests shall diligently take measures to bring all Jews under the control of the Church, for the sake of their salvation, which is the duty of all Catholic ecclesiastics; and that it will be their earnest care not to grow lax in the enforcement of any of our laws aforesaid.” Cf. also L. Visig. 12. 3. 26. [Parkes, , Church and Synagogue 365 s.Google Scholar; King, , Law and Society 138 n. 5Google Scholar; 145 n. 2.].

68 L. Visig. 12. 3. 22: “When anyone of the laity has a Hebrew man or woman in his service, or under his protection, and by the exertion of his authority deprives them of the privilege of resorting at any time to the bishop or the priest, or prevents them from going, for the sake of instruction, to ecclesiastics, on the days appointed for that purpose, he shall be excommunicated by the bishop, and be deprived of said slave which he attempted to restrain illegally, and for every slave so restrained he shall pay three pounds of gold to the king.”

69 L. Visig. 12. 3. 25: “No judge shall decide a cause involving the transgressions of the perfidious Jews, unless an ecclesiastic be present, lest, by the acceptance of a bribe, the Holy Faith of the Church be stained by avarice; but, as is frequently the case, where no ecclesiastic is present, the judge is authorized to proceed without him. If, however, the bishop should be absent, whether near at hand or at a distance, he may leave a priest to act in his stead, who will co-operate with the judge in the enforcement of these laws, without any remuneration whatever.”

70 Cf. supra text at n. 41 ss.

71 Cf. supra text at n. 37; infra text at nn. 115, 234 and 256.

72 L. Visig. 12. 3. 24: “… if any bishop, influenced by avarice or malice, should be lax in the enforcement of the laws enacted against the Jews, to wit: that where any errors of that perfidious sect have been detected by him, or where he has received information of them, and it appears that he neglected to correct said errors, he shall be excommunicated for three months, and shall forfeit a pound of gold to the royal treasury; and, if he should not have the means to make such pecuniary reparation, he shall be excommunicated for the space of six months; and, for the purpose of making amends for the negligence of said bishop, any other bishop who is zealous in the cause of God, shall have authority to correct the errors of said perfidious Jews, which the former bishop neglected to correct, as aforesaid. And if, through deceit, negligence, or laxity, the other bishop should hesitate, or procrastinate, in discharging the duty imposed upon him, his inactivity shall be punished, and the errors of the perfidious Jews be corrected by order of the king. This rule shall also, in every respect, apply to, and be observed by, all other ecclesiastics, as well as bishops; that is to say, priests, deacons and clerks, upon any of whom the duty of restraining infidels has been imposed by the bishop. And all judges who are informed of such crimes, or who shall themselves discover them, and do not at once punish them as prescribed by law shall each pay a pound of gold to the public treasury, as has been provided in the case of bishops. Nevertheless, priests, judges and other officials who have been invested with authority, shall not be liable to the aforesaid penalties, if they can prove that they were prevented, by command of the king, from proceeding against the Jews”. [King, , Law and Society 118, 138 ss.]Google Scholar

73 Cf. infra text at n. 212 ss.

74 On Julian see the work of Paul à Wengen quoted supra n. 47, and the biography quoted by Zöckler, , “Pomerius”, in Herzog-Hauck, , Realencyclop. f. protest. Theol. 15. 549–550.Google Scholar [Thompson, , Goths 238Google Scholar n. 2 observes: “The fact that Julian wrote against the Jews does not prove, despite Juster, pp. 293 f., that Jews were still publishing attacks on Christianity”. On Julian of Toledo see Parkes, , Church and Synagogue 276, 342, 348Google Scholar; Murphy, F. X., “Julian of Toledo and the Condemnation of Monolithism in Spain” Mélanges J. de Ghellinck (Gembloux, 1951) vol. 1, p. 361 s.Google Scholar; Hillgarth, J. N., “Toward a Critical Edition of the Works of St. Julian of Toledo”, Studia Patristica (Berlin, 1957) 1Google Scholar; Blumenkranz, , Juifs et Chrétiens 79, 165 s. 277Google Scholar; King, , Law and Society 123 s.Google Scholar, 133 s.].

75 Isid. Pacensis, Chron. c. 23 (PL. 96. 1260): Julianus episcopus ex traduce Iudaeorum [Thompson, Goths 238, n. 1: “Contin, Isid. Hisp. 50 (ii. 349), ‘ex traduce Iudeorum … qui etiam a parentibus Christianis progenitus’. Cf. Murphy, art. cit. 5. Murphy gives a brief but valuable account of Julian's life. The chief source is Felix (soon afterwards himself Metropolitan of Toledo), Vita S. Iuliani (PL 96. 443–52).”

King, , Law and Society 133 s.Google Scholar: “Julian despite his Jewish origin—perhaps, indeed, because of it—was vigorous in his hostility to the Jews. The result was an ultimatum: the Jews of the kingdom had the bitter choice of baptism within a year or exile, after flogging, decahatio and confiscation of property”].

76 The prologue reads “To my revered Lord the famous and glorious King Erwig from his servant Julian” (PL. 96. 537); and the author declares that he has written his pamphlet at the king's request in order to refute the “impious argument” based on the computation of eras (PL. 96, 538–9). [Blumenkranz, , Juifs et Chrétiens 166.].Google Scholar

77 De comprob. aet. 1.1 (PL. 96, 540–1); and if he disputes with the Jew, it is (ibid., 1.2) “…so that, even if the Jew is not made to mend his ways, the Christian at least may benefit” (PL. 96, 541). See also 3,1 and 13 (PL. 96, 569, 575). [Thompson, , Goths 238Google Scholar; for Julian's anti-Jewish writing see Blumenkranz, B., Les auteurs chrétiens latins du Moyen Age sur les Juifs et le Judaisme (Paris, 1963) 118–127.].Google Scholar

78 In 688 (as to the date cf. Gams, op. cit. II, 2, p. 178), he sent his essay Prognosticon to Idalius, bishop of Barcelona, who replied in his letter (PL. 96. 458) that a certain Jew, resembling a wild animal, had brought him illuminating material; and by way of flattery, Idalius notes that Julian has, by sheer humility (vanam gloriara respuendo), used so vile a messenger (viliori gerulo). It is to be noted that in 688, during the reign of Egica, the Jews still had a legal status, cf. text of next page.

79 See mainly L. Visig. 12. 3. 24, supra n. 74.

80 It is only because they omitted to examine it in all its details that Graetz describes its initiator Erwig as a bright mind (“ein feiner Kopf”: Westg. Gesetzg., p. 26) and that Paul à Wengen (op. cit., at p. 32) admires it as an excellent piece of work (“vortreffliche Leistung”! “treffende Anordnung”!.), which he incidentally ascribes to Julian of Toledo.

81 Cf. supra nn. 55, 59, and infra nn. 127, 132, 193 and 236. [Parkes, , Church and Synagogue 366Google Scholar: “Such is the Code of Erwig, and it carries the seal of its impracticability in its violence against those whose duty it was to enforce it. The royal power was far too weak, and local feeling far too strong, for such legislation to have any chance of success unless the local authorities themselves really wished to carry it out, and Erwig admitted that he knew that this was not the case. Moreover there were far too many pressing problems in existence for a conscientious magistrate to be able to spend his time on such unprofitable nonsense. By the end of the seventh century the whole kingdom was falling into decay. The incompetence of the kings and the rapacity of the bishops and nobility had combined to destroy it, and it is highly probable that this perpetual harassing of the Jews had much to do with the decline.”].

82 And it seems that they in fact were left free to observe their cult, see infra n. 187. [According to Blumenkranz, , Juifs et Chrétiens, 131 there is no sufficient proof to show that Egica did not insist on compliance with the Law of compulsory baptism.Google Scholar On the relations with the Jews: Parkes, , Church and Synagogue 366Google Scholar; Blumenkranz, , Juifs et Chrétiens 131 ss.Google Scholar; Thompson, , Goths 246 ss., 315Google Scholar; King, , Law and Society 22, 71Google Scholar, 131 ss., 143 s., 199, 213.].

83 Egica's speech at the 17th Council of Toledo: “…under the only condition that, thrusting aside every perfidy of the heart, they shall accept a true conversion as adopted sons in the bosom of the Mother Church. And, taking his pledge with a number of sureties and a formal declaration confirmed under oath…” Zeumer, ed. of the Leges Visigoth., p. 484Google Scholar = Mansi, , Conc. 94.Google Scholar [Vives, , Concilios 524.Google Scholar].

84 Cf. L. Visig. 12. 2. 18 and infra nn. 241 and 269. [Blumenkranz, , Juifs et Chrétiens 131Google Scholar says that Egica's new statute on converted Jews “ne fit qu'aggraver la situation déjà existante”. Until Egica's time, the law distinguished between two classes of Jews: those who refused to submit to baptism; and those who were baptized — the majority — against their will. As from the time of Egica, there are three classes: (1) Those who persisted in their refusal to be baptized; (2) Those who, having undergone compulsory baptism remained suspect of continuing to observe the Jewish cult; and (3) those who, having undergone compulsory baptism, eventually become faithful Christians. It is interesting to note that, although the reference is to third generation convertees, they were not yet recognized as full Christians: even the “Jews” of the third class are still called “sincerely converted Jews”. See also Thompson, , Goths 246Google Scholar: “Egica continued the persecution. But his attack took a wholly new direction …”. See also Parkes, , Church and Synagogue 367Google Scholar; King, , Law and Society 71, 198 s.Google ScholarBlumenkranz, , Juifs et Chrétiens 132, observesGoogle Scholar: “les avantages accordés aux convertis sincères et qui, en tant qu'avantages, n'étaient que l'exemption des désavantages flagrants”,].

85 See infra n. 203.

86 See infra n. 211.

87 See infra n. 269.

88 See Egica's speech at the 16th Council of Toledo, Zeumer, p. 482 = Mansi, , Conc. XII, 59 s.Google Scholar; and can. 1 of the 16th Council of Toledo, ibid. = Mansi, loc. cit. p. 69. [Vives, , Concilios 407Google Scholar; Blumenkranz, , Juifs et Chrétiens 85, 131 ss.].Google Scholar

89 Cf. infra n. 94. [Blumenkranz, , Juifs et Chrétiens 132Google Scholar: “Un appareil policier sans précédent, la délation et la trahison jusques et y compris des membres de leurs maisonnées, pourchassaient tout souvenir de leur culte ancestral, sans que, pour autant, leurs conditions juridique et économique aient profité de la feinte conversion. Voilà les deux éléments principaux qui étaient responsables d'un complot ourdi contre le roi Égica en 694.”

But see Thompson's, observations, Goths 247Google Scholar: “In their eighth canon the bishops followed up the news of this ‘conspiracy’—it was, of course, a figment or an invention of Egica's—with the last and most ruthless of all the laws relating to the Jews in Spain. Since the Jews had tried to bring ruin upon the fatherland and all the people, their cruel astonishing presumption must be extirpated by an even crueller punishment. The bishops therefore decreed ‘on the order of our most pious and most religious prince Egica’ that they should be stripped of all their property, and that they and their wives and children should be taken from their homes and enslaved for ever throughout all the provinces of Spain”.].

90 “… having recently discovered by outright confessions that these (Jews) were having consultations with other Jews overseas, for the purpose of acting together against the Christian race” Leges Visigoth ed. Zeumer, 484 = Gonzalez, , Coll. can 587 s.Google Scholar = Mansi, , Conc. 12. 93.Google Scholar [= Vives, , Concilios 524Google Scholar]. The Council, in its can. 8, declared that “… not only did they wilfully disturb the state of the church, but they even endeavoured with tyrannical audacity to cause the collapse of the fatherland and of the people of the universe…until the sceptre of the realm, as aforesaid, would fall into their usurping hands”. Gonzalez, Coll. can. 595.6 = Mansi, op. cit. 12 101–2 [= Vives, , Concilios 535.Google Scholar But see Thompson's observations (preceding note) “this ‘conspiracy’—was, of course, a figment or an invention of Egica's—”; see also Schwarzfuks, S., “Spain” Judaica vol. 15, col. 221Google Scholar: “Soon it was rumoured that the persecuted Jews were thinking of appealing to the Muslim invaders…”; Sefarad, J. Ta-shmà, Enz. Ivrit (1974, in Hebrew) vol. 26. p. 382Google Scholar: “At first the Jews were accused of having plotted with the Moslems of North Africa, probably as a screen to conceal the plotting of several noblemen with the future conquerors. This accusation was, in future Spanish historiography, to serve the purpose of anti-Jewish propaganda”. See also Blumenkranz, , Juifs et Chrétiens 381Google Scholar: “Enfin et surtout par la nouveauté de sa justification: par l'accusation de trahison lancée contre les Juifs, et trahison surtout au profit des Musulmans. Une telle accusation était bien faite pour associer la masse de la population chrétienne au mouvement de haine dont au départ princes et évêques assument la responsabilité. Le thème de la trahison est, au début du Xle siècle, encore presque nouveau; il a été, de tout manière, à peine exploité auparavant. Quand Égica, au XVIIe concile de Tolède, en 694, avait accusé les Juifs d'Espagne (Juifs convertis, on s'en souvient), d'avoir pris des contacts avec leurs correligionnaires d'Afrique pour agir conjointement contre les chrétiens d'Espagne, il avait déjà voulu signifier par cela une collusion entre les Juifs et les Musulmans. Mais l'atroce persécution subie par ces Juifs pouvait être invoquée comme excuse absolutoire. Au lieu de perfidie et de trahison, leur acte pouvait aussi bien s'appeler légitime défense.”].

91 Egica's speech from the throne (Tomus): “…excepting, for the time being, those Jews who are known to reside in the province of Gaul, within ‘the Cluses’ (intra clausuras) or belong to the duke of that region, which is known to have been abandoned by its population owing to increasing criminality, to the incursions of foreigners and to the affliction of cattle disease; so that they may assist the Duke with their entire property and supply their constant help to the public treasury, in such manner that, as true Christians, they may lead their lives under the norm of the Holy Faith and clear their hearts of all the errors of the incredulity of their ancestors. Should it occur that they be discovered to be profanators of the Holy Faith, even in the smallest degree, they shall be forthwith expelled from that country and shall be subjected to all the penalties already prescribed in respect of their parents.” Leges Visigoth, ed. Zeumer, 485 = Mansi, , Conc. 12. 94Google Scholar [= Vives, , Concilios 525.Google Scholar As to the meaning of the phrase infra clausuras (sic. Vives, loc. cit.) or ultra clausuras, preferred by Juster to infra clausuras, see also Vidal, P., “Les Juifs des anciens comtés du Roussillon et de Cerdagne” (1889) 15 REJ 19, n.2.].Google Scholar

92 17th Council of Toledo, can. 8: “By command of our most pious king, Egica, who, inflamed with zeal for the Lord, and impelled by ardour for the holy faith, not only wishes to avenge the insult to Christ's cross, but to prevent by severity the ruin they had savagely engaged to bring on his country and people, that the perjurers themselves and their posterity be deprived of all their property and possessions, the same being confiscated to the national treasury, that they be deprived of their homes in all the provinces of Spain, and subjected to perpetual slavery under those he may assign them to; and so remain forever. Nor shall any opportunity by connivance be afforded them of recovering their liberty, while they continue obstinate in their unbelief, for they are branded with numberless transgressions…Finally, the persons to whom the said Jews shall have been appropriated by our said Lord the king, shall sign a bond on their honour, not to permit them to perform their worship, or celebrate their rites, or in any way to follow the perfidy of their ancestors. We further decree that their children of both sexes of seven years old and upwards, are not to reside or associate with their parents, but their owners shall give them to be brought up by faithful Christians, keeping in view that the males are to be united in marriage with Christian women, and the females married to Christian men”. Gonzalez, , Coll. can. 596Google Scholar = Mansi, , Conc. 12. 102.Google Scholar [Vives, , Concilios 534Google Scholar; Baron, S. W., “‘Plenitude of Apostolic Powers’ and ‘Medieval Jewish Serfdom’” in Baer, Y.F., Jubilee Volume (Jerusalem, 1960, in Hebrew) 102 s.Google Scholar; King, , Law and Society 133Google Scholar: “The general enslavement of 694 was the exasperated result of a century of royal and ecclesiastical preoccupation with the problem of conversion and of the powerful reinforcement which the failure of the policies followed offered to the view of the Jews as a race condemned to the wilderness”.].

93 Gonzales, , Coll. can. 597Google Scholar = Mansi, , Conc. 12, 103 s.Google Scholar [Vives, , Concilios 537Google Scholar; Thompson, , Goths 248.Google Scholar]

94 When the Jews were reduced to poverty, nobility and clergy discontinued the protection they had given them (cf. supra n. 66); and the Jews henceforth had to look for external aid. Having been reduced into slaves on that ground, their social prestige collapsed, as did the prestige of their religion. Scorn took the place of sympathy; a deep rift was torn between the Christians and the Jews of Spain; and Jewish hatred of their tormenting fellow-citizens was soon to become apparent with the landing of the Arab invaders.

95 Cf. Görres, F., “Charakter und Religionspolitik des vorletzten spanischen Westgotenkönigs Witiza” (698 bezw. 701–710)” (1905) 48 Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol. 96–111.Google Scholar [Thompson, , Goths 248 s.Google Scholar: “Wittiza and Rodderic”; Rodderic is the central-point of the article of Sanchez-Albarnoz, C., “El senatus visigodo. Don Rodrigo, rey legitimo de Espana” (1946) CHE 5 ss.].Google Scholar

96 Contrary to what has been asserted by Luc de Tuy: “Addidit Wuitiza iniquitatem super iniquitatem et Iudaeos ad Hispanias evocavit…fractis ecclesiarum privilegiis, Judeis immunitatum privilegia dedit’ (Hispania illustrata, ed. Schott, Frankfurt a/M., 1608) 4, 69. His testimony is worthless on this point and Dahn, (Könige, 5. 229)Google Scholar rightly observes that the so-called tolerance shown by Witiza to the Jews is but a fiction concocted by the “hostility of the Church” (die kirchliche Feindschaft). Cf. also Görres, loc. cit. 107, and Graetz, , Gesch. vol. 5, p. 170Google Scholar = (4th ed.) vol. 5, p. 156 (thereby retracting his earlier reliance on Luc in Westg. Gesetzg. 19). [Thompson, , Goths 249Google Scholar: “He is not said, however, to have alleviated the misery of the Jews”.].

97 Pascual de Gayangos, in his English translation of Al-Makkari, , The History of the Mohammetan Dynasties in Spain (London, 1840) vol. I, p. 511Google Scholar, n. 15, claims that among the invaders there were many Berbers adhering to the Jewish faith, which would account for their sympathy to the Jews. This is no more than a hypothesis (also accepted by Kayserling, op. cit., at pp. 1, 4 s.) for which there is no supporting documentary evidence. Graetz, (Gesch. vol. V, p. 170= (4th ed.) vol. V, p. 156)Google Scholar suggests that there must have been a great number of Jewish émigrés in Africa as a consequence of the various statutes tending to compel the Jews of Spain to baptism: this is quite probable, but there is still nothing to prove that these Jews took any active part in the Arab expedition.

98 The anonymous 11th century Arabic chronicler, Ajbar Machmuà (Collected Traditions, French translation by Dozy, R., in his Recherches sur l'Histoire et la Littérature pendant le Moyen Age (Leyden, 2 vols., 3rd ed., 1881) vol. I, p. 48 s.)Google Scholar reports that the defence of Granada was placed in the hands of “a garrison composed of Jews and Moslems. This was done wherever Jews were available; but not in Malaga, Reiya's capital, for no Jews were to be found in that town, which had been deserted by its inhabitants” (p. 49). “The Moslem commander placed the town under the custody of the Jews” (p. 52). “Having placed a Jewish garrison at Seville, Mousa proceeded to the conquest of Menda” (p. 54). Merrâkechi, Ibn Adhari (of the 13th century) in his Histoire de l'Afrique et de l'Espagne intitulée Al-Bayano'l Mogrib (French transl. by Fagnan, G., 2 vols. Algiers, 1901–1904) vol. II, p. 18Google Scholar, describes the capture of Toledo as follows: “Târik found the town deserted, save for a small number of Jews… After having organized these Jews into military units, with reinforcements from his own warriors and followers, Târik set forth in pursuit of the fugitive [prince]”. On the part taken by the Jews in these campaigns, cf. Dozy, R., Histoire des Musulmans d'Espagne (715–1110) (3 vols. Leiden, 1861) vol. II, pp. 35 s.Google Scholar; further data from Arab sources in Saaverda, Ed., Estudio sobre la invasion de los Arabes in España (Madrid, 1892) 89, 94, 96Google Scholar: both historians Dozy and Saaverda, believe in this Jewish collaboration. But Latin sources, such as the Cordova Anonymous, a contemporary account of the events, the Chronicles of Abelda, of Alfonso III or of the Monk of Silos, contain no reference whatever to the Jews. Consequently Father Tailhan, (“La Ruine de l'Espagne Gothique” (1884) 31 Rev. des quest. hist. 384 s.Google Scholar; and also in Anonyme de Cordoue, Chronique Rimée des Derniers Rois de Tolède et de la Conquête de l'Espagne par les Arabes (Paris, 1885)—with bibliography on that point—172, denies all Jewish participation in the Arab conquest and, pleading in their defence, seeks to clear them of the false accusation of treason. This apology may be most generous, but it is unnecessary, for they quite naturally took sides with the conqueror, whom they had conspired to call to their aid a few years earlier (cf. supra text at n. 39). What the Arab chroniclers report cannot be discarded as pure imagination; and although the silence kept by the Christian sources may cause some surprise, it can be explained by several motives. Thus it may have been painful for them to describe how Catholic Spain was held under the authority of Jewish garrisons. In fact, however, this silence is not as complete as commonly pretended. For example, de Tuy, Luc (Hispania illustr. 4. 70)Google Scholar explicitly mentions the treachery of the Jews of Toledo in favour of the Moslem invader at the time the Christians were assembled in church to celebrate the feast of Palm Sunday: “The Jews, who gave the Sarracens the sign of treachery, closed the gates upon the Christians while opening them to the Sarracens”. [Thompson, , Goths 316Google Scholar: “There is a late, but far from improbable, tradition that when the Muslims landed at Gibraltar in 711 they received valuable help from the enslaved Jews, finding in each city a group of them to welcome and assist them”. On the particulars of the Arab's conquest of Spain see Ashtor, E., The Jews of Moslem Spain (Philadelphia, 1973) vol. 1. p. 3 ss.Google Scholar; see also at p. 407 n. 5; this author describes the assistance given to the Moslem forces not only by the Jews, but also by Witiza's followers who opposed Rodderic's kingdom; and he refutes many legends that were circulated on the subject. See also the most recent literature—cited by him, ibidem.].

No comment is made on these divergent versions by Schvenkov, Ludolf, Die lateinisch geschriebenen Quellen zur Geschichte der Eroberung Spaniens (Göttingen, 1894)Google Scholar. Jewish sources are lacking in clarity, cf. Isid. Loeb, loc cit., at p. 213. [See Parke's, conclusions, Church and Synagogue 368 sGoogle Scholar: “Such was the end of the first Spanish Jewish community, a foreshadowing of the greater tragedy which was to befall their successors nearly eight hundred years later. For some peculiar reason Spain has always been the European land of the greatest Jewish prosperity and the deepest Jewish tragedy. The Marranos of the later mediaeval period and after had their prototypes in the Jews of the Visigothic times. Both seem to have shown an equal fidelity to their traditions, and an equal skill in evading the measures destined for their extermination. That in the end the Visigothic Jew welcomed the Arab invader, and perhaps even invited him, was but the natural consequence of the treatment which he received. To say with H. S. Chamberlain that ‘under the rule of that thoroughly Western Gothic king (Egica), who had showered benefits upon them, they invite their kinsmen the Arabs to come over from Africa, and, not out of any ill-feeling, but simply because they hope to profit thereby, they betray their noble protector, is to distort the whole of the facts which are contained not in documents of Jewish propaganda, but in the pages of Christian councils and Visigothic laws themselves”.].