177 Conventus Iudaeorum: L. Visig. 12. 3. 21, 26, 28.

178 On this subject see Juster, Juifs I, 456 ss.

179 Supra n. 5, sub 5°.

180 Nov. III, §§ 3, 5. [See Pharr's translation:

3. With an equally reasonable consideration also, We prohibit any synagogue to arise as a new building, but license is granted to strengthen the ancient synagogues which threaten immediately to fall in ruin.

5. If any person of these sects, therefore, has assumed the insignia of office, he shall not possess the dignities which he has acquired, and if he has erected a synagogue, he shall know that he has labored for the profit of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, if any of these persons has stolen into a position of honor, he shall be considered, as previously, of the lowest condition, even though he should have obtained an honorary dignity. If any one of them should begin the building of a synagogue, not with the desire merely to repair it, in addition to the loss of fifty pounds of gold, he shall be deprived of his audacious undertaking. Besides, he shall perceive that his goods are proscribed and that he himself shall immediately be destined to the death penalty, if he should overthrow the faith of another by his perverted doctrine.

On these paragraphs see Katz, , Jews 73Google Scholar; Blumenkranz, , Juifs et Chrétiens 309 ss.Google Scholar; Thompson, , Goths 53Google Scholar, and in n. 2: “The remains of a synagogue have been excavated at Elche near Cartagena; Vives, 431–2. It is described as a Christian church by Puig y Catafalch, J., Byzantion, i (1924), p. 525”Google Scholar. Vives, , Concilios, 485].Google Scholar

181 Cf. supra n. 17.

182 At the 16th Council of Toledo (in 693), Egica declared in his tomus: “…and gives the unbelieving Jews occasion for holding us in ridicule, saying that the closure and destruction of their synagogues has served no purpose, when they behold the churches of the Christians fallen into an even worse state”. Leges Visigothorum, ed. Zeumer, p. 482 = Gonzalez, , Coll. can. 559Google Scholar = Mansi, , Conc. 12Google Scholar. 59. [See Thompson, , Goths 247Google Scholar: “In the course of his tome Egica observed incidentally that synagogues were now banned and in ruins. No extant law had directed them to be closed and destroyed; but no doubt each outburst of royal anger against the Jews throughout the century had caused more and more of the synagogues to be demolished by the more pious elements in the Christian population”].

183 Cf. supra n. 105. [See Bachrach, B. S., “A Reassessment of Visigothic Jewish Policy, 589–711” (1973) 78 The American Historical Review 33CrossRefGoogle Scholar (hereafter, Bachrach, “Reassessment”)].

184 Cf. the inscriptions in Schwab, , “Rapport sur les inscriptions hébraïques de l'Espagne” in (1907) 14 Nouvelles Archives des Missions Scientifiques 229 s.Google Scholar

185 Council of Narbonne (year 589), can. 9: “Above all the following be resolved: that the Jews be prohibited to carry their corpses while singing psalms, but that they hold their funerals in accordance with their ancient usage and custom; and should they dare to do otherwise, that they be made to pay six ounces of gold to the count of the town”. Gonzales, , Coll. can. 661Google Scholar = Mansi, , Cone. 9, 1016Google Scholar. [Vives, , Concilios, 188Google Scholar; Parkes, , Church and Synagogue 354].Google Scholar

186 Cf. supra, text at n. 117.

187 Proof thereof is to be found in the following inscription at Narbonne, made at the beginning of Egica's reign, when the Jewish cult was still tolerated (cf. supra n. 82) and which even contains Hebrew characters, showing that the Jews had no reason to fear marking their tombs as being those of Jews: “Here rest in peace the three children of happy memory of the liege Paragorus, son of the late liege Sapaudus, that is, Justus, Matrona and Dulciorella, who have lived: Justus thirty years, Matrona twenty years, and Dulciorella nine years. Peace be unto Israel! They passed away in the second year of the lord Egica, the king”. (Katz's translation).

[See Blumenkranz's objections against Juster's interpretation, Juifs et Chrétiens 131 and n. 236: “Did Egica (687–702) at the beginning of his reign allow the rule on compulsory baptism to fall into disuse? An epitaph, bearing the date of the second year of his reign and drafted in accordance with Jewish tradition, with the traditional emblems, is not sufficient proof thereof, as Juster believes (La condition légale… 21 and 42, n. 8). This inscription (cf. CII, No. 670, vol. 1, p. 481 sq.) was found in Narbonne, i.e., in a region where the anti-Jewish policy adopted in Spain itself never was—and never would be—followed with like rigour. Moreover, the epitaph commemorates the death of three children of Paragorus, being: Justus, who died at the age of 30, Matrona at the age of 20, and Dulciorella at the age of 9. Was not the accident which caused the simultaneous death of three brothers and sisters the result of some anti-Jewish action, or of measures taken against converts who had relapsed into Judaism?” See also Katz's explanation, Jews 148 ss. and see Katz's observations: “The Narbonne inscription is generally grouped with the Gallic inscriptions, although Narbonne, as part of Septimania, at that time belonged to the Visigothic kingdom”].

188 See infra n. 191.

189 See infra n. 192.

190 L. Baiuuariorum 7, 1 (if we believe, as does Zeumer, that this text originates in Euric's Code). [This problem arose insofar as the Catholic Church prohibited certain marriages which were permitted by the Bible and Judaism, such as the union of the maternal aunt and her nephew, already proscribed by Roman Law (Collatio legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum, 6.4.5; C.J. 5.4.17). On this problem see A. M. Rabello, “Sui rapporti fra Diocleziano e gli Ebrei”, op. cit., text at n. 41. On the family in Visigothic society, see King, Law and Society 222 ss.].

191 L. Visig. 12.2.6: “No Jew shall marry, or defile with adultery or incest, anyone nearly related to him by blood. No Jew shall marry another within the seventh degree of relationship; nor shall he desire or practice any other nuptial ceremony than that customary among Christians. Whenever detected he shall be punished according to law” (viz. by the sanctions fixed in 12.2.11 and cited supra n. 101).

192 L. Visig. 12.3.8: “…if any Jew, of either sex, after being converted, should desire to marry, he or she shall not be allowed to do so, unless a dowry is given, and a marriage contract entered into, as has been prescribed in the case of Christians; nor shall such ceremony be permitted, where it is not accompanied with the sacerdotal benediction within the bosom of the Church. If any Jew should marry without the benediction of the Church, as aforesaid, or should transgress, in any way, the provision of the law relating to marriage contracts, said Jew, after purification by baptism, shall be compelled to pay a hundred solidi to the king, or shall receive hundred lashes in public. Each of the persons aforesaid, that is to say, the husband as well as the wife, shall be liable to said penalty or fine; and the parents of said parties shall also be liable to the same punishment for their infraction of the law.” [Parkes, , Church and Synagogue 364Google Scholar; Blumenkranz, , Juifs et Chrétiens 320Google Scholar.].

193 Note the inconsistency of the statute: it separates the spouses and then sends them both in exile out of the realm. What is to prevent them then to resume cohabitation abroad? and if so, what sense does it make to order that they be separated?

194 L. Visig. 12.3.8: “No Jew, of either sex, shall be permitted to marry a relative, either on the side of the wife or the husband, within the sixth degree, except according to the law imposed upon Christians; nor shall any Jew commit the crime of incest by marriage with a near relation. Those who violate the law by such an illicit union, shall undergo the following punishment, to wit: having been separated from one another each party shall receive a hundred lashes; they shall have their heads shaved, be subjected to severe penance, and then be driven into exile; their property shall be given to such children as they may have had by a preceding marriage—provided the latter have been in no way contaminated with the Jewish superstition, or polluted with the infamy of incestuous marriage. If, however, they should have no children, or, having them, the latter should be tainted with the Jewish error, or with the crime of incest, as aforesaid, then the property of said offender shall be forfeited to the king.”

195 Breviarium 3. 7. 2 = C.Th. 3, 7, 2 (388). [Emperors Valentinian, Theodosius, and Arcadius Augustuses to Cynegius, Praetorian Prefect.

No Jew shall receive a Christian woman in marriage, nor shall a Christian man contract a marriage with a Jewish woman. For if any person should commit an act of this kind, the crime of this misdeed shall be considered as the equivalent of adultery, and freedom to bring accusation shall be granted also to the voices of the public.

Given on the day before the ides of March at Thessalonica in the year of the second consulship of Theodosius Augustus and the consulship of the Most Noble Cynegius.—March 14, 388. (Pharr's translation). See Juster, , Juifs II, 45 ss.Google Scholar; Parkes, , Church and Synagogue 372Google Scholar; Seaver, , Persecution of the Jews, op. cit., 48Google Scholar; Biondi, , D.R.C., 3, 91Google Scholar; Gaudemet, , L'Eglise, op. cit., 526Google Scholar, 629.].

196 On the repression of adultery, see Conrat, , Breviarium, p. 547 sGoogle Scholar. [King, , Law and Society 234 ss.].Google Scholar

197 Cf. the Interpretatio of C. Th. 3.7.2: “By the severity of this law it is prohibited that a Jew should enjoy marriage with a Christian woman or that a Christian man should receive a Jewish woman as his wife. But if any persons should involve themselves in such a union, contrary to Our prohibition, they shall know that they will be prosecuted and subjected to the same punishment as that which is inflicted upon adulterers, and that the right to bring accusation of this crime and the prosecution of it shall be allowed not only to near kinsmen but also to everyone.” [Thompson, , Goths 52Google Scholar; on adulterium in Medieval Sources see Balon, J., Ius Medii Aevi. Grand Dictionnaire de Droit du Moyen Age (Namur 1973) vol. 2, p. 310 ss.].Google Scholar

198 3rd Council of Toledo, can. 14: “In conformity with the opinion of the Council, our glorious king has ordered to be inserted among the canons, that Jews shall not be permitted to have Christian wives or concubines… if, however, any children be born from such union, they are to be brought to baptism”. Gonzalez, , Coll. can. 352Google Scholar = Mansi, , Conc. 9, 985Google Scholar. The canons of this Council were confirmed by the king, Gonzalez, , Coll. can. 355Google Scholar = Mansi, , Conc. 9, 1000Google Scholar. [Vives, , Concilios 129Google Scholar. Of course these rules completely disregard the patria potestas: see Otero, A., “La patria potestad en el derecho hist, esp.” (1956) 26 ADHE 209 ss.Google Scholar; see also Lombardia, P. “Los matrimonios mixtos en el derecho de la iglesia visigoda” (1957–1958) 27–28 ADHE 61 ss.Google Scholar; Parkes, , Church and Synagogue 354Google Scholar; see also Bachrach's observations, “Reassessment” 14 s. and n. 13: “In examining the charge that Reccared began a policy of forced conversions of Jews it must be noted that according to ancient and medieval Jewish law and custom a child is Jewish only if he is born of a Jewish mother or if he goes through the rites of conversion. If a Christian mistress of a Jewish man gave birth to a child, the offspring would not only be illegitimate but would not even be a Jew. Hence neither we nor Jews in Visigothic Spain could consider such a child who was baptized to have been converted to Christianity by force. By contrast, it seems reasonable for the Church to have been concerned about the spiritual and material welfare of a non-Jewish bastard born of a Christian woman living in sin; widows, orphans, and other unfortunates were generally cared for through ecclesiastical institutions. The illegitimate offspring of the Jewish mistress of a Christian man presents a slightly more ambiguous situation. According to Jewish custom a woman who had willingly and openly gone to live with a non-Jew would have been considered dead by her family and by the Jewish community. It was the legal duty of the community to stone her to death if she could be found. If she was not put to death, it is likely that such a woman and her offspring would have had no standing within the Jewish community. In any event, whatever the reaction of the Jewish community, it seems reasonable to assume that problems arising from the baptism of illegitimate offspring of Jewish concubines and Christianmen cannot have been of central importance to Judeo-Christian relations during the reign of King Reccared”.

“The absence of Responso literature from Visigothic Spain on these points makes any conclusion on the reaction of the Hispano-Jewish community to Reccared's law no more than a conjecture. A study of more than three hundred Responsa concerning Jews in pre-Crusade Europe indicates that the problems created by the offspring of the Jewish mistresses of Christians were of no great significance. In short, they are not even mentioned. On these Responsa, see Agus, Irving A., Urban Civilization in Pre-Crusade Europe (Leiden, 1965)Google Scholar”.].

199 L. Visig. 12.2.14: “Where the unlawful marital unions hereinbefore mentioned have already taken place, we hereby decree that the infidel party to the same shall have a right to embrace the true faith, should he or she desire to do so. Should, however, the party refuse, the marriage shall be dissolved, and the recalcitrant person shall be driven into perpetual exile”. Cf. supra text at n. 14. [Bachrach, “Reassessment” 16 s.].

200 4th Council of Toledo, can. 63, Gonzalez, , Coll. can. 384Google Scholar = Mansi, , Conc. 10, 635Google Scholar. [Vives, , Concilios, 213.].Google Scholar

201 Cf. supra n. 199.

202 Cf. supra n. 92. [Bachrach, “Reassessment” 28 ss.].

203 L. Visig. 12.2.18: “Such Jews, however, as…refuse to embrace the Catholic religion, we decree shall undergo following penalties, to wit: …All slaves, buildings, lands, olive-orchards and whatever other real property they are found to have acquired from sales by Christians, or in any other manner whatsoever, although it may have been in their possession for many years, shall be confiscated for the benefit of the royal treasury, and the king shall have the absolute disposal of the same.” [See also L. Visig. 12.3.6, and Katz, , Jews 93Google Scholar; King, , Law and Society 143 s.Google Scholar, 198 s. and see supra text and nn. 84–85, and Bachrach, “Reassessment” 29.].

204 Cf. supra text at nn. 90 and 91. [On the problem of the Jewish “plot” see Bachrach, “Reassessment” 30 and nn. 75–77. According to Bachrach, the plot was a reality; he observes also that “Egica was, after all, an extremely unpopular monarch who was condemned shortly after his death by a Christian writer as a king who “persecuted the Goths with bitter death”. For a discussion of the problem, see also supra nn. 88–89.].

205 L. Visig. 12.2.14: “…from the first year of our reign no Jew shall be permitted to have a freeborn Christian, or a Christian slave, under his patronage, or in his service. Nor shall any Jew be allowed to employ any such person for hire, or avail himself of his services, under any pretext whatsoever”. [Parkes, , Church and Synagogue 355Google Scholar: “The sales themselves were strictly controlled. The purchaser had to be a Christian, and the slave could not be sold away from the district in which he lived. Irregular sales were heavily punished, in order to prevent the Jew going through a formal transaction with a dummy Christian, which left him the effective ownership of the servant”.].

206 Cf. supra n. 61.

207 L. Visig. 12.3.19: “Where a Jew is invested with authority or power by any member of the laity, and by its means he obtains control over a Christian family, his authority shall be at once transferred to the king, and he who accepted it shall receive a hundred lashes, have his head shaved, and forfeit half his property to the public treasury”. [Parkes, , Church and Synagogue 364.].Google Scholar

208 See preceding note.

209 L. Visig. 12.3.19 (in continuation of n. 207): “If any bishop, priest, minister, clerk, or member of a monastic order, should invest a Jew with authority over church affairs, he shall forfeit to the public treasury as much of his own property as is equal in value to that over which he gave said Jew authority. If, however, he should have no property, he shall be sent into exile, that he may learn under the restrictions of penance, how impious it is to confer upon infidels, authority over true Christians”.

210 See infra sec. XIII.

211 L. Visig. 12.3.18: “It shall be, in every respect, lawful for all such persons who are true believers, to engage in trade, and to carry on business transactions with Christian customers; and if any Christian, not informed of the conversion of said Jews, should desire to purchase anything from them, it shall not be lawful for him to do so, until said converted Jews declare that they are Christians, and recite for him the dominical prayer or the Apostles' Creed in the presence of witnesses; and, as true followers of Christ accept or signify their willingness to partake food used by Christians … Such Jews, however, as remain obstinate, and, in the perfidy of their hearts, refuse to embrace the Catholic religion … they shall not dare to go into foreign countries for the purpose of commerce; nor shall openly or secretly engage in trade with Christians, but shall only have the privilege of transacting business with one another … Should any Jew, who remains in infidelity, dare to act contrary to this law, or to transact business with any Christian, having been reprimanded, he shall be given to the Crown, along with all his possessions, to be a slave forever … Where a Christian commits such an offence, if he is a person of superior rank or power, he shall pay three pounds of gold to the royal treasury. And if anyone should buy from such Jews anything that is worth more than twice what he paid for it, he shall pay out of his own property, three times the value of the same, along with the original price, to the royal treasury. If, however, a person of inferior station should be guilty, he shall receive a hundred lashes, etc”. [Bachrach, “Reassessment” 29: “Egica also promulgated a new anti-Jewish policy, which increased the penalties for those who dealt with Jews illegally; important people (maiores) were liable for a fine of 216 solidi, and unimportant people (inferiores) were liable to receive up to a hundred lashes with the whip and be fined at the king's will. All property held by Jews that had been obtained from Christians was to be confiscated by the Crown, but compensation was to be paid. Jews were not permitted to carry on trade with Christians within the Visigothic kingdom, nor were they allowed to engage in long-distance commerce beyond its borders. In addition Jews were subjected to very burdensome taxes that the loss of their wealth presumably made it impossible for them to pay. The bishops at the Sixteenth Council confirmed this law but specifically noted that they did so only at the king's behest”.].

212 Cf. infra nn. 214 and 215.

213 L. Visig. 12.3.10: “Wherefore, we hereby decree that it shall be lawful for no Christian of whatever lineage, rank or degree, whether he belong to the clergy, or to the laity, to receive a gift from a Jew, of either sex, or from any intermediary of the same as a reward for acting against the faith of Christ; or to implicate himself in any other act against the interests of the Christian religion by the defence of such persons, for the sake of a reward. And if any person should be corrupted by the acceptance of any such gift, or should conceal the the notorious errors of the Jews, and should interpose any obstacle whatever, in order that such wickedness may go unpunished, he shall be liable to the penalties laid down by the ancient Fathers, and shall pay twice as much to the treasury as he shall have been proven to have received from the Jew”. [Katz, , Jews 93Google Scholar].

214 C.Th. 16.9.4 = Breviarium 16.4.2. [C.Th. 16.9.4. The same Augustuses (Honorius and Theodosius) to Monaxius, Praetorian Prefect:

A Jew must not purchase a Christian slave or acquire one by title or gift. If anyone should fail to observe this regulation, he shall forfeit the ownership that he wantonly obtained, and the slave himself shall be given freedom as his reward if he should suppose that he should voluntarily give information of what was done. But a Jew may possess in his own property all other slaves who are established as adherents to the true religion, even though he is himself an adherent of a nefarious superstition, if he appears to have already obtained them, or if he should hereafter acquire them under title of an inheritance or a trust fund, provided that he observes the condition that he does not unite them, either unwilling or willing, with the pollution of his own sect. Thus, if this general rule should be violated, the authors of such crime shall suffer capital punishment, as well as proscription of their property.

Given on the fourth day before the ides of April at Constantinople in the year of the eleventh consulship of Honorius Augustus and the second consulship of the Most Noble Constantius.—April 10, 417 (Pharr's translation). Juster, Juifs II, 71 ssGoogle Scholar; Seaver, , Persecution 73.]Google Scholar

215 C.Th. 3.1. 5. = Breviarium 3. 1. 5. [See supra n. 137].

216 Cf. infra n. 217.

217 Such was the system of Roman legislation at its ultimate stage. As regards agricultural labour, compare the phrase in usus proprios (to serve them) in can. 14 of the 3rd Council of Toledo (see next note). [On Roman legislation about slaves of the Jews see: Juster, , Juifs II, 71 ss.Google Scholar; Parkes, , Church and Synagogue 216 s.Google Scholar; Blumenkranz, , Juifs et Chrétiens 184 ssGoogle Scholar. (also on Breviarium Ala-riciarum)].

218 3rd Council of Toledo, can. 14: “…nor shall the Jews be permitted to purchase Christian slaves to serve them. If Christian slaves are circumcised, they shall be liberated without ransom, and they shall revert to the Christian religion.” Gonzalez, , Coll. can. 352Google Scholar = Mansi, , Conc. 9. 985Google Scholar. (The edict of confirmation is set out in Gonzalez, , Coll. can. 355Google Scholar = Mansi, , Conc. 9. 1000Google Scholar). [On Visigothic legislation about slaves of the Jews see: Parkes, , Church and Synagogue 354Google Scholar; Katz, , Jews 96 ss.Google Scholar; Blumenkranz, , Juifs et Chrétiens 184 ss.Google Scholar; Thompson, , Goths 53, 111, 178, 235 and 246 s.Google Scholar; King, , Law and Society 65, 71 n. 2, 136 s.Google Scholar, 141 s., 198 s.].

219 L. Visig. 12. 2. 11: “It shall not be lawful for a Jew to purchase a Christian slave, or to accept of one as a gift. Should a Jew purchase such a slave or accept him as a gift and then circumcise him, he shall lose the price of said slave, and the latter shall be free. The Jew who circumcises a Chistian slave shall forfeit all his property to the king…”

220 Ibid. (in continuation): “Any slave of either sex who is unwilling to become a Jew, shall receive his or her freedom.”

221 Gregory the Great, , Ep. 9Google Scholar. 228 (year 599), (MGH Ep. 2. 223): “Probinus told (me) and I learned that when your Excellency promulgated a certain law against the perfidy of the Jews, those concerning whom it was published strove to deflect the honesty of your mind by offering a sum of money, which your Excellency despised, and—wishing to please the judgment of omnipotent God—preferred innocence to gold”. The statute referred to in this message is clearly the one discussed in the text above, although Zeumer, for some unconvincing reasons, denies this in his note, to L. Visig. 12.2. 12. [On Gregory the Great (Pope 550–604), his attitude to Jews and his letters to Reccared, see: Katz, S., “Pope Gregory the Great and the Jews” (1933) 24 J.Q.R. 113 ss.Google Scholar; Parkes, , Church and Synagogue 210 ss.Google Scholar, 218, 354; Damizia, G.G., “Il Registrum epistolarum di S. Gregorio Magno ed il Corpus Juris Civilis” (1948) 2 Benedictina 195 ss.Google Scholar; Blumenkranz, , Juifs et Chrétiens 202 ss.Google Scholar, 238 ss. and passim; Thompson, , Goths 110 ss.Google Scholar; King, , Law and Society 48, 123Google Scholar; Roth, C., “Gregory I”, Judaica vol. 7, col. 919Google Scholar; Bachrach, “Reassessment” 14 s. and n. 11 observes: “This letter indicates that Pope Gregory believed that Reccared refused bribes from Jews, but we do not know whether in fact this was so”.].

222 Cf. Graetz, , Geschichte der Juden 5, 74Google Scholar n. 2 = (4th ed.) 5. 66. [Bachrach, “Reassessment” 16: “Liuva (601–3), Witteric (603–10), and Gundemar (610–12), Reccared's three immediate successors, continued his policy toward the Jews. They made no effort to enforce the existing anti-Jewish laws and they promulgated no new anti-Jewish laws. At the local level both lay and clerical officials ignored the existing anti-Jewish legislation. In addition, Jews continued to own Christian slaves and hold civil and military positions in which they exercised power over Christians”.].

223 On the question of date, cf. Zeumer in his edition, p. 470, n. 1, and N. Archiv 27 (1901) 422 ss., 430.

224 L. Visig. 12.2. 13: “…their masters shall have the right, until the Kalends of July, to sell, or liberate such slaves, as they choose;” 12. 2. 14: “A Jew shall, however, be permitted to sell his slave, for a just price, to a Christian, under proper circumstances, anywhere he resides within the limits of our kingdom. It shall not be lawful to sell such slaves in foreign countries, unless it should be proved that said slaves reside there.” This was to prevent international fraud: the Jews might have transferred their slaves to the Jews of North Africa. [Bachrach, “Reassessment” 16.].

225 L. Visig. 12. 2. 14: “If, after the said Kalends of July, a Christian slave should be found in the possession of a Jew, half the property of said Jew shall be forfeited for the benefit of the royal treasury, and said slave shall be set at liberty; nor shall any Jew have any claim to the person or property of said slave thereafter.” [Thompson, , Goths 165Google Scholar: “The matter was close to his heart, for the law was published a month or two after he had reached the throne in March or April 612, certainly well before 1 July. His first aim was to remove all Christian slaves from Jewish ownership as quickly as possible and to free Christian freedmen from Jewish patronage. (Indeed, Sisebut even says, though he does not develop the point, that no hired workman may be employed by a Jew.) A Jew, therefore, must sell his Christian slave and the slave's property (peculium) to a Christian purchaser at a fair price. But he must sell him in the locality, near his normal dwelling-place, for the slave's convenience and also perhaps so as to prevent Jews from handing on their slaves to their brethren in Africa and France. If the slave had no property, he must supply him with some. Alternatively, he might manumit the slave, who would then become a Roman citizen liable to tax; but the Jew could not become the freed-man's patron. Fictitious sales were severely punishable. These provisions were to be carried out before 1 July 612; and, if a Jew were found to be in possession of a Christian slave after that date, the Treasury would confiscate one half of his property, and the slave would be freed. The King next turned to proselytism and mixed marriages.].

226 L. Visig, 12. 2. 14: “Where a Jew wishes to free a Christian slave, he must do so in such a way that the latter may attain the rank of a Roman citizen, to wit: that, by the act of emancipation, no services shall be reserved for the benefit of any Hebrew, or of anybody else; and that the said liberated slave may have the power to pass his life wherever he chooses, free from all obligation to, or association with, the Jews”.

227 Cf. supra n. 205.

228 L. Visig. 12. 2. 13: “Any slave belonging to the Jews, who have been baptized shall be returned to their masters, and be liberated by them”.

229 L. Visig. 12. 2. 14: “The aforesaid law which we, induced by piety and religion, have framed for the benefit of our people and ourselves, we hereby decree, with the aid of God, shall be forever valid. And may Christ, the Conqueror, make all our successors, guardians of this law, victorious, and confirm in the enjoyment of His kingdom those who He knows will faithfully enforce it. While we are not of the opinion that its provisions will be violated by anyone; nevertheless, should such a person exist, may he who audaciously disobeys it, or does not reverently observe it, be regarded by all men as the most infamous person of the century; may he lose his life at the moment when he forms the detestable resolution to break said law; and may he be oppressed by the accumulated mass of his sins through all eternity, inasmuch as, by his transgression, he has infringed this salutory decree. And, in the terrible time of the Day of Judgment, reserved for the coming of the Lord, may the said culprit be separated from the flock of Christ; and, placed at the left hand with the Jews, be burned with eternal fire, with the devil for his companion; in order that avenging punishment may be inflicted upon all transgressors, and that true Christians may receive a rich and eternal reward.” [Parkes, , Church and Synagogue 355Google Scholar; Blumenkranz, , Juifs et Chrétiens 197–202, 329–333Google Scholar; King, , Law and Society 136 s.]Google Scholar.

230 Can. 66: “By the decree of the most glorious prince, this council has resolved, that no Jew shall have Christian servants, nor purchase Christian slaves, nor retain such by gift of any person. As it is shameful that the members of Christ should serve the ministers of Antichrist. Henceforward, should any Jew dare to keep Christian slaves of either sex, they shall be liberated, and restored to their freedom”. Gonzalez, , Coll. can. 385Google Scholar = Mansi, , Conc. 10, 635Google Scholar. [ =Vives, , Concilios 214Google Scholar; King, , Law and Society 137.]Google Scholar

231 By embodying it in his Code.

232 10th Council of Toledo, can. 7: “…most of the priests and clerks…so that the very persons who should release those whom they know to have been redeemed by the blood of Christ, propose to offer them for sale in such manner that, under the dominion of their purchasers, they be converted to the Jewish faith and thus develop an abominable trade instead of the holy relationship which the divine inspiration should have established”. Gonzalez, , Coll. can. 460Google Scholar = Mansi, , Conc. 11, 37.Google Scholar [ = Vives, , Concilios, 314].Google Scholar

233 Ibid.: “If, however, notwithstanding this resolution, anyone should endeavour to do any of these things, let him know that he shall be excluded from the Church, and be liable in the present and any future trial, jointly with the Jew, to the same penalty as him, for having once more preferred to provoke the wrath of his Lord as the price for his treason.” Gonzalez, , Coll. can. 463Google Scholar — Mansi, , Conc. 11, 38.Google Scholar

234 L. Visig. 12.3.12: “Now however, we declare that no Jew shall set a Christian slave at liberty… and sufficient indulgence is shown them if they are not condemned for their transgression… We, however, for the sake of mercy, concede to them, that, from the first year of our reign, that is to say, for the space of sixty days from the Kalends of February, every Jew shall have the right to sell his Christian slaves, but not without the approval of the priests or judges having jurisdiction over the diocese or the district to which said slaves belong, in order that the slaves who are sold may not undergo the penalty of death, and that the vendors may not, in some way, seek an opportunity for the commission of fraud, or the infliction of revenge. Therefore, when the sixtieth day from the aforesaid Kalends shall have elapsed, it shall not be lawful for a Jew to have a Christian slave, or any other Christian in his service. After that time, that is to say, the period of sixty days, if any Christian slaves should be found in the possession of a Jew, they shall be free, and shall have a right to all property which has been bestowed upon them by their master, as provided by this law; and said slaves shall be entitled to their freedom, even if it should be proved that they have been forcibly concealed by their master. All Jews who, after the expiration of the aforesaid time presume to keep, in their possession, or conceal, any Christian slaves, or, in any way whatever, attempt to evade the provisions of this law, shall forfeit half their property to the royal treasury; or, if they are persons of inferior rank, and have not the means with which to make reparation, they shall each receive a hundred lashes, and have their heads shaved.”

235 Due to the fact that Christian slaves declare not to be Christians, so that they may remain with their Jewish masters; cf. the following notes. What of the Jewish slaves? [Parkes, , Church and Synagogue 363Google Scholar; King, , Law and Society 137].Google Scholar

236 L. Visig. 12. 3. 13, in fine: “All Jews who retain possession of Christian slaves, and do not deliver up such slaves within the prescribed time, shall, be reduced to perpetual slavery, and belong to those upon whom the king shall see fit to bestow them.” L. Visig 12.3. 16: “All slaves, belonging to Hebrews, and who are members of the holy Christian communion, and who, henceforth, influenced by their masters, do not declare themselves Christians, and remain under the yoke of their masters, for the reason that they have rejected the favour of liberty which was offered them, shall be doomed to perpetual slavery, and shall be given to whomever the king may select. Any person, by whose means this was exposed, if he should be the slave of a Jew, after having embraced the Christian faith, shall receive his freedom. If, however, the discovery was made by a Christian, he shall receive five solidi for every Christian slave, from him who is convicted of having violated this decree after its promulgation.”

237 L. Visig. 12.3.16, cf. preceding note; and 12.3.18: “…if any slave belonging to a Jew should desire to be free from servitude, and seek the favour of Christ, no one shall retain him in bondage; no one shall oppose him in any way, or place any obstacle in his path; but, as soon as he shows himself to be a Christian, by his profession and his oath, and shall openly abandon, or reject the false doctrines of his master, he shall be at once released from slavery; and removed, with all his property, from the control of his master, he shall fully enjoy the blessings of freedom; and the same rule which has been provided where Christian slaves have been emancipated, shall apply, in every respect, to this case”. In order to conciliate this text with that of L. Visig. 12. 3. 3 (cited supra n. 51) imposing baptism even upon Jewish slaves, there is only one explanation, which is that since a delay of one year had been allowed to accept baptism a reward was being offered to the Jewish slave who would make haste and become a Christian ahead of the time-limit. The same reward was perhaps granted after expiration of the time-limit, for the sanction of 12.3.3 only affects the master who has failed to bring his Jewish slave to the font, and the Jewish slave himself whose good intention is deemed to have been frustrated by the perfidy of his master. Generally speaking, the statute seems to have been devised against both the Jewish master and his Jewish slaves who have become Christian in form only; and it lays down that any slave who makes up his mind to become a sincere Christian and discloses the Jewish practices of his master shall be set free. Cf. also supra n. 81. [Parkes, , Church and Synagogue 363Google Scholar; King, , Law and Society 137].Google Scholar

238 Cf. supra n. 235.

239 L. Visig. 12. 3. 13: “Where a Jew, fearing that he will lose his property, fraudulently asserts that he has been converted to Christianity, and protests that he ought not to lose his Christian slaves, for the reason that he has been leading a Christian life, it devolves upon us to provide, that the astuteness of fraud does not prevail, on the one hand, or sincere conversion suffer injury on the other… We therefore grant to all Jews, against whom there exists no evident suspicion of perjury, the space of sixty days from the Kalends of April during the present year, during which time such as desire to be saved, and wish to unite with the Christian communion, may do so; and we direct such persons to visit the bishop of the diocese, and publish their confession of faith, to which their signatures or seals shall be attached … And the aforesaid confession he shall make, not merely with bare words and promises… and he shall profess that henceforth he will, in compliance with the terms of his written confession (cf. L. Visig. 12. 3. 15) in no way change anything included in this law”. [Thompson, , Goths 446 s.].Google Scholar

240 L. Visig. 12. 3. 13, repeating the penalties incurred by apostates, viz, confiscation of property, decalvation, a hundred lashes.

241 Egica's speech to the 17th Council of Toledo (year 694): “For already from the beginning of our rule such was the intent of our clemency for their conversion, that we not only tried to draw them by various persuasions to the Chrisian faith, but also that they should retain (their) Christian slaves by our decree of purification—which they had lacked previously by order of law because of the perfidy; provided only that by a decision of true conversion, and having expelled far the perfidy of heart, the fold of mother church accept them as adoptees.” Zeumer, , edition of the Leg. Visigot., p. 484.Google Scholar

242 Cf. supra text at nn. 92 ss.

243 C. Th. 2. 1. 10 = Brev. 2.1.10. Cf. Juster, Juifs II, chap. 14. To show how that statute was applied in the Visigothic kingdom, we shall quote its Interpretano, which reads as follows: “All Jews who are known to be Romans shall conduct before the elders of their religion only those actions that pertain to the discipline of their religion, so that among themselves they shall observe those ordinances established by Hebrew law. But all other cases which are embraced in Our laws and pertain to the forum, they must contest before the judge of the province, in accordance with the law under which all other persons litigate. Of course, if both parties by mutual consent should wish to be heard before the elders of their own law in a civil case only, that which shall be settled by the arbitral judgment following the agreement of a mutual promise to abide by the decision shall be of the same effect as if it had been decided in accordance with the sentence of a judge.”

[On this problem in the Roman Empire see Rabello, A. M., “A Tribute to Jean Juster” (1976) 10 Is.L.R. 256Google Scholar, nn. 74–96. In particular at n. 76 the text of C. Th. 2. 1. 10 and a discussion thereof. See also ibid., at n. 50.

On this problem in the Breviary of Alaric see: Parkes, , Church and Synagogue 351 sGoogle Scholar. “Lawsuits which did not affect religious questions were to be dealt with in the Roman courts, unless both parties agreed to submit to a Jewish judge as arbitrator. On the other hand, no actions were to be brought against Jews on their religious holidays”.

Thompson, , Goths 53Google Scholar: “…civil suits between Jews, if both parties agreed, might be heard by their own clergy rather than in the public courts; and in such cases the decisions of their clergy were as binding as if they had been imposed by a royal judge”. And see Blumenkranz, , “La déchéance légale: jurisdiction, procédure, etc.” in Juifs et Chrétiens 353 ss.Google Scholar

It should be borne in mind that, in respect of jurisdiction as well as substantive law, a distinction must be made—also emphasized by Guido Kish—between jüdisches Recht and Judenrecht, that is to say, between Jewish Law and “Jewry-Law”. The first refers to the legal institutions of the Jews based on the Bible, the Talmud and the Poskim; the latter, to the special rules which the various nations have enacted in respect of the Jews. On this point, see: Kish, G., The Jews in Medieval Germany. A Study of Their Legal and Social Status (New York, 1970) 4 ssGoogle Scholar. and the bibliography at p. 593 ss.]

244 It is beyond the limits of this work to analyze these subtle distinctions; all we can do is to refer to what we have said on the subject in our earlier book [Juifs].

245 The Interpretatie confirms this in so many words: de solo tamen civili negotio (i.e., only in merely civil transaction), cf. supra n. 240 [but = 243].

246 On the various penalties other than death, which the Jews were not allowed to inflict in the Roman empire, cf. Juster loc. cit.

247 Cf. supra n. 35. [In the year 654. On this problem see also Vinogradoff, G., Roman Law in Medieval Europe (Oxford, 1929) 30 s.Google Scholar: “Entire sections are adopted by the Lex Visigothorum, from the Breviarium, the Novellae, and from customary laws of Roman origin which still lingered in the courts, in spite of the official codification of Alaric II. About one-third of the so-called Antiqua goes back to Roman sources. As to the legislation of the great kings of the seventh century, Chindaswind and Recceswind, who made an attempt to replace personal laws by territorial codes, the greater part of it is based on Roman patterns.” See also Blumenkranz, , Juifs et Chrétiens 353.].Google Scholar

248 Cf. supra text at nn. 82 ss.

249 Cf. supra nn. 27, 34 and text at nn. 154 ss. [Thompson, , Goths 206Google Scholar.].

250 Cf. supra n. 68.

251 Cf. supra nn. 101, 155 and 249.

252 Cf. supra text at nn. 155 ss.

253 L. Visig 12.2.9 cited infra n. 255.

254 4th Council of Toledo, can. 64: “He who is faithless to God cannot be true to man. Therefore Jews who were formerly Christians, but now deny the faith in Christ, are not to be admitted as witnesses, although they declare themselves to be Christians. For if suspected in regard to their faith in Christ, their testimony on human affairs is unsafe. No confidence can be placed in the testimony of those brought up in falsehood; nor is credit due to those that reject the true faith”. Gonzalez, , Coll. can. 384Google Scholar = Mansi, , Conc. 10, 635.Google Scholar

255 L. Visig. 12.2.9: “We especially decree, by the following law, that it shall not be lawful for any Jew to testify against a Christian in any legal proceeding, or business transaction, even though said Christian should be of the lowest rank or a slave; nor shall a Jew prosecute a Christian, in any action at law; or sue him upon any written contract; or subject him to torture for any reason whatever. For it seems sacrilegious to prefer an infidel to him who is a believer, and to subject the members of the followers of Christ to torture inflicted by his adversaries. If, however, Jews should have causes of action among themselves, they shall have the right, under the law, to testify against each other; and to put their slaves to the torture in the presence of Christian judges”. [Parkes, , Church and Synagogue 360 s.Google Scholar: “Without saying so in so many words, Recesswinth forced all Jews who remained in Spain to accept conversion. In his laws, however, there is one explicit reference to rights of unbaptised Jews. Jews, whether baptized or unbaptised, are not allowed to give evidence against Christians, but are allowed to go to law among themselves”. King, , Law and Society 112 n. 8Google Scholar; 136: “In Erwig's eyes, the baptised Jew remained a perfidus, an infidelis, an Antichristi minister. As such he was subject to legal disabilities in his relations with the fidèles. Not only might a Jew not employ torture against a Christian in the courts, but he might not even testify against him. The children of a baptised Jew were permitted the right of testimony, but even then its concession was dependent upon prior examination of their faith by the authorities. These were Reccesvindian laws, but the notion underlying them—that the baptised Jews were not membra Christi but adversarii eius—was precisely that of the Erwigian legislator. Nor might a Jew, except by express permission of the king, hold any official position which involved the control of Christians: his authoritative action against a fidelis brought the confiscation of half his property or scalping and flogging, while the Christian responsible for permitting the exercise of such power underwent severe financial or corporal penalty”. Thompson, , Goths 206.].Google Scholar

256 L. Visig. 12.2.10: “…Jews, whether baptized or unbaptized, are therefore forbidden to testify against Christians. The descendants of Jews, however, if they are of good morals, and adherents of the Faith, shall be permitted to give evidence among Christians; but not unless their morals and their belief shall be vouched for either by the king, a priest or a judge”.

257 L. Visig. 12.3.1.

258 See Nov. III of Theodose, cf. stipra n. 4, sub. 1°. [See especially N. Th. 3.2: “Wherefore, since according to the ancient maxim, no cure must be employed for hopeless diseases, in order that these deadly sects, oblivious of Our age, may not spread too wantonly into the life of Our people like an indistinguishable confusion. We finally sanction by this law destined to live in all ages, that no Jew, no Samaritan, who does not rely on either law shall enter upon any honors or dignities; to none of them shall the administration of a civil duty be available, nor shall they perform even the duties of a defender. Indeed We believe that it is wrong that persons hostile to the Supernal Majesty and to the Roman laws should be considered the avengers of Our laws under the protection of a surreptitious jurisdiction; that they should be protected by the authority of a dignity thus acquired; that they should have the power to judge or to pronounce whatever sentence they may wish against the Christians and very often against the bishops themselves of the holy religion, as if they were insulting Our faith”, and see N. Th. 3.7: “The following exception shall be observed, namely, that apparitors who are members of the aforesaid sects shall execute the sentence of judges only in private suits, and they shall not be in charge of the custody of prisons, lest Christians, as customarily happens, may at times be thrust into prison by the hatred of their guards and thus suffer a second imprisonment, when it is not certain that they appear to have been rightfully imprisoned”. Parkes, , Church and Synagogue 352Google Scholar, Blumenkranz, , “Les fonctions publiques” in Juifs et Chrétiens 341 ssGoogle Scholar; Thompson, , Goths 53.].Google Scholar

259 Juster, , Juifs II, chap. 21.Google Scholar

260 3rd Council of Toledo, can. 14: “Nor shall they hold any public office whereby they can inflict any punishment on Christians”. Gonzalez, , Coll. can. 352Google Scholar = Mansi, , Conc. 9, 985Google Scholar. [= Vives, , Concilios, 129Google Scholar] Reccared confirmed these canons: Gonzalez, , Coll. can. 355Google Scholar = Mansi, , Conc. 9, 1000Google Scholar. [= Vives, , Concilios, 133 ss.Google Scholar; Thompson, , Goths, 111].Google Scholar

261 4th Council of Toledo, can. 65: “By command of the most excellent Lord and King Sisenand, this holy council has decreed that Jews and their descendants are not to hold public employments, as scandal would thereby be given to Christians; therefore, provincial judges, together with ecclesiastics, are to prevent their fraudulently obtaining such employments, and their succeeding therein. Should any judge tolerate such proceedings, he is to be excommunicated the same as for sacrilege, and the person that obtains the office shall be publicly scourged.” Gonzalez, , Coll. can. 384–5Google Scholar = Mansi, , Conc. 10, 653Google Scholar. The words Judaei aut hi gui ex judaeis are generally translated “the Jews or their sons,” but I would rather construe them as referring to Christians of Jewish extraction. Cf. infra n. 264. [ = Vives, , Concilios, 213Google Scholar; Thompson, , Goths, 178Google Scholar: “The Fourth Council now banned on pain of a public whipping Jews and persons born of Jewish parents from holding any public office, because, it was alleged, they used such offices to inflict injury on Christians. Roman provincial governors (indices provinciarum)—for the Jews were Roman citizens—and bishops were to see that this law was enforced, governors who connived being liable to excommunication.”].

262 By the mere fact of confirming all the resolutions of the 4th Council of Toledo affecting the Jews. Cf. supra n. 32.

263 Cf. supra n. 255.

264 The text only refers to Judaei, but this is in accordance with the spirit of Erwig's legislation, cf. supra n. 61. On the other hand, since the king compelled all the Jews to undergo baptism (L. Visig. 12. 3. 3), one fails to see how this statute (12.3.17) could make provision for the case of a Jew remaining Jewish and yet being allowed by royal leave to become a public official. [Blumenkranz, , Juifs et Chrétiens 343Google Scholar; Thompson, , Goths 236].Google Scholar

265 L. Visig. 12. 3. 17: “As from the first year of our reign, that is to say, the fifth day from the Ides of January, no Jew shall have the power to rule, command, or restrain any Christian, except in cases where the king allows this to be done for the public benefit. If a Jew, acting under authority of any person, should presume to imprison, punish, coerce, or illtreat any Christian whomsoever, or should attempt to inflict upon him anything forbidden by law, or even what is not provided for by the laws, he shall either forfeit half of his property to the royal treasury, or, if he should not posses any property, he shall receive a hundred lashes, and have his head shaved”. [Parkes, Church and Synagogue 364].

266 Ibid. (in continuation): “And where any person who is of noble rank, attempts to exercise this power over Christians, he shall be compelled to pay ten pounds of gold to the king; and where he is a person of inferior rank, he shall pay five pounds of gold. Those who have not the means wherewith to make reparation as aforesaid, shall receive a hundred lashes, and have their heads shaved”.

267 Cf. supra n. 265.

268 Cf. supra n. 5, sub 6°.

269 L. Visig. 12. 2. 18: “Therefore, in all devotion, we decree that henceforth, whenever a Jew, of either sex, renounces the perfidy of his religion, and is converted to the profession of the true Catholic faith, and, repudiating the errors of his rites and ceremonies, lives his life according to the customs of the Christians, he shall be free from every burden and disability, which formerly, when attached to the Jewish faith, he would have been subject to for the public benefit; so that his privileges will increase with his freedom from those exactions which are imposed upon such as are blinded by the wickedness of their infidelity, and controlled by the inherited errors of their ancestors. For it is unjust that such persons as are known to have assumed the gentle yoke of Christ, and the light burden of his religion, through sincere conviction, should be oppressed with heavy taxation, or subjected to the pecuniary burdens imposed upon other Jews… Such Jews, however, as… fail to embrace the Catholic religion, we decree … they shall pay the taxes imposed upon them, as in such case provided; and shall pay to the public treasury, out of their own property, the taxes due from those Jews who have been converted”. In submitting this statute for approval to the 16th Council of Toledo, Egica says about the converted Jews: “Therefore if anyone of the Hebrews or their wives or sons thereafter became converted to the rule of the Catholic faith with complete devotion … he shall remain freed from the yoke of any task, which previously standing in (his) error he used to perform for the public good”. Zeumer, edition of the Leg. Visig., p. 482 ss. = Gonzalez, , Coll. can. 560Google Scholar = Mansi, , Conc. 12, 62Google Scholar. As reference is made to exceptions in favour of women and children, the object is clearly a poll-tax (as already noted by Graetz, Westg. Gesetzg., p. 20 n. 3), for which special lists were prepared and which were payable by every individual Jew (or, at least, by every head of family on behalf of his wife and children). In any case, this was no tax levied upon the community as a whole, paying for its members, for the rule whereby baptized Jews became exempt would otherwise have declared the total amount due to remain identical, and not that the tax was subject to an increase: the latter provision indicates that, what increases is the amount payable by the individual Jew to the treasury. What was the name by which this poll-tax was called? This we do not know. Graetz (loc cit.) enumerates the various terms used by the statute by reference to that poll-tax levied upon the Jews, and mentions censio, exactio, junctio, impensio, indictiones judaicae; but all these names are generic and simply mean tax or contribution; they are frequently used in Visi-gothic legislation even in relation to non-Jews, as will appear from glancing at the index of this legislation in Zeumer's edition. It is therefore probable that, when referring to the Jewish tax, the word judaicus was simply added; and this may also account for the expression indicationes judaicae. [Blumenkranz, , Juifs et Chrétiens, 351 sGoogle Scholar. and n. 275. “In these texts Juster only sees the discrimination made between converts and non-converts. But Egica's law was meant to make it quite clear that the distinction is to be made between converts who are sincere and those who are not. The exemption is given to whomever, “by his genuine conduct and loyal profession of faith, reverts to the true Catholic religion”. The same law, when dealing with the Jewish converts' aptitude to engage in trade activity, prescribes the manner in which the orthodoxy of such converts can be tested.”].

270 Cf. supra n. 72.

271 17th Council of Toledo, can. 8: “…We likewise ordain, that certain Christian slaves that belong to such Jews, as shall be selected at the king's will, shall either receive from their owner's property as much as the king by his authority shall grant, or written letters of manumission; and the duties hitherto performed for the public by those Jews, are to be performed to the full extent, without diminution, by the said slaves whom our said prince may have selected”. Gonzalez, , Coll. can. 596Google Scholar = Mansi, , Conc. 12, 102Google Scholar. [Confirming Juster's view see: Katz, , Jews 103 s.Google Scholar; Blumenkranz, , Juifs et Chrétiens 351 s.Google Scholar; Thompson, , Goths 257 s.].Google Scholar

272 Cf. supra text at nn. 214 ss.

273 Cf. supra text at nn. 206 ss.

274 Cf. supra text at nn. 114 ss.

275 Supra n. 115.

276 Supra text at n. 85 and n. 203.

277 Cf. supra n. 211. [See also Parkes, J., The Jew in the Medieval Community. A Study of his Political and Economic Situation (London, 1938) 14 s.Google Scholar: “Many of these laws (Roman Christian laws on Jews) were embodied in canons by the contemporaries of the imperial legislators, and so passed naturally into the tradition of western Europe by the channel of the great collections of canons which were a feature of the pre-CaroIingian epoch. Others were repeated in the shortened editions of the Theodosian Code which were prepared for the various successor states.

With the exception of one country, little change was made for many centuries in the civic position of the Jews as defined in the Roman Codes. The exception was Visigothic Spain. Nothing better illustrates the fact that religion, and not political necessity, determined the whole of this type of legislation, than the Spanish sequence of edicts against the Jews. In the days when the Visigoths were Arians, no laws of any significance were passed. But the transition of the monarchs, and subsequently of the people, from Arianism to Catholicism, did not by some economic alchemy transform the Jewish section of the population from good citizens into bad ones. The only significant change was that the Catholic clergy, until then merely members of the Roman minority, now had the ear of the prince; and to confirm the fact that it was wholly a clerical impulse which inspired a legislation so fanatical that, in little more than a century, it entirely ruined the Jewish population of Spain, those kings who were not elected by the favour of the clerical party, either passed no laws against the Jews at all, or reversed and ignored those of their more pious predecessors. One king, Chintilla, legislated on this matter entirely by ecclesiastical canons, and his successors, Recceswinth and Erwig, made use of laws and canons to confirm each other, in the successive councils of Toledo.

Fortunately for the medieval Jew, the destruction of the Visigothic kingdom by the Moors largely destroyed the memory of the Toledan legislation. The canons of these councils were but rarely quoted in collections, and it would be difficult to find evidence for medieval action based on the sole precedent of Visigothic legislation”].

278 We wonder to what extent the Christian masters of those Jews realized what profit they might have drawn from the talent of their slaves for trade, if only they treated them as human beings.

page 589 note 1 See the critical remarks of Bruns, R. J. in his review of King's book on Law and Society in (1974) 79Google Scholar American Historical Review 120, and of Bonfil, R., (1973) 39 La Rassegna Mensile di Israel 256 sGoogle Scholar. In Bruns' opinion, “King views Visigothic anti-Semitism (of the mere thirty-four laws Erwig personally initiated, twenty-eight concerned Jews) as a consciously pious ideal for reinforcing Visigothic-Roman union; B. S. Bachrach's contra-interpretation unfortunately appeared after publication”.

page 589 note 2 (1973) 78 American Historical Review 11 ss. Shortly before going to press “The Ordeal of the Jews in Visigothic Spain” in Abel, E. L., The Roots of Anti-Semitism (Associated University Press, 1975) pp. 199–224Google Scholar, was also brought to my attention.