CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAMIN SPAIN A. D. 756-1031 C. R. HAINES, M. A. AUTHOR OF "ENGLAND AND THE OPIUM TRADE"; "EDUCATION AND MISSIONS";"VERSIONS IN VERSE. " LONDON KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH &CO. , PATERNOSTER SQUARE 1889 [Note: While there is only one Chapter IX in the Table of Contents, there are two in text. I believe the first was meant to be part ofChapter VIII. ] TABLE OF CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. Invasion of Spain by the barbarians--Its easy conquest--Quarrels amongthe conquerors--Departure of the Vandals--Visigoths gain thesupremacy--Conflict with Eastern Empire--Reduction of the Suevi--AllSpain becomes Gothic--Approach of Saracens--Planting of Christianity inSpain--St James--Gospel first preached atElvira--Irenaeus--Persecutions--Martyrs--Council of Elvira--Council ofNice--Number of Christians--Paganismproscribed--Julian--Arianism--Ulphilas--Conversion ofbarbarians--Degeneracy of religion--Priscillian--His heresycondemned--Priscillian burnt--Paganism, in Spain--The GothicGovernment--Church and State--Power of king--Election ofbishops--Arianism of Goths--Ermenegild--Bigotry inSpain--Jews--Influence of clergy--Of the pope 1-11 CHAPTER II. Period of Gothic rule--Degeneracy of Goths--Causes of theirfall--Battle of Guadalete--Resistance of towns--Theodomir--Remnant inthe North--Mohammedanism--Its rise and progress--Reduction ofAfrica--Siege of Constantinople--Attacks on Spain--Tarif--Arabs inGaul--Anarchy in Spain--Christians in the North--Clemency of theArabs--Treaties--Conquest easy--Rhapsodies ofIsidore--Slaves--Jews--Impartiality of Arab governors--Khalifateestablished--Feuds of Arabs and Berbers--Revolt of Berbers--SyrianArabs--Settlement of Arabs--Effect of Berber wars 11-25 CHAPTER III. Landing of Abdurrahman--Khalifate of Cordova--Condition ofChristians--Proselytism--Apostates--Arabs and Spaniards--Evidence ofChristian writers--Condition of the people--Serfs--No revolts--Nosolidarity with the Christians in the North--Relations with Arabs atfirst friendly--The jehad in Spain--Martyrs in battle--Fabulousmartyr--Anambad, first martyr--Peter of Najuma--No other till 824--Johnand Adulphus--Causes of Martyrdoms--Amalgamation of the twopeoples--Intermarriage--Children of mixed parents--Nunilo andAlodia--Mania for martyrdom--Voluntary martyrdoms--The Spanishconfessors--Threatened deterioration in the Church--Christianityinfected with Moslem customs--Religious fervour inconvents--Fanaticism, of monks--Fresh martyrs--Perfectus, John, Isaac--Arab inability to understand the motives of thesemartyrs--Causes of fanaticism--Sanctus--Peter--Walabonsus, etc 25-40 CHAPTER IV. Flora and Maria--Their adventures--Trial--Meet Eulogius inprison--Their execution--Other martyrs--Hidden Christians--Aurelius, Sabigotha, etc--Plan for procuring martyrdom--Miracle inprison--Execution--Other martyrs--Death of Abdurrahman II. --MohammedI. --Martyrs--Prodigy upon their execution--Outrage in amosque--Punishment of offenders--Apprehension of king--Meditates apersecution--Even a massacre--Series of martyrdoms--Cloister of Tabanossuppressed--Columba, Pomposa--Abundius a true martyr--Othersmartyred--Censor of Cordova--Persecution and death ofRuderic--Eulogius--Parentage and antecedents--Opposes amalgamation ofArabs and Christians--Encourages learning ofLatin--Imprisonment--Elected Bishop of Toledo--Againimprisoned--Trial--Execution--His relics 40-54 CHAPTER V. Doubtful martyrs--No persecution raging--The Muzarabes--Churches inCordova--Arab description of a church--Monasteries outside thecity--Voluntary martyrs, chiefly from Cordova--No ferment atElvira--Enthusiasts not a large body--Their leaders--The moderateparty--Objections against the martyrs--Voluntary martyrdoms forbidden bythe Church--Answer of apologists--Evidence as to persecution--Apologistsinconsistent--Eulogius and Alvar--Reviling of Mohammed--Martyrs workedno miracles--Defence of apologists illogical--Martyrs put to death notby idolaters--Death without torture--Their bodies corrupted--Moslemtaunts--Effect of martyrdoms on the Moslems--Prohibition ofrelics--Traffic in relics--They work miracles--Relics taken from Spainto France--Expedition of monks for that purpose--St Vincent'sbody--Relics of George, Aurelius, etc. , carried off--Return toFrance--Measures of the moderate party--Of theMoslems--Reccafredus--supported by the majority of Christians--Fanaticscoerced--Anathematized--Action of king--Suspects politicalmovement--Revolt at Toledo--Grand Council--Measures againstzealots--Meditated persecution--The extreme party brokenup--Apostasies--Reason of these--The exceptor Gomez--The decision of theCouncil--Cessation of martyrdoms 54-73 CHAPTER VI. National party--Revolt of Spaniards against Arabs--Martyrs inbattle--Martyrdoms under Abdurrahman III. --Pelagius--Argentea--Themonks of Cardena--Eugenia--No real persecution under the GreatKhalif--General view of Christian Church in Spain under AbdurrahmanII. --Civil position of Christians--Councils--Neglect of Latin--Arabiccompulsory--Protests of Alvar, etc. --Latin forgotten--Cultivation ofMoslem learning--Moslem theology--Church abuses--Simony--Breach ofcanons--Unworthy priests--Rival pastors--Heresy in theChurch--Depravity of clergy--Their apostasy--Theirdeposition--Muzarabes--Free Christians in the North--The Church in theNorth--Its dangerous position--Cut short by Almanzor--Clergy oppressChristians--Count of Cordova--Ill-treats the Christians--Councils--Heldby Elipandus--By Reccafredus--By Hostegesis--Jews and Moslemssummoned--Council held by Basilius 73-86 CHAPTER VII. Khalifate saved by Abdurrahman III. --Commander of the Faithful--Hischaracter--Embassy to the Emperor of the West--Return embassy--John ofGorz--Detained in Cordova--Messengers from the king--Cause ofdetention--John of Gorz and John of Cordova--The king'sthreats--Dead-lock--Fresh embassy to Otho--A second embassy fromOtho--First embassy received--Condescension of Sultan--Tolerance ofMoslems--Mohammed's injunctions--Tolerant Mohammedan rulerselsewhere--Alcuin--Arnold of Citeaux--Bernard, Archbishop ofToledo--Christians tolerated, even encouraged--"Officer ofprotection"--Christian courts--Censors--Sclavonian bodyguard--Arabpride of race--Partial Amalgamation of races--Alliances between Arabsand Christians--Intermarriages--Offspring of these--The maidentribute--Evidence in its favour--No myth--Conversions--Mohammedan viewof apostasy 86-98 CHAPTER VIII. Arab factions--Berbers--Spaniards--Muwallads--Despised byArabs--Revolts at Cordova, &c. --Intrigues with the Franks--Letter ofLouis--Revolt of Toledo--Christians and Muwallads make commoncause--Omar--Begins life as a bandit--Captured--Escapes--Heads thenational party--Becomes a Christian--Utterly defeated--Muwallads deserthim--Death of Omar--Stronghold of Bobastro captured--End ofrebellion--Christians under Abdurrahman III. --Almanzor--Anarchy--End ofKhalifate--Knowledge of Christianity and Mohammedanism slight amongthose of the opposite creed--Christian writers onIslam--Eulogius--Mohammed's relation to Christianity--Alvar--Unfair toMohammed--His ignorance of the Koran--Prophecy of Daniel. --Moslemknowledge of Christianity--Mistaken idea of the Trinity--Ibn Hazm--StJames of Compostella 98-114 CHAPTER IX. Traces of amalgamation of religions--Instances elsewhere--Essentialdifferences of Islam and Christianity--Compromise attempted--Influenceof Islam, over Christianity--Innovating spirit in Spain--Heresy inSeptimania--Its possible connection with Mohammedanism--Migetian heresyas to the Trinity--Its approach to the Mohammedan doctrine--Othersimilar heresies--Adoptionism--Our knowledge of it--Whencederived--Connection with Islam--Its author or authors--ProbablyElipandus--His opponents--His character--Independence--Jealousy of theFree Church in the North--Nature of Adoptionism--Not a revival ofNestorianism---Origin of the name--Arose from inadvertence--Felix--Hisarguments--Alcuin's answers--Christ, the Son of God by adoption--Unityof Persons acknowledged--First mention of theory--Adrian---Extension ofheresy--Its opponents--Felix amenable to Church discipline--Elipandusunder Arab rule--Councils--Of Narbonne--Friuli--Ratisbon--Felix abjureshis heresy--Alcuin--Council of Frankfort--Heresyanathematized--Councils of Rome and Aix--Felix again recants--Alcuin'sbook--Elipandus and Felix die in their error--Summary of evidenceconnecting adoptionism with Mohammedanism--Heresy ofClaudius---Iconoclasm Libri Carolini--Claudius, bishop ofTurin--Crusade against image-worship--Hisopponents--Arguments--Independence--Summoned before a Council--Refusesto attend--Albigensian heresy 114-136 CHAPTER X. Mutual influences of the two creeds--Socially and intellectually--"Nomonks in Islam"--Faquirs--The conventual system adopted by theArabs--Arab account of a convent--Moslem nuns--IslamChristianised---Christian spirit in Mohammedanism--Arabmagnanimity--Moslem miracles---like Christian ones--EnlightenedMoslems--Philosophy--Freethinkers--Theologians--Almanzor--Moslemsceptics--Averroes--The faquis or theologians--Sect of Malik ibnAns--Power of theologians---Decay of Moslem customs--Wine drunk--Musiccultivated--Silk worn--Statues set up--Turning towards Mecca--Eating ofsow's flesh--Enfranchisement of Moslem women--Love--Distinguishedwomen---Women in mosques--At tournaments--Arab love-poem--Treatise onlove 136-149 CHAPTER XI. Influence of Mohammedanism--Circumcision of Christians--Even of abishop--Customs retained for contrast--Cleanliness rejected as peculiarto Moslems--Celibacy of clergy--Chivalry--Origin--Derived fromArabs--Favoured by state of Spain--Spain the cradle of chivalry--Arabchivalry--Qualifications for a knight--Rules of knighthood--TheCid--Almanzor--His generosity--Justice--Moslem military orders--Holywars--Christianity Mohammedanized--The "Apotheosis ofchivalry"--Chivalry a sort of religion--Social compromise--Culminatesin the Crusades 149-156 APPENDICES. APPENDIX A. Jews persecuted by Goths--Help the Saracens--Numbers--Jews inFrance--Illtreated--Accusations against--Eleazar, an apostate--Incitesthe Spanish Moslems against the Christians--Intellectual development ofJews in Spain--Come to be disliked by Arabs--Jews and theMessiah--Judaism deteriorated--Contact with Islam--Civil position--Jewsat Toledo--Christian persecution ofJews--Massacre--Expulsion--Conversion--The "Mala Sangre"--TheInquisition 156-161 APPENDIX B. Spain and the papal power--Early independence--Early importance ofSpanish Church--Arian Spain--Orthodox Spain--Increase of papalinfluence--Independent spirit of king and clergy--Quarrel with thepope--Arab invasion--Papal authority in the North--Crusadepreached--Intervention of the pope--St James' relics--Claudius ofTurin--Rejection of pope's claims--Increase of pope's power inSpain--Appealed to against Muzarabes--Errors of Migetius--Keeping ofEaster--Eating of pork--Intermarriage with Jews and Moslems--Fasting onSundays--Elipandus withstands the papal claims--Upholds intercoursewith Arabs--Rejects papal supremacy--Advance of Christians in theNorth--Extension of power of the pope--Gothic liturgysuspected--Suppressed--Authority of pope over king--Appeals from theking to the pope--Rupture with the Roman See--Resistance of sovereignand barons to the pope--Inquisition established--Victims--Moriscoespersecuted--Reformation stamped out--Subjection of Spanish Church 161-173 LIST OF AUTHORITIES 175-182 CHAPTER I. THE GOTHS IN SPAIN. Just about the time when the Romans withdrew from Britain, leaving somany of their possessions behind them, the Suevi, Alani, and Vandals, atthe invitation of Gerontius, the Roman governor of Spain, burst intothat province over the unguarded passes of the Pyrenees. [1] Close ontheir steps followed the Visigoths; whose king, taking in marriagePlacidia, the sister of Honorius, was acknowledged by the helplessemperor independent ruler of such parts of Southern Gaul and Spain as hecould conquer and keep for himself. The effeminate and luxuriousprovincials offered practically no resistance to the fierce Teutons. NoArthur arose among them, as among the warlike Britons of our own island;no Viriathus even, as in the struggle for independence against the RomanCommonwealth. Mariana, the Spanish historian, asserts that theypreferred the rule of the barbarians. However this may be, the varioustribes that invaded the country found no serious opposition among theSpaniards: the only fighting was between themselves--for the spoil. Manyyears of warfare were necessary to decide this important question ofsupremacy. Fortunately for Spain, the Vandals, who seem to have been thefiercest horde and under the ablest leader, rapidly forced their waysouthward, and, passing on to fresh conquests, crossed the Straits ofGibraltar in 429: not, however, before they had utterly overthrown theirrivals, the Suevi, on the river Baetis, and had left an abiding recordof their brief stay in the name Andalusia. [1] "Inter barbaros pauperem libertatem quam inter Romanos tributariam sollicitudinem sustinere. "--Mariana, apud Dunham, vol i. For a time it seemed likely that the Suevi, in spite of their latecrushing defeat, would subject to themselves the whole of Spain, butunder Theodoric II. And Euric, the Visigoths definitely asserted theirsuperiority. Under the latter king the Gothic domination in Spain may besaid to have begun about ten years before the fall of the WesternEmpire. But the Goths were as yet by no means in possession of the wholeof Spain. A large part of the south was held by imperialist troops; for, though the Western Empire had been extinguished in 476, the Easternemperor had succeeded by inheritance to all the outlying provinces, which had even nominally belonged to his rival in the West. Among thesewas some portion of Spain. It was not till 570, the year in which Mohammed was born, that a kingcame to the Gothic throne strong enough to crush the Suevi and to reducethe imperialist garrisons in the South; and it was not till 622, thevery year of the Flight from Mecca, that a Gothic king, Swintila, finally drove out all the Emperor's troops, and became king in realityof all Spain. Scarcely had this been well done, when we perceive the first indicationsof the advent of a far more terrible foe, the rumours of whoseirresistible prowess had marched before them. The dread, which the Arabsaroused even in distant Spain as early as a century after the birth ofMohammed, may be appreciated from the despairing lines of Julian, [1]bishop of Toledo:-- "Hei mihi! quam timeo, ne nos malus implicet error, Demur et infandis gentibus opprobrio! Africa plena viris bellacibus arma minatur, Inque dies victrix gens Agarena furit. " Before giving an account of the Saracen invasion and its results, itwill be well to take a brief retrospect of the condition of Christianityin Spain under the Gothic domination, and previous to the advent of theMoslems. [1] Migne's "Patrologie, " vol. Xcvi. P. 814. There can be no doubt that Christianity was brought very early intoSpain by the preaching, as is supposed, of St Paul himself, who is saidto have made a missionary journey through Andalusia, Valencia, andAragon. On the other hand, there are no grounds whatever for supposingthat James, the brother of John, ever set foot in Spain. The "invention"of his remains at Ira Flavia in the 9th century, together with the storyframed to account for their presence in a remote corner of Spain so farfrom the scene of the Apostle's martyrdom, is a fable too childish toneed refutation. The honour of first hearing the Gospel message has been claimed (but, itseems, against probability) for Illiberis. [1] However that may be, theearly establishment of Christianity in Spain is attested by Irenæus, whoappeals to the Spanish Church as retaining the primitive doctrine. [2]The long roll of Spanish martyrs begins in the persecution of Domitian(95 A. D. ) with the name of Eugenius, bishop of Toledo. In most of thesucceeding persecutions Spain furnished her full quota of martyrs, butshe suffered most under Diocletian (303). It was in this emperor's reignthat nearly all the inhabitants of Cæsar Augusta were treacherouslyslaughtered on the sole ground of their being Christians; thus earningfor their native city from the Christian poet Prudentius, [3] the proudtitle of "patria sanctorum martyrum. " [1] Florez, "España Sagrada, " vol. Iii. Pp. 361 ff. [2] Bk. I. Ch. X. 2 (A. D. 186). [3] 348-402 A. D. The persecution of Diocletian, though the fiercest, was at the same timethe last, which afflicted the Church under the Roman Empire. Diocletianindeed proclaimed that he had blotted out the very name of Christian andabolished their hateful superstition. This even to the Romans must haveseemed an empty boast, and the result of Diocletian's efforts onlyproved the truth of the old maxim--"the blood of martyrs is the seed ofthe Church. " The Spanish Christians about this time[1] held the first ecclesiasticalcouncil whose acts have come down to us. This Council of Illiberis, orElvira, was composed of nineteen bishops and thirty-six presbyters, whopassed eighty canons. [1] The date is doubtful. Blunt, "Early Christianity, " p. 209, places it between 314 and 325, though in a hesitating manner. Other dates given are 300 and 305. The imperial edict of toleration was issued in 313, and in 325 was heldthe first General Council of the Church under the presidency of theemperor, Constantine, himself an avowed Christian. Within a quarter of acentury of the time when Diocletian had boasted that he had extirpatedthe Christian name, it has been computed that nearly one half of theinhabitants of his empire were Christians. The toleration, so long clamoured for, so lately conceded, was in 341put an end to by the Christians themselves, and Pagan sacrifices wereprohibited. So inconsistent is the conduct of a church militant and achurch triumphant! In 388, after a brief eclipse under Julian, Christianity was formally declared by the Senate to be the establishedreligion of the Roman Empire. But the security, or rather predominance, thus suddenly acquired by thechurch, resting as it did in part upon royal favour and court intrigue, did not tend to the spiritual advancement of Christianity. Almostcoincident with the Edict of Milan was the appearance of Arianism, which, after dividing the Church against itself for upwards ofhalf-a-century, and almost succeeding at one time in imposing itself onthe whole Church, [1] finally under the missionary zeal of Ulphilas founda new life among the barbarian nations that were pressing in upon allthe northern boundaries of the Empire, ready, like eagles, to swoop downand feast upon her mighty carcase. [1] At the Council of Rimini in 360. "Ingemuit totus orbis, " says Jerome, "et Arianum se esse miratus est. " Most of these barbaric hordes, like the Goths and the Vandals, adoptedthe semi-Arian Christianity first preached to them by Ulphilas towardsthe close of the fourth century. Consequently the nations that forcedtheir way into Southern Gaul, and over the Pyrenees into Spain, were, nominally at least, Christians of the Arian persuasion. The extremeimportance to Spain of the fact of their being Christians at all will bereadily apprehended by contrasting the fate of the Spanish provincialswith that which befell the Christian and Romanized Britons at the handsof our own Saxon forefathers only half-a-century later. Meanwhile the Church in Spain, like the Church elsewhere, freed from thequickening and purifying influences of persecution, had lost much of itsancient fervour. Gladiatorial shows and lascivious dances on the stagebegan to be tolerated even by Christians, though they were denounced bythe more devout as incompatible with the profession of the Christianfaith. Spain also furnishes us with the first melancholy spectacle of Christianblood shed by Christian hands. Priscillian, bishop of Avila, was ledinto error by his intercourse with an Egyptian gnostic. What his errorexactly was is not very clear, but it seems to have comprised some ofthe erroneous doctrines attributed to Manes and Sabellius. In 380, thenew heresy, with which two other bishops besides Priscillian becameinfected, was condemned at a council held at Saragoza, and by anotherheld five years later at Bordeaux. Priscillian himself and six otherpersons were executed with tortures at the instigation of Ithacius, [1]bishop of Sossuba, and Idacius, bishop of Merida, in spite of theprotests of Martin of Tours and others. The heresy itself, however, wasnot thus stamped out, and continued in Spain until long after the Gothicconquest. There is some reason for supposing that at the time of the Gothicinvasion Spain was still in great part Pagan, and that it continued tobe so during the whole period of Gothic domination. [2] Some Pagansundoubtedly lingered on even as late as the end of the sixth century, [3]but that there were any large numbers of them as late as the eighthcentury is improbable. Dr Dunham, who has given a clear and concise account of the Gothicgovernment in Spain, calls it the "most accursed that ever existed inEurope. "[4] This is too sweeping a statement, though it must be allowedthat the haughty exclusiveness of the Gothic nobles rendered their yokepeculiarly galling, while the position of their slaves was wretchedbeyond all example. However, it is not to their civil administrationthat we wish now to draw attention, but rather to the relations ofChurch and State under a Gothic administration which was at first Arianand subsequently orthodox. [1] See Milman, "Latin Christianity, " vol. Iii. P. 60. [2] Dozy, ii. 44, quotes in support of this the second canon of the Sixteenth Council of Toledo. [3] Mason, a bishop of Merida, was said to have baptized a Pagan as late as this. [4] Dunham's "Hist. Of Spain, " vol. I. P. 210. The Government, which began with being of a thoroughly militarycharacter, gradually tended to become a theocracy--a result due in greatmeasure to the institution of national councils, which were called bythe king, and attended by all the chief ecclesiastics of the realm. Manyof the nobles and high dignitaries of the State also took part in theseassemblies, though they might not vote on purely ecclesiastical matters. These councils, of which there were nineteen in all (seventeen held atToledo, the Gothic capital, and two elsewhere), gradually assumed thepower of ratifying the election of the king, and of dictating hisreligious policy. Thus by the Sixth Council of Toledo (canon three) itwas enacted that all kings should swear "not to suffer the exercise ofany other religion than the Catholic, and to vigorously enforce the lawagainst all dissentients, especially against that accursed people theJews. " The fact of the monarchy becoming elective[1] no doubtcontributed a good deal to throwing the power into the hands of theclergy. Dr Dunham remarks that these councils tended to make the bishopssubservient to the court, but surely the evidence points the other way. On the whole it was the king that lost power, though no doubt as acompensation he gained somewhat more authority over Church matters. Hecould, for instance, issue temporary regulations with regard to Churchdiscipline. Witiza, one of the last of the Gothic kings, seems even tohave authorized, or at least encouraged, the marriage of his clergy. [2]The king could preside in cases of appeal in purely ecclesiasticalaffairs; and we know that Recared I. (587-601) and Sisebert (612-621)did in fact exercise this right. He also gained the power of nominatingand translating bishops; but it is not clear when this privilege wasfirst conceded to the king. [3] The Fourth Council of Toledo (633)enacted that a bishop should be elected by the clergy and people of hiscity, and that his election should be approved by the metropolitan andsynod of his province: while the Twelfth Council, held forty-eight yearslater, evidently recognizes the validity of their appointment by royalwarrant alone. Some have referred this innovation back to the despoticrule of Theodoric the Ostrogoth, at the beginning of the sixth century;others to the sudden accumulation of vacant sees on the fall of Arianismin Spain. Another important power possessed by the kings was that ofconvoking these national councils, and confirming their acts. [1] In 531 A. D. [2] Monk of Silo, sec. 14, who follows Sebastian of Salamanca; Robertson, iii. 6. We learn from the "Chron. Sil, " sec. 27, that Fruela (757-768) forbade the marriage of clergy. But these accounts of Witiza's reign are all open to suspicion. [3] Robertson, "Hist. Of Christian Church, " vol. Iii. P. 183. The sudden surrender of their Arianism by the Gothic king and nobles isa noticeable phenomenon. All the barbarian races that invaded Spain atthe beginning of the fifth century were inoculated with the Arianheresy. Of these the Vandals carried their Arianism, which proved to beof a very persecuting type, into Africa. The Suevi, into which nationthe Alani, under the pressure of a common enemy, had soon been absorbed, gave up their Arianism for the orthodox faith about 560. The Visigoths, however, remained Arians until a somewhat later period--until 589namely, when Recared I. , the son of Leovigild, held a national counciland solemnly abjured the creed of his forefathers, his example beingfollowed by many of his nobles and bishops. The Visigoths, while they remained Arian, were on the whole remarkablytolerant[1] towards both Jews and Catholics, though we have instancesto the contrary in the cases of Euric and Leovigild, who are said tohave persecuted the orthodox party. The latter king, indeed, who wasnaturally of a mild and forgiving temper, was forced into harsh measuresby the unfilial and traitorous conduct of his son Ermenegild. If thelatter had been content to avow his conversion to orthodoxy withoutentering into a treasonable rebellion in concert with the Suevi andImperialists against his too indulgent father, there is every reason tothink that Leovigild would have taken no measures against him. Evenafter a second rebellion the king offered to spare his son's life--whichwas forfeit to the State--on condition that he renounced hisnewly-adopted creed, and returned to the Arian fold. His reason--a veryintelligible one--no doubt was that he might put an end to the risk of athird rebellion by separating his son effectually from the intriguingparty of Catholics. To call Ermenegild a martyr because he was put todeath under such circumstances is surely an abuse of words. [1] Lecky, "Rise of Rationalism, " vol. I. P. 14, note, says that the Arian Goths were intolerant; but there seem to be insufficient grounds for the assertion. With the fall of Arianism came a large accession of bigotry to theSpanish Church, as is sufficiently shewn by the canon above quoted fromthe Sixth Council of Toledo. A subsequent law was even passed forbiddinganyone under pain of confiscation of his property and perpetualimprisonment, to call in question the Holy Catholic and ApostolicChurch; the Evangelical Institutions; the definitions of the Fathers;the decrees of the Church; and the Sacraments. In the spirit of theseenactments, severe measures were taken against the Jews, of whom therewere great numbers in Spain. Sisebert (612-621) seems to have been thefirst systematic persecutor, whose zeal, as even Isidore confesses, was"not according to knowledge. "[1] A cruel choice was given the Jewsbetween baptism on the one hand, and scourging and destitution on theother. When this proved unavailing, more stringent edicts were enforcedagainst them. Those who under the pressure of persecution consented tobe baptised, were forced to swear by the most solemn of oaths that theyhad in very truth renounced their Jewish faith and abhorred its rites. Those who still refused to conform were subjected to every indignity andoutrage. They were obliged to have Christian servants, and to observeSunday and Easter. They were denied the _s connubii_ and the _iushonorum_. Their testimony was invalid in law courts, unless a Christianvouched for their character. Some who still held out were even driveninto exile. But this punishment could not have been systematicallycarried out, for the Saracen invasion found great numbers of Jews stillin Spain. As Dozy[2] well says of the persecutors--"On le voulut bien, mais on ne le pouvait pas. " [1] Apud Florez, "Esp. Sagr. , " vol. Vi. P. 502, quoted by Southey, Roderic, p. 255, n. "Sisebertus, qui in initio regni Judaeos ad fidem Christianam permovens, aemulationem quidem habuit, sed non secundum scientiam: potestate enim compulit, quos provocare fidei ratione oportuit. Sed, sicut est scriptum, sive per occasionem sive per veritatem Christus annunciatur, in hoc gaudeo et gaudebo. " [2] "History of Mussulmans in Spain, " vol. Ii. P. 26. Naturally enough, under these circumstances the Jews of Spain turnedtheir eyes to their co-religionists in Africa; but, the secretnegotiations between them being discovered, the persecution blazed outafresh, and the Seventeenth Council of Toledo[1] decreed that relapsedJews should be sold as slaves; that their children should be forciblytaken from them; and that they should not be allowed to marry amongthemselves. [2] [1] Canon 8, de damnatione Judaeorum. [2] For the further history of the Jews in Spain, see Appendix A. These odious decrees against the Jews must be attributed to the dominantinfluence of the clergy, who requited the help they thus received fromthe secular arm by wielding the powers of anathema and excommunicationagainst the political enemies of the king. [1] Moreover the cordialrelations which subsisted between the Church and the State, animated asthey were by a strong spirit of independence, enabled the Spanish kingsto resist the dangerous encroachments of the Papal power, a subjectwhich has been more fully treated in an Appendix. [2] [1] The councils are full of denunciations aimed at the rebels against the king's authority. By the Fourth Council (633) the deposed Swintila was excommunicated. [2] Appendix B. CHAPTER II. THE SARACENS IN SPAIN. The Gothic domination lasted 300 years, and in that comparatively shortperiod we are asked by some writers to believe that the invaders quitelost their national characteristics, and became, like the Spaniards, luxurious and effeminate. [1] Their haughty exclusiveness, and the factof their being Arians, may no doubt have tended to keep them for a timeseparate from, and superior to, the subject population, whom theydespised as slaves, and hated as heretics. But when the religiousbarrier was removed, the social one soon followed, and so completely didthe conquerors lose their ascendency, that they even surrendered theirown Teutonic tongue for the corrupt Latin of their subjects. [1] Cardonne's "History of Spain, " vol. I. P. 62. "Bien différens des leurs ancêtres étoient alors énervés par les plaisirs, la douceur du climat; le luxe et les richesses avoient amolli leur courage et corrompu les moeurs. " Cp. Dunham, vol. I. 157. But the Goths had certainly not become so degenerate as is generallysupposed. Their Saracen foes did not thus undervalue them. Musa ibnNosseyr, the organiser of the expedition into Spain, and the firstgovernor of that country under Arab rule, when asked by the KhalifSuleiman for his opinion of the Goths, answered that "they were lordsliving in luxury and abundance, but champions who did not turn theirbacks to the enemy. "[1] There can be no doubt that this praise was welldeserved. Nor is the comparative ease with which the country wasoverrun, any proof to the contrary. For that must be attributed towholesale treachery from one end of the country to the other. But forthis the Gothic rulers had only themselves to blame. Their treatment ofthe Jews and of their slaves made the defection of these two classes oftheir subjects inevitable. The old Spanish chroniclers represent the fall of the Gothic kingdom asthe direct vengeance of Heaven for the sins of successive kings;[2] buton the heads of the clergy, even more than of the king, rests the guiltof their iniquitous and suicidal policy towards the Arians[3] and theJews. The treachery of Julian, [4] whatever its cause, opened a way forthe Arabs into the country by betraying into their hands Ceuta, the keyof the Straits. Success in their first serious battle was secured tothem by the opportune desertion from the enemy's ranks of thedisaffected political party under the sons of the late king Witiza, [5]and an archbishop Oppas, who afterwards apostatized; while the rapidsubjugation of the whole country was aided and assured by the hosts ofill-used slaves who flocked to the Saracen standards, and by the Jews[6]who hailed the Arabs as fellow-Shemites and deliverers from the hatedyoke of the uncircumcised Goths. [1] Al Makkari, vol. I. P. 297. (De Gayangos' translation). [2] "Chron. Sil. , " sec. 17, "recesserat ab Hispania manus Domini ob inveteratam regum malitiam. " See above, p. 7, note 2. [3] Arianism lingered on till the middle of the eighth century at least, since Rodrigo of Toledo, iii. , sec. 3, says of Alfonso I. , that he "extirpavit haeresin Arianam. " [4] For Julian, or, more correctly, Ilyan, see De Gayangos' note to Al Makkari, i. P. 537, etc. [5] Called Ghittishah by the Arabs. For the Witizan party see "Sebast. Salan, " sec. 7; "Chron. Sil. , " sec. 15. The daughter of Witiza married a noble Arab. The descendants of the King, under the name Witizani, were known in Spain till the end of the eighth century at least. See Letter of Beatus and Etherius to Elipandus, sec. 61; "Multi hodie ab ipso rege sumunt nomen _Witizani_, etiam pauperes. " See also Al Makkari, ii. 14. [6] The Jews garrisoned the taken towns (Al Makkari, i. Pp. 280, 282, and De Gayangos' note, p. 531). Even as late as 852 we find the Jews betraying Barcelona to the Moors, who slew nearly all the Christians. Yet in spite of all these disadvantages the Goths made a brave stand--asbrave, indeed, as our Saxon forefathers against the Normans. The firstdecisive battle in the South[1] lasted, as some writers have declared, six whole days, and the Arabs were at one time on the point of beingdriven into the sea. This is apparent from Tarik's address to hissoldiers in the heat of battle: "Moslems, conquerors of Africa, whitherwould you fly? The sea is behind you, and the foe in front. There is nohelp for you save in your own right hands[2] and the favour of God. " Normust we lay any stress on the disparity of forces on either side, amounting to five to one, for a large proportion of Roderic's army wasdisaffected. It is probable that only the Goths made a determined stand;and even after such a crushing defeat as they received at Guadalete, andafter the loss of their king, the Gothic nobles still offered a stubbornresistance in Merida, Cordova, and elsewhere. [3] One of them, Theodomir, after defending himself manfully in Murcia for some time, atlast by his valour and address contrived to secure for himself, and evento hand down to his successor Athanagild, a semi-independent rule overthat part of Spain. [1] Generally called the battle of Guadalete (Wada Lek, see De Gayangos on Al Makk. I. Pp. 524, 527), fought either near Xeres or Medina Sidonia. [2] "Una salus victis nullam sperare salutem. " See Al Makk. I. P. 271; Conde i. P. 57 (Bohn's Translation). [3] We must not forget also that the mild and politic conduct of the Saracens towards the towns that surrendered, even after resistance, marvellously facilitated their conquest. But the great proof that the Goths had not lost all their ancienthardihood and nobleness, is afforded by the fact that, when they hadbeen driven into the mountains of the North and West, they seem to havebegun at once to organize a fresh resistance against the invaders. Thethirty[1] wretched barbarians, whom the Arabs thought it unnecessary topursue into their native fastnesses, soon showed that they had power tosting; and the handful of patriots, who in the cave of Covadongagathered round Pelayo, a scion of the old Gothic line, soon swelled intoan army, and the army into a nation. Within six years of the death ofRoderic had begun that onward march of the new Spanish monarchy, which, with the exception of a disastrous twenty-five years at the close of thetenth century, was not destined to retrograde, scarcely even to halt, until it had regained every foot of ground that had once belonged to theGothic kings. Let us turn for a moment to the antecedents of the Arab invaders. History affords no parallel, whether from a religious or political pointof view, to the sudden rise of Mohammedanism and the wonderful conquestswhich it made. "The electric spark[2] had indeed fallen on what seemedblack unnoticeable sand, and lo the sand proved explosive powder andblazed heaven-high from Delhi to Granada!" Mohammed began his preachingin 609, and confined himself to persuasion till 622, the year of theFlight from Mecca. After this a change seems to have come over hisconduct, if not over his character, and the Prophet, foregoing thepeaceful and more glorious mission of a Heaven-sent messenger, appealedto the human arbitrament of the sword: not with any very marked success, however, the victory of Bedr in 624 being counterbalanced by the defeatof Ohud in in the following year. In 631, Arabia being mostly pacified, the first expedition beyond its boundaries was undertaken underMohammed's own leadership, but this abortive attempt gave no indicationsof the astonishing successes to be achieved in the near future. Mohammedhimself died in the following year, yet, in spite of this and theconsequent revolt of almost all Arabia, within two years Syria wasoverrun and Damascus taken. Persia, which had contended for centuries onequal terms with Rome, was overthrown in a single campaign. In 637Jerusalem fell, and the sacred soil of Palestine passed under the yokeof the Saracens. Within three years Alexandria and the rich valley ofthe Nile were the prize of Amru and his army. The conquest of Egypt onlyformed the stepping-stone to the reduction of Africa, and the victoriousMoslems did not pause in their career until they reached the AtlanticOcean, and Akbah, [3] riding his horse into the sea, sighed for moreworlds to conquer. We may be excused perhaps for thinking that it hadbeen well for the inhabitants of the New World, if Fortune had deliveredthem into the hands of the generous Arabs rather than to the cruelsoldiery of Cortes and Pizarro. [1] Al Makk. , ii. 34. "What are thirty barbarians perched upon a rock? They must inevitably die. " [2] Carlyle's "Hero Worship" ad finem. [3] Cardonne, i. P. 37; Gibbon, vi. 348, note. In 688, that is, in a little more than a generation from the death ofMohammed, the Moslems undertook the siege of Constantinople. Fortunatelyfor the cause of civilisation and of Christendom, this long siege ofseveral years proved unsuccessful, as well as a second attack in 717. But by the latter date the footing in Europe, which the valour of theByzantines denied them, had already been gained by the expedition intoSpain under Tarik in 711. The same year that witnessed the crossing ofthe Straits of Gibraltar in the West saw also in the East the passage ofthe Oxus by the eager warriors of Islam. There seems to be some ground for supposing that the Saracens hadattacked Spain even before the time of Tarik. As early as 648, or onlyone year after the invasion of Africa, an expedition is said to havebeen made into that country under Abdullah ibn Sa'd, [1] which resultedin the temporary subjugation of the southern provinces. A second inroadis mentioned by Abulfeda[2] as having taken place in Othman's reign(644-656); while for an incursion in the reign of Wamba (671-680) wehave the authority of the Spanish historians, Isidore of Beja andSebastian of Salamanca, the former of whom adds the fact that theSaracens were invited in by Erviga, who afterwards succeeded Wamba onthe throne--a story which seems likely enough when read in the light ofthe subsequent treason of Julian. These earlier attacks, however, seemto have been mere raids, undertaken without an immediate view topermanent conquest. By way of retaliation, or with a commendable foresight, the Goths senthelp to Carthage when besieged by the Arabs in 695; and, while Juliantheir general still remained true to his allegiance, they beat off theSaracens from Ceuta. But on the surrender of that fortress the Arabswere enabled to send across the Straits a small reconnoitring detachmentof five hundred men under Tarif abu Zarah, [3] a Berber. This took placein October 710; but the actual invasion did not occur till April 30, 711, when 12, 000 men landed under Tarik ibn Zeyad. There seems to havebeen a preliminary engagement before the decisive one of Gaudalete (July19th-26th)--the Gothic general in the former being stated variously tohave been Theodomir, [4] Sancho, [5] or Edeco. [6] [1] See De Gayangos' note on Al Makkari, i. P. 382. [2] "Annales Moslemici, " i. P. 262. [3] The names of Tarif ibn Malik abu Zarah and Tarik ibn Zeyad have been confused by all the careless writers on Spanish history--_e. G. _ Conde, Dunham, Yonge, Southey, etc. ; but Gibbon, Freeman, etc. , of course do not fall into this error. For Tarif's names see De Gayangos, Al Makk. , i. Pp. 517, 519; and for Tarik's see "Ibn Abd el Hakem, " Jones' translation, note 10. [4] Al Makk. , i. 268; Isidore: Conde, i. 55. [5] Cardonne, i. 75. [6] Dr Dunham. It will not be necessary to pursue the history of the conquest indetail. It is enough to say that in three years almost all Spain andpart of Southern Gaul were added to the Saracen empire. But the Arabsmade the fatal mistake[1] of leaving a remnant of their enemiesunconquered in the mountains of Asturia, and hardly had the wave ofconquest swept over the country, than it began slowly but surely torecede. The year 733 witnessed the high-water mark of Arab extension inthe West, and Christian Gaul was never afterwards seriously threatenedwith the calamity of a Mohammedan domination. The period of forty-five years which elapsed between the conquest andthe establishment of the Khalifate of Cordova was a period of disorder, almost amounting to anarchy, throughout Spain. This state of things wasone eminently favourable to the growth and consolidation of the infantstate which was arising among the mountains of the Northwest. In thatcorner of the land, which alone[2] was not polluted by the presence ofMoslem masters, were gathered all those proud spirits who could notbrook subjection and valued freedom above all earthly possessions. [3]Here all the various nationalities that had from time to time bornerule in Spain, "Punic and Roman Kelt and Goth and Greek, " [4] all the various classes, nobles, freemen, and slaves, were graduallywelded by the strong pressure of a common calamity into one compact andhomogeneous whole. [5] Meanwhile what was the condition of thoseChristians who preferred to live in their own homes, but under theMoslem yoke? It must be confessed that they might have fared much worse;and the conciliatory policy pursued by the Arabs no doubt contributedlargely to the facility of the conquest. The first conqueror, Tarik ibnZeyad, was a man of remarkable generosity and clemency, and his conductfully justified the proud boast which he uttered when arraigned on falsecharges before the Sultan Suleiman. [6] "Ask the true believers, " hesaid, "ask also the Christians, what the conduct of Tarik has been inAfrica and in Spain. Let them say if they have ever found him cowardly, covetous, or cruel. " [1] Al Makkari, ii. 34. [2] According to Sebastian of Salamanca, the Moors had never been admitted into any town of Biscay before 870. [3] Prescott, "Ferdinand and Isabella, " seems to think that only the lower orders remained under the Moors. Yet in a note he mentions a remark of Zurita's to the contrary (page 3). [4] Southey, "Roderick, " Canto IV. [5] Thierry, "Dix Ans d'Études Historiques, " p. 346. "Reserrés dans ce coin de terre, devenu pour eux toute la patrie, Goths et Romains, vainqueurs et vaincus, étrangers et indigènes, maîtres et esclaves, tous unis dans le même malheur . .. Furent égaux dans cet exil. " Yet there were revolts in every reign. Fruela I. (757-768), revolt of Biscay and Galicia: Aurelio (768-774), revolt of slaves and freedmen, see "Chron. Albeld. , " vi. Sec. 4, and Rodrigo, iii. C. 5, in pristinam servitutem redacti sunt: Silo (774-783), Galician revolt: also revolts in reigns of Alfonso I. , Ramiro I. See Prescott, "Ferd. And Isab. , " p. 4. [6] Or his predecessor, Welid, for the point is not determined. The terms granted to such towns as surrendered generally contained thefollowing provisions: that the citizens should give up all their horsesand arms; that they might, if they chose, depart, leaving theirproperty; that those who remained should, on payment of a small tribute, be permitted to follow their own religion, for which purposes certainchurches were to be left standing; that they should have their ownjudges, and enjoy (within limits) their own laws. In some cases theriches of the churches were also surrendered, as at Merida, [1] andhostages given. But conditions even better than these were obtained fromAbdulaziz, son of Musa, by Theodomir in Murcia. The original documenthas been preserved by the Arab historians, and is well worthy oftranscription: "In the name of God the Clement and Merciful! Abdulaziz and Tadmir makethis treaty of peace--may God confirm and protect it! Tadmir shallretain the command over his own people, but over no other people amongthose of his faith. There shall be no wars between his subjects andthose of the Arabs, nor shall the children or women of his people be ledcaptive. They shall not be disturbed in the exercise of their religion:their churches shall not be burnt, nor shall any services be demandedfrom them, or obligations be laid upon them--those expressed in thistreaty alone excepted. .. . Tadmir shall not receive our enemies, nor failin fidelity to us, and he shall not conceal whatever hostile purposes hemay know to exist against us. His nobles and himself shall pay a tributeof a dinar[2] each year, with four measures of wheat and four of barley;of mead, vinegar, honey, and oil each four measures. All the vassals ofTadmir, and every man subject to tax, shall pay the half of theseimposts. "[3] These favourable terms were due in part to the address of Theodomir, [4]and partly perhaps to Abdulaziz's own partiality for the Christians, which was also manifested in his marriage with Egilona, the widow ofKing Roderic, and the deference which he paid to her. This predilectionfor the Christians brought the son of Musa into ill favour with theArabs, and he was assassinated in 716. [5] [1] Conde i. P. 69. This was perhaps due to Musa's notorious avarice. [2] Somewhat less than ten shillings. [3] Al Makkari, i. 281: Conde, i. P. 76. [4] Isidore, sec, 38, says of him: "Fuit scripturarum amator, eloquentia mirificus, in proeliis expeditus, qui et apud Amir Almumenin prudentior inter ceteros inventus, utiliter est honoratus. " [5] Al Makkari, ii. P. 30. He was even accused of entering into treasonable correspondence with the Christians of Galicia; of forming a project for the massacre of Moslems; of being himself a Christian, etc. On the whole it may be said that the Saracen conquest was accomplishedwith wonderfully little bloodshed, and with few or none of thoseatrocities which generally characterize the subjugation of a wholepeople by men of an alien race and an alien creed. It cannot, however, be denied that the only contemporary Christian chronicler is at varianceon this point with all the Arab accounts. "Who, " says Isidore of Beja, "can describe such horrors! If every limbin my body became a tongue, even then would human nature fail indepicting this wholesale ruin of Spain, all its countless andimmeasurable woes. But that the reader may hear in brief the whole storyof sorrow--not to speak of all the disastrous ills which in innumerableages past from Adam even till now in various states and regions of theearth a cruel and foul foe has caused to a fair world--whatever Troy inHomer's tale endured, whatever Jerusalem suffered that the prophets'words might come to pass, whatever Babylon underwent that the Scripturemight be fulfilled--all this, and more, has Spain experienced--Spainonce full of delights, but now of misery, once so exalted in glory, butnow brought low in shame and dishonour. "[1] [1] Cp. Also Isidore, sec 36. Dunham, ii. P. 121, note, curiously remarks: "Both Isidore and Roderic may exaggerate, but the exaggeration proves the fact. " This is evidently mere rhapsody, of the same character as the ravingsof the British monk Gildas, though far less justified as it seems by theactual facts. Rodrigo of Toledo, following Isidore after an interval of500 years, improves upon him by entering into details, which being inmany particulars demonstrably false, may in others be reasonably lookedupon with suspicion as exaggerated, if not entirely imaginary. His wordsare: Children are dashed on the ground, young men beheaded, theirfathers fall in battle, the old men are massacred, the women reservedfor greater misfortune; every cathedral burnt or destroyed, the nationalsubstance plundered, oaths and treaties uniformly broken. [1] To appreciate the mildness and generosity of the Arabs, we need onlycompare their conquest of Spain with the conquest of England by theSaxons, the Danes, and even by the Christian Normans. The comparisonwill be all in favour of the Arabs. It is not impossible that, if theinvaders had been Franks instead of Moors, the country would havesuffered even more, as we can see from the actual results effected bythe invasion of Charles the Great in 777. Placed as they were betweenthe devil and the deep sea, the Spaniards would perhaps have preferred(had the choice been theirs) to be subject to the Saracens rather thanto the Franks. [2] [1] Dunham, ii. P. 121, note. [2] Dozy, ii. P. 41, note, quotes Ermold Nigel on Barcelona: "Urbs erat interea Francorum inhospita turnis, Maurorum votis adsociata magis. " To the down-trodden slaves, who were very numerous all through Spain, the Moslems came in the character of deliverers. A slave had only topronounce the simple formula: "There is no God but God, and Mohammed ishis Prophet": and he was immediately free. To the Jews the Moslemsbrought toleration, nay, even influence and power. In fact, since thefall of Jerusalem in 588 B. C. The Jews had never enjoyed suchindependence and influence as in Spain during the domination of theArabs. Their genius being thus allowed free scope, they disputed thesupremacy in literature and the arts with the Arabs themselves. Many of the earlier governors of Spain were harsh and even cruel intheir administration, but it was to Moslems and Christians alike. [1]Some indeed increased the tribute laid upon the Christians; but it mustbe remembered that this tribute[2] was in the first instance very light, and therefore an increase was not felt severely as an oppression. Moreover, there were not wanting some rulers who upheld the cause of theChristians against illegal exactions. Among these was Abdurrahman alGhafeki (May-Aug. 721, and 731-732), of whom an Arab writer says:[3] "Hedid equal justice to Moslem and Christian . .. He restored to theChristians such churches as had been taken from them in contravention ofthe stipulated treaties; but on the other hand he caused all those to bedemolished, which had been erected by the connivance of interestedgovernors. " Similarly of his successor Anbasah ibn Sohaym Alkelbi(721-726), we find it recorded[4] that "he rendered equal justice toevery man, making no distinction between Mussulman and Christian, orbetween Christian and Jew. " Anbasah was followed by Yahya ibn Salmah(March-Sept. 726), who is described as injudiciously severe, and dreadedfor his extreme rigour by Moslems as well as Christians. [5] Isidore saysthat he made the Arabs give back to the Christians the propertyunlawfully taken from them. [6] Similar praise is awarded to Okbah ibnulhejaj Asseluli (734-740). [7] Yet though many of the Ameers of Spainwere just and upright men, no permanent policy could be carried out withregard to the relations between Moslems and Christians, while the Ameerswere so constantly changing, being sometimes elected by the army, butoftener appointed by the Khalif, or by his lieutenant, the governor ofAfrica for the time being. This perpetual shifting of rulers would initself have been fatal to the settlement of the country, had it not beenbrought to an end by the election of Abdurrahman ibn Muawiyah as theKhalif of Spain, and the establishment of his dynasty on the throne, inMay 756. But even after this important step was taken, the causes whichthreatened to make anarchy perpetual, were still at work in Spain. Chiefamong these were the feuds of the Arab tribes, and the jealousy betweenBerbers and Arabs. [1] _E. G. _, Alhorr ibn Abdurrahman (717-719); see Isidore, sec. 44, and Conde, i. 94: "He oppressed all alike, the Christians, those who had newly embraced Islam, and the oldest of the Moslemah families. " [2] Merely a small poll-tax (jizyah) at first. [3] Conde, i. 105. [4] Conde, i. P. 99. Isidore, however, sec. 52, says: "Vectigalia Christianis duplicata exagitat. " [5] Conde, i. 102. [6] Isidore, sec. 54. Terribilis potestator fere triennio crudelis exaestuat, atque aeri ingenio Hispaniae Sarracenos et Mauros pro pacificis rebus olim ablatis exagitat, atque Christianis plura restaurat. [7] Conde, i. 114, 115. Most of the first conquerors of the country were Berbers, while suchArabs as came in with them belonged mostly to the Maadite or Beladifaction. [1] The Berbers, besides being looked down upon as new converts, were also regarded as Nonconformists[2] by the pure Arabs, andconsequently a quarrel was not long in breaking out between the twoparties. As early as 718 the Berbers in Aragon and Catalonia rose against theArabs under a Jew named Khaulan, who was put to death the followingyear. In 726 they revolted again, crying that they who had conquered thecountry alone had claims to the spoil. [3] This formidable rising wasonly put down by the Arabs making common cause against it. But thecontinual disturbances in Africa kept alive the flame of discontent inSpain, and the great Berber rebellion against the Arab yoke in Africawas a signal for a similar determined attempt in Spain. [4] Thereinforcements which the Khalif, Yezid ibn Abdulmalik, sent to Africaunder Kolthum ibn Iyadh were defeated by the Berbers under a chief namedMeysarah, and shut up in Ceuta. [1] The two chief branches of Arabs were (1) Descendants of Modhar, son of Negus, son of Maad, son of Adnan. To this clan belonged the Mecca and Medina Arabs, and the Umeyyade family. They were also called Kaysites, Febrites, and Beladi Arabs. (2) Descendants of Kahtan (Joktan), among whom were reckoned the Kelbites and the Yemenites. These were most numerous in Andalus; see Al Makkari, ii. 24. [2] Dozy, iii. 124. See Al Makk. , ii. 409, De Gayangos' note. Though nominally Moslem, they still kept their Jewish or Pagan rites. [3] See De Gayangos, Al Makk. Ii. 410, note. He quotes Borbon's "Karta, " xiv. _sq. _ Stanley Lane-Poole, "Moors in Spain, " p. 55, says, Monousa, who married the daughter of Eudes, was a leader of the Berbers. Conde, i. 106, says, Othman abi Neza was the leader, but Othman an ibn abi Nesah was Ameer of Spain in 728. [4] Al Makkari, ii. 40. Meanwhile in Spain, Abdalmalik ibn Kattan[1] Alfehri taking up the causeof the Berbers, procured the deposition of Okbah ibn ulhejaj in his ownfavour, but, this done, broke with his new allies. He was then compelledto ask the help of the Syrian Arabs, who were cooped up in Ceuta, thoughpreviously he had turned a deaf ear to their entreaties that they mightcross over into Spain. The Syrians gladly accepted this invitation, and under Balj ibn Besher, nephew of Kolthum, crossed the Straits, readily promising at the sametime to return to Africa when the Spanish Berbers were overcome. Thisdesirable end accomplished, however, they refused to keep to theiragreement, and Abdalmalik soon found himself driven to seek anew thealliance of the Berbers and also of the Andalusian Arabs against hislate allies. [2] But the latter proved too strong for the Ameer, who wasdefeated and killed by the Yemenite followers of Balj. [1] Cardonne, i. P. 135. [2] The Syrian Arabs seem to have borne a bad character away from home. The Sultan Muawiyah warned his son that they altered for the worse when abroad. See Ockley's "Saracens. " These feuds of Yemenites against Modharites, complicated by theaccession of Berbers now to one side, now to the other, continuedwithout intermission till the first Khalif of Cordova, Abdurrahman ibnMuawiyah, established his power all over Spain. The successor of Balj and Thaleba ibn Salamah did indeed try to break upthe Syrian faction by separating them. He placed those of Damascus inElvira; of Emesa in Seville; of Kenesrin in Jaen; of Alurdan[1] inMalaga and Regio; of Palestine in Sidonia or Xeres; of Egypt in Murcia;of Wasit in Cabra; and they thus became merged into the body ofAndalusian Arabs. These Berber wars had an important influence on the future of Spain;for, since the Berbers had settled on all the Northern and Westernmarches, when they were decimated by civil war, and many of thesurvivors compelled to return to Africa, [2] owing to the famine whichafflicted the country from 750 to 755, the frontiers of the Arabdominion were left practically denuded of defenders, [3] and theChristians at once advanced their boundaries to the Douro, leavinghowever a strip of desert land as a barrier between them and theMoslems. This debateable land they did not occupy till fifty yearslater. [4] [1] _I. E. _, Jordan. See Al Makkari, i. 356, De Gayangos' note. [2] Dozy, iii. 24. [3] Al Makkari, ii. 69. [4] When they built a series of fortresses as Zarnora, Simancas, San Estevan. CHAPTER III. THE MARTYRDOMS AT CORDOVA. Abdurrahman Ibn Muawiyah landed in Spain with 750 Berber horsemen in May756. The Khalifate of Cordova may be said to begin with this date, though it was many years before the new sultan had settled his power ona firm basis, or was recognised as ruler by the whole of Moslem Spain. During the forty-five years of civil warfare which intervened betweenthe invasion of Tarik and the landing of Abdurrahman, we have verylittle knowledge of what the Christians were doing. The Arab historiansare too busy recounting the feuds of their own tribes to pay anyparticular attention to the subject Christians. But we may gather thatthe latter were, on the whole, fairly content with their newservitude. [1] The Moslems were not very anxious to proselytize, as theconversion of the Spaniards meant a serious diminution of thetribute. [2] Those Christians who did apostatize--and we may believe thatthey were chiefly slaves--at once took up a position of legal, thoughnot social, equality with the other Moslems. It is no wonder that theslaves became Mohammedans, for, apart from their hatred for theirmasters, and the obvious temporal advantage of embracing Islam, themajority of them knew nothing at all about Christianity. [3] The ranks ofthe converts were recruited from time to time by those who went over toIslam to avoid paying the poll-tax, or even to escape the payment ofsome penalty inflicted by the Christian courts. [4] One thing isnoticeable. In the early years of the conquest there was none of thatbitterness displayed between the adherents of the rival creeds, to whichwe are so accustomed in later times. Isidore of Beja, the onlycontemporary Christian authority, though he rhapsodizes about thedevastations committed by the conquerors, and complains of enormoustributes exacted, yet speaks more fairly about the Moslems[5] than anyother Spanish writer before the fourteenth century. "If he hates theconquerors, " says Dozy, [6] "he hates them rather as men of another racethan of another creed;" and the marriage of Abdulaziz and Egilonaawakens in his mind no sentiment of horror. [1] This was not so when the fierce Almoravides and fiercer Almohades overran Spain in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. See Freeman's "Saracens, " p. 168. [2] As happened in Egypt under Amru. See Cardonne, i. P. 168, and Gibbon, vi. P. 370. [3] Dozy, ii. 45, quotes a passage from Pedraca, "Histor. Eccles. Of Granada" (1638), in which the author points out that even in his day the "old Christians" of Central Spain were so wholly ignorant of all Christian doctrines that they might be expected to renounce Christianity with the utmost ease if again subjected to the Moors. [4] Samson, "Apolog. , " ii. Cc. 3, 5. [5] Speaking of Omar, the second Khalif of that name, Isidore, sec. 46, says, "Tanta ei sanctimonia ascribitur quanta nulli unquam ex Arabum gente. " [6] Dozy, ii. P. 42. On the whole the condition of the mass of the people, Christian orrenegade, was certainly preferable to their state before theconquest. [1] Those serfs who remained Christian, if they worked on Statelands, payed one-third of the produce to the State; if on private lands, four-fifths to their Arab owners. [2] The free Christians retained theirgoods, and could even alienate their lands. They paid a graduated taxvarying from thirteen pounds to three guineas. [3] In all probability theChristians under Moslem rule were not worse off than theircoreligionists in Galicia and Leon. A signal proof of this is affordedby the fact that, in spite of the distracted state of the country, whichwould seem to hold out a great hope of success, we hear of no attemptsat revolt on the part of the subjected Christians in the eighth century, except at Beja, where the Christians seem to have been led away by theambition of an Arab chief. [4] They were even somewhat indifferent to thecause of their coreligionists in the North, and the attempts whichPelayo and his successors made to induce them to rise in concert withtheir brethren met with but scant success. [5] [1] See especially Conde, Pref. P. Vi. [2] Dozy, ii. 39. [3] Dozy, ii. 40. [4] Dozy, ii. 42. [5] Cardonne, i. 106. There can be no doubt, however, that the good understanding, which atfirst existed between the Moslems and their Christian subjects, gradually gave place to a very different state of things, owing in nosmall degree to the free Christians in the North, whose presence ontheir borders was a continual menace to the Moslem dominion, and aperpetual incentive to the subject Christians to rise and assert theirfreedom. Our purpose now is to trace out, so far as the scanty indicationsscattered in the writers of the time will allow, the relations thatexisted between the two religions during the 275 years of the Khalifate, and the influence which these relations had upon the development of theone and the other. It will be agreeable to the natural arrangement totake the former question first. With a view to the better understanding of the position of Christianityand Mohammedanism at the very beginning of our inquiry, we have thoughtit advisable to point out in a preliminary sketch the development ofChristianity in Spain previous to the period when the Moslems, freshfrom their native deserts of Arabia and Africa, bearing the sword in onehand and the Koran in the other, possessed themselves of one of thefairest provinces of Christendom. This having been already done, we canat once proceed to investigate the mutual relations of Christianity andMohammedanism in Spain during the 300 years of the Khalifate of Cordova. It was in fulfilment of a supposed prophecy of Mohammed's, and inobedience to the precepts of the Koran itself, that the Arabs, havingoverrun Syria, Egypt, and Africa, passed over into Spain, and the warfrom the very first took the character of a jehad, or religious war--acharacter which it retained with the ever-increasing fanaticism of thecombatants until every Mohammedan had been forced to abjure his creed, or been driven out of Spain. But, as we have seen, the conquest itselfwas singularly free from any outbursts of religious frenzy; though ofcourse there must have been many Christians, who laid down their livesin defence of all that was near and dear to them, in defence of theirwives and their children, their homes and their country, their religionand their honour. One such instance at least has been recorded by theArab historians, [1] when the Governor, and 400 of the garrison, ofCordova, after three months' siege in the church of St George, choserather to be burnt in their hold than surrender upon condition either ofembracing Islam, or paying tribute. Omitting the story of the fabulous martyr Nicolaus, as being a tissue oferrors and absurdities, [2] the first martyr properly so called was acertain bishop, named Anambad, who was put to death by Othman ibn abiNesah (727-728)--a governor guilty of shedding much Christian blood, ifIsidore is to be believed. [3] [1] Al Makkari, i. 279, says: "This was the cause of the spot being called ever since the Kenisatu-l-haraki (the church of the burnt), as likewise of the great veneration in which it has always been held by the Christians, on account of the courage and endurance displayed in the cause of their religion by those who died in it. " [2] Florez, "España Sagr, " xiv. 392. [3] Isidore, sec. 58, "Munuza quia a sanguine Christianorum, quen ibidem innocentem fuderat, nimium erat crapulatus, et Anabadi, illustris episcopi, . .. Quem ipse cremaverat, valde exhaustus, " etc. It is doubtful who this Munuza was, but probably Othman ibn abi Nesah, Governor of Spain. Fifteen years later a Christian named Peter, pursuing very much the sametactics as the pseudo-martyrs in the next century, brought about hisown condemnation and death. He held a responsible post under Government, that of receiver of public imposts, and seems to have stood on terms offriendship with many of the Arab nobles. Perhaps he had been rather laxin his religious observances, or even disguised his Christianity frommotives of interest. However, he fell sick, and thinking that his lifewas near its end, he called together his Moslem friends, and thankingthem for showing their concern for him by coming, he proceeded, "But Idesire you to be witnesses of this my last will. Whosoever believeth noton the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the Consubstantial Trinity, is blind in heart, and deserveth eternal punishment, as also dothMohammed, your false prophet, the forerunner of Antichrist. Renounce, therefore, these fables, I conjure you this day, and let heaven andearth witness between us. " Though greatly incensed, as was natural, thehearers resolved to take no notice of these and other like words, charitably supposing the sick man to be light-headed; but Peter, havingunexpectedly recovered, repeated his former condemnation of Mohammed, cursing him, his book, and his followers. Thereupon he was executed, andwe cannot be altogether surprised at it. [1] Besides these two isolated cases of martyrdom, we do not find any morerecorded until the reign of Abdurrahman II. (May 822-Aug. 852). In thesecond year of this king's reign, two Christians, John and Adulphus, making public profession of their faith, and denouncing Mohammed, wereput to death on Sept 17, 824. [2] [1] We give the account as Fleury, v. 88 (Bk. 42), gives it, but with great doubts as to its genuineness, no other writer that we have seen mentioning it. [2] Florez, x. 358: Fleury, v. 487. They were buried in St Cyprian's Church, Cordova. See "De translatione martyrum Georgii etc. , " sec. 7. This is the first definite indication we have that the toleration shownby the Moslems was beginning to be abused by their Christian subjects;and there can be no reasonable doubt that this ill-advised conduct onthe part of the latter was the main cause of the so-called persecutionwhich followed. But besides this fanaticism on the part of a smallsection of the subject Christians, there were other causes at workcalculated to produce friction between the two peoples. During thecentury which had elapsed since the conquest, the Christians andMohammedans, living side by side under the same government, and onewhich, considering the times in which it arose, was remarkable no lessfor its equity and moderation than for its external splendour andmagnificence, had gradually been drawn closer together. Intermarriageshad become frequent among them;[1] and these proved the fruitful causeof religious dissensions. Accordingly we find that the religioustroubles in the reigns of Abdurrahman II. (822-852) and Mohammed I. (852-886) began with the execution of two children of mixed parents. Nunilo and Alodia were the children of a Moslem father and a Christianmother. Their father was a tolerant man, and, apparently, while helived, permitted his children to profess the faith of their mother. Onhis death, the mother married again, and the new husband, being abigoted Mohammedan, and actuated, as we may suppose, by the _odiovitrici_, immediately set about reclaiming his step-children to the truefaith of Islam, his efforts in this direction leading him to ill-treat, even to torture, [2] the young confessors. His utmost endeavour to effecttheir conversion failing, he delivered them over to the judge on thecharge of apostasy, and the judge to the executioner, by whom they werebeheaded on Oct. 21, 840. [3] [1] Due in part no doubt to the marriage of captives. See also below for "the maiden tribute, " pp. 96, 97. [2] So Miss Yonge. [3] This date is given by Morales, apud Migne, vol. Cxv. P. 886, and by Fleury, v. 487, who accuse Eulogius, "Mem. Sanct. , " ii. C. 10, of being in error when he assigns the date 851. The Pseudo-Luitprand gives 951, vouching for this date as an eye-witness: "Me vivente, in castro Wergeti, id est Castellon, etc. " Though there were some cases of martyrdom of this character, where thesufferers truly earned their title of martyrs, --and we may believe thatall such cases have not been recorded--yet the vast majority of thosewhich followed in the years 851-860 were of a different type. They weredue to an outbreak of fanatical zeal on the part of a certain section ofthe Christians such as to overpower the spirit of toleration, which theMoslem authorities had so far shown in dealing with their Christiansubjects, and to raise a corresponding tide of bigotry in the lessenlightened, and therefore more intolerant, masses of the Mohammedans. The sudden mania for martyrdom which manifested itself at this time iscertainly the most remarkable phenomenon of the kind that has beenrecorded in the annals of the Christian Church. There had beenoccasional instances before of Christians voluntarily offeringthemselves to undergo the penalty of the laws for the crime of beingChristians. One such instance in the case of a Phrygian, named Quintus, had caused grave scandal to the Church of Smyrna; for, having gonebefore the proconsul and professed himself ready to die for the faith, when the reality of the death, which he courted, had been brought hometo him by the sight of the wild beasts ready to rend him, the courage ofthe Phrygian had failed, and he had offered incense to the gods. Africaalso had had her self-accused martyrs. But the Spanish confessors have an interest over and above these, bothby reason of their number and the constancy which they displayed intheir self-imposed task. Not a single instance is recorded, though theremay have been some such, where the would-be martyr from fear or anyother cause forwent his crown. Moreover these martyrdoms, by dividingthe Church on the question of their merit, whether, that is, thevictims were to be ranked as true martyrs or not, and, giving rise to awritten controversy on the subject, has supplied us with ample, ifrather one-sided, materials for estimating the provocation given, andreceived, on either side. As time went on, and the Christians and Moslems mingled more closelytogether in political and social life, the Church no doubt suffered somedeterioration. Every interested motive was enlisted in favour ofdropping as far as possible out of sight[1] those distinctive featuresof Christianity which might be calculated to give offence to theMoslems; of conforming to all those Mohammedan customs, which are not inthe Bible expressly forbidden to a Christian;[2] and, generally, ofemphasizing the points on which Christianity agrees with Mohammedanism, and ignoring those (far more important ones) in which they differ. TheMoslems had no such reason for dissembling their convictions, ormodifying their tenets. Consequently a spiritual paralysis was creepingupon the Church, which threatened in the course of time, if not checked, to destroy the very life of Christianity throughout the peninsula. Thecase of Africa, from which Islam had extirpated Christianity, showedthat this was no imaginary danger. But Spain had this advantage overAfrica: it contained a free Christian community which had never passedunder the Moslem yoke, where the fire of Christianity, in danger ofbeing swept away by the devouring flames of Mohammedanism, might benursed and cherished, till it could again blaze forth with its formerbrilliancy. [1] See below, p. 72, note 5. [2] _E. G. , _ circumcision. Yet in Mohammedan Spain religious fervour was not wholly vanished: itwas still to be found among the clergy, and specially among the dwellersin convents. Monks and nuns, severed from all worldly influences, in thesilence of their cloisters, would read the lives of the Saints[1] ofold, and meditate upon their glorious deeds, and the miracles whichtheir faith had wrought. They would brood over such texts as, "Ye shallbe brought before rulers and kings for My sake;"[2] and, "Every one whoshall confess Me before men, him will I also confess before My Father, which is in Heaven;"[3] till they brought themselves to believe that itwas their imperative duty to bring themselves before rulers and kings, and not only to confess Christ, but to revile Mohammed. [1] See Dozy, ii. 112. [2] St Mark xiii. 9. [3] St Matt. X. 32. However, the reproach of fanatical self-destruction will not apply, asthe apologists of their doings have not failed to point out, to thefirst two victims that suffered in this persecution. Perfectus, [1] a priest of Cordova, who had been brought up in the schoolattached to the church of St Acislus, on going out one day to purchasesome necessaries for domestic use, was stopped by some of the Moslems inthe street, and asked to give his opinion of their Prophet. What ledthem to make this strange request, we are not told, [2] but stated thusbarely it certainly gives us the impression that it was intended tobring the priest into trouble. For it was a well-known law in Moslemcountries that if any one cursed a Mohammedan, he was to be scourged, [3]if he struck him, killed: the latter penalty also awaiting any one whospoke evil of Mohammed, and extending even to a Mussulman ruler, if heheard the blasphemy without taking notice of it. [4] Perfectus, therefore, being aware of this law, gave a cautious[5] answer, decliningto comply with their request until they swore that he should receive nohurt in consequence of what he might say. On their giving the requiredstipulation, he quoted the words, "For there shall arise false Christsand false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuchthat if it were possible they shall deceive the very elect, "[6] andproceeded to speak of Mohammed in the usual fashion, as a lying impostorand a dissolute adulterer, concluding with the words, "Thus hath he, theencourager of all lewdness, and the wallower in his own filthy lusts, delivered you all over to the indulgence of an everlasting sensuality. "This ill-advised abuse of one, whom the Moslems revere as we revereChrist, and the ungenerous advantage taken of the oath, which they hadmade, naturally incensed his hearers to an almost uncontrollable degree. They respected their promise, however, and refrained from laying handson him at that time, with the intention, says Eulogius, of revengingthemselves on a future occasion. [7] [1] Eulogius, "Mem. Sanct. , " ii. , ch. I. Secs. 1-4: Alvar, "Indic. Lum. , " sec. 3. [2] See, however, Appendix A, p. 158. [3] Alvar, "Ind. Lum. , " sec. 6. "Ecce enim lex publica pendet, et legalis iussa per omnem regnum eorum discurrit, ut, qui blasphematur, flagellatur, et qui percusserit occidatur. " Neander V. , p. 464, note, points out that "blasphemaverit" refers to cursing Moslems, not Mohammed. Eul. , "Mem. Sanct. , " Pref. , sec. 5, "Irrefragibilis manet sententia, animadverti debere in eos qui talia de ipso non vcrentur profiteri. " On hearing of Isaac's death the king published a reminder on this law. [4] See p. 91. [5] Alvar, "Ind. Lum. , " sec. 3, calls it a timid answer. [6] Matt. Xxiv. 24. [7] "Accensum ultionis furorem in corde ad perniciem eius reponunt. " Eulogius, 1. 1. If this was so, the opportunity soon presented itself, and Perfectus, being abroad on an errand similar to the previous one, was met[1] by hisformer interrogators, who, on the charge of reviling Mohammed, and doingdespite to their religion, dragged him before the Kadi. Beingquestioned, his courage at first failed him, and he withdrew his words. He was then imprisoned to await further examination at the end of themonth, which happened to be the Ramadhan or fast month. In prison thepriest repented his weakness, and when brought again before the judge onthe Mohammedan Easter, he recanted his recantation, adding, "I havecursed and do curse your prophet, a messenger not of God, but of Satan, a dealer in witchcraft, an adulterer, and a liar. " He was immediatelyled off for execution, but before his death prophesied that of theKing's minister, Nazar, within a year of his own. He was beheaded onApril 18, 850. [2] The apologists, on insufficient evidence, describe thedeath of two Moslems, who were drowned the same day in the river, as amanifest judgement of Heaven for the murder of Perfectus. [3] [1] "Dolo circumventum, " says Alvar, "Ind. Lum. , " sec. 4. [2] Johannes Vasaeus places this persecution (by a manifest error) in 950, under Abdurrahman III. , stating at the same time that some writers placed it in 850, but, as it appeared to him, wrongly: "Abdurrahman Halihatan rex Cordobae movit duodecimam persecutionem in Christianos. " [3] Eulog. , "Mem. Sanct. " ii. , ch. I. Sec. 5. The example set by Perfectus did not bear fruit at once, but no doubtthe evidence which it gave of the ease and comparative painlessness, with which a martyr's crown could be obtained, was not lost upon thebrooding and zealous spirits living in solitary retreats and trying by alife of religious devotion to cut themselves off from the seductivepleasures of an active life. The next victim, a little more than a year later, was a petty tradesman, named John, [1] who does not seem to have courted his own fate. He hadaroused the animosity of his Moslem rivals by a habit which he hadcontracted of pronouncing the name of the Prophet in his markettransactions, taking his name, as they thought, in vain, and with a viewto attracting buyers. [2] John, being taxed with this, with ill-timedpleasantry retorted, "Cursed be he who wishes to name your Prophet. " Hewas haled before the Kadi, and, after receiving 400 stripes, [3] wasthrown into prison. Subsequently he was taken thence and driven throughthe city riding backwards on an ass, while a crier was sent before himthrough the Christian quarters, proclaiming: "Such shall be thepunishment of those, that speak evil of the Prophet of God. " [1] Eugolius, "Mem. Sanct. " i. Sec. 9; and Alvar, Ind. Lum. Sec. 5. [2] So Eulogius, 1. 1. , and Dozy, ii. , 129. Alvar's account (1. 1. ) is not very intelligible: "Parvipendens nostrum prophetam, semper eius nomen in derisione frequentas, et mendacium tuum per iuramenta nostrae religionis, ut tibi videtur, falsa auribus te ignorantium Christianum esse semper confirmas. " [3] Or, according to Eulogius, 500. So far we have had cases, where the charge of persecution, brought bythe apologists of the martyrs against the Moslems, can be more or lesssustained, but the next instance is of a different character. Isaac, [1]a monk of Tabanos, and descended from noble and wealthy ancestors, wasborn in 824, and by his knowledge of Arabic, attained in early life tothe position of an exceptor, or scribe, [2] but gave up his appointmentat the age of twenty, in order to enter the monastery of Tabanos, whichhis uncle and aunt, Jeremiah and Elizabeth, had founded near Cordova. [1] Eulog. , "Mem. Sanct. , " ii. Ch. Ii. Sec. 1, also Pref. , secs. 2 ff. After his death Isaac was credited with having performed miracles from his earliest years. He was said to have spoken three times in his mother's womb (cp. A similar fable about Jesus in the Koran, c. Iii. Verse 40), and when a child, to have embraced, unhurt, a globe of fire from Heaven. [2] Not, as Florez, a tax-gatherer. Roused by the tale of Perfectus' death and John's sufferings, hevoluntarily went before the Kadi, and, pretending to be an "enquirer, "begged him to expound to him the doctrines of Islam. The Kadi, congratulating himself on the prospect of such a promising convert, gravely complied; when Isaac, answering him in fluent Arabic, said: "Hehas lied unto you--may the curse of Heaven consume him!--who full of allwickedness has led astray so many men, and doomed them with himself tothe lowest deep of hell. Filled with Satan, and practising Satanic arts, he hath given his followers a drink of deadly wine, and will withoutdoubt expiate his guilt with everlasting damnation. " Hearing these, andother like _chaste_[1] utterances, the judge listened in a sort ofstupor of rage and astonishment, feelings which even found vent intears; till, his indignation passing all control, he struck the monk inthe face, who then said, "Dost thou strike that which is made in theimage of God?"[2] The assessors of the Kadi also reproached him forstriking a prisoner, their law being that one who is worthy of deathshould not suffer other indignities. The Kadi, having now recovered hisself-command, gave his decision, that Isaac, whether drunk or mad, hadcommitted a crime which, by an express law of Mohammed's, meritedcondign punishment. He was accordingly beheaded, and, his body beingburnt, his ashes were cast into the river (June 3, 851). This was doneto prevent the Christians from carrying off his body, and preserving itfor the purpose of working miracles. [3] Isaac's conduct and fate, Eulogius tells us, electrified the people, whowere amazed at the _newness_ of the thing. [4] It was at this point thatEulogius himself began to shew his sympathy with these fanatical doingsby encouraging and helping others to follow Isaac's example. [1] Eulogius, "Mem. Sanct. , " Pref. , sec. 5, "_Ore pudico_ summisque reverentiae ausibus viribusque. " [2] Cp. Acts xxiii. 3. [3] Eulog. , "Lib. Apolog. , " sec. 35, mentions a proposed edict of the authorities, visiting the seeker of relics with severer penalties. [4] See Eulog. , Letter to Alvar, apud Florez. , xi. 290. The number of misguided men and women that now came forward and threwtheir lives away is certainly remarkable, and seems to have struck theMoslems as perfectly unaccountable. The Arabs themselves were as bravemen as the world has ever seen, and, by the very ordinances of theirfaith, were bound to adventure their lives for their religion in actualhuman conflict with infidel foes, yet they were unable to conceive howany man in his senses could willingly deprive himself of life in such away as could do no service to the cause, religious or other, which hehad at heart. They were quite unable to appreciate that intenseantagonism towards the world and its perilous environment, whichChristianity teaches; that spirit of renouncement of the vanities, nay, even of the duties of life, which prompted men and women to immurethemselves in cloisters and retreats, far from all spheres of humanusefulness. Life under these circumstances had naturally little to makeit worth the living, and became all the more easy to relinquish, whendeath, in itself a thing to be desired, was further invested with theglories of martyrdom. The example of Isaac was therefore followed within two days by a monknamed Sanctius[1] or Sancho, who was executed on June 5th. Three dayslater were beheaded Peter, a priest of Ecija; Walabonsus, a deacon ofIlipa; Sabinianus and Wistremundus, monks of St Zoilus; Habentius, amonk of St Christopher's Church at Cordova; while Jeremiah, [2] uncle ofIsaac, was scourged to death. Their bodies were burned, and the ashescast into the river. Sisenandus of Badajos[3] found a similar fate on July 16th: four dayssubsequently Paul, a deacon of St Zoilus, gave himself up; and the samenumber of days later, Theodomir, a monk of Carmona: all of whom werebeheaded. [1] Eulog. , "Mem. Sanct. , " ii. C. 3. [2] _Ibid. _, c. Iv. [3] After his martyrdom he procured the release from prison of Tiberias, priest of Beja! Eulog. , "Mem. Sanct. , " ii. C. Vi. CHAPTER IV. FANATICISM OF THE MARTYRS. The next candidates for martyrdom were two young and beautiful girls, whose history we learn from their patron, Eulogius, who seems to haveregarded one of these maidens, Flora, with a Platonic love mingled witha sort of religious devotion. Flora, [1] the daughter of a Moslem father and a Christian mother, wasborn at Cordova. She is said to have practised abstinence even in hercradle. At first she was brought up as a Moslem, and lived in conformitywith that faith, until, being converted to Christianity about eightyears before this time, and finding the intolerance of her father andher brother unbearable, she deserted her home. But when her brother, inhis efforts to discover and reclaim her, persecuted many Christianfamilies, whom he suspected of conniving at her escape, she voluntarilysurrendered herself to him, saying, "Here am I whom you seek, and forwhose sake you persecute the people of God. I am a Christian. Do yourbest to annul that confession: none of your torments will be able toovercome my faith. " Her brother, after trying in vain, by alternatethreats and blandishments, to bring her back from her error, finallydragged her before the Kadi; and he, hearing her brother's accusation, and her own confession, ordered her to be barbarously beaten, and thengiven up nearly dead to her brother. She managed, however, to recover, and escaped under angelic guidance. [2] Shortly afterwards, while prayingin a church, she was found by Maria, sister of Walabonsusabove-mentioned, [3] who had been martyred a few months previously. Their father, being a Christian, converted his unbelieving wife. Theycame to live at Froniano, near Cordova, and their daughter was educatedat the nunnery of Cuteclara, near the city, under the care of theabbess, Artemia. Brooding over her brother's martyrdom, and perhaps, aswas so often the case, seeing his glorified spirit in a vision, she leftthe cloister, determining to follow in his saintly footsteps. While onher way to give herself up, she turned aside into a church to pray, andfound Flora there. [1] "Life of Flora and Maria, " by Eulogius, secs. 3 ff. [2] _Ibid. _, sec. 8. "Agelico comitante meatu. " [3] "Life of Flora and Maria, " sec. 11. Lane Poole, "Moors in Spain, " says, "Sister of Isaac. " Together, then, did these devoted girls go forth[1] to curse Mohammed, of whom they probably knew next to nothing, and lose their own lives. The judge, however, pitying their youth and beauty, merely imprisonedthem. News of his sister's imprisonment being brought to Flora'sbrother, he induced the judge to make a further examination of her, andshe was brought out of prison before the Kadi, who, pointing to herbrother, asked her if she knew him. Flora answered that she did--as herbrother according to the flesh. "How is it, then, " asked the judge, "that he remains a good Moslem, while you have apostatized?" Sheanswered that God had enlightened her; and, on professing herself readyto repeat her former denunciations of the Prophet, she was againremanded to prison. Here she and Maria are threatened with being thrownupon the streets as prostitutes[2]--a punishment far worse than theeasy death they had desired. This shakes their constancy; when theyfind an unexpected comforter in Eulogius himself, who is now imprisonedfor being an encourager and inciter of defiance to the laws. It isstrange that he should have been allowed to carry on in the prisonitself the very work for which he had been imprisoned. The support ofEulogius enabled these tender maidens to stand firm through anotherexamination, and the judge, proving too merciful, or too good a Moslem, to carry out the above-mentioned threat, they were led forth to die(November 24, 851). Before their death they had promised Eulogius tointercede before the throne of God for his release, which accordingly isbrought to pass six days after their own execution. [3] An interval of only a little more than a month elapsed beforeGumesindus, a priest of the district called Campania, near Cordova, andServus Dei, a monk, suffered death in the same way (January 13, 852). [4] [1] Eulog. To Alvar, i. Sec. 2; "Life of Flora and Maria, " by Eulog. , sec. 12. [2] _Ibid. _, sec. 13, and Eulog. , "Doc. Mart. , " sec. 4. Eulogius tried to lessen the terror of this threat by pointing out that "non polluit mentem aliena corruptio, quam non foedat propria delectatis, "--a poor consolation, but the only one! He does not seem to have known--or surely he would have quoted it--the express injunction of the Koran (xxiv. Verse 35):--"Compel not your maidservants to prostitute themselves, if they be willing to live chastely . .. But, if any shall compel them thereto, verily God will be gracious and merciful unto such women after their compulsion. " [3] Eulog. , letter to Alvar, Florez, xi. 295. Fleury, v. 100. [4] Eulogius, "Mem. Sanct. , " ii. C. Ix. There was now a pause for six months in the race for martyrdom, and itseemed as if the Church had come to its right mind upon this subject. This, however, was far from being the case. Hitherto the victims hadbeen almost without exception priests, monks, and nuns; but the nextmartyrs afford us instances of married couples claiming a share in thisdoubtful honour. These were Aurelius, son of a Moslem father and aChristian mother, and his wife Sabigotha (or Nathalia), the daughter ofMoslem parents, whose father dying, her mother married a Christian andwas converted; and Felix and his wife Liliosa. [1] It would seem thatwith all the harm that was done by this outbreak of fanaticism, somegood was also effected in awaking the worldly-minded adherents ofChristianity from the spiritual torpor into which they were sinking; forthese new martyrs were of the class of hidden[2] Christians, who werenow shamed into avowing their real creed. [3] Yet surely it had been farbetter if they had been content to live like Christians instead of dyinglike suicides. In their case, indeed, we find no sudden irresistibleimpulse driving them to defy the laws, but a slowly-matured convictionthat it was their duty, disregarding all human ties, to give themselvesup to death. In this resolution they were fortified by the advice andencouragement of Eulogius and Alvar, [4] the latter of whom prudentlywarns Aurelius to make sure that his courage is sufficient to stand thetrial. [5] Sabigotha is persuaded to accompany her husband in hisself-destruction, her natural reluctance to leave her children beingovercome by Eulogius, [6] who recommends that they should be given overto the care of a monastery. A seasonable vision, in which Flora andMaria appear to her, clenches her purpose. [1] _Ibid. _, ii. Ch. X. , secs. 1, 2. [2] See below, p. 72. [3] Aurelius was roused from his religious dissimulation by seeing the sufferings of John. See Eulog. , "Mem. Sanct. , " ii. C. X. Sec. 5. [4] _Ibid. _, sec. 18. [5] This would lead us to suppose that the courage of some _had_ failed. [6] Eulogius comments:--"O admirabilis ardor divinus, quo filiorum affectus respuitur!" The parents not only desert their children, but give away most of their goods to the poor, thereby making their own children of the number. Meanwhile a foreign monk from Bethlehem, who, being sent on businessconnected with his monastery to Africa, had crossed over in Spain, impelled by the wild enthusiasm there prevailing, determined to offerhimself as a candidate for martyrdom with the four persons abovementioned. They then take counsel together how they may best effect their purpose, there being evidently enough difficulty in procuring martyrdom forthemselves to shew the statements of the apologists, that there was afierce persecution raging, to be at least much exaggerated, if notentirely without foundation. The plan decided upon, which the devisersaudaciously attributed to the suggestion of God, [1] was that the womenshould go forth unveiled and with hurried steps to the church, in thehope that such an unwonted sight would direct attention to them, andoccasion the arrest of the whole number. It fell out as desired, andthey were all brought before the judge, and interrogated with the usualresult, except that the judge on this occasion dismissed them withscornful anger. [2] But George, disappointed at his untoward clemency, asthey were being led away broke out with, [3] "Can you not go down to hellwithout seeking to drag us also thither as your companions?" This incoherent abuse naturally incensed the soldiers, as it was nodoubt intended that it should. Accordingly the prisoners were draggedagain before the Kadi, who asked them in a mild tone of remonstrance, why they had abandoned the faith of Islam, [4] and refused to live, promising them at the same time great rewards, if they would becomeMoslems again. On their refusal they were remanded for two days, whichseemed a very long time, so eager were they to die. They pass the timewith singing hymns, and are blessed with visits of angels and miraculoussigns. Their chains drop off, and the gaolers dare not again bind thosewhom Christ Himself had loosed. [5] The authorities, now as ever, anxiousif possible to avoid extreme penalties, determine to release George, because they had not themselves[6] heard his blasphemy. He baulks theirmerciful intention by repeating his words on the spot, and he isaccordingly led forth and beheaded with the others (July 27, 852). Within a month Christopher, [7] a monk of Rojana, and of Arab lineage, and Leovigild, a monk of Fraga, both being places near Cordova, areexecuted for the same offence and in the same manner, their dead bodiesbeing nailed to stakes. While taking the air in his palace, [8] the kingsaw these bodies, and ordered them to be burnt, and the ashes scatteredin the river. The same night Abdurrahman II. Was struck down withapoplexy, and the martyrs' friends hailed it as a manifest judgment fromHeaven. [1] Eulog. , "Mem. Sanct. , " ii. Sec. 27. "Omnes in cornmuni coepimus _cogitare quomodo ad desideratum perveniremus coronam:_ et ita _Domino disfiensante_ visum est nobis ut fugerent sorores nostrae revelatis vultibus ad ecclesiam si forte nos alligandi daretur occasio, et ita factum est. " [2] _Ibid. _, sec. 29. "Exite quibus vita praesens taedium est, et mors pro gloria computatur. " [3] _Ibid. _, sec. 30. "An non poteritis vos infernalia claustra adire, nisi nos comites habeatis? Numquid sine nobis aeterna vos cruciamina non adurent?" [4] _Ibid. _, sec. 31. [5] Eulog. , "Mem. Sanct. , " sec. 32. [6] _Ibid. _, sec. 33. "Ipsi optimates et priores palatii. " George, being a foreigner, could not be charged with apostasy like the others. [7] _Ibid. _, ii. C. Xi. Alvar's Life of Eul. , iv. 12. [8] On a "sublime solarium, " Eul. , "Mem. Sanct. , " c. Ii. Sec. 2. See Ortiz, "Compendio, " iii. 52 (apud Buckle, ii. 442, note. ) "En lo mas cruel de los tormentos subió Abderramen un dia á las azutens ó galerias de su Palacio. Descubrió desde alli los cuerpos de los Santos marterizados en los patibulos y atravesados con los palos, mandó los quemasen todos paraque no quedase reliquia cumplióse luego la órdsa; pero aquel impio probó bien presto los rigores de la venganza divina que volviá por la sangre derramada de sus Santos. Improvisamente se le pegó la lengua al paladar y fauces: cerróssle la boca, y no pudo pronunciar una palabra, ni dar un gemido. Conduxeronle, sus criados á la cama, murio aguella misma noche, y antes de apagarse las hoqueras en que ardian los santos cuerpos, entró la infeliz alma de Abderramen en los etemos fuegos del infierno. " He was succeeded by Mohammed I. (852-886), a less capable and morebigoted ruler than his father. No sooner was he on the throne thanEmila, a deacon, and Jeremiah a priest of St Cyprian's church, nearCordova, following in the footsteps of so many predecessors, camebefore the Kadi, and reviled Mohammed, --the former being enabled to dothis with the more point and effect, as he was to a remarkable degreemaster of the Arabic language. [1] Emila and Jeremiah won the prize theycoveted, and were put to death (September 15, 852). The customaryprodigy occurred after the execution, in describing which the piousEulogius breaks into metre, saying, "Athletas cecidisse pios elementafatentur. " On the following day occurred an outrage which the most bigotedpartizans of the martyrs must have blushed to record. Two eunuchs, Rogel, a monk of Parapanda, near Elvira, and Servio Deo, a eunuch offoreign extraction, forced their way into a mosque, and by way ofpreaching--as they said--to the assembled worshippers, they reviledtheir Prophet and their religion. [2] Being set upon and nearly torn inpieces by the infuriated congregation, they were rescued by the Kadi, who imprisoned them till such time as their sentence should be declared. They were condemned to have their hands and feet cut off, and bebeheaded; which sentence was carried into effect. [3] [1] Eulog. , "Mem. Sanct, " ii. C. Xii. Arabic boasts a larger vocabulary of abuse than most languages: see the account of Prof. Palmer's death in his Life by Besant. [2] _Ibid. _, c. Xiii. Secs. 1, 2. [3] Eul. (1. 1), adds: "Et ipsa gentilitas tali spectaculo stupefacta nescio quid de Christianismo indulgentius sentiebat. " Upon this fresh provocation the fury and apprehension of the king knewno bounds. He might well be pardoned for thinking that this defiance ofthe laws, and religious fanaticism, could only mean a widespreaddisaffection and conspiracy against the Moslem rule. In fact, as weshall see, the Christians of Toledo raised the banner of revolt infavour of their Cordovan brethren at this very time. Mohammed thereforeseems to have meditated a real persecution, such as should extirpateChristianity in his dominions. [1] He is said even to have given ordersfor a general massacre of the males among the Christians, and for theslavery, or worse, of the women, if they did not apostatize. [2] But thedispassionate advice of his councillors saved the king from this crime. They pointed out that no men of any intelligence, education, or rankamong the Christians had taken part in the doings of the zealots, andthat the whole body of Christians ought not to be cut off, since theiractions were not directed by any individual leader. Other advisers seemto have diverted the king from his project of a wholesale massacre byencouraging him to proceed legally against the Christians with theutmost rigour, and by this means to cow them into submission. [3] These strong measures apparently produced some effect, for no otherexecutions are recorded for a period of nine months; when Fandila, apriest of Tabanos, [4] and chosen by the monks of St Salvator's monasteryto be one of their spiritual overseers, came forward and reviled theProphet: whereupon he was imprisoned and subsequently beheaded (June 13, 853). His fate awakened the dormant fanaticism of Anastasius, [5] apriest of St Acislus' church; of Felix, a Gaetulian monk of Alcala deHenares; and of Digna, a virgin of St Elizabeth's nunnery at Tabanos(the latter being strengthened in her resolve by a celestial vision), who, pursuing the usual plan, are beheaded the following day; theirexample being followed by Benildis, a matron (June 15). [6] [1] Eulog. , "Mem. Sanct, " ii. C. Xii. "Non iam solummodo de mortibus resistentium sibi excogitare coepenint, verum etiam totam extirpare ecclesiam ruminarunt. Quoniam nimio terrore tot hominim recurrentium ad martyrium concussa gentilitas regni sui arbitrabatur imminere excidium, cum tali etiam praecinctos virtute parvulos videret. " A similar project is attributed (mistakenly, without doubt) to Abdurrahman. [2] _Ibid. _, iii. C. Vii. Sec. 4. "Iusserat enim omnes Christianos generali sententia perdere, feminasque publico distractu disperdere. " Cp. Also Alvar, Life of Eul. , iv. 12. "Rex Mahomad incredibili rabie et effrenata sententia Christicolum genus del ere funditus cogitabat. " [3] _Ibid. _ "Multi insaniam modificare nitentes per trucem voluntatis iniquae officium diversis et exquisitis occasionibus gregem Christi impetere tentaverunt. " [4] _Ibid. _ iii. C. Vii. Secs. 1, 2. Fleury, v. 520, says he was a monk of Guadix. [5] _Ibid. _, ch. Viii. Secs. 1, 2. [6] Eulog. , "Mem. Sanct. , " iii. Ch. Ix. The cloisters of Tabanos had furnished so many fanatics that theGovernment now suppressed the place, removing the nuns and shutting themup to prevent others giving themselves up. [1] One of these however, Columba, [2] sister of Elizabeth and of the abbot Martin, contrived toescape. This Columba had persisted in remaining a virgin, in spite ofher mother's efforts to make her marry, which only ceased when themother died. She now gave herself up and was beheaded (September 17). Just one month later Pomposa, [3] from the monastery of St Salvator, Pegnamellar, suffered the same fate. Then there was a pause in theseexecutions, which was not broken till July 11th of the following year, when Abundius, a priest, was martyred. He seems to have really deservedthe name of martyr, for he was given up to the authorities by thetreachery of others, [4] and did not seek martyrdom. Another similar period elapsed before Amator, a priest of Tucci(Tejada); Peter, a monk of Cordova; and Ludovic, a brother of Paul, thedeacon, beheaded four years before, shared the same fate (April 30, 855). [5] After nearly a year Witesindus, a repentant renegade; Elias, an oldpriest of Lusitania; and Paul and Isidore, young monks, gave themselvesup to execution[6] (April 17, 856. ) In June of that year a morevenerable victim was, like Abundius, betrayed to his destruction. Thiswas Argimirus, an old monk, once Censor of Cordova (June 28). [7] Exactlyone month later Aurea, a virgin and sister of the brothers John andAdulphus, whose martyrdom has been already mentioned, was brought beforethe magistrate. Descended from one of the noblest Arab families, [8] shehad long been left unmolested, though her apostasy to Christianity waswell known. She was now frightened into temporary submission; but soonrepenting of her compliance, and avowing herself truly a Christian, shegained a martyr's crown (July 29). [1] So Miss Yonge. [2] Eulog. , "Mem. Sanct. , " iii. C. X. Secs. I, 2. [3] _Ibid. _, c. Xi. [4] _Ibid. _, ch. Xii. "Quorundam commento vel fraude gentilium ad martyrium furore pertractum. " [5] _Ibid. _, ch. Xiii. [6] _Ibid. _, cc. Xiv. Xv. [7] Eulog. , "Mem. Sanct. , " iii. C. Xv. , "Quorundam ethnicorum dolo vel odio circumventus. " [8] _Ibid. _, xvii. Sec. I, "Grandi fastu Arabicae traducis exornabatur. " The next example affords a similar instance of real persecution. Ruderic, [1] a priest, whose brother was a Moslem, unadvisedly intervenedas a peacemaker, in a quarrel, in which his brother was engaged. Withthe usual fate of peacemakers, he was set upon by both parties, andnearly killed. In fact his brother supposed him to be quite dead, andhad the body carried through the town, proclaiming that his brother hadbecome a Mussulman before his death. [2] However, Ruderic recovered, andmade his escape, but being obliged to return to Cordova, met hisbrother, who immediately brought him before the Kadi on a charge ofapostasy. His life and liberty were promised to him if he would onlyacknowledge that Christ was merely man, and that Mohammed was themessenger of God. On refusing, he is imprisoned, and finds in prison acertain Salomon, also charged with apostasy from Islam. The twofellow-prisoners contract a great friendship and are consequentlyseparated. After a third exhortation, they are condemned to death, butnot before the judge had done his best to bribe them to forego theirpurpose by offers of honour and rewards. [3] They were executed March 13, 857, and their bodies thrown into the river--even the stones sprinkledwith their blood being taken up and cast into the water, lest theChristians should preserve them as relics. Ruderic's body was washed onshore, fresh as when killed; while Salomon, not being equally fortunate, informed a devout Christian in a vision, where his body lay in atamarisk thicket near the town of Nymphianum. Hitherto the aider and abettor of these martyrdoms had himself contrivedto escape the penalty, which he had urged others to brave. Whether thiswas due to any unworthy fear of death on his part is not clear, but itmay have been owing to the respect in which he was held by the Moslemauthorities. To these he was well known as a man of irreproachablecharacter and unaffected piety, and several Arabs of high rank, who werehis personal friends, shewed themselves anxious to screen him from theeffects of his folly. Eulogius[4] was descended from a Senatorial familyof Cordova, and was educated at the Church of St Zoilus, where hedevoted himself to ecclesiastical studies, and soon surpassed hiscontemporaries in learning. With his friend Alvar he sat at the feet ofSperaindeo, an eminent abbot in the province of Baetica. Besides asister Anulo, Eulogius had two brothers engaged in trade, and anotherbrother, Joseph, who seems to have been in government employ. [5] [1] Eulog. , "Lib. Apol. , " sec. 21 ff. [2] So the Inquisitors in Spain used to pretend that their victims had abjured their errors before being burnt. [3] Eul. , "Lib. Apol. , " sec. 27. [4] Life by Alvar, c. I. Sec. 2. [5] Eul. Ad Wiliesindum, sec. 8, "Joseph, quem saeva tyranni indignatio eo tempore a principatu dejecerat:" unless this is a metaphorical allusion to Joseph in Egypt. Eulogius became early noted for his practice of asceticism, and hisdesire for the life of a monk, [1] and for the glory of martyrdom. Whenstrong measures were taken by the authorities, in concert withReccafredus, Bishop of Seville, to stamp out the mania for martyrdom bythreats, stripes, and imprisonment, though many were frightened intosubmission, Eulogius, Alvar tells us, [2] remained firm, in spite of hisbeing singled out as an "incentor martyrum" by a certain Gomez, who wasa temporising Christian in the king's service. [3] [1] Life by Alvar, sec. 3, "Ne virtus animi curis Saecularibus enervaretur, quotidie ad caelestia cupiens volare corporea sarcina gravabatur. " [2] "Hic inadibilis (=firm) nunquam vacillare vel tenui est visus susurro. "--Life by Alvar, sec. 5. [3] This man, says Alvar, sec. 6, by a divine judgment, lost his hold on the Christian faith, which he thus scrupled not to attack. See below, p. 72. There is no doubt that Eulogius did all he could to interfere with andcheck that amalgamation of the Christians and Arabs which he saw goingon round him. Believing that such close relations between the peoplestended to the spiritual degradation of Christianity, he set himselfdeliberately to embitter those relations, and, as far as he could, tomake a good understanding impossible. To discourage the learning ofArabic by the Christians, he brought back with him from a journey toPampluna the classical writings of Virgil, Horace (Satires), Juvenal, and Augustine's "De Civitate Dei. " At the time when these martyrdoms took place, Eulogius was a priest, butfor some reason he tried to abstain from officiating at the mass on theground that he was himself a great sinner. [1] However, hisecclesiastical superior[2] (? Saul, Bishop of Cordova), soon made himtake a different view of the question by threatening him with anathemaif he neglected his duty any longer. Coming forward as a prominentchampion of the extreme party in the Church, he was imprisoned in 851, where he wrote treatises in favour of the martyrs, and was released, aswe have seen, by the intercession of Flora and Maria on November 29th ofthat year. [1] He pleads his "delicti onera, " ch. I. Sec. 7. Perhaps he was infected with one of the "Migetian errors" of the previous century, which was that "priests must be saints. " Saul, Bishop of Cordova (850-861), in a letter to another bishop (Florez, xi. 156-163), refers with disapproval to those (? Eulogius) who held that "sacramenta tunc esse solum modo sancta, cum sanctorum fuerint manibus praelibata;" and he quotes Augustine and Isidore against the error. [2] Pontifex proprius. In 858, [1] on the death of Wistremirus, he was chosen bythe votes of the people[2] to succeed him as Bishop of Toledo;but from some cause, perhaps by the intervention of theMoslems, he was prevented from occupying his see. Thepeople then determined to have no bishop, if they mightnot have him. [3] Yet, adds the pious Alvar, he got hisbishopric after all, for "all holy men are bishops, thoughnot all bishops holy men. " [1] "Life of Eul. , " Alvar, ii. Sec. 10. [2] "Communis electio. " [3] Fleury, v. 547, says another bishop was elected in Eulogius' lifetime; but Alvar's words are "Alium sibi eo vivente interdixerunt eligere. " In the following year he was again imprisoned as being a disturber ofthe public peace, but as on a former occasion he had been allowed tosupport and encourage Flora and Maria, so now was he permitted to finishin prison a book in defence of the martyrs, [1] which had the directtendency of inciting others to go and do likewise. The occasion ofEulogius' second imprisonment was as follows:--Leocritia, a maiden ofArab extraction and of noble birth, [2] had been secretly baptised byLiliosa, the wife of Felix. Her parents, learning her apostasy, cruellyill-treated, and even beat her, in order to make her renounce Christ. She naturally turned to Eulogius and his sister Anulo for advice in herafflictions, expressing a wish to escape to a part of Spain where theChristian worship was free. As a first step to this, she leaves herparents under pretence of going to a wedding, and takes refuge withEulogius. Her parents, furious at her escape, get all sorts of peopleimprisoned on the charge of aiding her; and she is at last betrayed andsurprised at the house of her protector. They are both dragged beforethe Kadi, who asks Eulogius angrily why he persists in defying the lawsin this way. [3] The bishop defends himself by pleading that Christianclergy are bound to impart a knowledge of their religion, if asked, ashe had been by Leocritia. [4] The judge then threatens to have himscourged, but Eulogius, preferring death to so painful and degrading apunishment, repeats the lesson which he had taught to so many others, and reviles Mohammed. Even so the judge shows a disposition to treat himwith leniency, and he is remanded to prison with Leocritia. When brought up again before the royal Council, [5] an influential friendmakes a last effort to save him, saying: "Fools and idiots rush on theirown destruction, but what induces you, a man of approved wisdom andblameless character, in defiance of all natural instincts, to throw awayyour life in this manner?" He urges Eulogius to say but one word ofconcession in the hour of peril, promising that he should afterwards befree to exercise his religion as he pleased, without let or hindrance. But the bishop could hardly turn back now, and he rejected all suchoffers with the ejaculation, "If they only knew the joy that awaits uson high!" [1] See Eulog. , Letter to Alvar, Florez, xi. 295. [2] Alvar, Life of Eulog. , i. Sec. 13. [3] Alvar, "Life of Eulog. , " i. Secs. 14, 15. [4] This kind of proselytism was not held to be a capital crime by the Moslems. See Dozy, ii. 171. [5] Alvar, "Life of Eul. , " v. Sec. 15. Fleury v. 548. On his way to execution, when struck by one of the bystanders on onecheek, he turned the other meekly to the striker. He was beheaded onMarch 11, 859, and Leocritia four days later. Miraculous appearanceshonoured the body of the martyred bishop, which was buried in the Churchof St Genesius, whence it was translated in the next year to his ownchurch of St Zoilus, and in 883 was given up, together with that ofLeocritia, to Alphonso III. (866-910) by express stipulation. CHAPTER V. CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE MARTYRS. With the death of Eulogius the series of voluntary martyrdoms comes toan end, and it will be convenient at this point to consider the wholequestion of the relation of the Church to the civil power, and how farthose "confessors, " who were put to death under the circumstancesalready related, were entitled to the name of martyrs. Unfortunately theevidence we have on the subject is drawn almost entirely from theapologists of their doings, and therefore may fairly be suspected ofsome bias. Yet even from them can be shown conclusively enough that noreal persecution was raging in Mohammedan Spain at this time, such as tojustify the extreme measures adopted by the party of zealots. If we except the cases of John and Adulphus, and of Nunilo and Alodia, the date of which is doubtful, there is not a single recorded instanceof a Christian being put to death for his religion by the Arabs inSpain before the middle of the ninth century. The Muzarabes, [1] as theChristians living under the Arabs were called, enjoyed a remarkabledegree of freedom in the exercise of their religion--the services andrites of the Church being conducted as heretofore. [2] In Cordova alonewe find mention of the following churches:[3] the Church of St Acislus, a former martyr of Cordova; of St Zoilus; of the ThreeMartyrs--Faustus, Januarius, Martialis; of St Cyprian; of SS. Genesiusand Eulalia; and of the Virgin Mary. [1] De Gayangos on Al Makk. , i. P. 420, says the word means "those who try to imitate the Arabs in manners and language. " [2] Eulog. Letter to Alvar. After the death of Flora he says he spent the ninth hour in prayer, then "auctis tripucliis, vespertinum, matutinum, missale sacrificium consequenter ad honorem (Dei) et gloriam nostrarum virginum celebravimus. " [3] Florez, x. 245. Of the last of these there is an interesting account in an Arab writer, who died in 1034. [1] "I once entered at night, " he says, "into theprincipal Christian Church. I found it all strewed with green branchesof myrtle, and planted with cypress trees. The noise of the thunderingbells resounded in my ears; the glare of the innumerable lamps dazzledmy eyes; the priests, decked in rich silken robes of gay and fancifulcolours, and girt with girdle cords, advanced to adore Jesus. Everyoneof those present had banished mirth from his countenance, and expelledfrom his mind all agreeable ideas; and if they directed their stepstowards the marble font it was merely to take sips of water with thehollow of their hands. The priest then rose and stood among them, andtaking the wine cup in his hands prepared to consecrate it: he appliedto the liquor his parched lips, lips as dark as the dusky lips of abeautiful maid; the fragrancy of its contents captivated his senses, butwhen he had tasted the delicious liquor, the sweetness and flavourseemed to overpower him. " On leaving the church, the Arab, with trueArabian facility, extemporized some verses to the following effect: "Bythe Lord of mercy! this mansion of God is pervaded with the smell ofunfermented red liquor, so pleasant to the youth. It was to a girl thattheir prayers were addressed, it was for her that they put on their gaytunics, instead of humiliating themselves before the Almighty. " Ahmedalso says: "the priests, wishing us to stay long among them, began tosing round us with their books in their hands; every wretch presented usthe palm of his withered hand (with the holy water), but they were evenlike the bat, whose safety consists in his hatred for light; offering usevery attraction that their drinking of new wine, or their eating ofswine's flesh, could afford. " This narrative is in many respects verycharacteristic of an Arab writer, who would not feel the incongruity ofan illustration on such a theme drawn from "the lips of a maid, " or theirrelevancy of a reference to swine's flesh. But the account meritsattention on other grounds, for it shews how little even the moreintelligent Moslems understood the ceremonies of the religion which theyhad conquered, though they might be pardoned for thinking that theChristians worshipped the Virgin Mary, both because Mohammed himselffell into the same error, and because probably the Roman Church and itsadherents had already begun to pay her idolatrous worship. The chief church in Cordova at the conquest seems to have been thechurch of St Vincent. On the taking of the town, [2] the Christians hadto give up half of it to the Arabs, a curious arrangement, but oneenforced elsewhere by the Saracens. In 784 the Christians were induced, or compelled, to sell their half for 100, 000 dinars, and it was pulleddown to make room for the Great Mosque. [3] In 894 we find that theCordovans were allowed to build a new church. [1] Ahmed ibn Abdilmalik ibn Shoheyd, Al Makk. , i. 246. I quote De Gayangos' translation. [2] De Gayangos on Al Makk. , i. 368, says the cathedral was at first guaranteed to the Christians. Some time later than 750 they had to surrender half of it; in 784 they were obliged to sell the other half, and in return were allowed to rebuild the destroyed churches. For the "church of the burnt" see above, p. 29, note 1. [3] This was not finished till 793. The original structure cost 80, 000 dinars. Several Khalifs added to it, and Hakem II. (961-976) alone spent on it 160, 000 dinars. Besides these within the walls, there were ten or twelve monasteries andchurches in the immediate neighbourhood of Cordova: among them themonastery of St Christopher, the famous one of Tabanos, suppressed asabove mentioned, in 854;[1] those of St Felix at Froniano, of St Martinat Royana, of the Virgin Mary at Cuteclara, of St Salvator atPegnamellar; and the churches of SS. Justus and Pastor, and of StSebastian. We have given the names of these churches and monasteries[2] at or nearCordova, both to shew how numerous they were, and also because from oneor other of them came nearly all the self-devoted martyrs, of whom weare about to consider the claims. Except in cases like thatabove-mentioned, the Christians were not allowed to build newchurches, [3] but considering the diminution in the numbers of theChristians owing to the conquest, and the apostasy of a great many, thiscould not be reckoned a great hardship. Moreover the Christian churches, it was ordained, should be open to Moslems as well as Christians, thoughduring the performance of mass it seems that they had to be kept closed. The Mosques were never to be polluted by the step of an infidel. [4] [1] Dozy, ii. 162. [2] Monasteries were established in Spain 150 years before the Saracen conquest. They mostly fared badly at the hands of the Arabs, in spite of the injunctions of the Khalif Abubeker (see Conde, i. 37, and Gibbon), but that of Lorban at Coimbra received a favourable charter in 734 (Fleury, v. 89; but Dunham, ii. 154, doubts the authenticity of the charter). [3] Cp. The stipulation of Omar at the fall of Jerusalem. [4] See Charter of Coimbra, apud Fleury, v. 89. The religious ferment, which manifested itself so strongly at Cordova, did not extend to other parts of Spain. For instance, at Elvira, thecradle of Spanish Christianity, it was shortly after the Cordovanmartyrdoms (in 864) that the mosque, founded in the year of theconquest, and left unbuilt for 150 years, was finally finished. What wehear about the Christians at Elvira at this time is not to their credit, their bishop, Samuel, being notorious as an evil liver. [1] It is inCordova that the main interest at this period centres; and to Cordova wewill for the present confine our attention. There is abundant evidence to show that the party of enthusiasts, boththose who offered themselves for martyrdom, and those who aided andabetted their more impulsive brethren, were a comparatively small bodyin the Church of Spain; and that their proceedings awakened little shortof dismay in the minds of the more sensible portion of the Christiancommunity, both in the Arab part of Spain, and perhaps in a less degreein the free North. [2] The chief leaders of the party of zealots--as faras we find mention of them--were Saul, bishop of Cordova (850-861), Eulogius, and Samson, abbot of the monastery of Pegnamellar; whileReccafredus, bishop of Seville, and Hostegesis of Malaga, were theprominent ecclesiastics on the other side. [1] Ibn Khatib, apud Dozy, ii. 210. [2] Yonge, p. 63. Before relating what steps the latter took in conjunction with theMoslem authorities to put down the dangerous outbreak of fanaticism, itwill be interesting to note what was the attitude of the differentsections of the Church towards the misguided men who gave themselves upto death, and their claims to the crown of martyrdom. Those who deniedthe validity of these claims, rested their contention on the grounds, that the so-called martyrs had compassed their own destruction, therebeing no persecution at the time; that they had worked no miracles inproof of their high claims; that they had been slain by men who believedin the true God; that they had suffered an easy and immediate death; andthat their bodies had corrupted like those of other men. It was an abuse of words, said the party of moderation, to call thesesuicides by the holy name of martyrs, when no violence in high placeshad forced them to deny their faith, [1] or interfered with their dueobservance of Christianity. It was merely an act of ostentatiouspride--and pride was the root of all evil--to court danger. Such conducthad never been enjoined by Christ, and was quite alien from the meeknessand humility of His character. [2] They might have added that such voluntary martyrdoms had been expresslycondemned, (_a. _) By the circular letter of the Church of Smyrna to the otherchurches, describing Polycarp's martyrdom, in the terms: "We commend notthose who offer themselves of their own accord, for that is not what thegospel teacheth us:"[3] (_b. _) By St Cyprian, [4] who, when brought before the consul andquestioned, said "our discipline forbiddeth that any should offerthemselves of their own accord;" and in his last letter he says: "Letnone of you offer himself to the pagans, it is sufficient if he speakwhen apprehended:" (_c. _) By Clement of Alexandria: "We also blame those who rush to death, for there are some, not of us, but only bearing the same name, who givethemselves up:"[5] (_d. _) Implicitly by the synod of Elvira, or Illiberis (_circa_ 305), one of the canons of which forbade him to be ranked as a martyr, whowas killed on the spot for breaking idols: (_e. _) By Mensurius, bishop of Carthage, who, when consulted on thequestion of reducing the immense lists of acknowledged martyrs, gave itas his opinion that those should be first excluded who had courtedmartyrdom. [6] One bishop alone, and he a late one, Benedict XIV. OfRome, [7] has ventured to approve what the Church has condemned. Nor isthis the only instance in which the Roman Church has set aside thedecisions of an earlier Christendom. [1] Eul. , "Mem. Sanct. , " i. , sec. 18, "Quos nulla praesidalis violentia fidem suam negare compulit, nec a cultu sanctae piaeque religionis amovit:" sec. 23, "Quos liberalitas regis suum incolere iusserat Christianismum. " [2] Quoting such texts as Matt. V. 44, "Bless them that curse you, and pray for them that despitefully use you:" Pet. Ii. 23, "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake. " [3] Eusebius iv. 15. See Neander, i. P. 150. (A. D. 167. ) [4] Martyred 258. [5] See Long's "M. Aurelius Antoninus, " Introd. , p. 21. [6] Burton's "History of the Christian Church, " p. 336. [7] 1740-1748: in his "De Servorum Dei beatificatione et beatorum canonizatione, " Bk. Iii. 16, sec. 7. Fleury, v. 541. The charges against the zealots were twofold, that there had been nopersecution worthy of the name, such as to justify their doings, andthat those doings themselves were contrary to the teaching and spirit ofChristianity. The latter part of the charge has already been dealt with, and may be considered sustained. As to the other part, the apologists, it must be confessed, answer with a very uncertain sound. Sometimes, indeed, they deny it point-blank:[1] "as if, " says Eulogius, "thedestruction of our churches, [2] the insults heaped upon our clergy, themonthly tax[3] which we pay, the perils of a hard life, lived onsufferance, are nothing. " These insults and affronts are continuallyreferred to. "No one, " says the same author, [4] "can go out or come inamongst us in security, no one pass a knot of Moslems in the streetwithout being treated with contumely. They mock at the marks[5] of ourorder. They hoot at us and call us fools and vain. The very childrenjeer at us, and even throw stones and potsherds at the priests. Thesound of the church-going bell[6] never fails to evoke from Moslemhearers the foulest and most blasphemous language. They even deem it apollution to touch a Christian's garment. " Alvar adds that the Moslemswould fall to cursing when they saw the cross;[7] and when theywitnessed a burial according to Christian rites, would say aloud, "Shewthem no mercy, O God, " throwing stones withal at the Lord's people, anddefiling their ears with the filthiest abuse. [8] "Yet, " he indignantlyexclaims, "you say that this is not a time of persecution; nor is it, Ianswer, a time of apostles. But I affirm that it is a deadly time[9] . .. Are we not bowed beneath the yoke of slavery, burdened with intolerabletaxes, spoiled of our goods, lashed with the scourges of their abuse, made a byword and a proverb, aye, a spectacle to all nations?"[10] [1] Eul. , "Mem. Sanct. , " i. Sec. 21: Alvar, "Ind. Lum. , " sec. 3. [2] _Ibid. _; and Alvar, "Ind. Lum. , " sec. 7. [3] Leovigild, "De habitu Clericorum. " "Migne, " 121, p. 565. [4] Eul. , l. L. [5] Stigmata. [6] Alvar, "Ind. Lum. , " sec. 6, "Derisioni et contemptui inhiantes capita moventes infanda iterando congeminant. " He adds: "Daily and nightly from their minarets they revile the Lord by their invocation of Allah and Mohammed!" Eul. , "Lib. Ap. , " sec. 19, confesses that hearing their call to prayer always moved him to quote Psalm xcvi. 7: "Confounded be all they that worship carved images"--a very irrelevant malediction, as applied to the Moslems. [7] Alvar, l. L. , "Fidei signum opprobrioso elogio decolorant. " [8] "Spurcitiarum fimo. "--_Ibid. _ [9] "Mortiferum. "--"Ind. Lum. , " sec. 3. [10] Alvar, "Ind. Lum. , " sec. 31, gives us a very savage picture of the Moslem character: "Sunt in superbia tumidi, in tumore cordis elati, in delectatione carnalium operum fluidi, in comestione superflui . .. Sine misericordia crudeles, sine iustitia invasores, sine honore absque veritate, benignitatis nescientes affectum . .. Humilitatem velut insaniam deridentes, castitatem velut spurcitiam respuentes. " That there was a certain amount of social ill-treatment, and that thelower classes of Moslems did not take any pains to conceal their dislikeand scorn of such Christian beliefs and rites as were at variance withtheir own creed, and moreover regarded priests and monks with especialaversion, there can be no doubt. But, on the other hand, there is nowant of evidence to show that the condition of the Christians was by nomeans so bad as the apologists would have us suppose. Petty annoyancescould not fail to exist anywhere under such circumstances, as wereactually to be found in Spain at this time, and we may be sure that theChristian priests in particular did not bear themselves with thathumility which might have ensured a mitigation of the annoyances. Organised opposition to Christianity, unless the Moslem rule can itselfbe called such, there was none, till it was called into being by theaction of the fanatics themselves. But apart from all the other factswhich point to this conclusion, we can call the apologists themselves inevidence that there was no real persecution going on at the time of thefirst martyrdoms. Eulogius[1] admits that the Christians were not let or hindered in thefree exercise of their religion by saying that this state of things[2]was not due to the forbearance (forsooth!) of the Moslems, but to theDivine mercy. Alvar, too, in a passage which seems to contradict thewhole position which he is trying to defend, says[3]:--"Though many werethe victims of persecution, very many others--and you cannot denyit--offered themselves a voluntary sacrifice to the Lord. Is it notclear that it was not the Arabs who began persecuting, but we who beganpreaching? Read the story of the martyrs, and you will see that theyrushed voluntarily on their fate, not waiting the bidding ofpersecutors, nor the snares of informers; aye, and--what is made sostrong a charge against them--that they tired out the forbearance oftheir rulers and princes by insult upon insult. "[4] [1] "Mem. Sanct. , " i. Sec. 29. [2] Viz. , "Quod inter ipsos sine molestia fidei degimus. " [3] "Ind. Lum. , " sec. 3. [4] "Fatigasse praesides et principes multis contumeliis. "--_Ibid. _ As to the other part of the accusation, that voluntary martyrs were nomartyrs, Eulogius could only declaim against the Scriptures quoted byhis opponents, [1] and refer to the morally blind, who make evil theirgood, and take darkness to be their light;[2] while he brought forward asaying of certain wise men that "those martyrs will hold the first rankin the heavenly companies who have gone to their death unsummoned. "[3] He also sought to defend the practice of reviling Mohammed by the pleathat exorcism was allowed against the devil, which is sufficientlyridiculous; but Alvar goes further, and calmly assures us that theseinsults and revilings of the prophet were merely a form of preaching[4]to the poor benighted Moslems, naïvely remarking that the Scripturesaffirm that the Gospel of Christ must be preached to all nations. Whereas, then, the Moslems had not been preached to, these martyredsaints had taken upon themselves the sacred duty of rendering them"debtors to the faith. " The second count[5] against the martyrs was that they had worked nomiracles--a serious deficiency in an age when miracles were almost thetest of sanctity. Eulogius[6] could only meet the charge by admittingthe fact, but adding that miracles were frequent in the early ages, inorder to establish Christianity on a firm basis; and that the constancyof the martyrs was in itself a miracle (which was true, but not to thepoint). Had he been content with this, he had done wisely; but he goeson: "Moreover, miracles are no sign of truth, as even the unbelieverscan work them. "[7] Now, by trying to show why these martyrs did notperform any miracles, he admits by implication that they were deficientin this particular;[8] and yet in other parts of his work he mentionsmiracles performed by these very martyrs, as, for instance, by Isaac, and by Flora, and Maria. [9] So that the worthy priest is placed in thisdilemma: If miracles are really no sign of truth, why attribute them tothe martyrs, when, as is allowed elsewhere, they were unable to workthem? if, on the other hand, they did perform these miracles, why notadduce them in evidence against the detractors? [1] Eul. , "Mem. Sanct. , " i. Sec. 19. [2] Isaiah v. 20. [3] Eul. , "Mem. Sanct. , " i. Sec. 24. Taken from some "Acts of the Saints, " probably those of SS. Emetherius and Caledonius--a book obviously of no authority. [4] "Ind. Lum. , " sec. 10, "In hac Israelitica gente nullus hactenus exstitit praedicator, per quod debitores fidei tenerentur. Isti enim (_i. E. _, the martyrs) apostolatus vicem in eosdem et evangelicam praedicationem impleverunt, eosque fidei debitores reddiderunt. " [5] Eul. , "Mem. Sanct. , " i. 13. [6] "Lib. Apol. , " sec 7. [7] "Lib. Apol. , " sec. 10. [8] Cp. "Mem. Sanct. , " i. Sec. 13. [9] "Mem. Sanct. , " Pref. , sec. 4. The third objection is a curious one, that the martyrs were not put todeath by idolaters, but by men worshipping God and acknowledging adivine law, [1] and therefore were not true martyrs. Eulogius misses thetrue answer, which is obvious enough, and scornfully exclaims:--"As ifthey could be said to believe in God, who persecute His Church, and deemit hateful to believe in a Christ who was very God and very man. "[2] Fourthly, the martyrs died a quick and easy death. But, as Eulogiuspoints out, [3] pain and torture give no additional claim to the martyr'scrown. Lastly, it was objected that the bodies of these martyrs, as indeed wasto be expected, corrupted, and were even, in some cases, devoured bydogs. "What matter, " says Eulogius, [4] "since their souls are borne awayto celestial mansions. " [1] Eul. "Lib. Apol. , " sec. 3. [2] _Ibid. _, sec. 12. [3] _Ibid. _, sec. 5. [4] "Mem. Sanct. , " i. Sec. 17. But it was not objections brought by fellow-Christians only thatEulogius took upon himself to answer, but also the taunts and scoffs ofthe Moslems. "Why, " said they, "if your God is the true God, does He notstrike terror into the executioners of his saints by some greatprodigy? and why do not the martyrs themselves flash forth into miracleswhile the crowd is round them? You rush upon your own destruction, andyet you work no wonders that might induce us to change our opinion ofyour creed, thereby doing your own side no good, and ours no harm. "[1] Yet the constancy of the martyrs affected the Moslems more than theycared to confess, as we may infer from the taunts levelled at theChristians, when, in Mohammed's reign, some Christians, from fear ofdeath, even apostatized. "Whither, " they triumphantly asked, [2] "hasthat bravery of your martyrs vanished? What has become of the rashfrenzy with which they courted death?" Yet though they affected toconsider the martyrs as fools or madmen, they could not be blind to theeffect that their constancy was likely to produce on those who beheldtheir death, and to the reverence with which their relics were regardedby the Christians. They therefore expressly forbade the bodies ofmartyrs to be preserved[3] and worshipped, and did their best to makethis in certain cases impossible by burning the corpses and scatteringthe ashes on the river, though sometimes they contented themselves withthrowing the bodies, unburnt, into the stream. [1] "Mem. Sanct. , " i. Sec. 12. [2] Eulog. , "Mem. Sanct. , " iii. Sec. 6. [3] See "De Translatione corporum Sanctorum Martyrum, " etc. , sec. 11. "Non enim, quos martyres faciunt, venerari Saraceni permittunt. " See above, p. 38. The bodies of earlier martyrs were more freely given up at the request of the Christians. See "Chron. Silen. , " secs. 95-100; Dozy, iv. 119, for the surrender of the body of Justus; and Eul. , "Ad Wiliesindum, " sec. 9, where Eulogius mentions that he had taken the bodies of Saints Zoilus and Austus to Pampluna. Later, Hakem II. (961-976) gave up the body of the boy Pelagius at Ramiro III. 's request. Mariana, viii. 5. However, in spite of these regulations, many bodies were secretlycarried off and entombed in churches, where they were looked upon asthe most precious of possessions; and martyrs, who, by the admission oftheir admirers themselves, had never worked any miracles when living, were enabled, when dead, to perform a series of extraordinary ones, which did not finally cease till modern enlightenment had dissipated thedarkness of the Middle Ages. We happen to possess a very interesting account of the circumstancesunder which the relics of three of these Cordovan martyrs weretransferred from the troubled scene of their passion to the morepeaceful and more superstitious cloisters of France. [1] It was in 858 that Hilduin, the abbot of the monastery of St Vincent andthe Holy Cross, near Paris, learning that the body of their patronsaint, St Vincent, was at Valencia, sent two monks, Usuard and Odilard, with the king's[2] permission, to procure the precious relics for theirown monastery. On their way to perform this commission, the monks learntthat the body was no longer at Valencia. It had been, in fact, carried[3] by a monk named Andaldus to Saragoza. Senior, the bishop ofthat city, had seized it, and it was still held in veneration there, butunder the name of St Marinus, whose body the monk had stoutly assertedit to be. Senior apparently doubted the statement, and tortured Andaldusto get the truth out of him, but in vain; for the monk, knowing that StVincent had been deacon of Saragoza, feared that the bishop would neversurrender the body if aware of its identity. However, Usuard and Odilardknew not but that the body was that of Marinus, as stated. [1] De Translatione SS. Martyrum Georgii, Aurelii, et Nathaliae ex urbe Cordobae Parisios: auctore Aimoino. --"Migne, " vol. 115, pp. 939 ff. [2] Charles the Bald. [3] "Under a divine impulse, " as usual. Disappointed, therefore, in their errand, they lingered about atBarcelona, thinking to pick up some other relics, when a friend, holdinga high position in that town, Sunifridus by name, mentioned thepersecution at Cordova, news of which does not seem to have travelledbeyond Spain. They determine at once to go to Cordova, relying on afriend there, named Leovigild, to help them to obtain what they wished. Travelling in Spain, however, seems to have been by no means safe[1] atthis period, and their bold resolution is regarded with fear andadmiration by their friends. The lord of the Gothic marches, Hunifrid, being on friendly terms with the Wali of Saragoza, writes to him ontheir behalf, and he entrusts them to the care of a caravan whichchanced to be just starting for Cordova. [1] See sec. 2, and Eul. , "Ad Wiliesindum, " where he speaks of the road to Gaul as "stipata praedonibus, " and of all Gothia as "perturbata funeroso Wilihelmi incursu. " On reaching Cordova, after many days, they go to St Cyprian's Church, where lay the bodies of John and Adulphus. The rumour of their arrivalbrings Leovigild (called Abad Salomes), who proves a very useful friend, and Samson, who just at this juncture is made abbot of the monastery atPegnamellar, where the bodies of George, Aurelius, and Sabigotha wereburied--the very relics which they had decided to try and obtain. The monks of the monastery naturally object to parting with suchprecious possessions, but Samson contrives to get the bishop'spermission to give up the bodies. This was all the more opportune, as a chance was now given them ofreturning to Barcelona, by joining the expedition which Mohammed I. Wason the point of making against Toledo. Orders had been given that allthe inhabitants, strangers as well as citizens, except the city guard, should go out with the King. However, the Frankish monks were met by anunexpected difficulty. In the temporary absence of the abbot, the monksof Pegnamellar refused to give up the relics, and it was only with muchdifficulty that the bishop Saul was induced to confirm his formerpermission to remove them. The bodies were now exhumed without the knowledge of the Moslems, andsealed with Charles' own seal, brought for that purpose. George's bodywas found whole, but of the other two, only the head of Nathalia, andthe trunk of Aurelius' body. The two latter are united to form onecorpse, as it is written, "they two shall be one flesh. " After a stay inCordova of eight weeks, they set out under the protection of someChristians serving in the army. Leovigild, who had been away on theKing's business, now returns, and escorts them to Toledo. The approachof the army having cleared away the brigands who infested those parts, the monks with their precious freight got safely away to Saragoza, andreturned with their booty to France, where the relics worked numbers ofastonishing miracles. Let us return from this digression to the steps taken by the moderateparty among the Christians, and by the Moslem authorities, to put an endto what seemed so dangerous an agitation. That Reccafredus was not theonly ecclesiastic of high position who took exception to the newmovement we learn clearly enough from Alvar, [1] who tells us that"bishops, priests, deacons, and 'wise men' of Cordova joined ininveighing against the new martyrdoms, under the impulse of fearwellnigh denying the faith of Christ, if not in words, yet by theiracts. " We may, therefore, conclude that the greater part of theecclesiastical authorities were heart and soul with the Bishop ofSeville, while the party led by Eulogius and Saul was a comparativelysmall one. However, strong measures were necessary, and Reccafredus didnot hesitate to imprison several priests and clergy. [2] Eulogiuscomplains that the churches were deprived of their ministers, and thecustomary church rites were in abeyance, "while the spider wove her webin the deserted aisles, tenanted only by a dreadful silence. " In thispassage the writer doubtless gives reins to his imagination, yet theremust have been a certain amount of truth in the main assertion, for herepeats it again and again. [3] The evidence of Alvar is to the same effect: "Have not those who seemedto be columns of the church, the very rocks on which it is founded, whowere deemed the elect of God, have they not, I say, in the presence ofthese Cynics, or rather of these Epicureans, under no compulsion, but oftheir own free will, spoken evil of the martyrs of God? Have not theshepherds of Christ, the teachers of the Church, bishops, abbots, priests, the chiefs of our hierarchy, and its mighty men, publiclydenounced the martyrs of our Church as heretics?"[4] [1] "Life of Eulog. , " ch. I. Sec. 4. [2] Alvar, "Life of Eulog. , " ii. Sec. 4--"Omnes sacerdotes quos potuit carcerali vinculo alligavit. " Eul. , "Doc. Martyr, " sec. 11--"Repleta sunt penetralia carceris clericorum catervis, viduata est ecclesia sacro praesulum et sacerdotum officio . .. Privata prorsus ecclesia omni sacro ministerio. " Alvar, "Ind. Lum. , " secs. 14, 18--"Templa Christi a sacrificio desolata, et loca sancta ab ethnicis exstirpata. " [3] Eul. , "Doc. Mart. , " sec. 16--"Eremitatem ecclesiarum, compeditionem sacerdotum . .. Et quod non est nobis in hoc tempore sacrificium nec holocaustum nee oblatio. " Cp. Ep. Ad Wilies, sec. 10. [4] Alvar, "Ind. Lum. , " sec. 14. Not content with imprisoning the fanatics, the party of order forcedthem to swear that they would not snatch at the martyr's palm byspeaking evil of the Prophet. [1] Those who disobeyed were threatenedwith unheard-of penalties, with loss of limbs, and mercilessscourgings. [2] This last statement must be taken with reservation, atleast if put into the mouth of the Christian party under Reccafredus. It is extremely unlikely that Christian bishops and priests should havehad recourse to such treatment of their coreligionists: yet they had aspiritual weapon ready to their hands, and they were not slow to use it. They anathematised[3] those who aided and abetted the zealots; andEulogius himself seems to have narrowly escaped their sentence ofexcommunication. [4] [1] _Ibid. _, sec. 15--"Ne ad martyrii surgerent palmam, iuramentum extorsimus . .. Et maledictum ne maledictionibus impeterent, evangelio et cruce educta, vi iurare improbiter fecimus. " [2] _Ibid. _, cp. Alvar, "Life of Eulog. , " iv. Sec. 12--"Duris tormentis agitati, commoti sunt. " [3] Eulog. , "Mem. Sanct. " i. Sec. 28--"Ne ceteri ad huiusmodi palaestram discurrant schedulis anathematum per loca varia damnari iubentur. " Alvar, "Ind. Lum. , " sec. 31--"Plerosque patres anathematizantes talia patientes. " [4] Eulog. , "Mem. Sanct. , " iii. C. Iv. Sec. 5. This action against the zealots was in all probability taken, if not atthe instigation of the Moslem authorities, yet in close concert withthem. Eulogius[1] attributes all the evils which had befallen theChurch, such as the imprisonment of bishops, priests, abbots, anddeacons, to the wrath of the King; and Alvar distinctly states that theKing was urged, even bribed, to take measures against the Christians. [2]It is not likely that the King required much persuading. Mohammed atleast seems to have been thoroughly frightened by the continuedagitation against Mohammedanism. He naturally suspected some politicalplot at the bottom of it; a supposition which receives some countenancefrom the various references in Eulogius[3] to the martyrs as "Soldiersof God" bound to war against His Moslem enemies; and from the undoubtedfact that the Christians of Toledo did rise in favour of theircoreligionists at Cordova. [4] However that may be, the King in 852certainly took counsel[5] with his ministers, how the agitation shouldbe met, and he seems to have assembled a sort of grand council[6] ofthe Church, when the same question was discussed. Stronger measures werein consequence taken, and a more rigorous imprisonment resorted to. ButMohammed went farther than this. He deprived of their posts allChristians, who held offices in the palace, [7] or in connection with theCourt, and withdrew from the Christian "cadet corps, "[8] the royalbounty usually extended to them. He ordered the destruction of allchurches built since the conquest, and of all later additions to thosepreviously existing. He made a severe enactment against those whoreviled Mohammed. [9] He even had in mind to banish all Christians fromhis dominions. [10] This intention, together with the order respectingthe churches, was not carried out, owing probably to the opportunerevolt at Toledo. [11] [1] Ep. Ad Wilies, sec. 10. [2] Alvar, "Ind. Lum. , " sec. 35. [3] See Dozy, ii. 136. [4] Conde, i. 249: Dozy, ii. 161, says on Eulogius' authority, that he incited them to revolt under Sindila. [5] Eulog. , "Mem. Sanct. , " ii. C. Xiv. [6] Robertson calls it a Conciliabulum. [7] Eulog. , "Mem. Sanct. , " ii. § 2. [8] "Militares pueros. " Eulog. "Mem. Sanct. , " iii. C. I. [9] Eulog. "Mem. Sanct. , " ii. C. Xiv--"Tunc iam procul dubio enecandi nos difficultas fuit adempta, si quisquam vatis sui temerarius exprobator ultro occurreret. " This seems to mean that Christians and Saracens were bound to give up to justice any who reviled the Prophet; or else to kill him on the spot. [10] Eulog. , "Doc. Mart. , " sec. 18--"Moslemi . .. Omne regni sui, sicuti cernitis, genus excludere moliuntur Christicolarum. " [11] Eulog. , "Mem. Sanct. , " iii. C. Iv. In one of his works on this subject, Eulogius expresses a fear lest theintervention of the martyrs should bring disaster on the Church inSpain, just as the intervention of Moses in Egypt did much at first toaggravate the hardships of the Israelites. [1] He ought not, therefore, to have been surprised, when such a result actually did follow; norought he to complain that now the Moslems would only let the Christiansobserve their religion in such a way as they chose to dictate; and thatthe Christians were subjected to all sorts of taxes and exactions. [2] These combined measures of repression, taken by the King and the Bishopof Seville, soon produced their effect. The extreme party were brokenup, some escaping to quieter regions, others hiding, and only venturingabroad in disguise and at night--not, as Eulogius is careful to add, from fear of death, but because the high prize of martyrdom is notreserved for the unworthy many, but for the worthy few. [3] [1] _Ibid. _, ii. C. Xvi. [2] Eulog. , "Doc. Mart. , " sec. 18--"_Nunc_ pro suo libito tantummodo exercere nos sinentes Christianismum . .. _nunc_ publicum imponentes censum, _nunc_ rebus nos abdicantes detrimentis atterunt rerum. " [3] Eulog. , "Mem. Sanct. , " ii. Sec. 14--"Quia indigni sumus martyrio, quod quibusdam et non omnibus datum est. " Some even apostatized, [1] while many of those who had applauded theproceedings of the martyrs, now called them indiscreet, and blamed themfor indulging in a selfish desire to desert the suffering Church for anearly mansion in the skies. [2] Others, in order to retain posts underGovernment, or to court favour with the King, dissembled their religion, taking care not to pray, or make the sign of the cross in public. [3]Eulogius himself was singled out at the meeting of the King's Council byone of the royal secretaries, Gomez, son of Antonian, son of Julian, [4]as the ringleader of the new seditious movement. This man was a veryworldly-minded Christian, [5] and was, no doubt, at this time, in fear oflosing his lucrative office at Court, which he had obtained by hisremarkable knowledge of Arabic. He did, in fact, lose his post with allthe other Christian officers of the Court, but regained it by becoming aMoslem;[6] and such was the ardour of the new proselyte that he wascalled "the dove of the mosque. "[7] The result of this council was, as we have seen, hostile to the party ofwhich Eulogius and Saul were the chiefs, but the former writer, mentioning the actual decree that was passed, pretends that it wasmerely a blind to deceive the king, and spoken figuratively; and heacknowledges that such hypocrisy was unworthy of the prelates andofficers assembled. [8] Is it not more reasonable to suppose thatEulogius and his supporters voted for it--as they seem to havedone--with a mental reservation, while their opponents honestlyconsidered such a step necessary? [1] Eulog. , "Mem. Sanct. , " ii. C. Xv. 1--"Fidem praevaricantur, abdicant religionem, Crucifixum detestantur. " [2] Eulog. , "Mem. Sanct. , " ii. C. Ii. Sec. 6. Also in his letter to Alvar sending the "Mem. Sanct. , " he says, very few remained firm to their principles. [3] Alvar, "Ind. Lum. , " sec. 9--"Cum palam coram ethnicis orationem non faciunt, signo crucis oscitantes frontem non muniunt . .. Christianos contra fidei suae socios pro regis gratia, pro vendibilibus muneribus et defensione gentilicia praeliantes. " Elsewhere he says: "Nullus invenitur qui iuxta iussum Domini tonantis aetherii super montes Babiloniae, caligosasque turres crucis fidei attollat vexillum, sacrificium Deo offerens vespertinum. " [4] Eulog. , "Mem. Sanct. , " iii. C. Iv. Sec. 5: Alvar, "Ind. Lum. , " sec. 18. See above, p. 51. [5] Ibn al Kuttiya--apud Dozy, ii. 137. [6] Eulog. , "Mem. Sanct. , " iii. C. Ii. [7] Dozy, ii. 137. [8] Eul. , "Mem. Sanct. , " ii. C. Xv. , sec. 3--"Aliquid commentaremur, quod ipsius tyranni ac populorum serperet aures. " The "praemissum pontificate decretum" he calls "allegorice editum. " CHAPTER VI. THE MUZARABES. The death of Eulogius was a signal for the cessation of the dubiousmartyrdoms which had for some years become so common, though the spirit, which prompted the self-deluded victims, was by no means stifled eitherin Spain or the adjoining countries. [1] Yet the measures taken to putdown the mania for death succeeded in preventing any fresh outbreak forsome time. Under the weak government of Abdallah (888-912) the Christians, determining to lose their lives to better purpose than at the hands ofthe executioner, rose in revolt, as will be related hereafter, inseveral parts of Spain. After the battle of Aguilar, or Polei, in 891, between the Arab and Spanish factions, 1000 of the defeated Christianswere given the choice of Islam or death, and all, save one, chose thelatter alternative. [2] During the long reign of Abdurrahman III. (912-961) there were a fewisolated cases of martyrdom, which may as well be mentioned now. Afterthe great battle in the Vale of Rushes, [3] where Abdurrahman defeatedthe kings of Navarre and Leon, one of the two fighting bishops, who weretaken prisoners on that occasion, gave, as a hostage for his ownrelease, a youth of fourteen, named Pelagius. The king, it is said, smitten with his beauty, wished to work his abominable will upon theboy, but his advances being rejected with disdain, the unhappy youth wasput to death with great barbarity, refusing to save his life byapostasy. [4] A different version of the story is given by a Saxon nun ofGaudersheim, named Hroswitha, who wrote a poem on the subject fiftyyears later. She tells us that the king tried to kiss Pelagius, whothereupon struck him in the face, and was in consequence put to death bydecapitation (June 26, 925). [5] [1] See "Life of Argentea, " secs. 3, 5. [2] Dozy, ii. 287. [3] Val du Junqueras, 920 A. D. [4] Johannes Vasaeus ex Commentariis Resendi. Romey, iv. 257, disbelieves this version of the story. Perhaps Al Makk. , ii. 154, is referring to the same Pelagius when he mentions the king's liking for a handsome Christian page. [5] Sampiro, secs. 26-28. In the death of Argentea (Ap. 28, 931) we have the last instance inSpain of a Christian seeking martyrdom. She was the daughter of thegreat rebel Omar ibn Hafsun, [1] and his wife Columba, and was born atthat chieftain's stronghold of Bobastro. Upon her mother's death Omarwished her to take up her mother's duties in the palace, for Omar hadbecome a sort of king on his own domain. She declined, asking only for aquiet retreat, where she might prepare her soul for martyrdom; and shewrote to a devout Christian, whose wishes inclined him in the samedirection, suggesting that they should seek the crown of martyrdomtogether. [2] On the destruction of Bobastro by Abdurrahman in 928, shewent to Cordova. [3] She there met with a Gaul named Vulfura, who hadbeen warned in a dream that in that city he should find a virgin, withwhom he was to suffer martyrdom. However, his object becoming known, Vulfura is cast into prison by the governor of the city. Argentea goesto visit him there, and is stopped by the guards, who, finding she is aChristian, take her before the judge as a renegade, and she isimprisoned with Vulfura. The alternative of Islam instead of death beingrefused, they are both executed, but Argentea, as being an "insolensrebellis, " is first scourged with 1000 stripes, and her tongue cut out. Her body was buried at the church of the three saints. In the year 934[4] we hear of two hundred monks of Cardena beingmassacred by the Berbers in Abdurrahman's army; and in some sense theycan be regarded as martyrs to their faith. [1] Who on becoming a Christian, took the name of Samuel. Florez, x. P. 564, ff. [2] See "Life of Argentea, " by an anonymous author. [3] _Ibid. _, sec. 4. [4] Dozy, iii. 52. Mariana, viii. 6, gives 993, but says it may have occurred in 893. In 953 a martyr named Eugenia is said to have perished;[1] and thirtyyears later, the last martyrs of whom we have any record under the Arabrule. Dominicus Sarracinus, son of John, and his companions takenprisoners at the capture of Simancas, were kept for two years and a-halfin prison. [2] They were then brought out and put to death, just whenRamiro III. , or his successor, had sent to ransom them. [3] There is no evidence whatever to show that there was a persecution ofthe Christians under the great Abdurrahman, and the statements of thosewriters who intimate the contrary may be set aside as unsupported byevidence. [4] We will now turn back and take a general view of the Christian Churchand its condition under the Arabs in Spain, especially--for ourinformation is greatest as to those periods--under the two kingsAbdurrahman II. And III. Under the former of these sovereigns the condition of the Christians, until the persecution, which they themselves provoked, began, was verytolerable, and the majority of the Christians were quite content withtheir lot. They served in the army, both free men and slaves; they heldlucrative posts at Court, or in the houses of the Arab nobles, or asgovernment officials. But though the lay community was well off, theclergy and stricter churchmen had something to complain of; for theChurch[5] could not be said to be free, though the worship was, sincethe power of summoning councils had now passed to the Arab executive, who, as we have seen, made even Moslems and Jews sit at these councils. Sees were also put up to auction, and the scandalous spectacle was notunknown, of atheists and heretics holding the titles, and drawing theemoluments, of bishops. [6] [1] Schott. , iv. 246. [2] Rohrbacher, xii. 192. [3] Charter, apud Florez, xiv. 397. [4] See above, p. 36, note 1. A letter also is mentioned of John Servus Dei, Bishop of Toledo, to the Muzarabes with regard to the late martyrdoms and apostasies, purporting to have been written in 937. [5] Dozy, ii. 47. [6] Alvar, "Ep. , " xiii. 3. Samson, "Apol. , " ii. Cc. Ii. -iv. As was to be expected, Arabic soon began to displace Latin throughoutthe country, and even before the ninth century the Scriptures weretranslated into the tongue of the conquerors [1] by Odoarius, Bishop ofAccita, and John of Seville. Hischem I. (788-796) forbade the use of anylanguage but Arabic, so that his Christian subjects had to use ArabicGospels;[2] and the Spaniards were soon not even permitted to write inLatin. [3] Even if this statement be doubtful, we know that Latin camegradually to be neglected and forgotten. Alvar utters an eloquentprotest against this: "Alas, the Christians are ignorant of their owntongue, and Latins neglect their language, so that in all the College ofChrist[4] there is scarcely to be found one who can write an address ofwelcome to his brother intelligibly in Latin, while numbers can be foundcompetent to mouth the flowery rhetoric of the Chaldeans. "[5] In thedepartment of poetry--the peculiar boast of the Arabs--the Christiansseem even to have surpassed their masters; and to the rivalry of the twonations in this art we may attribute the excellence and abundance ofnative ballads of which Spain can boast. We have seen how Eulogius did his best to check this neglect of Latin, by introducing into Spain some of the masterpieces in that language; butit is doubtful whether his efforts had much result. We can see from theremains of the Spanish writers which we possess that the structure ofthat language had considerably degenerated in Spain. [6] [1] Murphy, "Hist. Mahom. Empire in Spain, " p. 309. [2] Yonge, p. 60. [3] Conde, i. 239. [4] "Omni Christi collegio. " [5] Alvar, "Ind. Lum. , " sec. 35. [6] See Elipandus and Alvar passim. Alcuin, on the other hand, writes wonderfully good Latin. Some sentences are so ungrammatical as to be scarcely intelligible. Moreover, we find Samson[1] directly accusing Hostegesis, Bishop ofMalaga, of not being able to write Latin; and similarly Jonas of Orleans(839) accusing Claudius, Bishop of Turin, who was himself a Spaniard, ofthe same defect. The neglect of Latin was accompanied by an increasing indifference tothe doctrinal basis of Christianity, educated Christians being led todevote their time, which might have been more profitably spent on theirown Scriptures, to becoming acquainted with the Mohammedan religion, andeven to unravelling the intricacies of the controversial theology whichhad grown up round, and overlaid, the original simplicity of theKoran. [2] The great Fathers of the Church were laid aside unread, andeven the Prophets and Apostles, and the Gospel itself, found few tostudy them. While the higher classes were indifferent to religion, thelower were sunk in poverty[3] and ignorance. [4] The inevitable result ofthis indifference, ignorance, and poverty, was a visible deteriorationin the character of Spanish Christianity, of which there are only toomany proofs. [1] Samson, "Apol. , " c. Vii. [2] Alvar, "Ind. Lum. , " sec. 35--"Ac dum illorum sacramenta inquirimus, et philosophorum sectas scire non pro ipsorum convincendis erroribus sed pro elegantia leporis et locutione luculenter diserta. Quis rogo hodie solers in nostris fidelibus laicis invenitur, qui Scripturis sanctis intentus volumina quorumcunque Doctorum Latine conscripta respiciat? Quis Evangelico, quis Prophetico, quis Apostolico ustus tenetur amore? Nonne omnes iuvenes Christiani vultu decori, linguae diserti, habitu gestuque conspicui, Gentilicia eruditione praeclari, Arabico eloquio sublimati, volumina Chaldaeorum avidissime tractunt?" [3] Florez, xix. 383, Charter of 993; see also "Dozy, " iii. 31; and for the condition of Christians in the Free States, Buckle, "Hist. Of Civiliz. , " i. 443. [4] Dozy (l. L. ). We find the abbot Samson distinctly accusing Hostegesis, Bishop ofMalaga, of simony, asserting that he sold the priesthood to low andunworthy people;[1] while Alvar charges Saul, Bishop of Cordova, withobtaining his bishopric by bribery. [2] Other irregularities imputed toHostegesis were that he held his see from his twentieth year, contraryto the canons of the church, and that he beat priests, in order toextort money from them, till they died under his hands. Besides the election to the priesthood, by unworthy means, of unworthymen, whose ignorance and impudence the congregation had to endure insilence, [3] many were informally ordained without vouchers for characterbeing given, or the assent of their fellow-clergy and flocks beingobtained. [4] Many churches presented the unseemly spectacle of two rivalpastors, contrary to the ordinances received from the Fathers. [5] Changes, too, were made in doctrine and ritual, for which no authoritycould be alleged, in contravention of established custom and theteaching of the Church. So far was this carried that Samson was accusedby his opponents of being a heretic and an idolator because he permittedthe marriage of cousins; dissented from the view that God was everenclosed in the chambers of the Virgin's heart;[6] asserted theomnipresence of God, even in idols and the Devil, and this in an actual, not a metaphysical, sense;[7] and denied that God sat upon an exaltedthrone above his creatures. From this it is clear that Hostegesis andthose who thought with him[8] were infected with the anthropomorphiteheresy. [1] Samson, "Apol. , " Bk. Ii. , Pref. Sec. 2. [2] See "Letter to Saul, " sec. 3--"Poterant enim quovis asserente canonice incohationis vestrae primordia comprobari, si quadringenti solidi non fuissent palam eunuchis vel aliis exsoluti. " Dozy, ii. 140, adds that the money was guaranteed on the episcopal revenues, but this is a conjecture. [3] Samson, "Apol. , " ii. Pref. Sec 5; Dozy, ii. 268. [4] Alvar ad Saulum, sec. 3--"Sine testimonis, sine connibentia clericorum. " [5] _Ibid. _ [6] Samson, "Apol. , " ii. Pref. Sec. 7 and iii. --"Cubiculum cordis Virginei. " This appears to be a quotation from the Gothic liturgy. [7] "Per substantiam, non per subtilitatem. "--_Ibid. _ [8] Romanus and Sebastianus, Samson, Pref, sec. 6. Not only did many of the clergy hold heretical views, but theirdepravity was notorious. Hostegesis did not blush to spend the produceof the church tithes and offerings, which he had with difficultyextorted from his flock, [1] in bribing the court officials and theking's sons, giving them feasts at which open and flagrant vice wasindulged in. [2] The clergy were not above pretending illness in order toavoid paying the monthly tax to their Moslem rulers. [3] Some, even inthe highest positions in the Church, denied their Saviour andapostatized to the Moslems; one of these renegades being Samuel, Bishopof Elvira, the uncle of Hostegesis' mother, who, with a pervert's zeal, persecuted the Church he had deserted, imprisoning the clergy, taxinghis former flock, and even forcing some to embrace Islam. [4] It is not surprising, therefore, that bishops and clergy were sometimesdeposed. Samson, indeed, underwent this disgrace at the hands of ahostile faction under Hostegesis, on the ground of his pretended heresy;and, similarly, Valentius, [5] Bishop of Cordova, was deprived of his seebecause he was a supporter of Samson. But these instances reflect morediscredit on the deposers than on their victims. Instances of depositionare not wanting, in the free states the North. Sisenandus, seventhBishop of Compostella (940), was deposed by King Sancho for dissoluteliving, and malversation of Church moneys. [6] On the king's death herecovered his see, driving out his successor. Pelayo, another bishop ofCompostella, suffered the same punishment. [7] [1] The offering of one-third for the Church was refused to Hostegesis as being sacrilegious; so he proceeded to extort it, "suis codicibus institutis. "--Samson "Apol. , " ii. Pref. Sec. 2. [2] _Ibid. _ The state of the Church in the North was not much better. See Yonge, p. 86. [3] Leovigild de habitu Clericorum. Dozy, ii. 110. [4] Samson, Pref. Ii. 4. [5] Succeeded Saul in 861, and was deposed in 864. [6] Mariana, viii. 5. He went over to the Moslems. Southey, "Chronicle of the Cid, " p. 228. Yonge, p. 86. [7] Mariana (1. 1. ). When the kings of Castile gradually drove back the Moors, and whenAlfonso took Toledo in 1085, his wife, Constance of Burgundy, and herspiritual adviser, a monk named Bernard, were horrified at the laxity inmorals and doctrine of the Muzarabic Christians. Their addiction topoetry and natural science was regarded with suspicious aversion, andthe pork-eating, circumcision, and, not least, the cleanly habits, [1]contracted from an intercourse with Moslems, were looked upon as so manymarks of the beast. In 1209 the Crusaders, who had swarmed to the warsin Spain, even wished to turn their pious arms against these poorMuzarabes, so scandalised were they at the un-Romish rites. Yet we aretold that Alfonso the Great, when building and restoring churches in theterritory newly wrested from the Moors, set up again the ordinances ofthe Goths, as formerly observed at Toledo. [2] The free church in the North had itself been in great danger ofextinction, when the armies of the great Almanzer (977-1002) sweptyearly through the Christian kingdoms like some devastating tempest. [3]Fifty-two victorious campaigns did that irresistible warrior leadagainst the infidels. [4] Barcelona, Pampluna, and Leon fell before hisarms, and the sacred city of Compostella was sacked, and for a time leftdesolate, the bells of St James' shrine being carried off to Cordova toserve as lamps in the grand mosque. We are not, therefore, surprised tofind that there were many bishops in the North who had lost their sees;and this was the case even before the tenth century, for a bishop namedSabaricus, being driven from his own see by the Arabs, was given that ofMindumetum by Alfonso III. In 867, [5] and twenty years later a bishopnamed Sebastian received the see of Auria in the same way. [6] It is natural enough that the Moslems and the clergy of the ChristianChurch should be hostile to one another, but it is surprising tofind--as we do find in some cases--the latter making common cause withthe Arabs in ill-treating their fellow-countrymen and coreligionists. Thus, as we have seen, Hostegesis, relying on the support of the seculararm, [7] beat and imprisoned the clergy for withholding from him theChurch tithes, dragging them through the city naked, with a crier cryingbefore them:--"Such is the punishment of those who will not pay theirtithes to their bishop. "[8] Bishops were even found to make episcopalvisitations, getting the names of all their flock, as if with theintention of praying for them individually, and then to hand in theirnames to the civil power for the purpose of taxation. [9] Others obtainedfrom the Arabs the privilege of farming the revenues derived fromChristian taxation, and cruelly oppressed their coreligionists. [10] [1] The Christians in the North were vulgarly supposed by the Arabs not to wash. See Conde, i. 203--"It is related of these people of Galicia . .. That they live like savages or wild beasts, and never wash either their persons or their garments. " [2] "Chron. Albeld. , " sec. 58--"Ordinem Gothorum sicuti Toleto fuerat statuit. " [3] "Chron. Silense, " sec. 72--"Eadem tempestate in Hispania omnis divinus cultus periit. " [4] He was not defeated in his last battle, as is generally stated in histories. --See Al Makkari, ii. 197. [5] Florez, "Esp. Sagr. , " xviii. 312. [6] _Ibid. _, xvii. 244. [7] "Praesidali manu fultus. " Samson, ii. Pref. Sec. 2. [8] _Ibid. _ [9] _Ibid. _, and Eulog. , "Mem. Sanct. , " iii. C. Iv. Sec. 5. [10] Eul. , 1. 1. These nefarious measures were backed up, even if they were notinstigated, by Servandus, the Christian Count of Cordova. He was the sonof a serf of the Church, [1] and married a cousin of Hostegesis. [2]Instead of championing the cause of the Christians, as his positionshould have impelled him to do, he went so far in the opposite directionas to call them up before him, and try to shake their attachment toChristianity--a religion, nominally at least, his own also. Those whoheld firm he forced to pay increased taxes, and even levied blackmail onthe churches. He did not scruple to drag forth the bodies of martyrsfrom under the altars of churches, and, showing them to the king, toremind him that it had been forbidden to Christians to bury theirmartyrs. [3] Following up the hostile measures instituted by Hostegesis againstSamson and Valentius, he proceeded to accuse them of inciting thefanatics to revile Mohammed, urging that they should be tested with thisdilemma. They should be asked whether what the revilers said were trueor not. "If they answer, 'true, ' let them be punished as well as thereviler; if 'false, ' bid them slay the man themselves; refusing which, you will know that they have aided and abetted him to abuse yourProphet. In that case, give me permission, and I will slay the threemyself. "[4] [1] Dozy, ii. 268. [2] Samson, "Apol. , " ii. Pref. Sec. 5. [3] Samson, 1. 1. [4] _Ibid. _, sec. 9. This same Servandus, the meanest of timeservers, seeing the Sultan's (Abdallah's) cause failing, deserted to the rebel Omar and his Christian following, and was killed at Polei(?)--Ibn Hayyan. , apud Dozy, ii. 270. His Arab name was Sherbil, and he was beheaded at Cordova by the Arabs. --See De Gayangos' note on Al Mak. , ii. 451, 2. We have had occasion to mention one or two cases of Church, andnational, Councils held in Spain under the Arabs, and it will be worthwhile to enumerate all the instances which are recorded, that we maycontrast them with those held under the Goths. It was one of the mostcharacteristic features of the Old Church in Spain that it was unitedso closely with the civil power as almost to render the Government ofSpain a theocracy. This intimate connection of Church and State wasnaturally overthrown by the Arab conquest; but the Moslem rulers, seeinghow useful such institutions as general councils were likely to be inadjusting the relations between Mussulmans and Christians, both allowedpurely ecclesiastical councils to be called under their jurisdiction, and also summoned others in which they took part themselves, togetherwith Jews, to the great scandal of the stricter Christians. [1] To the purely ecclesiastical kind belong a council held at Seville byElipandus[2] to condemn the errors of Migetius; and another, held byCixila at Toledo in 776, against the errors of Egila, bishop ofElvira. [3] Whether Egila abjured his error is not known, but it iscertain that he remained bishop. Elipandus is also said, but on very doubtful authority, to have held acouncil, whereat he renounced his own error of Adoptionism. [4] [1] We even find in 962 that the bishops of Toledo and Cordova had Moslem names, viz. , Obeidollah ibn Kasim (Al Makkari, ii. 162), and Akbar ibn Abdallah. Dozy, iii. 99. [2] The exact date is unknown. Fleury, ii. P. 235. [3] "Pseudo Luitprand, " sec. 236, says--"Ad concilium ex omnibus Hispaniae partibus concurrunt. " See also Pope Adrian I. 's Letter to the bishops of Spain in 785. Very little is known of this Egila, nor is it certain of what see he was the bishop. [4] See below, p. 131 ad fin. And 166 ff. But the other class of councils, partly ecclesiastical and partlypolitical, seem to have been commoner, and we have already seen howReccafredus, Bishop of Seville, in conjunction with the Moslemauthorities, held such a council, in order to coerce the fanatical partyamong the Christians; and we have a more particular account of another, which was held by Hostegesis, Bishop of Malaga, and Servandus, Count ofCordova. [1] This council seems to have had some connection with thepreceding one under Reccafredus, for Servandus was a strong andunscrupulous opponent of the party led by Eulogius, while Samson wastheir devoted supporter, though he did not carry his opinions so far asto suffer martyrdom in his own person. Samson was now accused ofheresy[2] and sacrilege, as has been already mentioned. Hostegesisforced his views on the assembled bishops by the help of the seculararm, and a sentence of anathema and deposition was accordinglypronounced against the unfortunate Abbot. [3] One of the apparentlyconsenting bishops was Valentius, Bishop of Cordova, but his judgementhad evidently been coerced, for after the close of the council hesounded the other consenting bishops, and some who had not attended, asto their opinions, and found that most of them were ready to affirmSamson's orthodoxy, and a memorial was drawn up to that effect Thisaction of Valentius' brought upon him also a sentence of deposition, andhe was succeeded by Stephanus Flaccus, [4]--the election of the latterbeing quite informal, as no metropolitan assisted thereat, [5] andneither the clergy nor laymen of his diocese made a petition in hisfavour. [1] Samson, "Apol. , " ii. Pref. [2] On the ground, among others, that he recognised "nescio quam similitudines (besides the Trinity) non creaturas sed creatores. " These appear (chap, ix. ) to have been merely qualities, such as wisdom, etc. See Samson, chap. Iii. [3] "Indiscreta simplicitate et metu impiorum in superbiae fascibus sedentium. "--_Ibid_. Samson was rendered incapable of holding office, or even of belonging to the Church. --_Ibid_. [4] In 864. [5] See above, p. 8. This fresh deposition was formally sanctioned by a new council, held atthe church of St Acislus; Flaccus, and some of those who had sided withValentius, but were now terrified into submission, being in attendance;while the places of those who refused to come were taken by Jews andMoslems. [1] These high-handed proceedings nearly led to an open rupturein the Church. [2] In 914 a council is said to have been held (but on doubtful authority)by Orontius of Toledo, [3] and twenty years later by Basilius of Cordova. These would fall under the reign of the greatest of the Umeyyade Khalifsof Spain. [4] [1] Sayones (?) in the Latin. Samson, chap. Iii. [2] _Ibid. _, sec. 10. [3] "Pseudo Luit, " sec. 328. [4] _Ibid. _ sec. 341. CHAPTER VII. SPAIN UNDER ABDURRAHMAN III. Abdurrahman III. , Annasir Lidinillah (912-961), may be looked upon asthe Solomon of the Spanish Sultans. Succeeding to the throne when quitea youth, to the exclusion of his uncles, the sons of the late Sultan, hefound the country torn by innumerable factions, and the king's poweropenly defied by rebels, Arab, Berber, and Christian. In person, andthrough his generals, he put down all these rebels, and though notuniformly successful against the Christians in the North, yet hedefeated them in a series of great engagements. [1] He welded all thediscordant elements under his rule into one great whole, [2] therebygiving the Arab domination in Spain another lease of life. In 929 hetook the title of Amir al Mumenin, or Commander of the Faithful. Hisalliance was sought by the Emperor of the East, [3] and he treated onequal terms with the Emperor of Germany and the King of France. To thisgreat king, with more truth than to his namesake Abdurrahman II. , may beapplied the words of Miss Yonge:--[4] "He was of that type of Eastern monarch, that seems moulded on thecharacter of Solomon--large-hearted, wise, magnificent, tolerant, andpeaceful. He was as great a contrast to the stern, ascetic, narrow-minded, but earnest Alfonso or Ramiro, as were the exquisitehorse-shoe arches, filagree stonework lattices, inlaid jewellery ofmarble pavements, and slender minarets, to their dark vault-like, low-browed churches, and solid castles built out of hard unmanageablegranite. " [1] Mutonia (918); Calaborra; Vale de Junqueras (921). [2] Dozy, ii. 351, from an Arab writer. [3] A very interesting account of this embassy from Constantine VII. (947) is given in Al Makkari, ii. 137, from Ibn Khaldun. ---See Conde, i. 442. [4] P. 57. We find in this king none of that suspicious jealousy which we saw inMohammed, even though Omar, the arch rebel, and Christian renegade, still held out at Bobastro, when he ascended the throne; and histreatment of Christians was, throughout his reign, tolerant and politic. But his claims in this respect will be best seen from a very interestingfragment that has come down to our own times, describing the embassy ofa certain John of Gorz, a monk from an abbey near Metz, who carriedletters from Otho, emperor of Germany, to the Spanish Sultan. [1] In 950 Abdurrahman had sent an embassy to the emperor. A bishop who hadbeen at the head of this embassy died, and this seems to have caused adelay in the answer. As the Khalif's letter contained blasphemiesagainst Christ, it was determined to write a reply in the king's name, such as might perhaps convince Abdurrahman of the error of his ways. Acertain bishop, Adalbero, was appointed to be at the head of the returnembassy, [2] and he asks the abbot of the monastery of Gorz to give himtwo assistants. Two are chosen, but one of these quarrels with hissuperior, and is expelled from the body; whereupon John offers himselfas a substitute. The abbot only gives his consent to John's going withgreat reluctance, knowing that the young monk had an ardent longing tobe a martyr, if he could only get the opportunity. [1] See "Vita Johannis Abbatis Gorziensis, " 973, by John, Abbot of Arnulph. "Migne, " vol. Cxxxvii. , pp. 239-310. [2] In 953. Going through Lyons, and by ship to Barcelona, the ambassadors reachedthe frontier town, Tortosa, and at last got to Cordova, where they wereassigned a house two miles from the palace, and, though wellentertained, were informed, to their dismay, that, as the Moorishambassadors had been made to wait three years for an answer, Otho'smessengers would have to wait nine years. Moreover, they now discoveredthat the king had been already apprised of the contents of the letter, which Otho had sent, by a comrade of the late ambassador-bishop, whomJohn and his companions had taken with them to Barcelona. The king employs Hasdai, a Jew, as his go-between; who warns them not todivulge the contents of the letter, as it would make them liable topunishment; for the letter contained what Moslems would considerblasphemy against their Prophet. Soon after this John, the Bishop ofCordova, is sent to them to suggest that they should carry their giftsto the king, and say nothing of the letter. But John of Gorz stoutlyrefused to do this, saying that the delivery of the letter was his chiefduty, and that as Abdurrahman had begun by reviling Christ, he must notbe surprised at Otho's retaliating against Mohammed. However, John ofCordova begs him to remember the position in which the Christians stood, viz. , under Pagan rule. "We are forbidden, " he said, "by the apostle toresist the powers that be. In our calamity, we have this oneconsolation, we are allowed to observe our own laws and rites, and ourrulers, if they see us diligent in our religion, honour us, cherish us, and delight in our society, while they abhor the Jews. As our religion, then, suffers no harm at their hands, let us obey the Moslems in otherthings. " The bishop was anxious, therefore, that the letter should besuppressed, as calculated to do harm to the Christian community, and nogood to Otho. His advice, however, fell on deaf ears. The monk of Gorzwas resolved on doing what he deemed his plain duty; nor was he contentto forego his chance of martyrdom, though his action might entaildisastrous consequences on the Christians subject to the Moors. Hetaunted the bishop with giving his advice from a fear of man. "Betterdie of hunger than eat the salt of unbelievers;" and expressed horror atthe fact that the bishop was circumcised, and also abstained fromcertain meats in deference to Moslem scruples. It was in vain that thebishop pointed out that otherwise they could not live with the Saracens. John of Gorz now expressed his intention of delivering the letterforthwith; but the king denied the ambassadors an audience, leaving themto themselves for six or seven weeks. Early in 955, however, the kingsent to them, and asked if they held firm to their previous resolve, andon receiving an answer in the affirmative, he threatened all theChristians in his dominions with loss of privileges and even death. Johnof Gorz merely answers that the guilt would be on the king's head; butthe latter is persuaded to milder counsels by his advisers, who remindhim of Otho's power, and the certainty that he would interfere in favourof his ambassadors. John of Gorz now proposes the only practicable course, that Abdurrahmanshould send a fresh embassy to Otho and ask for instructions for hisambassadors under the circumstances. Recemundus, [1] a Christian, offersto go as ambassador, if a vacant bishopric be given him as a reward. Hesets out and reaches Gorz in February 956. Otho gives him a freshletter, with instructions to suppress the former one, to conclude analliance with the Sultan, and make an arrangement with him for puttingdown the brigands who infested the marches. [1] De Gayangos, on Al Makkari, ii. P. 464, identifies him with Rabi, a bishop mentioned as an ambassador of Abdurrahman III. In Al Makkari, i. 236, ii. 139; but Rabi may have been the bishop who died during the embassy to Otho. Recemundus, as De Gayangos (1. 1. ) says, was a katib or clerk of the palace. Leaving Gorz with Dudo, the emperor's legate, on March 30, he reachedCordova on June 1st, but the Sultan declined to receive the secondcomers till he had received the earlier embassy. So, after three yearssemi-captivity, John is released, and told to prepare himself for theking's presence by shaving, washing, and putting on new apparel. Hedeclines to go in any otherwise than he is; and even when the king, thinking his refusal due to poverty, sends him a sum of money, the monkaccepts the gift and distributes it to the poor, but says he will onlysee the king as a poor monk. The king good-naturedly said: "Let him comeas he likes. " On June 21, 956, the ambassadors were conducted to theking's presence along a road thronged with sight-seers. The steps of thepalace were laid down with tapestry, and a guard of honour lined bothsides of the approach. On John's entrance, the king, as a great mark ofdistinction, gave him his open palm to kiss, and beckoned him to a seatnear his own couch. After a silence Abdurrahman apologised to the monkfor the long delay which he had been obliged to impose on the embassy, and which was in no sense due to disrespect for John himself, whosevirtue and wisdom he could not but acknowledge. As a proof that this wasno mere empty compliment, the king expressed his readiness to give himwhatever he asked. John's wrath vanishes at these gracious words, andthey talk amicably together. But when the monk asks leave to departAbdurrahman says:--"After waiting so long to see one another, shall wepart so soon?" He suggests that they should have at least threeinterviews. At their next meeting they discourse on the respective powerof the empires of Otho and the Khalif himself; and the Sultan, taught bythe experience of Spain, points out the unwisdom of allowing feudalsubjects to become too powerful, by dividing kingdoms between them. So ends this unique and interesting fragment, which throws so pleasant alight on the character and the Court of the greatest of Spanish Sultans, and proves that the Christians at that time enjoyed considerablefreedom, and even honour, at the hands of the Moslem Government. The reason why the king was unwilling to receive the first letterbrought by John was not so much because he was reluctant to read wordsagainst Mohammed, as because he would by so doing render himself liableto the penalty of death, which was ordained by law to any Moslem--kingor slave--who listened to abuse of the Prophet without exacting summaryvengeance from the blasphemer. But--and here was the king's dilemma--hecould not punish the ambassadors without incurring the enmity of Otho. The only possible alternative was that suggested by John, that Othoshould be asked to withdraw the objectionable letter, without the Sultanhaving officially read it, and this Abdurrahman adopted. The moderationof the king is conspicuous throughout, for we must regard the threatagainst the Christians as merely a threat, never really intended to beput into execution. In showing tolerance towards their Christian subjects, the Spanishkhalifs might be thought to have forgotten the traditions of Islam; but, as a matter of fact, Mohammed seems to have been very inconsistent inhis views with regard to Christians and Jews at different times of hiscareer, and while he enjoined the necessity of Holy Wars, [1] hepermitted the people of the book to be admitted to tribute. [2] In onepassage he even seems to allow the possibility of salvation to Jews, Christians, and Sabians: "Verily they who believe, and those whoJudaize, and the Sabians, and the Christians--whoever of these believethin God and the last day, and doeth that which is right--there shall comeno fear on them, neither shall they be grieved. "[3] And there is oneremarkable text to find in the mouth of Mohammed, "Let there be noviolence in religion. " [4] Moreover, some of the best Mohammedan rulers that have ever lived upheldthe same principle of toleration. Abbas II. , one of the Persian Sufis, is reported to have said: "It is for God, not for me, to judge of men'sconsciences, and I will never interfere with what belongs to thetribunal of the great Creator and Lord of the Universe. "[5] Again, Akbar, one of the greatest kings that ever lived, followed in practicethe principle thus expressed by his minister, Abul Fazl: "Persecutionafter all defeats its own ends; it obliges men to conceal theiropinions, but produces no change in them. "[6] Noble sentiments surely, and such as we should expect from followers of Christ rather than ofMohammed! [1] Tradition attributes even stronger approval of Holy Wars to Mohammed than can be found in the Koran, --_e. G. _, "The sword is the key of Paradise and Hell. A drop of blood shed in the cause of God, a night spent in arms, are of more avail than two months of fasting and prayer. Whoever falls in battle against the infidel, his sins are forgiven him. " [2] Koran, xlvii. , ad init. [3] Koran, v. , v. 73. This may be said in the general sense of Acts x. 35. [4] Koran, ii. , v. 258. [5] See Freeman's "Saracens, " p. 230; from Malcolm's "Persia, " i. P 583. [6] _Ibid. _, from "Ayeen Akbery, " p. 11. Yet far too often have portions of the Christian Church been conspicuousfor intolerance rather than tolerance. Alcuin, indeed, does say in hisletter to Aquila, Bishop of Winchester, that he does not approve ofpunishing heresy with death, because God, by the mouth of His prophet, had said: "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that thewicked turn from his way and live;"[1] but Alcuin was a man of unusualmildness and sweet reasonableness, as his letters to Felix and Elipandustestify. On the other hand, there were too many frantic bigots in theChurch, like Arnold of Citeaux, whose impious words, in connection withthe massacre of Albigensians, are not likely to be forgotten--"Slay all;God will know His own. " In fact, so opposed did the Christian spirit come to be to theMohammedan in this respect, that their toleration was made a principalargument against the Moors by the Archbishop of Valencia in his memorialto Philip III. At the end of the sixteenth century. [2] A very melancholy instance of bigotry and intolerance is afforded byBernard, a French monk, who was made Archbishop of Toledo by Alfonso, onthe capture of that city in 1085. By the treaty of capitulation certainmosques had been expressly reserved to the Moslems, just in the same wayas certain churches had been reserved for the Christians by Musa in 712. But Bernard, by way of showing his zeal in the cause of God, in defianceof the king's plighted word, chose to perform mass in the chief mosque. Alfonso was furiously angry when he heard of his archbishop'sproceedings, but the Moslems, with wonderful forbearance, seeing thatthe king had not authorised Bernard's outrageous conduct, came forwardof their own accord and begged him to pardon the act, and evenvoluntarily surrendered their mosque. [3] Not only were the Christians allowed to practise their religion, buteven, as we have seen above, encouraged in it. [4] Almanzor, the championof Islam, allowed his Christian servants to rest on Sundays. Christiansin every reign held high posts at court[5] and throughout the land, andnot only timeserving Christians but men like Samson and Leovigild, whowere known to sympathise with the party of zealots, were employed by theking to write letters to, and negotiate with, the neighbouring kings. This was no doubt due to their general trustworthiness, their quickness, and their knowledge of Arabic as well as Latin. [1] Ezekiel xxxiii. 11. [2] Prescott, "Ferd. And Isab. , " p. 376, n. [3] Mariana, ix. 10. [4] See p. 57. Recent history affords a similar instance from the Christian side. See "Gordon in Central Africa, " p. 54--"I have made them make a mosque, and keep the Ramadhan. " _Ibid. _, p. 249, "I had the mosque cleared out and restored for worship, and endowed the priests and crier, and had a great ceremony at the opening of it. .. . They blessed me and cursed Zebehr Pasha who took the mosque from them. To me it appears that the Mussulman worships God as well as I do, and is as acceptable, if sincere, as any Christian. " [5] Such as secretary, farmer of taxes, or even prime minister. Among the great functionaries of state there was one who held the officeof Kitabatu-dh-dhimam, which, being interpreted, is "the office ofprotection. " The Christians and Jews were under his generaljurisdiction, and were called "the people of the protection. "[1] Butbesides this Arab "Secretary of State for the Christians, " the latterhad their own counts--a relic of the Gothic system--who, however, didnot always stand up for their interests. [2] There were also Christiancensors, [3] but it is not known what position they held in the State. The young Christian cadets of noble birth were brought up at Court, andnumbers of Sclavonian Christians served in the king's bodyguard, of whomunder Hakem I. (796-822) there were 2000. [4] [1] Al Makk. , i. P. 103; and De Gayangos' note, p. 398. [2] _E. G. _. Servandus. Cp. Also Cyprianus. [3] See above, p. 49. [4] Conde, i. P. 260. All things considered, it is a matter for surprise that these twopeoples, so unlike in race, habits, prejudices, and religion, lived socomparatively quietly side by side in spite of a perpetual state ofwarfare between the Arabs and the Christians in the North, which tendedto keep alive the animosities of the two races in that part of Spainwhich was under Mohammedan rule. [1] Moreover, the pride of race was verystrong in the pure-blooded Arabs. Thus the poet Said ibn Djoud, in apoem called the "battle of the town" (Polei), boasts that the conquerorsare of the pure race of Adnan and Kahtan, without any foreign admixture;while he calls the defeated Spaniards miscreants, followers of a falsefaith, [2] sons of the pale-faces. The haughty Arabs, in fact, were tooprone to look upon all the Spaniards, both renegades and Christians, asmere canaille. [3] But, in spite of this, the races to a certain extent amalgamated; andEulogius endeavours to prove that, but for the outbreak of fanaticism inthe middle of the ninth century, this amalgamation would have hadserious results for Christianity in Spain. [4] The Arabs did not disdain to seek the alliance of the free ChristianStates, nor were the latter averse from doing the same, when politicaloccasion demanded it. As early as 798 the Walis of the frontier citiessought to make themselves independent by what the Arab writer describesas "vile policy and unworthy acts, " _i. E. _, by seeking the friendship ofthe Christian kings;[5] and there are many instances of these kingsasking aid, even servilely, from Arab princes. [6] [1] Dozy, ii. 108, puts the distinction between the races very forcibly:--"Ce peuple qui joignait à une gaité franche et vive une sensualité raffinée devait inspirer aux prêtres, qui aimaient les retraites éternelles et profondes, les grands renoncéments et les terribles expiations, une répugnance extrême et invincible. " [2] Dozy, ii. 223. [3] "C'était leur terme consacrée. " Dozy, ii. 211. [4] "Heu pro dolor! quia esse sub Gentibus delicias computamus, iugumque cum infidelibus ducere non renitimur. Et inde ex cotidiano usu illorum sacrilegiis plerumque utimur et magis ipsorum contubernia affectamus. "--Eul. , "Doc. Martyr, " sec. 18. [5] Conde, i. 244: "Chron. Alb. , " vi. Sec. 58: "Chron. Lib. , " sec. 30. [6] Al Makkari, ii. 161, Ordono the Bad and Hakem II. Again, as was inevitable from the nature of the case, intermarriageswere common between the two races. The example was early set by thewidow of Roderic, the last Gothic king, marrying Abdulaziz, son of Musa. The sons of Witiza also married Arab women, and Sarah, the daughter ofone of these princes, was the progenetrix of a noble family of Arabs, one of her descendants being the historian, Ibn al Kuttiya, which meansson of the Gothic princess. [1] Abdurrahman Anassir, the greatest of allthe Spanish Sultans, was the son of a Christian slave, named Maria, [2]and the mighty Almanzor had for grandmother the daughter of a renegadeChristian. [3] These are some instances, but it is not necessary to dwellon what was so common an occurrence as intermarriage between thepeoples, and is forbidden neither by the Koran, [4] nor by the Bible. However, there is one point in this connection which deserves a moreparticular notice. The intermingling of the races has been supposed tohave been facilitated in part by the yearly tribute of 100 maidens paidby the northern kings to the earlier Arab Sultans. Modern historiansmostly throw doubt upon the story, saying that of the early historiansnone mention it, and that the Arabs do not even allude to it. [5] But ifConde is to be trusted, an Arab writer does speak of it, as of a thingwell known. In a letter of Omar[6] ibn Alaftas Almudafar, King ofAlgarve, to Alfonso VI. , in 1086, occur the words:--"Do thou rememberthe time of Mohammed Almanzor, and bring to thy mind those treatieswherein thy forefathers offered him the homage even of their owndaughters, and sent him those damsels in tribute even to the land of ourrule. " [1] Al Makkari, ii. 15, 22, and De Gayangos' note, p. 454. [2] Conde, i. 364. [3] Dozy, iii. 124. [4] Koran, v. 5:--"Ye are allowed to marry free women of those that have received the Scriptures before you. " [5] Dunham, ii. 131: Romey's "Histoire d'Espagne, " iii. 276. [6] Conde, ii. 238: Al Makkari, ii. 256, calls him Omar ibn Mohammed etc ibn Alafthas Almutawakkel, King of Badajos. The maiden tribute is the subject of several ancientballads by the Christian Spaniards. The following aretwo verses from one of these:-- "For he who gives the Moorish king a hundred maids of Spain Each year when in the season the day comes round again; If he be not a heathen he swells the heathen's train-- 'Twere better burn a kingdom than suffer such disdain! "If the Moslems must have tribute, make men your tribute-money, Send idle drones to tease them within their hives of honey; For, when 'tis paid with maidens, from every maid there spring Some five or six strong soldiers to serve the Moorish king. "[1] Southey also says that the only old Portuguese ballad known to him wason this subject. The evidence, then, of the ballads is strong for a factof this kind, telling, too, as it does, so much against the writers ofthe ballads. [2] As to the Christian chroniclers, it is quite true that we find nomention of this tribute in the history of Sebastian of Salamanca and theChronicle of Albeldum, but there is a direct allusion to it in adocument included in the collection of Florez. [3] "Our ancestors, " saysRamiro, "the kings of the land--we blush to record it--to freethemselves from the raids of the Saracens, consented to pay them yearlya shameful tribute of a hundred maidens distinguished for their beauty, fifty of noble birth, and fifty from the people. " It was to put an endto this nefarious tribute that Ramiro now ordered a levy _en masse_. This, if the document is genuine (and Florez gives no hint to thecontrary), is good evidence for the fact. Many succeeding writersmention it. Lucas of Tuy[4] says that Ramiro was asked for the tributein 842. Johannes Vasaeus[5] speaks of it, as also Alfonso, Bishop ofBurgos;[6] and lastly, Rodrigo of Toledo[7] says that Mauregatus(783-788), having obtained the throne of Leon by Saracen help, agreed tosend this tribute yearly. On the whole, then, the evidence is in favour of the maiden tributebeing no myth, but of its having been regularly paid for more than fiftyyears. Most of these Christian maidens probably embraced the religion oftheir husbands, but in some cases they no doubt converted them to theirown faith. From different causes, some of which will be mentioned elsewhere, conversions were frequent from one religion to the other. Motives ofworldly interest naturally caused the balance in these to fall very muchagainst the Christians, but as the Mohammedan power declined theopposite was the case. Though voluntary apostasy was, and is, unpardonable, Mohammed seems to have made allowances for those whoapostatized under compulsion; for when one of his followers, Ammar ibnYaser, being tortured by the Koreish, renounced his belief in God and inMohammed's mission, but afterwards came weeping to the Prophet, Mohammedreceived him kindly, and, wiping his eyes, said: "What fault was it ofthine, if they forced thee?"[8] [1] Lockhart. [2] Unless the ballads were written later than 1250--_i. E. _, after Rodrigo of Toledo had made the story known by his history. [3] "Espana Sagrada, " xix. 329--"Privilegiam quod dicitur votoram, anno 844 a rege Ranemiro I. , ecclesiae B. Jacobi concessae. " [4] Lucas Tudensis, "Chronicon Mundi, " bk. Iv. [5] "Hispaniae Chronicon, " 783 A. D. [6] "Anacephalaiosis, " sec. 51. [7] III. C. 7. [8] Koran, xvi. Ver. 109, Sale's note. CHAPTER VIII. THE MUWALLADS. That the conversions from Christianity to Islam were very numerous atfirst we can sufficiently gather from the fact that the new convertsformed a large and important party in the State, and almost succeeded inwresting the government of Spain from the Arabs. The disorder and civilwar which may almost be said to have been chronic in Spain during theArab dominion were due to the fact that three distinct races settled inthat country were striving for the mastery, each of these races beingitself divided into two bitterly hostile factions. The Arabs were splitup into the two factions of Yemenite or Beladi Arabs, the descendants ofKahtan, and Modharites, the Arabs of Mecca and Medina, who claimeddescent from Adnan. [1] To the latter section belonged the reigningfamily of Umeyyades. The Berbers, who looked upon themselves as the realconquerors of Spain, and whose numbers were subsequently reinforced byfresh immigrations, were composed of two hostile tribes of Botar andBeranis. Thirdly, there were the Spaniards, part Christian, partMohammedan; the latter being either renegades themselves or thedescendants of renegades. These apostates were called by the ArabsMosalimah, or New Moslems, [2] and their descendants Muwallads, [3] orthose not of Arabic origin. The Christians were either tribute-payingChristians, called Ahlu dh dhimmah; or free Christians, under Moslemsupremacy, called Ajemi;[4] or apostates from Islam, [5] calledMuraddin. The Muwallads, in spite of the Mohammedan doctrine of theequality and brotherhood of Moslems, were looked down upon with theutmost contempt by the pure-blooded Arabs. [6] Their condition was evenworse than that of the Christians, for they were, generally speaking, excluded from lucrative posts, and from all administration of affairs--adangerous policy, considering that they formed a majority of thepopulation. [7] Stronger and more humane than the Berbers, they werefriends of order and civilization. Intellectually they were evensuperior to the conquering Arabs. [8] The natural result of their being Spaniards by race, and Arabs byreligion, was that they sided now with one faction and now with another, and at one time, under the weak Abdallah (888-912), were the mainstay ofthe Sultan against his rebellious subjects. After breaking with theSultan they almost succeeded in gaining possession of the whole kingdom, and carried fire and desolation to the very gates of Cordova. [9] [1] See above, p. 23, note 3. [2] Cp. "New Christians. " [3] Pronounced Mulads, hence Mulatto. The word means "adopted. " [4] Al Makkari, ii. 446. De Gayangos' note. [5] Al Makkari, ii. 458. [6] Cp. "Gordon in Central Africa, " p. 300. ". .. The only regret is that I am a Christian. Yet they would be the first to despise me if I recanted and became a Mussulman. " An Arab poet calls them "sons of slaves, " Dozy, ii. 258. [7] So Dozy, ii. P. 52. But perhaps he meant "of the Arab population. " [8] Dozy, ii. 261. [9] Al Makkari, ii. P. 458. De Gayangos' note. As early as 805 the Muwallads of Cordova, incited by certaintheologians, revolted under Hakem I. , but the rising was suppressed. In814, however, they again rose, and the rebellion being put down withgreat severity by the help of the Berbers, the Cordovan Muwallads wereexiled, 1500 going to Alexandria, and 8000 to Fez. [1] But thoughexterminated in Cordova, the renegades still mustered strong in Spain. At Elvira they rose in Abdallah's reign, under a chief named Nabil, andthrew off the Arab yoke;[2] and, previously to this, Abdurrahman ibnMerwan ibn Yunas and Sadoun had headed similar revolts at Badajos andMerida. [3] At Seville the Muwallad element was specially strong, as wesee from the many family names, such as Beni Angelino, Beni Sabarico, which betray a Spanish origin. The majority of the inhabitants embracedIslam early, and had their mosque by the middle of the ninth century, but they retained many Spanish customs and characteristics. When theArabs of Seville revolted against the Sultan, the renegade party joinedthe latter. At Saragoza, the Beni Kasi, descendants of a noble Gothicfamily, set up an independent kindgom, waging war indifferently with alltheir neighbours. [1] Dozy, App. B to vol. Ii. Hakem was called Al rabadhi (=he of the suburb) from this. [2] Ihn Hayyan, apud Al Makkari, ii. 446, ff. [3] In 875. "Chron Albel. , " sec. 62. Dozy, ii. 184. It does not come within the scope of this inquiry to trace out thehistory of all the revolts made by the Arabs or Berbers against theSultan's authority, but the policy and position of the Muwallads andChristians are a necessary part of our subject. The latter, though welltreated on the whole, naturally looked back with regret to the days oftheir own supremacy, and were ready to intrigue with anyone able toassist them against their Arab rulers. Accordingly we find themcommunicating with the kings of France; and there is still extant aletter from Louis the Debonnaire to the people of Merida, written in826, which is as follows:--"We have heard of your tribulation, which yousuffer from the cruelty of your king Abdurrahman, who has tried to takeaway your goods, and has oppressed you just as his father Abulaz did. He, making you pay unjust taxes, which you were not bound to pay, turnedyou from friends into enemies, and from obedient to disobedientvassels, inasmuch as he infringed your liberties. But you, like bravemen, we hear, are resisting the tyrant, and we write now to condole withyou, and to exhort you to continue your resistance, and since your kingis our enemy as well as yours, let us join in opposing him. "We purpose to send an army to the frontier next summer to wait theretill you give us the signal for action. Know then that, if you willdesert him and join us, your ancient liberties shall be secured to you, and you shall be free of all taxes and tributes, and shall live underyour own laws. "[1] The army promised was sent under the king's son, but seems to haveeffected nothing. During the period of religious disturbance at Cordova, when thevoluntary martyrdoms became so frequent, and just at the time ofMohammed's accession, the Christians of Toledo, encouraged, we maysuppose, by their proximity to the free Christians, revolted in favourof their coreligionists at Cordova. No wonder then that Mohammedimagined that the outbreak of fanaticism in Cordova was but the signalfor a general mutiny of his Christian subjects. As we have already seen, the king set out with an army against the Toledans, who appealed toOrdono I. Of Leon for help. Glad enough to get such an opportunity forweakening the Arab government, Ordono sent a large auxiliary force, butthe Toledans and Leonnese were defeated with great slaughter by theSultan's troops. [2] Within twenty years, however, Toledo becamepractically independent, except for the payment of tribute. [3] [1] Apud Florez, "Españo Sagrada. " [2] Dozy, ii. 162. [3] _Ibid_, p. 182. From all this it will be clear that the Spanish part of the population, whether Moslem or Christian, was opposed to the exclusiveness of the oldArabs, and ready to make common cause against them. The unity of raceprevailed over the difference of creed, as it did in the case of theEnglish Roman Catholics in the war with Spain, and as it usually willunder such circumstances. The national party were fortunate enough tofind an able leader in the person of the celebrated rebel, Omar ibnHafsun, who came near to wresting the sovereignty of Spain from thehands of the Umeyyades. Omar was descended from a Count Alfonso, [1] andhis family had been Christians till the apostasy of his grandfatherDjaffar. Omar, being a wild unmanageable youth, took up the lucrativeand honourable profession of bandit, his headquarters being at Bobastroor Bishter, a stronghold somewhere between Archidona and Ronda, in thesierra stretching from Granada to Gibraltar. [2] After a brief sojourn inAfrica, where his ambition was inflamed by a prophecy announcing a greatfuture, he returned to Spain, and at once began business again asbrigand at Bobastro with nearly 6000 men. [3] Being captured, he wasbrought to Cordova, but spared on condition of enlisting in the king'sforces. But he soon escaped from Cordova, and became chief of all theSpaniards in the South, Moslem and Christian, [4] whose ardour he arousedby such words as these: "Too long have you borne the yoke of the Sultan, who spoils you of your goods, and taxes you beyond your means. Will youlet yourselves be trampled on by the Arabs, who look upon you as theirslaves? It is not ambition that prompts me to rebel, but a desire toavenge you and myself. " To strengthen his cause he made alliances atdifferent times with the Muwallads in Elvira, Seville, and Saragoza, and with the successful rebel, Abdurrahman ibn Merwan, in Badajos. [1] Dozy, ii. 190. [2] Al Makkari, ii. 437. De Gayangos' note. [3] In 880 or 881. [4] See a description of him quoted by Stanley Lane-Poole ("Moors in Spain, " p. 107) from an Arab writer: "Woe unto thee, Cordova! when the captain with the great nose and ugly face--he who is guarded before by Moslems, and behind by idolaters--when Ibn Hafsun comes before thy gates. Then will thine awful fate be accomplished. " Openly defying the Sultan's forces, he was only kept in check byAlmundhir, the king's son, who succeeded his father in 886. Omar wasfurther strengthened by the accession to his side of Sherbil, the Countof Cordova. [1] The death of Almundhir in 888 removed from Omar's pathhis only able enemy, and, during Abdallah's weak reign, the rebel leaderwas virtual king of the south and east of Spain. The district ofRegio[2] was made over to him by the king, and Omar's lieutenant, IbnMastarna, was made chief of Priejo. This protracted war, which was really one for national independence, wascarried on year after year with varying success. At one time Omarconceived the intention of proclaiming the Abasside Khalifs, [3] atanother he grasped at the royal power himself; and Abdallah's empire wasonly saved by a seasonable victory in 891 at Hisn Belay (or Espiel). [4]The battle was fought on the eve of the Passover, and the Moslemstaunted their enemies with having such a joyful feast, and so manyvictims to commemorate it with. This shows that a large, perhaps thelargest, part of Omar's army was Christian. Another indication of thisis found in a poem of Tarikh ibn Habib, [5] where, speaking of the comingdestruction of Cordova, he says: "The safest place will then be the hillof Abu Abdu, where once stood a church, " meaning that Omar's Christiansoldiers would respect that sanctuary, and no other. Indeed, it iscertain that Omar himself became a Christian some time before thisbattle, [6] as his father had done before him. He took the name ofSamuel, and his daughter Argentea, as we have seen, suffered martyrdom. This change of creed on Omar's part changed the character of the war, and gave it more of a religious, [7] and perhaps less of a national, character, for the Spanish Moslems fell off from him, when he becameChristian and built churches. [1] Servandus. Al Makkari, ii. 456. De Gayangos' note. [2] Where Islam was almost extinct. Dozy, ii. 335. [3] Al Makkari, ii. P. 456. De Gayangos' note. [4] Ibn Hayyan, apud Al Makk. , ii. P. 452. This seems to be the same victory as that which Dozy (ii. 284) calls Polei or Aguilar. [5] See Dozy, ii. P. 275. [6] Ibn Hayyan, apud Dozy, ii. P. 326. [7] In 896, on the capture of Cazlona by a renegade named Ibn as Khalia, all the Christians were massacred. --Dozy, ii. P. 327. Towards the close of his reign Abdallah was able to assert hissupremacy, though Omar and his followers still held out. Omar himselfdid not die till 917, some years after Abdallah's death. The king'ssuccessor, Abdurrahman III. , was a different stamp of man from Abdallah, and the reduction of Omar became only a question of time, though, infact, the apostasy of Omar from Islam had made the ultimate success ofthe national party very doubtful, if not impossible. After Omar's death, his son, Djaffar, thought to recover the support of the Spanish Moslemsby embracing Islam; but he thereby lost the confidence of theChristians, by whom he was murdered. In 928 his brother Hafssurrendered, with Bobastro, to the Sultan, and the great rebellion wasfinally extinguished. So ended the grand struggle of the national party, first underthe-direction of the Muwallads, and then of the Christians, to shake offthe Arab and Berber yoke. During the remainder of the tenth century thestrong administration of Abdurrahman III. , Hakem II. , and the greatAlmanzor, gave the Christians no chance of raising the cry of "Spain forthe Spanish. " The danger of a renewal of the rebellion once removed, theposition of the Christians does not seem to have been made any worse inconsequence of their late disaffection, and Abdurrahman, himself theson of a Christian mother, treated all parties in the revolt with greatleniency, even against the wishes and advice of the more devout Moslems. Almanzor, too, made himself respected, and even liked, by his Christiansubjects, and there is no doubt that his victories over the ChristianStates in the North[1] were won very largely with the aid of Christiansoldiers. His death was the signal for the disruption of the SpanishKhalifate, and from 1010-1031, when the khalifate was finallyextinguished, complete anarchy prevailed in Saracen Spain. The Berbersmade a determined effort to regain their ascendency, and their forces, seconded by the Christians, succeeded in placing Suleiman on the thronein 1013. A succession of feeble rulers, set up by the differentfactions--Arab, Berber, and Slave--followed, until Hischem III. Wasforced to abdicate in 1031, and the Umeyyade dynasty came to an end, after lasting 275 years. By this time the Christians in the North hadgathered themselves together for a combined advance against the Saracenprovinces, never again to retrograde, scarcely even to be checked, tillin 1492 fell Granada, the last stronghold of the Moors in Spain. [2] [1] Al Makkari, ii. P. 214. [2] In 1630 there was not a single Moslem left in Spain. --Al Makk. , i. P. 74. CHAPTER IX. CHRISTIANS AND MOSLEMS IGNORANT OF ONEANOTHER'S CREED. In spite of the close contact into which the Christians and Mohammedanswere brought in Spain, and the numerous conversions and frequentintermarriages between the two sections, no thorough knowledge seems tohave existed, on either side, of the creed of the other party. Such, atleast, is the conclusion to which we are driven, on reading the onlydirect records which remain on the subject among Arab and Christianwriters. These on the Christian side consist chiefly of quotations froma book on Mohammedanism by the abbot Speraindeo in a work of hisdisciple, Eulogius;[1] and some rather incoherent denunciations ofMohammed and his religion by Alvar, [2] another pupil of the abbot's. Inthese, as might be expected, great stress is laid on the sensuality ofMohammed's paradise, [3] and the lewdness of the Prophet himself. As tothe latter, though many of Gibbon's coarse sarcasms do not rest on goodauthority, very little can be said for the Prophet. But among otherblasphemies attributed by Speraindeo to Mohammed is one of which we findno mention in the Koran--the assertion, namely, that he would in thenext world be wedded to the Virgin Mary. John, Bishop of Seville, isequally incorrect when, in a letter to Alvar, [4] he alleges a promise onthe part of Mohammed that he would, like Christ, rise again from thedead; whereas his body, being neglected by his relations, was devouredby dogs. The Christian bishop does not hesitate to add--sepultus est ininfernum--he was buried in hell. [5] [1] Eul. , "Mem. Sanct. , " i. Sec. 7. [2] Alvar, "Ind. Lum. , " secs. 21-35. [3] _Ibid. _, secs. 23, 24. Mohammed's paradise was by no means wholly sensual. --Sale's Koran. Introd. , p. 78. [4] Sec 9. [5] This shows the hatred of Christians for Mohammed, whom, says Eulogius ("Mem. Sanct. , " i. Sec. 20), it would be every Christian's duty to kill, were he alive on earth. It is generally supposed that Mohammed could neither read nor write, andthis appears to have been the opinion of Alvar;[1] but the same witnessacknowledges that the Koran was composed in such eloquent and beautifullanguage that even Christians could not help reading and admiring it. [2] On the important question of Mohammed's position with regard toChristianity, Eulogius[3] at least formed a correct judgment. Mohammed, he tells us "blasphemously taught that Christ was the Word of God, [4]and His Spirit;[5] a great prophet, [6] endowed with much power fromGod;[7] like Adam in His creation, [8] but not equal to God (theCreator);[9] and that by reason of His blameless[10] life, being filledwith the Holy Spirit, [11] He showed marvellous signs and wonders throughthe power of God, [12] not working by His own Godhead, but as a righteousMan, and an obedient servant, [13] obtaining much power and might fromthe Almighty God through prayer. " [1] Alvar, "Ind. Lum. , " sec. 26. [2] _Ibid. _, sec. 29. This is more than can be said at the present day. [3] Eul. , "Lib. Apol. , " sec. 19. [4] Koran, ch. Iii. 40. [5] Koran, ch. Ii. 81, "strengthened with Holy Spirit. " [6] Kor. , c. Iii. 59. [7] Kor. , c. Iii. 45. [8] Kor. , c. Iii. 50. [9] Kor. , c. Ix. 33. [10] Kor. , c. Iii. [11] This is a mistake of Eulogius. See Sale's note on Koran, ch. Ii. 81, note. [12] Kor. , ch. V. 110 ff. [13] Koran, cc. Iv. Ad fin; xliii. 59. Alvar is much more unfair to Mohammed than his friend Eulogius, and heeven seems to have had a prejudiced idea[1] that the Prophet set himselfdeliberately to preach doctrines the opposite of those taught by Christ. It would be nearer to the truth to say that the divergence between thetwo codes of morals was due to the natural ignorance of an illiterateArabian, brought into contact only with an heretical form ofChristianity, the real doctrines of which he was therefore not likely toknow. According to Alvar, the sixth day of the week was chosen for theMohammedan holy day, because Christ suffered on that day. We shallrealise the absurdity of this when we consider the reverence in whichMohammed held the very name of Christ, going so far even as to deny thatChrist Himself was crucified at all. [2] The true reason for selectingFriday, as alleged by Mohammed himself, was, because the work ofcreation ended on that day. [3] Again, sensuality was preached, says Alvar, because Christ preachedchastity. But Mohammed cannot fairly be said to have preachedsensuality, though his private life in this respect was by no meanspure. Gluttony was advocated instead of fasting. A more baseless charge wasnever made; for how can it be contended that Christianity enjoinsfasting, while Islam disapproves of it, in the face of such texts asMatthew ix. 14, [4] and Isaiah lviii. 6--"Is not this the fast that Ihave chosen? To loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavyburdens, and to let the oppressed go free?" on the one hand; and on theother the express injunction of the Koran[5]:--"O true believers, a fastis ordained you, as it was ordained to those before you . .. If ye fast, it will be better for you, if ye knew it. The month of Ramadan shall yefast. " But Alvar goes on to make a more astonishing statementstill:--"Christ ordained that men should abstain from their wives duringa fast, while Mohammed consecrated those days to carnal pleasure. "Christ surely gives us no such injunction, though St Paul does saysomething of the kind. The Koran[6] explicitly says--"It is lawful foryou on the night of the fast to go in unto your wives; they are agarment unto you, and you are a garment unto them. " We even find anincident recorded by an Arabian writer, where Yahya ibn Yahya, thefamous faqui, imposed a penance of a month's extra fast on AbdurrahmanII. (822-852) for violating the Prophet's ordinance, that wives shouldbe abstained from during the fasting month. [7] Alvar, being a layman, may perhaps be supposed not to have studied Mohammedanism critically, and that his zeal was not according to knowledge is perhaps the bestexplanation of the matter. In one place[8] he informs us of hisintention of writing a book on the Cobar, [9] but the work, if everwritten, has not survived. Nor is this much to be regretted, if we mayjudge by the wild remarks he indulges in elsewhere[10] on this theme. Inthat passage he seems to apply the obscure prophecy of Daniel[11] toMohammed, forgetting that verse 37 speaks of one who "shall regard notthe desire of women, " a description hardly characteristic of Mohammed. He identifies the God Maozim (Hebr. Mauzim), which our revised version(v. 38) translates the "God of fortresses" with the MohammedanCobar;[12] and the strange god, whom he shall acknowledge, Alvaridentifies with the devil which inspired the Prophet in the guise of theangel Gabriel. All this, as the writer himself allows, is veryenigmatical. [1] See Dozy, ii. 107. [2] See Koran, cc. Iii. 47; iv. 157; and Sale's notes. [3] See Sale's note on Koran, c. Lxii. 9. [4] Cf. Also Matt. Xi. 19--"The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a gluttonous man and a wine-bibber. " [5] Chapter ii. 180. [6] Chapter ii. 185. The Mohammedan fast is confined to the day time. [7] From Ibn Khallekan, apud Dozy, ii. 108. [8] "Ind. Lum. , " sec. 25. [9] _I. E. _, the Caaba apparently. [10] "Ind. Lum. , " sec. 25, ff. [11] C. Xi. Vv. 21, ff. [12] ? Caaba. Alvar does not scruple even to accuse the Moslems of idolatry, assertingthat the Arabian tribes worship their idol (the Caaba black stone[1]) asthey used to do of yore, and that they set apart a holy month, Al Mozem, in honour of this idol. [2] Finally, Mohammed is spoken of variously as the precursor ofAntichrist, [3] or as Antichrist himself. [4] Let us now see how far we can gather the opinions of educated Moslemswith regard to Christian doctrine and worship. If we find these to be noless one-sided and erroneous than the opinions of Christians as toMohammedanism, yet can we the more easily excuse the Moslems, for theKoran itself, the very foundation and guide of all their religiousdogmas, is full of incorrect and inconsistent notions on the subject. The most important of these mistakes was that the Christians worshippeda Trinity of Deities--God, Christ, Mary. [5] The inclusion of the VirginMary into this Trinity was perhaps due to the fact that worship was paidto her even at that early date, as it certainly is among the RomanCatholics at this day. As will have been seen from a passage quotedabove, [6] something very like adoration was already paid to the Virginin the churches of Spain. [1] Sale, Introduction to Koran, p. 91. [2] Alvar, "Ind. Lum. , " sec. 25. [3] _Ibid. _, sec. 21. [4] _Ibid. _, sec. 53. [5] See Koran, v. Ad fin. :--"And when God shall say unto Jesus at the last day: O Jesus, son of Mary, hast thou said unto men, Take me and my mother for two Gods, beside God? he shall answer, Praise be unto thee! it is not for me to say that which I ought not. " [6] P. 56. But the following extract from a treatise on Religions, by Ali ibnHazm, [1] the prime minister of Abdurrahman V. (Dec. 1023-March 1024), will show that some educated Moslems knew enough of the Christian creedto appreciate its difficulties:--"We need not be astonished, " says IbnHazm, "at the superstition of men. Look at the Christians! They are sonumerous that God only knows their numbers. They have among them men ofgreat intelligence, and princes of great ability. Nevertheless theybelieve that three is one, and one is three; that one of the three isthe Father, another the Son, another the Spirit; that the Father is, andis not, the Son; that a man is, and is not, God; that the Messiah is Godin every respect, and yet not the same as God; that He who has existedfrom all eternity has been created. "One of their sects, the members of which they call Jacobites, and whichnumber hundreds of thousands, believes even that the Creator Himself wasscourged, crucified, and put to death; so that the Universe for threedays was deprived of its Governor. " Another extract from an Arabic writer will show us what the Moslemsthought of the worship of St James, the patron saint of Spain, roundwhose shrine rallied the religious revival in the north of thePeninsula. It is Ibn Hayyan, [2] who, in his account of Almanzor'sfiftieth expedition against the Christians, says:--"Shant Yakoh(Santiago)[3] is one of the sanctuaries most frequented, not only by theChristians of Andalus, but of the neighbouring continent, who look uponits church with a veneration such as Moslems entertain for the Caaba ofMecca; for their Caaba is a colossal idol (statue) which stands in themiddle of the church. They swear by it, and repair to it in pilgrimagefrom the most distant parts, from Rome, as well as other countriesbeyond Rome, pretending that the tomb to be seen in the church is thatof Yakob (James), one of the twelve apostles, and the most beloved byIsa (Jesus). --May the blessing of God be on him, and on ourProphet!--The Christians call this Yakob the brother of Jesus, because, while he lived, he was always with him. They say that he was Bishop ofJerusalem, and that he wandered over the earth preaching the religion[of Christ], and calling upon the inhabitants to embrace it, till hecame to that remote corner of Andalus; that he then returned to Syria, where he died at the age of 120 solar years. They pretend likewise that, after the death of Yakob, his disciples carried his body and buried itin that church, as the most remote part, where he had left traces [ofhis preaching]. " [1] II. 227, apud Dozy, iii. 342. Ibn Hazm was, says Dozy, "a strict Moslem, _averse to judging divine questions by human reasoning_. " [2] Al Makkari, ii. 293. [3] Miss Yonge, p. 87, says the Arabs called him Sham Yakub, but what authority has this statement? In a country where literature and the arts were so keenly cultivated, asthey were in Spain during the time of Arab domination, and where therivalry of Christian, Jew, and Moslem produced a sustained period ofintellectual activity such as the world has rarely seen, controversialtheology could not fail to have been largely developed. But the books, if any were written, from the Christian or Moslem standpoint, have allperished, and we have only such slight and unsatisfactory notices leftto us as those already quoted. In estimating, therefore, what influences the rival religions of Spainhad upon each other, we are driven to draw such inferences as we canfrom the meagre hints furnished to us by the writers of the period; fromour knowledge of what Christianity was in Spain, and Mohammedanism inAfrica, before they were brought into contact in Andalusia, comparedwith what they became after that contact had made itself felt; and fromthe observed effects of such relations elsewhere. Upon a carefulconsideration of these scattered hints we shall see that certaineffects were visible, which, had the amalgamation of the two peoplesbeen allowed to continue uninterruptedly for a longer period, and hadthere been no disturbing element in the north of Spain and in Africa, would in all probability have led to some marked modification in one orboth religions, and even to their nearer assimilation. CHAPTER IX. HERESIES IN SPAIN. Such mixtures of religions are by no means without example in history. The Sabians, for instance, were the followers of a religion, which mayhave been a cross between Judaism, Christianity, and Magianism. [1] ButMohammedanism itself has furnished the most marked instances of suchamalgamation. In Persia Islam combined with the creed of Zoroaster toproduce Babyism; while in India Hinduism and Mohammedanism, fusedtogether by the genius of Nanak Guru, have resulted in Sikhism. It may be said that Mohammedanism has been able to unite withZoroastrianism and Hinduism owing to their very dissimilarity withitself, whereas Christianity is too near akin to Islam to combine withit in such a way as to produce a religion like both, and yet differentfrom either. [2] Christianity and Mohammedanism, each have two cardinaldoctrines (and two only) which cannot be abrogated if they are to remaindistinctive creeds. In one of these, the unity of God, they agree. Inthe other they do, and always must, differ. The divinity of Christ onthe one side, and the divine mission of Mohammed on the other, aretotally incompatible doctrines. If the one is true, the other cannot beso. Surrender both, and the result is Judaism. No compromise would seempossible. Yet a compromise was attempted, if we can credit a statementattributed by Dozy to Ibn Khaldun, [3] in recounting the history of thesuccessful rebel, Abdurrahman ibn Merwan ibn Yunas, who during the lastquarter of the ninth century, while all Moslem Spain was a prey to thewildest anarchy, became a leader of the renegade or Muwallad party inMerida and the neighbourhood. Thinking to unite the Muwallads andChristians in one revolt, he preached to his countrymen a new religion, which held a place halfway between Christianity and Islam. This is allwe are told of an endeavour, which might have led to the most importantconsequences. That we hear no more of it is evidence enough that theattempt proved abortive. The only other attempt, if it can be called so, to combine Islam and Christianity has resulted in that curious compoundcalled the religion of the Druses. [1] For an attempted compromise between Christianity and Brahmanism, see the proceedings of Beschi, a Roman Catholic priest, "Education and Missions, " p. 14. [2] Cp. , however, the Druse religion. [3] Dozy, ii. 184. Dozy adds that Abdurrahman was called the Galician (el Jaliki) in consequence of this attempt of his: but there is some error here, as Ibn Hayyan (see Al Makkari, ii. 439, and De Gayangos' note) says he was called ibn ul'jaliki, _i. E. _, of the stock of the Galicians. But though no religion, holding a position midway between Islam andChristianity, arose in Spain, yet those religions could hardly fail toundergo considerable modifications in themselves by reason of theirclose contact for several centuries. In respect to Christianity we shall naturally find the traces (if any)of such modification in the so-called heresies which may have arisen inSpain during this period. These will require a somewhat strictexamination to be made to yield up their secret. The Church of Spain seems to have gained a reputation for introducinginnovations[1] into the doctrines and practices of the true faith, andeven of priding itself on its ingenuity in this way. The very firstCouncil whose acts have come down to us, held at Elvira in Spain, earlyin the fourth century, contains a canon censuring the use of pictures. The very first heretics, who were punished for their error with death bythe hands of their fellow-Christians, were reared in the bosom of theSpanish Church. The doctrine, novel then, but accepted now by all theWestern Churches, of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son aswell as from the Father, was first formulated in a Spanish Council atthe end of the sixth century, but not universally received in the Westuntil 600 years later. [2] And as we have seen, the use of pictures wasdenounced long before the times of the Iconoclasts. We will now take in order the several heresies that made themselvesnoticeable in Spain, or Gothic Gaul, during the Arab supremacy, and seeif we can trace any relation between them and the Moslem faith. To take an unimportant one first, a heresy is mentioned as having arisenin Septimania (Gothic Gaul), presumably during the eighth century. [3] Itwas more practical than speculative, and consisted in a denial of theneed of confession to a priest, on the (unimpeachable) ground that menought to confess to God alone. This appears to us Protestants a whollylaudable and reasonable contention; but not so to the worthy abbé whorecords it: cette doctrine, _si favorable à libertinage_, trouva ungrand nombre de partisans, et excite encore le zèle d'Alcuin. [4] [1] Alcuin ad Elipandum, iv. 13---"Audi me, obsecro, patienter, scholastica Hispaniae congregatio, tibi loquentem, quae novi semper aliquid audire vel praedicare desideras, non contenta ecclesiae universalis Catholica fide, nisi tu aliquid per te invenies, unde tuum nomen celebrares in mundo. " [2] Lateran Council, 1215. [3] See, however, Alcuin's letter to the clergy of the province, Ep. , 71. Migne, vol. Ci. P. 1594. [4] Rohrbacher, "Hist. Univ. Dé l'Eglise Cathol. , " ix. 309. That this error was due in any sense to the influence of the Arabs inthe neighbouring territories of Spain, it is of course impossible toaffirm, but at all events the reform was quite in the spirit of theverses of the Koran: "O ye who have received[1] the Scripture come to ajust determination between us and you, that we worship not any exceptGod, and associate no creature with Him: and that the one of us take notthe other for lords, beside God. " And "They take their priests and monksfor their lords besides God. "[2] [1] Chap. Iii. P. 39. See Sale's note: "that is, come to such terms of agreement as are indisputably consonant to the doctrine of all the prophets and Scriptures, and therefore cannot reasonably be rejected. " [2] Chap. Ix. Mohammed charged the Jews and Christians with idolatry both on other grounds and because "they paid too implicit an obedience to their priests and monks, who took upon them to pronounce what things were lawful and what unlawful, and to dispense with the laws of God. " See Sale, _Ibid. _ _Cp. _-- Haughty of heart and brow the warrior came, In look and language proud as proud might be, Vaunting his lordship, lineage, fights, and fame, Yet was that barefoot monk more proud than he. And as the ivy climbs the tallest tree, So round the loftiest soul his toils he wound; And with his spells subdued the fierce and free. Till ermined age and youth in arms renowned Honouring his scourge and hair-cloth meekly kissed the ground. And thus it chanced that valour, peerless knight, Who ne'er to king or kaiser veiled his crest, Victorious still in bull-feast or in fight, Since first with mail his limbs he did invest, Stooped ever to that anchoret's behest; Nor reasoned of the right, nor of the wrong, But at his bidding laid the lance in rest, And wrought fell deeds the troubled world along, For he was fierce as brave, and pitiless as strong. --SCOTT'S "Don Roderick, " xxix. Xxx. Let us next consider an heretical view of the Trinity attributed toMigetius (_circa_ 750). According to the rather obscure account, whichhas come down to us, [1] he seems to have regarded the Three Persons ofthe Trinity, at least in their relations with the world, as corporeal, the Father being personified in David, the Son in Jesus, and the HolyGhost in Paul. It is difficult to believe that the doctrine, thuscrudely stated by Elipandus, was really held by anyone. We may perhapsinfer[2] that Migetius revived the error of Priscillian (itself a formof Sabellianism), and reducing the Three Persons of the Trinity to one, acknowledged certain [Greek: energeiai], or powers, emanating from Him, which were manifested in David, Jesus, Paul respectively. As the firstand last of these three recipients of the Divine powers were confessedlymen, it follows that Migetius was ready to strip Jesus of that Divinity, which is the cardinal doctrine of Christianity, and which more than anyother doctrine distinguishes it from the creed of Mohammed. Accordinglyhe appears to have actually denied the divinity of the Word, [3] and inthis he made an approach to Mohammedanism. [4] [1] Elipandus to Migetius, sec. 3. See Migne, vol. 96, p. 859. [2] With Enhueber. Dissert, apud Migne, ci. , p. 338 ff. , sec. 29. [3] Enhueber, sec. 32. [4] Neander, v. 216, n. , says, Migetius held that the [Greek: Logos] became personal with the assumption of Christ's humanity; that the [Greek: Logos] was the power constituting the personality of Christ. Hence, says Neander, he was accused of asserting that Christ, the son of David according to the flesh, and not Christ, the Son of God, was the Second Person of the Trinity. A similar, but seemingly not identical, error was propagated by thosewho, as we learn from a letter of Alvar to Speraindeo, did not believethe Three in One and One in Three, "denying the utterances of theprophets, rejecting the doctrine of learned men, and, while they claimedto take their stand upon the Gospel, pointing to texts like John xx. 17, 'I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, unto my God and your God, ' toprove that Christ was merely man. "[1] In his answer to Alvar's letter, Speraindeo says, "If we speak of the Trinity as one Person, we Judaize;"he might have added, "and Mohammedanize. " These heretics, according tothe abbot, spoke of three powers (_virtutes_) forming one Person, not, as the orthodox held, three Persons forming one God. [2] Here we see aclose resemblance to the error mentioned in the preceding paragraph; butthe heretics we are now dealing with make an even closer approach to theteaching of Mohammed in their quotation of John xx. 17 given above, aswill be seen, if we compare with that text the following passages of theKoran, put into the mouth of Christ: "Verily, God is my Lord, and yourLord; therefore serve him:"[3] "They are surely infidels who say, verily, God is Christ, the Son of Mary, since Christ said, O children ofIsrael, serve God, my Lord and your Lord:"[4] and, "I have not spokenunto them any other than what thou didst command me--namely, worshipGod, my Lord and your Lord. "[5] [1] Alvar's letter. Florez, xi. 147. Another text quoted in defence of this doctrine of Agnoetism was Matt. Xxiv. 36: "Of that day and that hour knoweth no man; no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. " In answer to this, Speraindeo refers to Gen. Iii. 9, where God the Father seems not to know where Adam is. [2] Speraindeo's illustration of the Trinity cannot be called a happy one. He likens it to a king, whose power is one, but made up of the man himself, his diadem, and his purple. [3] Koran, c. Iii. V. 46. [4] Kor. , c. V. 77. [5] Kor. , c. V. 118. We come next to the famous Adoptionist heresy, the most remarkable andoriginal of those innovations to which Alcuin taunts the Spanish Churchwith being addicted. Unfortunately we derive little of our knowledge ofthe new doctrine from the originators and supporters of it--ourinformation on the subject coming chiefly from passages quoted by theiropponents (notably our own Alcuin) in controversial works. But that theheresy had an important connection with the Mohammedan religion has beenthe opinion of many eminent writers on Church history. Mariana, theSpanish historian, and Baronius, the apologist for the Roman Church, held that the object of the new heresiarchs was, "by lowering thecharacter of Christ, to pave the way for a union between Christians andMohammedans. "[1] Enhueber, [2] also, in his treatise on this subject, quotes a tract, "De Primatu Ecclesiae Toletanae, " which attributes theheresy to its author, Elipandus, being brought into so close a contactwith the Saracens, and living on such friendly terms with them. [3] Neander[4] thinks that there are some grounds for supposing that Felix, one of the authors of the heresy, had been employed in defendingChristianity against objections brought against it from the Moslemstandpoint, [5] and in proving the divinity of Christ, so that they mightbe induced to accept it. Felix, therefore, may have been led to embracethis particular doctrine, called Adoptionism, from a wish to bring theChristian view of Christ nearer to the Mohammedan opinion. There is considerable doubt as to who first broached the new theory, theevidence being of a conflicting character, and pointing now toElipandus, bishop of Toledo and primate of all Spain, now to Felix, bishop of Urgel, in Catalonia. [6] [1] Mariana, vii. 8. Baronius, "Ann. Eccl. " xiii. P. 260. See Blunt, "Dictionary of Religions, " etc. , article on Adoptionism; and Migne, vol. Xcvi. P. 847--"deceptus uterque contagione forsan insidentiurn cervicibus aut e proximo blasphemantium Mohametanorum commercio. " [2] Enhueber, sec. 26. Mansi, "Coll. Concil, " x. 513, sec. 4. [3] "Usus enim frequenti Maurorum commercio. "--_Ibid_. [4] V. 219. [5] This perhaps refers to a "disputatio cum sacerdote" which the Emperor Charles the Great had heard of as written by Felix. Alcuin (see "Ep. , " 85) knows nothing of it. In his letter to Charles, Alcuin, speaking of a letter from Felix, says: "Inveni peiores errores, quam ante in eius scriptis legerem. " [6] The prevailing opinion seems to be that the new doctrine arose out of Elipandus' controversy with Migetius. The claims of Felix[1] are supported by Eginhard, [2] Saxo, and Jonas ofOrleans; while Paulinus of Aquileia, in his book entitled"Sacrosyllabus, " expressly calls Elipandus the author of the banefulheresy; and Alcuin, in his letter to Leidrad, [3] says that he isconvinced that Elipandus, as he was the first in rank, so also was thechief offender. The evidence being inconclusive, we are driven to follow _à priori_considerations, and these point to Elipandus as the author. According toNeander, [4] he was a violent, excitable, bigoted man; and he certainlyuses some very strong language in his writings against his opponents, and stands a good deal on his dignity as head of the Spanish Church. Forinstance, speaking of his accusers, Etherius, Bishop of Osma, andBeatus, [5] a priest of Libana, he says of the former that he wallows inthe mire of all lasciviousness;[6] that he is totally unfit to officiateat God's altar;[7] that he is a false prophet[8] and a heretic; and, forgetting the courtesies of controversy, he doesn't hesitate, inanother place, to call him an ass. Beatus also he accuses of grosssensuality, and calls him that iniquitous priest of Astorga, [9]accusing him of heresy, and giving him the title Antiphrasius, whichmeans that instead of being called Beatus, he should have been named thevery opposite. [10] [1] See "Froben Dissertation, " Migne, vol. Ci. P. 305. [2] "Annals, " 792. [3] Alcuin, "Epist. Ad Leidradum, " says that the heresy arose in Cordova, and he appeals to Elipandus' letter to Felix after the latter's recantation. [4] Neander (v. P. 217) seems to infer these qualities from his writings. An author, quoted by Enhueber (Tract, de Primata Eccl. Tolet), describes him as "parum accurate in sacris litteris versatus. " [5] Died in 798. Fleury v. , p. 236. [6] Elipand. Epist. , iv. 2, "Carnis immunditia fetidus. " [7] "Ab altario Dei extraneus. " Neander, v. , p. 226, takes this to mean that he was deposed. [8] He gave the Revelation of St John a Moslem application: and prophesied the end of the world in the near future. See letter of Beatus, book i. , sec. 23--"Novissima hora est . .. Nunc Antichristi multi facti sunt. Omnis spiritus qui solvit Jesum est illius Antichristi, quem audistis quoniam venit, et nunc in mundo est. " See also Alcuin's letter to the Spanish bishops. [9] "Elipandus and bishops of Spain to those of Gaul, " sec. 1. [10] This practice of punning on names is very common in these writers. "Infelix Felix" is a poor witticism which constantly occurs. So Samson says of Hostegesis that he ought to be called "hostis Jesu"; and in the account of the Translation of the bodies of Aurelius, etc. , we find Leovigild spoken of as a very "Leo vigilans. " But in spite of outbreaks like these we must beware of judging thevenerable Elipandus too hardly. Alcuin himself, in his letter to thebishop, written, as he says, "with the pen of charity, " speaks of him asmost blameless, [1] and confesses that he has heard much of his piety anddevotion, an admission which he also makes with regard to Felix, in aletter to him. [2] Yet in his book against Elipandus, he exclaims, notwithout a touch of bathos: "For all the garments of wool on yourshoulders, and the mitre upon your brow, wearing which you minister tothe people, for all the daily shaving of your beard[3] . .. If yourenounce not these doctrines, you will be numbered with the goats!"Another testimony (of doubtful value, however) in Elipandus' favour isto be found in the anonymous life of Beatus, [4] where Elipandus is saidto have succeeded Cixila in the bishopric of Toledo, because of hisreputation for learning and piety, which extended throughout Spain. [1] "Sanctissime praesul, " sec. 1. Cp. Sec. 6, "Audiens famam bonam religiosae vitae de vobis. " [2] "Celeberriman tuae sanctitatis audiens famam. " The "Pseudo Luitprand" calls him "Vir humilis, prudens, ae in zelo fidei Catholicae fervens. " [3] Beards were the sign of laymen, see Alvar, "Ep. , " xiii. , and probably the distinction was much insisted on because of the Moslem custom of wearing long beards. For the distinctive dress of the clergy see the same letter of Alvar, . .. "Quern staminia et lana oviuin religiosum adprobat. " [4] See Migne, xcvi. , 890 ff. Elipandus, who boasted of having refuted and stamped out the Migetianerrors, and who also took up so independent an attitude with regard tothe See of Rome, was not the man to endure being dictated to in thematter of what was, or what was not, sound doctrine, and, in the letterquoted above, he scornfully remarks that he had never heard that it wasthe province of the people of Libana to teach the Toledans. Here, as inthe defiant attitude taken up towards the Pope, we may perhaps see ajealousy, felt by the old independent Church of Spain under its ownprimate, towards the new Church, that was growing up in the mountains ofthe North, the centre of whose religious devotion was soon to beCompostella, and its spiritual head not the primate of Spain, but thebishop of Rome. It is now time to explain what the actual heresy advocated by Elipandusand Felix was. Some have held the opinion that Adoptionism was merely arevival of the Bonosian errors, which had long taken root in Spain;[1]others, that it was a revival of the Nestorian[2] heresy, a new phase ofthe controversy between the schools of Antioch and Alexandria;[3] orthat it was an attempt to reform Christianity, purging it from lateradditions. [4] Alcuin, however, speaks of its followers as a new sect, unknown to former times. [5] Stated briefly, the new doctrine was thatJesus, in so far as His manhood was concerned, was son of God byadoption. This error had been foreseen and condemned in advance by Cyrilof Alexandria (348-386):[6] by Hilary of Arles (429-449). [7] TheEleventh Council of Toledo had also guarded against this same error ahundred years before this (675), affirming that Christ the Son of Godwas His Son by nature, not by adoption. [1] Enhueber, Diss. , sec. 25. The errors of Bonosus were condemned at Capua in 389. For their development in Spain, see "Isidore of Seville. " [2] Condemned at Ephesus, 431. For connection of Adoptionism with this, see letter of Adrian to bishops of Spain (785?). [3] Neander, v. , p. 216. [4] _Ibid. _, vi. , p. 120, see letter of Alvar to Speraindeo. [5] Alcuin contra Felicem, i. , sec. 7. Elipandus denied that it had anything to do with other heresies. "Nos vero anathematizamus Bonosum, qui filium Dei sine matre genitum, adoptivum fuisse adfirmat. Item Sabellium, qui ipsum esse Patrem, quem Filium, quem et Spiritus sanctus (_sic_) et non ipsud, delirat. Anathematizamus Arium, qui Filium et Spiritum Sanctum creaturas esse existimat. Anathematizamus Manichaeum qui Christum solum Deum et non hominem fuisse praedicat. Anathematizamus Antiphrasium Beatum carnis lasciviae deditum, et onagrum Etherium, doctorem bestialem . .. , " etc. [6] "Lectures on the Catechism, " xi. "Christ is the Son of God by nature, begotten of the Father, not by adoption. " [7] De Trinit, v. , p. 7, "The Son of God is not a false God--a God by adoption, or a God by metaphor (nee adoptivus, nec connuncupatus). " It is a mistake to suppose Adoptionism to be a mere resuscitation ofNestorianism. [1] It agreed with the latter in repudiating the term"Mother of God" as applied to the Virgin Mary, [2] but it differed fromit in the essential point of acknowledging the unity of person inChrist. What Felix--and on him devolved the chief onus of defence in thecontroversy--wished to make clear, was that the predicates of Christ'stwo natures could not logically be interchanged. [3] He thereforereasoned thus: Christ in respect to His Deity is God, and Son of God;with respect to His Manhood He is also God and Son of God, not indeed inessence, but by being taken into union with Him, who _is_ in essenceGod, and Son of God. Therefore Christ, unless He derived His humanityfrom the essence of God, must as man, and in respect of that humanity, be Son of God only in a nuncupative sense. This relation of Jesus theMan to God he preferred to describe by the term Adoption--a word notfound in Scripture in this connection, "but, " says Felix, "impliedtherein, [4] for what is adoption in a son, if it be not election, assumption _(susceptio)_. " The term itself was no doubt found by Elipandus_in_ the Gothic Liturgy;[5] and he most likely used it at first with nothought of raising a metaphysical discussion on so knotty a point. Beingbrought to task, however, for using the word by those whom he deemed hisecclesiastical inferiors, he was led to defend it from a natural disliketo acknowledge himself in the wrong. "We can easily believe, " saysEnhueber, "that Elipandus, who appears to have been the chief author ofthe heresy at this time, fell into it at first from ignorance andinadvertently, and did not appear openly as a heretic, till, admonishedof his error, he arrogantly and obstinately defended a position which hehad only taken up through ignorance. "[6] Elipandus also seems to have applied to Felix[7] for his opinion onChrist's Sonship; and the latter, who was a man of great penetration andacuteness, first formulated the new doctrine, stating in his answer thatChrist must be considered with regard to His Divinity as truly God andSon of God, but with regard to His Manhood, as Son of God in name only, and by adoption. [1] See Blunt, "Dict. Of Relig. , " article on Adoptionism. [2] Neander, v. 223. Blunt (1. 1. ) says just the contrary. [3] Neander, v. 220. [4] Alcuin contra Felicem, iii. C. 8. [5] "Elipand. Ad Albinum, " sec, 11. Adoptio assumptio ([Greek: analêpsis]) occurs _(a)_ in the Missa de coena Domini: _adoptivi hominis passio;_ _(b)_ in the prayer de tertia feria Pascha: _adoptionis gratia;_ _(c)_ in that de Ascensione: _adoptionem carnis. _ The Council of Frankfurt (794) branded the authors of the liturgy as heretics (so also did Alcuin) and as the main cause of the Saracen conquest! See Fleury, v. 243. [6] Enhueber, "Dissertatio, " sec. 26. Neander, v. 217, has the same remark in other words. [7] See Blunt, Art. On Adoptionism. To give an idea of the lines on which the controversy was carried on, itwill be necessary to state some of the arguments of Felix, and incertain cases Alcuin's rejoinders. These are:-- _(a. )_ "If Christ, as man, is not the _adopted_ Son of God, then mustHis Manhood be derived from the essence of God and consequently must besomething different from the manhood of men. "[1] To this Alcuin can onlyoppose another dilemma, which, however, is more of the nature of aquibble. "If, " he says, "Christ is an adopted Son of God, and Christ isalso God, then is God the adopted Son of God?"[2] Here Alcuin confoundsthe predicates of Christ's two natures--the very thing Felix protestedagainst--and uses the argument thus obtained against that doctrine ofFelix, which was based on this very denial of any interchange ofpredicates. _(b. )_ Christ is spoken of sometimes as Son of David, sometimes as Sonof God. One person can only have two fathers, if one of these be anadoptive father. So is it with Christ. Alcuin answers: "As a man (bodyand soul) is called the son of his father, so Christ (God and man) iscalled Son of God. "[3] But to those who deny that a man's soul isderived from his father, this argument would carry no weight. _(c. )_ Christ stood in a position of natural dependence towards God overand above the voluntary submission which He owed to His Father asGod. [4] This dependence Felix expresses by the term _servusconditionalis_, applied to Jesus. [5] He may have been thinking of Matt. Xii. I8, "Behold my servant, whom I have chosen;" and St Paul's Ep. ToPhilipp. Ii. 7, "He took upon. Him the form of a servant, and was madein the likeness of men. "[6] Or perhaps he had in his mind, if the theoryof the influence of Mohammedanism is true, those passages of the Koranwhich speak of Christ as a servant, as, "Christ doth not proudly disdainto be a servant unto God, "[7] and, "Jesus is no other than aservant. "[8] (_d. _) To prove that Scripture recognises a distinction between Christthe Man and Christ the God, Felix appeals to Luke xviii. 19, "Whycallest thou Me good? There is none good, save one, even God;" Markxiii. 32, "Of that day, or that hour, knoweth no one, not even theangels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. " Texts such as thesecan only be met by a reference to other texts, such as John iii. 16, where God is said to have given His only begotten Son to suffer deathupon the Cross. [1] Alcuin contra Felicem, ii. Sec. 12. [2] Alcuin (_ibid. , _ i. Sec. 13) also answers: "If Christ be the adopted Son of God, because as man, he could not be of God's substance: then must he also be Mary's adopted son in respect to his Deity. But then Mary cannot be the mother of God. " But this Alcuin thinks an impious conclusion. Cp. Also Contra Felic. , vii. Sec. 2. [3] Contra Felic, iii. Sec. 2. [4] Cp. 1 Corinth, xi. 3, "The Head of Christ is God. " This position of dependence was due, says Felix, "ad ignobilitatem beatae Virginis, quae se ancillam Dei humili voce protestatur. " [5] Cp. Elipandus' "Confession of Faith": ". .. Per istum Dei simul et hominis Filium, adoptivum humanitate et nequaquam adoptivum Divinitate . .. Qui est Deus inter Deos (John x. 35) . .. Quia, si conformes sunt omnes sancti huic Filio Dei secundum gratiam, profecto et cum adoptione (sunt) adoptivi, et cum advocato advocati, et cum Christo Christi, et _cum servo servi_. " [6] Cf. Acts iii. 13. [7] Koran, iv. V. 170. [8] Koran, xliii. V. 59. Conceiving, then, that it was logically necessary to speak of Christ theMan as Son of God by adoption, Felix yet admits that this adoption, though the same in kind[1] as that which enables _us_ to cry Abba, Father, yet was more excellent in degree, and even perhaps specificallyhigher. It differed also from man's adoption in not being entered intoat baptism, since Christ's baptism was only the point at which Hisadoption was outwardly made manifest by signs of miraculous power, whichcontinued till the resurrection. Christ's adoption--according to Felix, was assumed at His conception, "His humanity developing in accordancewith its own laws, but in union with the Logos. "[2] It will be seenthat though Felix wished to keep clear the distinction between Christ asGod, and as Man, yet he did not carry this separation so far as toacknowledge two persons in Christ. "The Adoptionists acknowledged theunity of Persons, but meant by this a juxtaposition of two distinctpersonal beings in such a way that the Son of God should be recognisedas the vehicle for all predicates, but not in so close a manner as toamount to an absorption of the human personality into the DivinePerson. "[3] The two natures of Christ had been asserted by the Churchagainst the Monophysites, and the two wills against the Monothelites, but the Church never went on to admit the two Persons. [4] With regard tothe contention of Felix, we are consequently driven to the conclusionthat either the personality ascribed to Christ was "a mere abstraction, a metaphysical link joining two essentially incompatible natures, "[5] orthat the dispute was only about names, and that by adopted son Felix andthe others meant nothing really different from the orthodox doctrine. [6] [1] See John x. 35. Cp. Neander, v. P. 222. [2] Neander (l. L. ) Blunt, Art. On Adopt. , puts this differently: "There were (according to Felix) two births in our Lord's life--(a) the assumption of man at the conception; (_b_) the adoption of that man at baptism. Cp. Contra Felic. , iii. 16: "Qui est Secundus Adam, accepit has geminas generationes; primam quae secundum carnem est, secundum vero spiritatem, quae per adoptionem fit, idem redemptor noster secundum hominem complexus, in semet ipso continet, primam videlicet, quam suscepit ex virgine nascendo, secundam vero quam initiavit in lavacro [ ] a mortuis resurgendo. " [3] Blunt, article on Adopt. [4] Cp. Paschasius: "In Christo gemina substantia, non gemina persona est, quia persona personam consumere potest, substantia vero substantiam non potest, siquidem persona res iuris est, substantia res naturae. " [5] Blunt, _ibid. _ Cp. Also Alcuin contra Felic. , iv. 5, where he says that Felix, although he shrank from asserting the dual personality of Christ, yet insisted on points which involved it. [6] So Walchius. The first mention of the new theory appears in a letter of Elipandus tothe Abbot Fidelis, written in 783, [1] but it did not attract noticetill a little later. The pope Adrian, in his letter to the orthodoxbishops of Spain (785), speaks of the melancholy news of the heresyhaving reached him--a heresy, he remarks, never before propounded, unless by Nestorius. Together with Elipandus, he mentions Ascarius, [2]Bishop of Braga, whom Elipandus had won over to his views. The newdoctrine seems to have made its way quickly over a great part ofSpain, [3] while Felix propagated it with considerable success inSeptimania. The champions of the orthodox party in Spain were Beatus andEtherius, whom we have mentioned above, and Theudula, Bishop of Seville;while beyond its borders Alcuin, Paulinus of Aquileia, and Agobard ofLyons, under the direction of Charles the Great and the Pope, defendedthe orthodox position. [1] See Migne, 96 p. 848. [2] Fleury, v. 236, mentions a letter of his to Elipandus, asking the latter's opinion on some doubtful points in the new doctrine. [3] Jonas of Orleans, in his work against Claudius, says: "Hac virulenta doctrina uterque Hispaniam magna ex parte infecit. " Felix, being bishop in a province of which Charles claimed theoverlordship, was amenable to his ecclesiastical superiors, and sufferedfor his opinions at their hands; but Elipandus, living under aMohammedan government, could only be reached by letters or messages. Heseems even to have received something more than a mere negative supportfrom the Arabs, if we are right in so interpreting a passage in theletter of Beatus and Etherius. [1] But it is hard to believe thatElipandus was on such friendly terms with the Arab authorities; indeed, from passages in his writings, we should infer that the opposite wasrather the case. [2] Neander suggests that it may have been a Gothicking in Galicia who supported Elipandus, but this seems even moreunlikely than the other supposition. The first council called to consider this question was held by thesuggestion of the Emperor and the Pope at Narbonne in 788, when theheresy was condemned by twenty-five bishops of Gaul. [3] A similar provincial council was held by Paulinus at Friuli in 791, withthe same results. [4] But in the following year the heresy was formallycondemned at a full council held at Ratisbon, under the presidency ofthe Emperor. Here Felix abjured his error, and was sent to Rome to befurther condemned by the Pope, that the whole Western Church might takeaction in the matter. Felix was there induced to write a book condemninghis own errors, but in spite of this he was not restored to his see. [5]On his return, however, to Spain, Felix relapsed into his old heresy, which he had never really abjured. [6] [1] I. Sec. 13. "Et episcopus metropolitanus et princeps terrae pari certamine schismata haereticorum, unus verbi gladio, alter virga regiminis ulciscens, de terra vestra funditus auferantur. " See on this passage Neander, v. 227, and cp. Sec. 65, "haereticus tamen scripturarum non facit rationem, sed cum potentibus saeculi ecclesiam vincere quaerit. " [2] Elip. Ad. Albinum, sec. 7--"Oppressione gentis afflicti non possumus tibi rescribere cuncta;" also, Ad Felic. "quotidiana dispendia quibus duramus potius quam vivimus. " [3] There are some doubts about this council. [4] Fleury, v. 236. Hefele dates it 796. [5] See letter of Spanish bishops to Charles, asking for Felix's restoration (794). [6] Leo III. Said of him, at a council held in Rome (799): "_Fugiens ad paganos consentaneos_ perjuratus effectus est. " See Froben, "Dissert, " sec. 24; apud Migne, ci, pp. 305-336. In 792 Alcuin was summoned from England to come and defend the orthodoxposition. He wrote at once to Felix a kindly letter, admonishing him ofhis errors, and acknowledging that all his previous utterances ontheology had been sound and true. Felix answered this letter, but hisreply is not preserved. To the same, or following, year belongs theletter of Elipandus and the bishops of Spain to Charles and the bishopsof Gaul, defending their doctrine, and asking for the restoration ofFelix. In 794 was held another council at Frankfurt, at which Alcuin and otherEnglish clergy were present. Felix was summoned to attend, and heard hisheresy again condemned and anathematised, the decree to this effectbeing sent to Elipandus. [1] Alcuin's book was read by Charles, and sentinto Septimania by the hands of the abbot Benedict. The next council was held at Rome in 798 to confirm the one atFrankfurt. [2] In 799 came out Felix's answer to Alcuin, sent by himfirst to Elipandus, and, after being shewn to the Cordovan clergy, senton to Charles. Alcuin is charged to answer it, with Paulinus and thePope as his coadjutors. In the same year another council was held at Aix, where Alcuin arguedfor a week with Felix, and apparently convinced him, for Felix againrecanted, and even wrote a confession of faith discarding the wordadoption, but still preserving the distinction of predicates belongingto the two natures. [3] Alcuin's book, after being revised by Charles, was published 800 A. D. Previously to this he had written to Elipandus, who answered in no measured terms, accusing Alcuin, among other things, of enormous wealth. This letter was sent through Felix, and, in answer, Alcuin wrote the book against Elipandus, which we now have, and whichwas the means of converting twenty thousand heretics in Gothic Gaul. [4]But in spite of Emperor or Pope, of the books of Alcuin, or theanathemas of the councils, neither Felix nor Elipandus really gave uphis new doctrines, and even the former continued to make converts. Elipandus, though very old[5] at this time (800 A. D. ), lived ten yearslonger, and Felix survived him eight years;[6] and they both diedpersisting in their error. [7] [1] Fleury, v. 243, says there was no anathema; but Migne, xcvi. 858, gives us the canon: "Anathematizata esto impia ac nefanda haeresis Elipandi Toletanae sedis Episcopi, et Felix (_sic_) Orgellitani, eorumque sequacium. " [2] Neander, v. 228. [3] _Ibid. _, p. 232. [4] Froben, sec, 82. Neander says 10, 000. [5] Alcuin adv. Elip. Preface to Leidrad: "Non pro eius tantummodo laboravi salute, quem timeo forsan citius vel morte praereptum esse propter decrepitam in eo senectutem. " [6] Or perhaps six. [7] No reliance can be placed in the statement of the Pseudo-Luitprand, who, in a letter to Recemundus, speaking of Elipandus, says: "Postquam illius erroris sui de adoptione Christi sero et vere poenituit, ad quod manifestandum concilium (795) episcoporum . .. Collegit; et coram omnibus abiurato publice errore _fidem sanctae ecclesiae Romanae_ confessus est. " These words in italics reveal a later hand. Cp. Also sec. 259 and Julianus. Alcuin, in a letter to Aquila, bishop of Salisbury, says that Elipandus in 800 A. D. Still adhered to his error. We have dealt somewhat at length with the Adoptionist heresy, both fromits interest and importance, and because, as mentioned above, there aresome reasons for thinking that it was the outcome of a wish toconciliate Mohammedan opinion. It will be as well to recapitulate suchevidence as we have obtained on this point. But we must not expect tofind the traces of Mohammedan influence in the development, so much asin the origination, of the theory. What we do find is slight enough, amounting to no more than this:-- (_a. _) That the one point, which repelled the Mohammedan from genuineChristianity--setting aside for a moment the transcendental mystery ofthe Trinity--was the Divinity of Christ. Anything, therefore, thattended to emphasise the humanity of Jesus, or to obscure the great factof Christ the Man, being Son of God, which sounded so offensive toMohammedan ears, would so far bring the Christian creed nearer to theMohammedan's acceptance, by assimilating the Christian conception ofChrist, to that which appears so often in the Koran. [1] There can be nodoubt that the theory of adoption, if carried to its logicalconclusion, did contribute to this result: (_b. _) That Elipandus was accused of receiving the help of the seculararm in disseminating his heretical opinions: (_c. _) That the application of the term _Servant_ to Christ, besidesbeing authorised by texts from Scripture, is countenanced in twopassages from the Koran: (_d. _) That Leo III. , speaking of, Felix's return to Spain, and hisrelapse into error, implies that it was due to his renewed contact withinfidels who held similar views: (_e. _) That in a passage, quoted by Enhueber, Elipandus is said to havelost his hold on the truth in consequence of his close intercourse withthe Arabs: (_f. _) That Elipandus accused Etherius of being a false prophet, thatis, for giving, as has been conjectured, a Mohammedan interpretation tothe Beast in the Revelation of St John. Something must now be said of one more doctrine, which, though it didnot arise in Spain, nor perhaps much affected it, yet was originated bya Spaniard, and a disciple of Felix, [2]--Claudius, Bishop of Turin. Somehave seen in this doctrine, which was an offshoot of Iconoclasm, tracesof Adoptionism, a thing not unlikely in itself. [3] Of the relations of Claudius to the Saracens we have the directstatement of one of his opponents, who said that the Jews praised him, and called him the wisest among the Christians; and that he on his sidehighly commended them _and the Saracens_. [4] Yet his tendency seems tohave been against the Judaizing of the Church. [5] [1] Fifty years later Alvar ("Ind. Lum. , " sec. 9), accuses certain Christians of dissembling their religion under fear of persecution:--"Deum Christum non aperte coram eis (_i. E. _ Saracenis) sed fugatis sermonibus proferunt, Verbum Dei et Spiritum, ut illi asserunt, profitentes, suasque confessiones corde, quasi Deo omnia inspiciente, servantes. " [2] Jonas of Orleans (Migne, cvi. P. 330) calls him so, and says elsewhere, "Felix resuscitur in Claudio. " [3] Neander, vi. 119. [4] Fleury, v. 398. [5] Neander, vi. 125. The great Iconoclastic reform, which arose in the East, undoubtedlyreceived its originating impulse from the Moslems. In 719 the Khalifdestroyed all images in Syria. His example was followed in 730 by theEastern Emperor, Leo the Isaurian. He is said to have been persuaded tothis measure by a man named Bezer, who had been some years in captivityamong the Saracens. [1] In 754 the great council of Constantinoplecondemned images. Unfortunately neither the great patriarchates nor thePope were represented, and so this council never obtained-the sanctionof all Christendom; and its decrees were reversed in 787 at the Councilof Nicæa. In 790 appeared the Libri Carolini, in which we rejoice tofind our English Alcuin helping Charles the Great to make a powerful andreasonable protest against the worship of images. [2] In 794 this protestwas upheld by the German Council of Frankfurt. But the Pope, and hismilitia, [3] the monks, made a strenuous opposition to any reform in thisquarter, and the recognition of images became part and parcel of RomanCatholic Christianity. Claudius was made bishop of Turin in 828. [4] Though placed over anItalian diocese, he soon shewed the independence, which he had imbibedin the free air of Spain, where the Mohammedan supremacy had at leastthe advantage of making the supremacy of the Pope impossible. Findingthat the people of his diocese paid worship to their images, Claudiusset to work to deface, burn, and abolish, all images and crosses in hisbishopric. In respect to the crosses he went further than otherIconoclasts, in which we can perhaps trace his Adoptionist training. [5] These new views did not, as might be expected, find favour with theCatholic party, whose cause was taken up by Theodemir, abbot of Nîmes, afriend of Claudius', by Jonas of Orleans, and Dungal, an Irish priest. But, as in the case of Felix, the heresiarch was more than a match forhis opponents in argument. [6] [1] Fleury, xl. Ii. 1, says he was an apostate. See Mendham, Seventh General Council, Introd. , pp. Xii. Xiv. [2] "Adorationem soli Deo debitam imaginibus impertire aut segnitiae est, si utcumque agitur, aut insaniae, vel potius infidelitatis, si pertinaciter defenditur. "--III. C. 24. "Imagines vero, omni cultura et adoratione seclusa, utrum in basilicis propter memoriam rerum gestarum sint, nullum fidei Catholicae afferre poterunt praeiudicium, quippe cum ad peragenda nostrae salutis mysteria nullum penitus officium habere noscantur. "--III. C. 21. [3] Prescott. [4] Neander says 814, Herzog 820. [5] Neander, v. 119. The Spanish Christians were not free from the charge of adoring the cross, as we can see from the answer of the Khalif Abdallah (888) when advised to leave his brother's body at Bobastro: shall I, he said, leave my brother's body to the mercy of those who ring bells and adore the cross. Ibn Hayyan, apud Al Makk. , ii. 446. [6] Fleury, v. 398, confesses that the case of the image-worshippers rests mainly on tradition and the usage of the Church--meaning that they can draw no support from the Bible. He might have remembered Matt. Xv. 7--"Ye make void the Word of God because of your tradition. " Claudius' own defence has been lost, but we gather his views from hisopponents' quotation of them. Briefly expressed, they are as follows:-- _(a. )_ Image-worship is really idol-worship: _(b. )_ If images are to be adored, much more should those living beingsbe adored, whom the images represent. But we are not permitted to adoreGod's works, much less may we worship the work of men:[1] _(c. )_ The cross has no claim to be adored, because Jesus was fastenedto it: else must we adore other things with which Jesus was similarlyconnected; virgins, for example, for Christ was nine months in avirgin's womb; mangers, asses, ships, thorns, for with all these Jesuswas connected. To adore the cross we have never been told, but to bearit, [2] that is to deny ourselves. Those generally are the readiest toadore it, who are least ready to bear it either spiritually orphysically. [3] Claudius also had very independent views on the question of papalsupremacy. [4] Being summoned before a council, with more wisdom thanFelix, he refused to attend it, knowing that his cause would beprejudged, and contented himself with calling the proposed assembly acongregation of asses. He died in 839 in secure possession of his see, and with his Iconoclastic belief unshaken. Such were the heresies which connect themselves with Spain during thefirst three hundred years of Arab domination, and which seem to havebeen, in part at least, due to Mohammedan influence. One more there was, the Albigensian heresy, which broke out one hundred and fifty yearslater, and was perhaps the outcome of intercourse with the Mohammedanismof Spain. [5] [1] Jonas of Orleans, apud Migne, vol. Cvi. P. 326. [2] Luke xiv. 27. [3] Jonas, apud Migne, vol. Cvi. P. 351. [4] See Appendix B, pp. 161-173. [5] So Blunt. It found followers in Leon. See Mariana, xii. 2, from Lucas of Tuy. CHAPTER X. SOCIAL INFLUENCE OF CHRISTIANITY. Having considered the effects of Mohammedanism on doctrinal Christianity(there are no traces of similar effects on doctrinal Mohammedanism), itwill fall within the scope of our inquiry to estimate the extent towhich those influences were reciprocally felt by the two religions intheir social and intellectual aspects; and how far the character of aChristian or a Mohammedan was altered by contact with a peopleprofessing a creed so like, and yet so unlike. [1] This influence weshall find more strongly manifested in the action of Christianity onIslam, than the reverse. It is well known that Mohammed, though his opinion as to monks seems tohave varied[2] from time to time, is reported to have expressly declaredthat he would have no monks in his religion. [3] Abubeker, hissuccessor, --if Gibbon's translation may be trusted, --in his marchingorders to the army, told them to let monks and their monasteriesalone. [4] It was not long, however, before an order of itinerantmonks--the faquirs--arose among the Moslems. In other parts of theirdominions these became a recognised, and in some ways privileged, class;but in Andalusia they did not receive much encouragement, [5] though theywere very numerous even there. Most of them, says the Arabianhistorian, [6] were nothing more than beggars, able but unwilling towork. This remark, however, he tells us, must not be applied to all, "for there were among them men who, moved by sentiments of piety anddevotion, left the world and its vanities, and either retired toconvents to pass the remainder of their days among brethren of the samecommunity, or putting on the darwázah, and grasping the faquir's staff, went through the country begging a scanty pittance, and moving thefaithful to compassion by their wretched and revolting appearance. " ThatMoslem monkeries did exist, especially in rather later times, we cangather from the above passage and from another place, [7] where a conventcalled Zawiyatu l'Mahruk (the convent of the burnt) is mentioned. Onthat passage De Gayangos[8] has an interesting note, in which he quotesfrom an African writer an account of a monastic establishment nearMalaga. [9] The writer says: "I saw on a mountain, close to this city, aconvent, which was the residence of several religious men living incommunity, and conversant with the principles of Sufism: they have asuperior to preside over them, and one or more servants to attend totheir wants. Their internal regulations are really admirable; eachfaquir lives separately in a cell of his own, and meets his comradesonly at meals or prayers. Every morning at daybreak the servants of thecommunity go round to each faquir, and inquire of him what provisions hewishes to have for his daily consumption. .. . They are served with twomeals a day. Their dress consists of a coarse woollen frock, two beingallowed yearly for each man--one for winter, another for summer. Eachfaquir is furnished likewise with a regular allowance of sugar, soap towash his clothes, oil for his lamp, and a small sum of money to attendthe bath, all these articles being distributed to them every Friday. .. . Most of the faquirs are bachelors, a few only being married. These livewith their wives in a separate part of the building, but are subject tothe same rule, which consists in attending the five daily prayers, sleeping at the convent, and meeting together in a lofty-vaultedchamber, where they perform certain devotions. .. . In the morning eachfaquir takes his Koran and reads the first chapter, and then that ofthe king;[10] and when the reading is over, a Koran, previously dividedinto sections, is brought in for each man to read in turn, until thewhole is completed. On Fridays and other-festivals these faquirs areobliged to go to the mosque in a body, preceded by their superior. .. . They are often visited by guests, whom they entertain for a long time, supplying them with food and other necessaries. The formalities observedwith them are as follows:--If a stranger present himself at the door ofthe convent in the garb of a faquir, namely, with a girdle round hiswaist, his kneeling-mat suspended between his shoulders, his staff inhis right hand, and his drinking vessel in his left, the porter of theconvent comes up to him immediately, and asks what country he comesfrom, what convent he has resided in, or entered on the road, who wasthe superior of it, and other particulars, to ascertain that the visitoris not an impostor. .. . This convent was plentifully endowed with rentsfor the support of its inmates, for besides the considerable revenue inlands which was provided by its founder, a wealthy citizen of Malaga, who had been governor of the city under the Almohades, pious men arecontinually adding to the funds either by bequests in land or bydonations in money. " The resemblance between these faquirs and Christian monks issufficiently obvious, and need not be dilated upon: and though thisparticular convent was established at a later time, we cannot doubt thatthe influence, which produced such a modification of the very spirit ofIslam, must have made itself felt much earlier. This is apparent in theanalogous case of Moslem nuns, as a passage from an Arab writer seems toshew, [11] where it is said that the body of the Moorish king, Gehwar(1030-1043), was followed to the grave even by the damsels who hadretired into solitude. [1] Mohammedanism is even called a _heresy_ by a writer quoted by Prescott, "Ferdin. And Isab. , " p. 244. [2] Kor. V. 85--"Thou shalt find those to be most inclinable to entertain friendship for the true believers who say, We are Christians. This comes to pass, because there are priests and monks among them. " Kor. Lvii. 27--"As to the monastic state (Deus loquitur), the Christians instituted the same (we did not prescribe it for them) only out of desire to please God, yet they observed not the same as it ought truly to be observed. " See also Kor. Ix. 34--"Verily many of the priests and monks devour the substance of men in vanity, and obstruct the way of God;" and Kor. Xxiii. 55. [3] Kor. V. 89. Sale's note. [4] So Almanzor spared the monk of Compostella. Al Makkari, ii. 209. [5] See the interesting account, _ibid. _, i. 114. [6] Al Makkari. [7] Al Makkari, i. 115. [8] _Ibid. _, i. P. 406, note. [9] In the fourteenth century. [10] ? Chapter 67. [11] Conde, ii. 154. Unless the writer is referring to Christian nuns. But over and above copying the institutions of Christianity, Islamshews signs of having become to a certain extent pervaded with aChristian spirit. It is easy to be mistaken in such things, but thefollowing anecdotes are more in keeping with the Bible than the Koran. Hischem I. (788-796) in his last words to his son, Hakem I. , said:"Consider well that all empire is in the hand of God, who bestoweth iton whom He will, and from whom He will He taketh it away. [1] But sinceGod hath given to us the royal authority and power, which is in ourhands by His goodness only, let us obey His holy will, which is no otherthan that we do good to all men, [2] and in especial to those placedunder our protection. See thou therefore, O my son, that thou distributeequal justice to rich and poor, nor permit that any wrong or oppressionbe committed in thy kingdom, for by injustice is the road to perdition. Be clement, and do right to all who depend upon thee, for all are thecreatures of God. "[3] The son was not inferior to the father, and capable, as the followingstory shews, of the most Christian generosity. [4] One of the faquirs whohad rebelled against Hakem being captured and brought into the presenceof the king, did not shrink in his bigotry and hate from telling theSultan that in hating him he was obeying God. Hakem answered: "He whobid thee, as thou sayest, hate me, bids me pardon thee. Go, and live inGod's protection. "[5] [1] Daniel, iv. 25, and Koran, ii. V. 249--"God giveth His kingdom unto whom He pleaseth;" and Koran, iii. V. 24. [2] Galatians vi. 20--"Let us do good unto all men, especially unto them that are of the household of faith. " [3] Conde, i. 240. [4] It is fair to state that Hakem I. Was not always so generous. [5] Lane-Poole, "Story of the Moors, " p. 77. Prone as the Mohammedans were to superstition, and many as are themiracles and wonders, which are described in their histories, it must beacknowledged that their capacity for imagining and believing inmiracles never equalled that of Christian priests in the Middle Ages. [1] We hear indeed of a vision of Mohammed appearing to Tarik, the invaderof Spain;[2] of a miraculous spring gushing forth at the prayer of Akbaribn Nafir;[3] of the marvellous cap of Omar;[4] of the wonders thatdistinguished the corpse of the murdered Hosein; of the vision shewingthe tomb of Abu Ayub;[5] but nothing that will bear a comparison withthe invention of St James' body at Ira Flavia (Padron), nor the clumsyand unblushing forgery of relics at Granada in the year of theArmada. [6] Yet the following story of Baki ibn Mokhlid, from AlKusheyri, [7] reminds us forcibly of similar monkish extravagancies. Awoman came to Baki, and said that, her son being a prisoner in the handsof the Franks, she intended to sell her house and go in search of him;but before doing so she asked his advice. Leaving her for a moment herequested her to wait for his answer. He then went out and prayedfervently for her son's release, and telling the mother what he haddone, dismissed her. Some time after the mother came back with her sonto thank Baki for his pious interference, which had procured her son'srelease. The son then told his story:--"I was the king's slave, and usedto go out daily with my brother slaves to certain works on which we wereemployed. One day, as we were going I felt all of a sudden as if myfetters were being knocked off. I looked down to my feet, when lo! Isaw the heavy irons fall down broken on each side. " The inspectornaturally charged him with trying to escape, but he denied on oath, saying that his fetters had fallen off without his knowing how. Theywere then riveted on again with additional nails, but again fell off. The youth goes on:--"The Christians then consulted their priests on themiraculous occurrence, and one of them came to me and inquired whether Ihad a father. I said 'No, but I have a mother. ' Well, then, said thepriest to the Christians, 'God, no doubt, has listened to her prayers. Set him at liberty, '" which was immediately done. As a set-off to thisthere is a remarkable instance of freedom from superstition recorded ofKing Almundhir(881-2). [8] On the occasion of an earthquake, the peoplebeing greatly alarmed, and looking upon it as a direct interposition ofGod, this enlightened prince did his best to convince them that suchthings were natural phenomena, and had no relation to the good or evilthat men did, [9] shewing that the earth trembled for Christian andMoslem alike, for the most innocent as well as the most injurious ofcreatures without distinction. They, however, refused to be convinced. [1] See the story of Atahulphus, Bishop of Compostella, and the bull--Alfonso of Burgos, ch. 66: a man swallowed up by the earth--Mariana, viii. 4: Sancho the Great's arm withered and restored--_Ibid. _, c. 10: a Sabellian heretic carried off by the devil in sight of a large congregation--Isidore of Beja, sec. 69: the miracle of the roses (1050)--Mar. Ix. 3. [2] Cardonne, i. P. 72. [3] _Ibid_, p. 38. [4] See Ockley. [5] Gibbon, "for such are the manufacture of every religion, " p. 115. [6] See Geddes, Miscell. Tracts, "an account of MSS. And relics found at Granada. " But we must remember that these miraculous phenomena appear much earlier in the history of Islam than of Christianity. [7] Al Makkari, ii. 129; cp. Conde, i. 355. [8] Conde, i. 317. [9] Cp. Matt. V. 45: Luke xiii. 4. This independence of thought in Almundhir was perhaps an outcome of thatphilosophic spirit which first shewed itself in Spain in the reign ofthis Sultan's predecessor. [1] The philosophizers were looked upon withhorror by the theologians, who worked upon the people, so that at timesthey were ready to stone and burn the free-thinkers. [2] The works ofIbnu Massara, a prominent member of this school, were burnt publicly atCordova;[3] and the great Almanzor, though himself, like the greatCaesar, indifferent to such questions, [4] by way of gaining the supportof the masses, was ready, or pretended to be ready, to execute one ofthese philosophers. At length, with feigned reluctance, he granted theman's life at the request of a learned faqui. [5] Even among the Mohammedan "clergy"--if the term be allowable--there wereSceptics and Deists, [6] and others who followed the wild speculations ofGreek philosophy. Among the last of these, the greatest name wasAverroes, or more correctly, Abu Walid ibn Roshd (1126-1198), whobesides holding peculiar views about the human soul that would almostconstitute him a Pantheist, taught that religion was not a branch ofknowledge that could be systematised, but an inward personal power:[7]that science and religion could not be fused together. Owing to hisfreedom of thought he was banished to a place near Cordova by Yusuf abuYakub in 1196. He was also persecuted and put into prison by Abdulmumen, son of Almansur, [8] for studying natural philosophy. Another votary ofthe same forbidden science, Ibn Habib, was put to death by the sameking. [1] Dozy, iii. 18. [2] Al Makk. , i. 136, 141. They were called Zendik or heretics by the pious Moslems. See also Said of Toledo, apud Dozy, iii. 109. [3] Al Makk. , ii. 121. [4] He was supposed to be in secret addicted to the forbidden study of Natural Science and Astrology. --Al Makk. , i. 141. Yet he let the faquis make an "index expurgatorius" of books to be burnt. --Dozy, iii. 115. His namesake, Yakub Almansur (1184-1199), ordered all books on Logic and Philosophy to be burnt. [5] Dozy, iii. 261. [6] Dozy, iii. 262, 263. [7] See article in the "Encyclop. Britann. " [8] Al Makk. , i. 198. De Gayangos, in a note, points out that this was a mistake: for Abdulmumen was grandfather of Yakub Almansur, and could not be the king meant here. He therefore reads, "Yakub, one of the Beni Abdulmumen. " Side by side with, and in bitter hostility to, the earlier freethinkerslived the faquis or theologians. The Andalusians originally belonged tothe Mohammedan sect of Al Auzai[1] (711-774), whose doctrines werebrought into Spain by the Syrian Arabs of Damascus. But Hischem I. , oncoming to the throne, shewed his preference for the doctrines of Malikibn Aus, [2] and contrived that they should supplant the dogmas of AlAuzai. It may be that Hischem I. Only shewed a leaning towards Malik'screed, without persuading others to conform to his views, but at allevents the change was fully accomplished in the reign of his successor, Hakem I. , by the instrumentality of Yahya ibn Yahya Al Seythi, AbuMerwan Abdulmalek ibn Habib, [3] and Abdallah Zeyad ibn AbdurrahmanAllakhmi, three notable theologians of that reign. Yahya returned from apilgrimage to the East in 827, and immediately took the lead in theopposition offered to Hakem I. On the ground of his being a laxMussulman, but, in reality, because he would not give the faquis enoughpower in the State. [4] In the reign of Mohammed (852) these faquis had become powerful enoughto impeach the orthodoxy of a well-known devout Mussulman, AbuAbdurrahman ibn Mokhli, but the Sultan, with a wise discretion, ascommendable as it was rare, declared that the distinctions of the Ulemawere cavils, and that the expositions of the new traditionist "conveyedmuch useful instruction, and inculcated very laudable practices. "[5] Efforts were made from time to time to overthrow this priestlyascendency, as notably by Ghàzali, the "Vivificator, " as he was called, "of religious knowledge. " This attempt failed, and the rebel againstauthority was excommunicated. [6] Yet the strictly oxthodox party did notsucceed in arresting--to any appreciable extent--the progress of thedecay which was threatening to attack even the distinctive features ofthe Mohammedan religion. [7] It is a slight indication of this, that thepeculiar Moslem dress gradually began to be given up, and the turban wasonly worn by faquis, [8] and even they could not induce the people toreturn to a habit once thought of great importance. [9] [1] Al Makk. , i. 403. De Gayangos' note. [2] Died 780. Al Makk. , i. 113, 343, ascribes the change to Hakem I. ; and an author quoted, i. P. 403, ascribes it to Abdurrahman I. [3] Al Makk. , ii. 123. [4] Al Makk. , i. 113, implies the reverse of this. Dozy, ii. P. 59. [5] Conde, i. 294. [6] Dozy, iv. 255. [7] In spite of Al Makkari's statement, i. 112, where he says that all innovations and heretical practices were abhorred by the people. If the Khalif, he says, had countenanced any such, he would have been torn to pieces. [8] Dozy, iii. 271. [9] Al Makkari, ii. 109. But in other and more important respects we can see the disintegratingeffect which intercourse with Christians had upon the socialinstitutions of the Koran. [1] _(a. )_ Wine, which is expressly forbidden by Mohammed, [2] was much drunkthroughout the country, [3] the example being often set by the kinghimself. Hakem I. Seems to have been the first of these to drink theforbidden juice. [4] His namesake, Hakem II. (961-976), however, set hisface against the practice of drinking wine, and even gave orders for allthe vines in his kingdom to be rooted up--an edict which he recalled atthe instance of his councillors, who pointed out that it would ruin manypoor families, and would not cure the evil, as wine would be smuggled inor illicitly made of figs or other fruit. Hakem consequently contentedhimself with forbidding anew the use of spirituous liquors in the moststringent terms. [5] Even the faquis had taken to drinking wine, and theydefended the practice by saying that the prohibition might bedisregarded by Moslems, who were engaged in a perpetual war withinfidels. _(b. )_ Music was much cultivated, yet a traditionary saying of Mohammedruns thus: "To hear music is to sin against the law; to perform music isto sin against religion; to enjoy music is to be guilty ofinfidelity. "[6] Abdurrahman II. (822-852) in especial was very fond ofmusic, and gave the great musician Ziryab or Ali ibn Nafi a home at hisCourt, when the latter was driven from the East by professionaljealousy. Strict Mohammedans always protested against these violationsof their law. The important sect of Hanbalites in particular, like ourown Puritans, made a crusade against these abuses. They "caused a greatcommotion in the tenth century in Baghdad by entering people's housesand spilling their wine, if they found any, and beating thesinging-girls they met with and breaking their instruments. "[7] _(c. )_ The wearing of silk, which had been disapproved of by Mohammed, became quite common among the richer classes, though the majority do notseem to have indulged themselves in this way. [8] _(d. )_ The prohibition of sculptures, representing living creatures, wasdisregarded. We find a statue, raised to Abdurrahman's wife Zahra, inthe Medinatu'l Zahra, a palace built by Abdurrahman III. In honour ofhis beloved mistress. Images of animals are mentioned on thefountains, [9] and a lion on the aqueduct. [10] We also hear of a statueat the gate of Cordova. [11] _(e. )_ The Spanish Arabs even seem to have given up turning towardsMecca: for what else can we infer from a fact mentioned by an Arabhistorian, [12] that Abu Obeydah was called Sahibu l'Kiblah as adistinctive nickname, because he did so turn? _(f. )_ A reformer seems even to have arisen, who wished to persuade hiscoreligionists to eat the flesh of sows, though not of pigs orboars. [13] [1] Al Makkari, ii. , App. 28. Author quoted by De Gayangos: The Moslems in the eleventh century "began to drink wine and commit all manner of excesses. The rulers of Andalus thought of nothing else than purchasing singing-women and slaves, listening to their music, and passing the time in revelry and mirth. " [2] Kor. V. 93--"Surely wine, lots, and images are an abomination of the work of Satan . .. Avoid them. " [3] Al Makkari, ii. P. 171. [4] Cardonne, i. P. 252. [5] Al Makkari, i. P. 108; ii. P. 171. [6] Yonge, "Moors in Spain, " p. 71. [7] Sale, Koran, Introduc. , p. 122. (Chandos Classics. ) [8] Al Makkari, ii. P. 109. In 678 Yezid, son of Muawiyah, was objected to as a drunkard, a lover of music, and a wearer of silk. See Ockley, p. 358. (Chandos Classics. ) [9] Al Makkari, i. P. 236. [10] _Ibid. _, p. 241. [11] Akbar Madjmoua. Dozy, ii. P. 272. [12] Al Malckari, 1. 149. [13] Hamim, a Berber, in 936. He was crucified by the faquis. Conde, i. 420. There is good reason to suppose that all this relaxation of the moreunreasonable prohibitions of the Koran was due to contact with acivilised and Christian nation, partly in subjection to the Arabs, andpartly growing up independently side by side with them. But in nothingwas this shewn more clearly than in the social enfranchisement of theMoslem women, whom it is the very essence of Mohammed's teaching toregard rather as the goods and chattels than as the equals of man; andalso in the introduction among the Moslems of a more Christianconception of the sacred word--Love. Consequently we become accustomed to the strange spectacle--strangeamong a Mohammedan people--of women making a mark in the society of men, and being regarded as intellectually and socially their equals. Thus wehear of an Arabian Sappho, Muatammud ibn Abbad Volada, daughter ofAlmustakfi Billah;[1] of Aysha, daughter of Ahmad of Cordova--"thepurest, loveliest, and most learned maiden of her day;"[2] of Mozna, theslave and private secretary of Abdurrahman III. [3] Again, contrary to the invariable practice elsewhere, women wereadmitted into the mosques in Spain. This was forbidden by Mohammedanlaw, [4] the women being obliged to perform their devotions at home;"if, " says Sale, "they visit the mosques, it must be when the men arenot there; for the Moslems are of opinion that their presence inspires adifferent kind of devotion from that which is requisite in a placededicated to the service of God. " Sale also quotes from the letter of aMoor, censuring the Roman Catholic manner of performing the mass, forthe reason, among others, that women were there. If the evidence ofballads be accepted, we shall find the Moorish ladies appearing atfestivities and dances. [5] At tournaments they looked on, their brightsmiles heartening the knights on to do brave deeds, and their fair handsgiving the successful champion the meed of victorious valour. [6] Theirposition, in fact, as Prescott remarks, became assimilated to that ofChristian ladies. [1] Murphy, "Hist. Of Moh. Empire in Spain, " p. 232. [2] Conde, i. P. 457. [3] For others see Conde, i. 483, 484. [4] Sale, Introd. , Koran, p. 84. (Chandos Classics. ) [5] Prescott, "Ferd. And Isab. , " p. 158. [6] See a picture in the Alhambra, given in Murphy's "Moorish Antiquities of Spain, " Lockhart, Pref. , p. 13; and the ballad called "The Bullfight of Ghazal, " st. V. P. 109. The effect of this improvement in the social position of women could notfail to reflect itself in the conception of love among the SpanishArabs; and, accordingly, we find their gross sensuality undergoing aprocess of refinement, as the following extract from Said ibn Djoudi, [1]who wrote at the close of the ninth century, will shew. Addressing hisideal mistress, Djehama, he says:-- "O thou, to whom my prayers are given, Compassionate and gentle be To my poor soul, so roughly driven, To fly from me to thee. "I call thy name, my vows outpouring, I see thine eyes with tear-drops shine: No monk, his imaged saint adoring, Knows rapture like to mine!" Of these words Dozy[2] says:--"They might be those of a Provençaltroubadour. They breathe the delicateness of Christian chivalry. " This Christianising of the feeling of love is even more clearly seen ina passage from a treatise on Love by Ali ibn Hazm, who was primeminister to Abdurrahman V. (Dec. 1023-Mar. 1024). He calls Love[3] amixture of moral affection, delicate gallantry, enthusiasm, and a calmmodest beauty, full of sweet dignity. Being the great grandson ofChristian parents, perhaps some of their inherited characteristicsreappeared in him:--"Something pure, something delicate, somethingspiritual which was not Arab. "[4] [1] Killed, 897. [2] II. 229. [3] Quoted by Dozy, iii. 350. [4] Dozy, 1. 1. CHAPTER XI. INFLUENCE OF ISLAM ON CHRISTIANITY. We have so far investigated the influence of Christianity on the socialand intellectual character of Mohammedanism; let us now turn to theanalogous influence of Mohammedanism on Christianity under the sameaspects. This, as was to be expected, is by no means so marked as in thereverse case. One striking instance, however, there is, in which such aninfluence was shewn, and where we should least have thought to find it. We have indisputable evidence that many Christians submitted to becircumcised. Whether this was for the sake of passing themselves off onoccasion as Mussulmans, or for some other reason, we cannot be certain:but the fact remains. [1] "Have we not, " says Alvar, [2] "the mark of thebeast, when setting at nought the customs of the fathers, we follow thepestilent ways of the Gentiles; when, neglecting the circumcision of theheart, [3] which is chiefly commanded us, we submit to the corporealrite, which ought to be avoided for its ignominy, and which can only becomplied with at the cost of no small pain to ourselves. " Even bishops did not shrink from conforming to this Semitic rite, [4]whether voluntarily, or under compulsion, we cannot say; but we knowthat the Mohammedan king, under whom this occurred, had at one time theintention of forcing all his Christian subjects to be circumcised. [5] Another sign of an approximation made by Christians to the outwardobservances of Moslems, was that some among them thought it necessary toabstain from certain meats, [6] those, namely, forbidden by theMohammedan law. A bishop, being taxed with compliance of this kind, gave as his excusethat otherwise the Christians could not live with the Saracens. [7] Thiswas, naturally, not considered a good reason by the stricter or morebigoted party, who regarded with alarm and suspicion any tendencytowards amalgamation with Mohammedans. If we can credit certainchroniclers, a council was even held some years before this time byBasilius, Bishop of Cordova, for considering the best method ofpreventing the contamination of the purity of the Christian faith by itscontact with Mohammedanism. [8] [1] See John of Cordova, in the "Life of John of Gorz, " above, p. 89. [2] Alvar, "Ind. Lum. ", sec. 35. [3] Romans ii. 29; Galatians v. 2. [4] See "Life of John of Gorz, " sec. 123. [5] See "Life of John of Gorz, " sec. 123; Samson, "Apolog. , " ii. C. 4. Cp. "Loys de Mayerne Turguet, " xvii. 13. The king, Halihatan (Abdurrahman III. ), 950 published an edict, "par lequel il estait mandé a tous Chrestiens habitans és terres et villes a luy subjectes de laisser la religion de Jesu, et se faisans circoncire prendre cette de Mahomet, sur peine de vie. " [6] See Appendix B, p. 167; and Koran v. _ad init. _--" You are forbidden to eat that which dieth of itself, and blood, and swine's flesh . .. And that which hath been strangled. " [7] "John of Gorz, " 1. 1. [8] "Pseudo-Luit. ", sec. 341. Cp. "Chron. Juliani, " sec. 501. "Viritanus coegit concilium Toleto ad inveniendum remedium ne Muzarabes Toletani, imo totius Hispaniae, Saracenis conjuncti, illorum caeremoniis communicarent. " Sometimes, however, the contact with Islam acted by way of contraries, and Christian bigots, such as the monks often were, would cling to somehabit or rite of their own from a mere spirit of opposition to a reversecustom among Moslems. Thus we know that the monks in the East became themore passionately devoted to their image-worship, because Iconoclasmsavoured so much of Mohammedanism. In the same way, but with far moreobjectionable results, the clergy in Spain did their best to impress thepeople with the idea that cleanliness of apparel and person, far frombeing next to godliness, was incompatible with it, and that baths werethe direct invention of the devil. [1] Later on we know that Philip II. , the husband of our Queen Mary, had all public baths in his Spanishdominions destroyed, on the ground that they were relics ofinfidelity. [2] Celibacy of the clergy, again, was strongly advocated as a contrast tothe polygamy of Mohammedans; and an abbot, Saulus, is mentioned withhorror as having a wife and children, one of whom afterwards succeededhim, and also married. [3] One of the last acts of a Gothic king had been to enforce the marriageof the clergy, and though this act was repealed by Fruela I. (757-768)in the North, yet concubinage became very common among the clergy;[4]and it was perhaps to remedy a similar state of things that Witizawished to compel the clergy to have lawful wives. [1] Miss Yonge, p. 67. [2] Lane-Poole, "Story of the Moors, " p. 136. [3] Florez, "Esp. Sagr. , " xviii. 326--"Conventus Episcoporum pro restoratione monasterii. " The children are called "Spinae ac vepres, nec nominandi proles. " [4] Prescott, "Ferd. And Isab. , " p. 16. From Samson, "Apol. , " ii. Cc. 2, 6, we learn that Christians had begun to imitate the Moslems in having harems. We have left to the last the great and interesting question of theorigin of chivalry. Though forming no part of the doctrines ofChristianity or Islam, chivalry and its influences could not withjustice be wholly overlooked in a discussion like the present. Theinstitution known by that name arose in the age of Charles the Great(768-814), [1] and was therefore nearly synchronous with the invasion ofEurope by the Arabs. Its origin has been, indeed, referred to themilitary service of fiefs, but all its characteristics, which werepersonal and individual, such as loyalty, courtesy, munificence, pointto a racial rather than a political source, and these characteristicsare found in an eminent degree among the Arabs. "The solitary andindependent spirit of chivalry, " says Hallam, [2] "dwelling as it wereupon a rock, and disdaining injustice or falsehood from a consciousnessof internal dignity, without any calculation of the consequences, is notunlike what we sometimes read of Arabian chiefs or American Indians. " Whatever the precise origin of chivalry may have been, there can be nodoubt that its development was largely influenced by the relativepositions of Arabs and Christians in Spain, and the perpetual war whichwent on between them in that country. Though not a religious institution at the outset, except perhaps amongour Saxon forefathers, [3] chivalry soon became religious in character, and its golden age of splendour was during the crusades against theMoslems of Spain and Palestine. Spain itself may almost be called thecradle of chivalry; and it must be allowed that even in the first flushof conquest the Arabs shewed themselves to be truly chivalrous enemies, and clearly had nothing to learn from Christians in that respect. Thevery earliest days of Moslem triumph, saw the same chivalrous spiritdisplayed at the capture of Jerusalem, forming a strange and melancholycontrast to the scene at its recapture subsequently by the Crusadersunder the heroic Godfrey de Bouillon. [1] Hallam, "Mid. Ages. , " iii. 392. [2] _Ibid. _ Cp. P. 402. "The characteristic virtues of chivalry have so much resemblance to those which Eastern writers of the same period extol, that I am disposed to suspect Europe for having derived some improvement from imitation of Asia. " [3] Hallam, "Mid. Ages" (1. 1. ). Similarly the last triumph of the Moors in Spain, at the end of thetenth century, furnished an instance of generosity rarely paralleled. The Almohade king, Yakub Almansur, after the great victory of Alarcos(1193), released 20, 000 Christian prisoners. It cannot, however, bedenied that the action displeased many of the king's followers, whocomplained of it "as one of the extravagancies proper to monarchs, "[1]and Yakub himself repented of it on his deathbed. In many passages of the Arabian writers we find those qualitiesenumerated which ought to distinguish the Moorish knight--such as piety, courtesy, prowess in war, the gift of eloquence, the art of poetry, skill on horseback, and dexterity with sword, lance, and bow. [2]Chivalry soon became a recognised art, and we hear of a certain Yusufben Harun, or Abu Amar, addressing an elegant poem to Hakem II. (961-976) on its duties and obligations;[3] nor was it long before theMoorish kings learnt to confer knighthood on their vassals after theChristian fashion, and we have an instance of this in a knighthoodconferred by the king of Seville in 1068. [4] [1] Conde, iii. 53. [2] Al Makk. , ii. 401, from Ibn Hayyan. Cp. Prescott, "Ferd. And Isab. , " p. 159. [3] Conde, i. 477. [4] Conde, ii. 173. As the ideal knight of Spanish romance was Ruy Diaz de Bivar, or theCid, so we may perhaps regard the historic Almanzor as the Moorishknight _sans peur et sans reproche;_ and though, if judged by ourstandards, he was by no means _sans reproche_, yet many are the storiestold of his magnanimity and justice. On one occasion after a battleagainst the Christians, the Count of Garcia being mortally wounded, hisfaithful Castilians refused to leave him, and were hemmed in byAlmanzor's men. When the latter was urged to give the word, and have theknot of Christians put to the sword, he said: "Is it not written? 'Hewho slayeth one man, not having met with violence, will be punished likethe murderer of all mankind, and he who saveth the life of one man, shall be rewarded like the rescuer of all. '[1] Make room, sons ofIshmael, make way; let the Christians live and bless the name of theclement and merciful God. " [2] On another occasion Almanzor is asked by the Count of Lara for weddinggifts for an enemy[3] of the Arabs, another Christian count, and hemagnanimously sends the gifts; or we see him releasing the father of theInfantes of Lara, on hearing of the dreadful death of his seven sons. [4] It must be admitted that these instances savour too much of the romanticballad style, but anecdotes of generosity do not gather round any butpersons who are noted for that virtue, and though the instances shouldbe false in letter, yet in spirit they may be eminently true. Howeverthis may be as respects Almanzor's generosity, of his justice we haveunimpeachable evidence. The monk who wrote the "Chronicle of Silo, " saysthat the success of his raids on the Christian territories was due tothe large pay he offered his soldiers, and also to his extreme justice, "which virtue, " says the chronicler, "as I learned from my father'slips, Almanzor held dearer, if I may so say, than any Christian. "[5] [1] Koran, v. 35. [2] Yonge, p. 110. [3] _Ibid. _, p. 80. [4] Johannes Vasaeus, 969. [5] "Chron. Sil. , " sec. 70. In connection with chivalry there is one institution which the ChristianSpaniards seem to have borrowed from the Moors--those military orders, namely, which were so numerous in Spain. "The Rabitos, or Moslemahknights, " says Conde, [1] "in charge of the frontier, professedextraordinary austerity of life, and devoted themselves voluntarily tothe continual exercise of arms. They were all men of high distinction;and bound themselves by a vow to defend the frontier. They wereforbidden by their rules to fly from the enemy, it being their duty tofight and die on the spot they held. " In any case, whether the Christian military orders were derived from theMoorish, or the reverse, one thing is certain, that it was the Moors whoinoculated the Christians with a belief in Holy Wars, as an essentialpart of their religion. [2] In this respect Christianity becameMohammedanized first in Spain. Chivalry became identified with waragainst the infidel, and found its apotheosis[3] in St. James ofCompostella, who--a poor fisherman of Galilee--was supposed to havefought in person against the Moors at Clavijo. [4] In the ballad we hearof Christian knights coming to engage in fight from exactly that samebelief in the efficacy and divine institution of holy wars, as animatedthe Arab champions. The clergy, and even the bishops, took up arms andfought against the enemies of their faith. Two bishops, those of Leonand Astorga, [5] were taken prisoners at the battle of Val de Junqueras(921). [6] Sisenandus of Compostella was killed in battle against theNorthmen (979); and the "Chronicle of the Cid" makes repeated mention ofa right valiant prelate named Hieronymus. [7] [1] Conde, ii. P. 119, note--"It seems highly probable that from these arose the military orders of Spain in the East. " Cp. Prescott, "Ferd. And Isab. , " p. 122. The military orders of Spain were mostly instituted by papal bulls in the last half of the 12th century. [2] Islam made Christianity military, Milman, "Lat. Chr. , " ii. Pp. 220-2. Lecky, "Hist. Eur. Moral, " p. 262, ff. [3] Presc. , "Ferd. , " p. 15. [4] Mohammed also imagined celestial aid in battle, see Kor. Iii. , ad init. [5] "Rodrigo of Toledo, " iii. P. 4. Johannes Vasaeus says they were the bishops of Tuy and Salamanca. [6] Mariana, viii. 5. See also _Ibid. _, c. 6. [7] "Chronicle of Cid" (Southey), p. 371. Yet, in spite of all this, in spite of the fanaticism which engenderedand accompanied it, chivalry proved to be the only common ground onwhich Christian and Moslem, Arab and European, could meet. It was infact a sort of compromise between two incompatible religions mutuallyaccepted by two different races. Though perhaps not a spiritualreligion, it was a social one, and served in some measure to mitigatethe horrors of a war of races and creeds. Chivalry culminated in theCrusades, and Richard I. Of England and Saladin were the Achilles andthe Hector of a new Iliad. With this short discussion of the origin and value of chivalry as acompromise between Christianity and Mohammedanism, we will now conclude. In discussing the relations between Christianity and Mohammedanism, wehave been naturally led to compare not only the religions but theiradherents, for it is difficult to distinguish between those who professa creed, and the creed which they profess; but at least we may have thusbeen enabled to avoid missing any point essential to the properelucidation of the mutual relations which existed between the twogreatest religions of the world, and the influence they had upon eachother. APPENDIX. A. THE JEWS IN SPAIN. The persecution of the Jews by the Gothic Spaniards naturally made themthe implacable enemies of the Christians. Being a very numerous colonyin Spain--for Hadrian had transported thither many thousandfamilies--the Jews gave the Arabs very effective help in conquering thecountry, both by betraying places to them, and garrisoning capturedtowns while the Arabs went on to fresh conquests. Consequently therelations between the Jews and Moslems were for a long time verycordial, though this cordiality wore off in the course of time. Theirnumbers seem to have been considerable under the Moslem occupation, andwhole towns were set apart as Jewries. [1] In France the prejudice against the Jews shewed itself very stronglyamong the clergy, though Louis I. And his wife Judith favoured them. They were generally ill-treated, and their slaves were induced by theclergy to be baptized. Thereupon they became free, as Jews were notallowed to have Christian slaves. [2] But it must be admitted that theFranks had reason for disliking the Jews, as it was well known that theysold Christian children as slaves to the Moslems of Spain. [3] [1] Al Makkari, ii. 452. [2] Fleury, v. 408. [3] _Ibid. _ They also seem to have been able to make some proselytes from among theChristians, and we hear of one apostate of this kind, named Eleazar, towhom Alvar addressed several letters under the title of "thetransgressor. " This man's original name was Bodon. A Christian of Germanextraction, [1] he was brought up with a view to Holy Orders. In 838, while on his way to Rome, [2] he apostatised to Judaism, [3] and opened anegotiation with the Jews in France to sell his companions as slaves, stipulating only to keep his own grandson. The next year he let his hairand beard grow, and went to Spain, where he married a Jewess, compellinghis grandson at the same time to apostatise. In 845 or 847 his attitudebecame so hostile to the Christians in Spain, that the latter wrote toCharles, praying him to demand Eleazar as his subject, which howeverdoes not seem to have been done. There seems good reason to believe thatEleazar stirred up the Moslems against the Christians, and the deaths ofPrefectus and John may have been due to him. [4] After this we hear nomore of Eleazar; but the position of the Jews with regard to the Arabsseems to have been for long after this of a most privileged character. Consequently the Jews in Spain had such an opportunity to develop theirnatural gifts as they have never had since the capture of Jerusalem byNebuchadnezzar; and they shewed themselves no whit behind the Arabs, ifindeed they did not outstrip them, in keeping alive the flame oflearning in the dark ages. [5] In science generally, and especially inthe art of medicine they had few rivals, and in learning andcivilisation they were, no less than the Arabs, far ahead of theChristians. [6] [1] "Ann. Bertin. , " 839. [2] Orationis gratia, "Ann. Bert, " 1. 1. [3] Florez, xi. P. 20 ff. [4] The "Ann. Bert. " say that he induced Abdurrahman II. To give his Christian subjects the choice between Islam, Judaism, or death. See Rohrbacher, xii. 4. [5] Prescott, "Ferd. And Isab. " p. 153. [6] _Ibid. _, p. 134. The good understanding between the Jews and the Arabs with the gradualprocess of time gave place to an ill-concealed hostility, and at thebeginning of the twelfth century there seems even to have been a projectformed for forcing the Jews to become Moslems on the ground of a promisemade by their forefathers to Mohammed that, if in five centuries theirMessiah had not appeared, they would be converted to Mohammedanism. [1]Perhaps this was only a pretext on the part of the Moslems for extortingmoney; at all events the Jews only succeeded in evading the alternativeby paying a large sum of money. Even in the early years of the conquestthey were subject to the rapacity of their rulers, for when, on therumour of the Messiah having appeared in Syria, many of the SpanishJews, leaving their goods, started off to join him, the Moslem governor, Anbasa, seized the property so left, and refused to restore it on thereturn of the disappointed emigrants. From their contact with Arabs and Christians the Jews seem to have lostmany of their distinctive beliefs, and in the twelfth centuryMaimonides, [2] the greatest name among the Spanish Jews, wrote againsttheir errors. One of these seems to have been that the books of Moseswere written before the Creation;[3] another, that there was a series ofhells in the next world. [4] Many Jews attained to very high positions among the Arabs, and we hearof a certain Hasdai ibn Bahrut, who was inspector of customs toAbdurrahman III. , ambassador to the King of Leon in 955, and the king'sconfidential messenger to the monk, John of Gorz, a few years later. Hewas also distinguished as a physician. [5] [1] Conde, ii. 326. [2] Fleury, v. 409. [3] Cp. The Moslem belief about the Koran. Sale, Introduc. , p. 50. (Chandos Classics. ) [4] _Ibid. _, p. 72. [5] Al Makk. , i. , App. V. P. Xxiv. Note by De Gayangos. While the Arabs still retained their hold on the fairest provinces ofSpain, the lot of the Jews, even in Christian territories, was by nomeans unendurable. They were sometimes advanced to important andconfidential posts, and it was the murder of Alfonso VI. 's Jewishambassador by the King of Seville which brought about the introductionof the Almoravides into Spain. There is a strange story told of the Jews at the taking of Toledo by theChristians in 1085. They waited on Alfonso and assured him that theywere part of the ten tribes whom Nebuchadnezzar transported into Spain, and not the descendants of those Jerusalem Jews who crucified Christ. Their ancestors, they said, were quite free from the guilt of this act, for when Caiaphas had written to the Toledan synagogue for their advicerespecting the person who claimed to be the Messiah, the Toledan Jewsreturned for answer, that in their judgment the prophecies seemed to befulfilled in Him, and therefore He ought not by any means to be put todeath. This reply they produced in the original Hebrew. [1] It isneedless to say that the whole thing was a fabrication. Gradually, as the Christians recovered their supremacy in Spain, thetide of prejudice set more and more strongly against the Jews. They wereaccused of "contempt for the Catholic worship, desecration of itssymbols, sacrifice of Christian infants, "[2] and other enormities. Severe laws were passed against them, as in the old Gothic times, andtheir freedom was grievously curtailed in the matters of dress, residence, and profession. As a distinctive badge they had to wearyellow caps. [3] [1] Southey, "Roder. , " i. P. 235, note. [2] Prescott, "Ferd. And Isab. , " pp. 134, 135. [3] Al Makk. , i. 116. At the end of the fourteenth century the people rose against them, and15, 000 Jews were massacred in different parts of Spain. Many werenominally converted, and 35, 000 conversions were put to the credit of asingle saint. These new Christians sometimes attained highecclesiastical dignities, and intermarried with the noble families--thetaint of which "mala sangre" came afterwards to be regarded with thegreatest horror and aversion. It was against the converted Jews that the Inquisition was firstestablished, and they chiefly suffered under it at first. In 1492, onthe final extinction of the Arab dominion in Spain, a very large numberof Jews were expelled from Castile, [1] the evil example being afterwardsfollowed in other parts of Spain. The story of the treatment of Jews byChristians is indeed one of the darkest in the history of Christianity. [1] Variously estimated at 160, 000 or 800, 000. B. SPAIN AND THE PAPAL POWER. Perhaps no part of the history of Spain affords so interesting a studyas the consideration of those gradual steps by which, from being one ofthe most independent of Churches, she has become the most subservient, and therefore the most degraded, of all. The question of how this wasbrought about, apart from its intrinsic interest as illustrating thedevelopment of a great nation, is well worth investigating, from themomentous influence which it has had upon the religious history of theworld at large. For it is not too much to say that Rome could never havemade good its ascendency, spiritual no less than temporal, over so largea part of mankind, had not the material resources and the blind devotionof Spain been ready to back the haughty pretensions and unscrupulousability of the Italian pontiffs. In fact, Spain is the only country, apart from Italy, that as a nation, has accepted the monstrous doctrines of Rome in all theirentirety--doctrines which the whole Christian East repudiated from thefirst with scorn, and which the North and (with the exception of Spain)the West of Europe--the birthplace and cradle of the mighty Teutonicraces--have agreed with equal disdain to reject and trample under theirfeet. This result is all the more remarkable, from the fact that in earlytimes the Church of Spain, from its rapid extension, its greatness, andits prosperity, held a position of complete equality with the Roman andother principal churches. The See of Cordova held so high a rank in thefourth century that Hosius, its venerable bishop, was chosen to presideat the important councils of Nice (325) and Sardica (347). The Gothic invasion at the beginning of the fifth century made Spainstill less likely to acknowledge any supremacy of Rome, for the Goths, besides being far more independent in character than the RomanizedKelts, were Arian heretics, and cut off, in consequence, from allcommunion with Rome. The orthodox party, however, gradually gainedstrength, and in 560 the remnants of the Suevi abjured Arianism, and theGothic king's son Ermenegild, with their help, revolted against hisfather. He was finally put to death for his treason, but his brother, Recared, on ascending the throne in 589, avowed his conversion to theorthodox creed, his example being followed by most of his nobles andprelates. The reception of Recared and his Court into the Catholic fold was thesignal for an attempt to establish the papal authority, which was themore dangerous now, as the popes had gained a great increase of powersince Spain was cut off from orthodox Christendom by the invasion of theArian Goths. One of Recared's first acts was to write to the pope and, saluting him, ask him for his advice in spiritual matters. The papal authority thusacknowledged was soon exercised in-- _(a. )_ Deciding ecclesiastical appeals without regard to the laws of theland; _(b. )_ Sending to Spain pontifical judges to hear such cases; _(c. )_ Sending legates to watch over the discipline of the Church; _(d. )_ Sending the pall to metropolitans. These metropolitans, unknown in the earlier history of the SpanishChurch, came gradually to be recognised, owing to the papal practice ofsending letters to the chief bishops of the country. They becameinvested in consequence with certain important powers, such as those ofconvoking provincial councils; of consecrating suffragans; of holdingecclesiastical courts, and watching over the conduct of bishops. [1] But though a certain authority over the Spanish Church _was_ thusconceded to the pope, yet owing to the independent spirit of the Spanishkings and clergy, he contented himself with a very sparing use of hispower. In two points, in especial, the claims of the pope werestrenuously resisted. _(a. )_ The purchase of dispensations from Rome was expressly forbidden. _(b. )_ Papal infallibility was a dogma by no means admitted. Thus theprelates of Spain in the fifteenth and sixteenth councils of Toledo, defended the orthodoxy of their fellow-bishop, Julian, against thestrictures of the then pope, Bendict II. ; and Benedict's successor, JohnV. , confessed that they had been in the right. [2] This spirit of opposition to the supremacy of the pope we findmanifested to the last by the Spanish kings, and there is some reasonfor thinking that in the very year of the Saracen invasion the king, Witiza, held a synod, which emphatically forbade appeals to Rome. [3]One author even goes so far as to say that the Gothic king and hisclergy being at variance with the pope, the latter encouraged andfavoured the Saracen invasion. [4] [1] Masdeu, xi. P. 167, ff. , quoted by Dr Dunham. [2] Dunham, i. P. 197. [3] See Hardwicke's "Church in the Middle Ages, " p. 42. He quotes Gieselar, "Ch. Hist. , " iii-132. [4] J. S. Semler, quoted by Mosheim, ii. 120, note. However that may have been, and it certainly looks very improbable, theinvasion did not help the pope much directly, though indirectly, and asevents turned out, the Arab domination was undoubtedly the main cause ofthe ultimate subjection of Spain to the papal yoke, which happened inthis way:--The Christian Church in the North being, though free, yet ina position of great danger and weakness, would naturally have soughthelp from their nearest Christian neighbours, the Franks. But theselfish and ambitious policy of the latter, who preferred extendingtheir temporal dominion to fighting as champions of Christianity indefence of others, naturally forced the Spanish Christians to look tothe only Christian ruler who could afford them even moral assistance;and the popes were not slow to avail themselves of the opportunity thusoffered for establishing their authority in a new province. It was bythe intervention of the popes that the war against the Arabs partook ofthe nature of a crusade, a form of warfare which carried with it theadvantage of filling the treasury of the Bishops of Rome. By means ofindulgences, granting exemption from purgatory at 200 maravedis a head, the pope collected in four years the sum of four million maravedis. [1] The first important instance of the Pope's intervention being asked andobtained was in 808, when, the body of St James being miraculouslydiscovered, Alfonso wrote to the pope asking leave to move the see ofIra Flavia (Padron) to the new church of St lago, [2] built on the spotwhere the relics were found. The birth of the new Spanish Church datesfrom this event, which was of ominous import for the future independenceof the Church in that country. What the claims of Rome had come to bewithin a quarter of a century of this epoch, we may see from thecontroversy which arose between Claudius, Bishop of Turin, and the papalparty. Claudius was himself a Spaniard, and a pupil of the celebratedFelix, Bishop of Urgel, one of the authors of the Adoptionist heresy. Among other doctrines obnoxious to the so-called Catholic party, Claudius stoutly resisted the papal claim to be the head of Christendom, resting his opposition, so far as we can gather from what remains to usof his writings, [3] on the grounds, first, that Christ did _not_ say toPeter, "What thou loosest in heaven, shall be loosed upon earth;"meaning by this that the authority vested in Peter was only to beexercised during his life; secondly, in answer to the supposed efficacyof a pilgrimage to Rome, Claudius retorts on his accuser, Theodomir, abbot of a monastery near Nîmes:--"If a doing of penance to be effectualinvolves a journey to Rome, why do you keep so many monks in yourmonastery and prevent them from going--as you say is necessary--to Romeitself?" As to the journey itself, Claudius said that he neitherapproved nor disapproved of it, knowing that it was not prejudicial toall, nor useful to all: but this he was assured of, that eternal lifecould not be gained by a mere journey to Rome; thirdly, as to the popebeing the Dominicus Apostolicus, as his supporters called him, apostolic, says Claudius, is a title that does not belong to one "whofills the see of an apostle, but who fulfils the duties thereof. " [1] Prescott, "Ferd. And Isab. , " p. 64, n. [2] Romey, "Hist. D'Esp. , " iii. 420. [3] Jonas of Orleans, iii. , apud Migne, vol. Civ. P. 375 ff. Fleury, v. 398. Being summoned to appear before a council, the bishop provedcontumacious, and refused to go, calling the proposed assemblage acongregation of asses. In spite of his independence of spirit Claudiusremained Bishop of Turin till his death in 839. The pope's authority being once recognised in Spain, the sphere of hisinterference rapidly enlarged, and we soon find the king unable even tocall a council of bishops without a papal bull. This became theestablished practice. [1] In the tenth century Bermudo II. (982-999), inconfirming the laws of the Goths, took the opportunity to make thecanons and decrees of the pope binding in secular cases. [2] Meanwhile, even before the free Christians in the North had establishedtheir independence, the weakness of the Christian Church under Arabdomination seemed to afford a good opportunity for obtaining from them arecognition of the authority of the pope. We accordingly find that anappeal was made to the pope towards the close of the eighth century togive an authoritative decision with regard to what the appellants deemedto be certain irregularities which had found their way into the practiceof those Christians who were under the Arab yoke. The Pope Adrianreadily undertook to define what was, and what was not, in accordancewith Christianity. In a letter addressed to the Bishops of Spain heinveighs against the following errors, countenanced by a certainMigetius, and by Egila, Bishop of Elvira, and sometimes called inconsequence the Migetian errors:-- _(a. )_ The wrong celebration of Easter. This had already been noticedand condemned by Peter, a deacon of Toledo, in a letter to the people ofSeville (750). [3] The error was not the same as that of theQuarto-decimani, but consisted apparently in deferring Easter to thetwenty-second day, if the full moon fell on the 14th, and the followingday was Sunday. Curiously enough this very error had been held by theLatin Church itself till the sixth century. [4] The fulminations of thePope failed in suppressing the error. As late as 891 it was sufficientlygeneral in Andalusia to cause the date of a battle which took place atthe Easter of that year to be placed in the year of the Hegira 278, which only began on April 15th, whereas had Easter been observedaccording to the usage of the Latin Church, the Paschal feast would havebeen already past. [5] _(b. )_ The eating of pork and things strangled. [6] With respect to theseinnocent articles of food, the pope goes so far as to threaten anathemaagainst those who will not abstain from them. It is curious to find theChristian Church upholding the eating of pork, when brought into contactwith the Moslems, and forbidding it elsewhere. _(c. )_ Intermarriage with Jews and Moslems, which had become verycommon, is denounced and forbidden. [7] _(d. )_ The Pope cautions the Spanish Church against consecrating priestswithout due preparation, and speaks as if there were many false priests, wolves in sheep's clothing, dealing havoc in the flock. _(e. )_ One doubtful authority, [8] who tells us that Adrian orderedCixila, Bishop of Toledo, to hold a council and condemn Egila for notfasting on Sundays, according to the decrees of previous popes. [1] "Chron. Sil. , " sec. 13, who says that in 1109 a legate was in Spain holding a council at Leon. "Chron. Sampiri, " (Florez, xiv. ), sec. 6 (a later addition), says that in 869 Alfonso IV. Sent Severus and Sideric, asking the leave of Pope John VIII. To hold a council and consecrate a church. Cp. Mariana, vii. 8. [2] Mariana, viii. 6. [3] Isid. Pac, sec. 77. See Migne, vol. Xcviii. Pp. 339, 376, 451. [4] See Victorius Aquitanus, quoted by Noris "de Paschali Latinorum Cyclo. " (iii. 786), apud Migne. [5] Dozy, ii. P. 355, note. [6] Florez, "Esp. Sagr. , " v. 514: Fleury, ii. 235. [7] Adrian's Letter to the Spanish Bishops. [8] The Pseudo-Luitprand, sec. 236--"Ex mandatis litterisque Adriani papae contra Egilanum . .. Nolentem Dei Sabbate a carnibus abstinere" (776 A. D. ). But though there was a strong party in Spain favouring the pretensionsof the pope, yet many of the clergy and laity, headed by the venerableElipandus, Bishop of Toledo (782-810), boldly resisted the encroachmentsof the Bishop of Rome. Elipandus himself, as Primate of all Spain, wroteto Migetius condemning him for certain heresies, and boasts of havingcompletely refuted and silenced him;[1] but at the same time Elipandusshewed his independence of the Roman Pontiff by characterising those whoabstained from pork and things strangled as foolish and ignorant men;though Migetius in this matter was in thorough accord with the pope, [2]and could justify his views by a reference to the decision of the Churchof Jerusalem in the earliest days of Christianity. [3] Another doctrine combated by Elipandus was the unscriptural one, that itwas unlawful to eat with unbelievers, or even to take food touched bythem. It was easy for him to quote texts such as: "Not that whichentereth into the mouth defileth the man; but that which proceedeth outof the mouth, this defileth the man;" [4] or "to the pure all things arepure;"[5] and to point out that Christ ate with publicans and sinners. But the assumption which Elipandus, like his fellow-countrymen, Claudiusof Turin, later, especially attacked, was that which regarded the RomanSee as alone constituting the Catholic Church and the power of God. [6]This he very properly calls a heresy; and indignantly denies thatChrist's words, "Thou art Peter, " &c. , apply to the Church of Romealone, affirming that they were spoken of the whole Church. "How, " headds, "can the Roman Church be, as you say it is, the very power of Godwithout spot or blemish, when we know that at least one bishop of Rome(Liberius) has been branded as a heretic by the common voice ofChristendom. " [1] Epilandus, Letter to Migetius. Migne, xcviii. P. 859. See Neander, v. 216 ff. N. Enhueber, "Dissert, " secs. 29, 33, apud Migne, vol. Ci. [2] See Adrian's Letter to Egila. [3] Acts xv. 19, 29. See, however, Epist. To Timothy, i. 3. [4] St Matt. Xv. 11. [5] Titus i. 15. [6] See also letter to Alcuin, and Felix's answer to Alcuin's first book, where he gives us his idea of a _Catholic_ church founded on our Lord Christ (and not on the pope), . .. Which Catholic church may even consist of few members. Neander, v. 230. Had the Arab domination embraced the whole of Spain, and continued to beestablished over it, Spain could never have become the priest-riddencountry which it now is; but the gradual advance of the Christian armsin the North brought in its train a more and more complete subserviencyto the pope. As the kings of Castile and Leon gradually won back towns and provincesfrom the Arabs, some difference was observed to exist between thereligious usages of the newly freed Christians and of those who had setthem free. This was specially apparent in the old Gothic liturgy, whichthe Muzarabic Christians had used all along, and were still using, whereas the Christians of Leon and the Asturias had imported a newerrecension from Rome. Rumours of these discrepancies in religious ritual reached Rome, andaccordingly a legate, [1] named Zanclus, was sent to Spain in 925 fromJohn X. To inquire into matters of religion, and particularly into theceremony of the mass, the opinion being prevalent at Rome that the masswas incorrectly performed according to the Gothic liturgy, and thatfalse doctrines were taught. However, Zanclus found that the divergencewas not sufficiently wide to warrant the suppression of the ancientritual. It may be that the power of the Roman Church was not establishedso securely as to admit of an interference so unpalatable to the ancientchurch. She was content to bide her time; for such a standing witnessto the primitive usage[2] of the Church against the innovations of theRoman See could not long be allowed to continue. Accordingly, we findthat very soon after the fall of Toledo in 1085, the question of the oldGothic liturgy came up for discussion again. The Gothic and the Romanbooks were subjected, after the absurd fashion of the times, to twoordeals--by water and by fire; but in spite of the fact that the Gothicliturgy, thanks to its greater solidity and stronger binding, resistedboth those elements incomparably better than its younger rival, and so, if the ordeal went for anything, should have been hailed victorious, theold native liturgy was partially suppressed at the bidding of the pope, and by the consent of the Spanish king Alfonso VI. Of Leon, [3] andSancho IV. Of Aragon. Yet the Muzarabic Christians were loath to give uptheir customary liturgy, and it remained in use in several churches ofToledo till late in the fifteenth century. [1] Mariana, vi. 9. Pseudo-Luit. Gives the legate the name of Marinus, and says he was sent in 932 to Basilius, Bishop of Toledo. [2] Cp. The monstrous way in which the Portuguese Roman Catholics, under Don Alexis de Menezes, destroyed the sacred books and memorials of the ancient Syrian Church on the Malabar coast in India. [3] And I. Of Castile. But the interference of the pope was not confined to matters relating tothe Spanish Church at large, his heavy hand fell upon the king himself, and at the end of the twelfth century Alfonso IX. And all his kingdomwere laid under an interdict by Celestine III. Because he had marriedwithin forbidden limits, and refused to divorce his wife at the biddingof the pope. He did in the end divorce her, but only to repeat the sameoffence with a second wife, Berengaria, and incur the same penalty atthe hands of Innocent III. Encroachments on the king's power went onapace, and gradually appeals came to be referred to Rome from the king'scourts, and the pope took upon himself to appoint to benefices andbishoprics; a usurpation which was countenanced by Alfonso X. (1252-1284). [1] But this result was not attained without remonstrancesfrom the Cortes, and finally, under Ferdinand and Isabella, the questioncame to an open rupture between the Spanish Court and the reigning pope, Sixtus IV. Isabella, though so ready to submit herself in matters ofpersonal religion to the pope and his legates, refused, like her laternamesake of England, to bate one jot of her ecclesiastical rights; andthe pope had to give way, contenting himself with the barren power ofappointing those nominated by the sovereigns of the land. But if thesovereign was jealous of his rights, no less so were the barons oftheirs, and when in the war of the barons with Henry IV. (1454-1474), the papal legate threw his influence on to the king's side, andexcommunicated the rebellious barons, they firmly answered that "thosewho had advised the pope that he had a right to interfere in thetemporal concerns of Castile had deceived him; and that they, the baronsof the kingdom, had a perfect right to depose their sovereign onsufficient grounds, and meant to exercise it. "[2] A similarly independent spirit shewed itself in Aragon. In 1213 PedroII. Died fighting against the papal persecutor of the Albigensians, anddown to the time of Charles V. , the princes of Aragon were at openenmity with the Roman See, [3] and the Aragonese strenuously resisted theestablishment of the Inquisition. [4] [1] Prescott, "Ferd. And Isab. , " p. 15. [2] Prescott, p. 72. Cp. The charter of Aragon, whereby the king, if he violated the charter of the realm, might be deposed, and any other _Pagan_ or Christian substituted. _Ibid_, p. 23. [3] Lockhart, Introduction to Spanish ballads, p. 9. (Chandos Classics. ) [4] Prescott, "Ferd. And Isab. , " p. 26, n. That fatal instrument of religious bigotry, the cause of more unmeritedsuffering and more unmixed evil than any other devised by man, wherebymore innocent people passed through the fire than were perhaps eversacrificed at the altar of Moloch, was first put into action inSeptember 1480, during the reign of the pious and noble-mindedIsabella. [1] The festival of Epiphany in the following year was selectedas an appropriate date for the manifestation of the first auto da fé, when six Jews were burnt at Seville; for it was against that unfortunatepeople that this inhuman persecution was devised, or at least firstused. That one year witnessed the martyrdom of 2000 persons, and theinfliction on 17, 000 others of punishments only less than death itself. During the administration of Thomas of Torquemada, which lasted eighteenyears, more than 10, 000 persons perished at the stake, nearly 100, 000were, as the phrase went, reconciled. [2] The confiscation of propertywhich accompanied all this burning and imprisoning brought in enormoussums into the coffers of the Inquisitors. The Jews being burnt, converted, or expelled the country, theInquisition was turned upon the wretched Moriscoes, as the Moors underChristian government were called, who were oppressed and persecuted inthe same way as the Jews, and finally driven from Spain. But a more important conquest than these--more important, that is, tothe supremacy of the Roman See--was the undoubted conquest achieved bythe Inquisition over the reforming doctrines which in the sixteenthcentury began to find their way into Spain from Germany and England. Finding a congenial soil, the reformation began to spread in Spain withwonderful rapidity. The divines sent by Charles V. Into England werethemselves converted, and returned full of zeal for the Protestantfaith--"Their success, " says Geddes, [3] "was such that had not a speedyand full stop been put to their pious labours by the mercilessInquisition, the whole kingdom of Spain had in all likelihood beenconverted to the Protestant religion, in less time than any othercountry had ever been before. "[4] So untrue is it to say thatpersecution always fails of its object! In Spain it has riveted thefetters, which the weakness and superstition of the earlier kings ofLeon and Castile, together with the piety and misdirected enthusiasm ofIsabella, placed upon a proud and once peculiarly independent people. Plunged in the depths of ignorance and imbecility, social, religious, and political, Spain affords a melancholy but instructive spectacle tothe nations. [1] The inquisitional code was drawn up in 1233, and introduced into Spain, 1242. Prescott. [2] Prescott, "Ferd. And Isab. , " p. 146. [3] Miscell. Tracts. Pref. To "Spanish Martyrs, " pp. 1, ff. [4] Geddes, Pref. To "Spanish Martyrs, " p. 3, 4, quotes a Romanist author, who says: "the number of converts was so great that had the stop which was put to that evil been delayed but two or three months longer, I am persuaded that all Spain had been put into a flame by them. " LIST OF AUTHORITIES CONSULTED. I. ORIGINAL AUTHORITIES:-- A. Arab (in translations): (1. ) _Ibn abd el Hakem. _ "History of the Conquest of Spain. " with notesby J. H. Jones, Ph. D. , 1858. This work only goes down to 743. (2. ) _J. A. Conde. _ "History of the Domination of the Arabs in Spain, "translated from the Spanish by Mrs Foster. 3 vols. Bohn, 1854. Theauthor (Preface, p. 2) says that "he has compiled his work from Arabianmemorials and writings in such sort that those documents may be read asthey were written;" (p. 18), "The student of history may read this bookas written by an Arabic author. " Older writers used to speak very highly of this work, but their modernsuccessors cannot find a good word for it. [1] De Gayangos, the learnedtranslator of the Arabic history of Al Makkari, though not blind to the"unmethodical arrangement of the whole work, the absence of notes andcitations of authorities, and the numerous errors andcontradictions, "[2] yet does not hesitate to call Conde's book thefoundation of all our knowledge of the history of Mohammedan Spain. Itcertainly is astonishing that Conde, who points out[3] the errors of hispredecessors, makes precisely the same kind of mistakes himself, notonly once, but constantly. Claiming to be above all things faithful tohis authorities, he is found, where those authorities can be identified, not to be faithful. [1] Stanley Lane-Poole, Preface to "Moors in Spain" (1887). Dozy, Preface to "Mussulmans in Spain, " p. 6: "Conde . .. Qui manquait absolumment de sens historique. " [2] As to these he might plead Al Makkari's excuse, that in transcribing or extracting the accounts of different historians some facts are sure to be repeated, and others entirely contradicted. See Al Makk. , i. P. 29. [3] Pref. , p. 13 ff. (3. ) _J. C. Murphy. _ "History of the Mahometan Empire in Spain, " withadditions by Professor Shakespear, 1816. This work is based onMohammedan sources, those, namely, which are mostly to be found in AlMakkari's compilation. The concluding chapters on the influence, scientific and literary, exercised by the Arabs in Europe, areexhaustive and interesting. (4. ) _Ahmed ibn Mohammed Al Makkari_. "History of the MohammedanDynasties in Spain, " being an extract from a larger work by that author, translated by Pascual de Gayangos. 2 vols. London, 1840. This work, which Dozy finds fault with for certain inaccuracies, is on the wholevery trustworthy, and its notes form a perfect mine of information forthe student wandering helplessly among the mazes of Arab history. AlMakkari, a native of Africa, flourished at the beginning of theseventeenth century; but he quotes from many old Arabic writers, whoseevidence is most valuable. Among these are-- [Greek: a. ] _Abu Bekr Mohammed ibn Omar, Ibn al Kuttiyah_, descendedfrom the grand-daughter of Witiza; died, 877. [Greek: b. ] _Ahmed ibn Mohammed ibn Musa Arrazi_, flourished in thereign of Abdurrahman III. [Greek: g. ] _Ibn Ghalib Temam ibn Ghalib_, of Cordova; died, 1044. [Greek: d. ] _Abu Mohammed Ali ibn Ahmed ibn Said ibn Hazm_, born atCordova, 994; died, 1064. [Greek: e. ] _Abu Merwan Hayyan ibn Khalf ibn Huseyn ibn Hayyan, _ born atCordova, 1006. [Greek: z. ] _Abul Kasim Khalf ibn Abdilmalik ibn Mesud ibn Musa AlAnssari_, Cordova, 1101-1183. [Greek: ê. ] _Abul hasan Ali ibn Musa ibn Mohammed ibn Abdalmalik ibnSaid_ of Granada, 1214-1286. [Greek: th. ] _Abu Zeyd Abdurrahman ibn Mohammed ibn Khaldun. Ishbili, _born at Tunis, 1332; died, 1406. B. Christian (in Latin). These are to be found in-- (1. ) _Schott's_ "Hispania Illustrata, " 3 vols. Frankfort, 1603. (2. ) _Florez, _ "España Sagrada, " 26 vols. , containing a most usefulcollection of Spanish writers, together with much information aboutthem, written in Spanish. (3. ) _Migne's_ "Patrologia, " Latin and Greek, a most invaluablecollection in several score volumes. The following is a list of thoseconsulted:-- ([Greek: a]. ) _Isidore of Beja_, "Epitome Imperatorum vel ArabumEphemerides atque Hispaniae Chronographia, " being a continuation of theChronicle of Isidore of Seville. Sidenote: Migne, xcvi pp. 1246-1280. ([Greek: b]. ) Chronicon _Sebastiani_, "Salmanticensis Episcopi, " 866. (Conde, Pref. , p. 7, says 672-886. ) Sidenote: _Ibid. _, cxxix. Pp. 1111-1124. ([Greek: g]. ) Chronicon _Albeldense_, 866-976. (Conde, _ibid. _, says to973. ) This is also called Chronicon Emilianense. It was perhaps begun byDulcidius, Bishop of Salamanca, and carried on by the monk Vigila. Sidenote: _Ibid. _ 1146. ([Greek: d]. ) Chronicon _Sampiri_ "Asturicensis Episcopi" (written about1000), 869-982. Sidenote: Florez, "Esp. Sagr. , " xiv. 438-457. ([Greek: e]. ) _Chronicon regum Legionensium_, 982-1109, by Pelagius, Bishop of Oviedo--a very doubtful authority, and branded with theepithet "fabulosus. " Sidenote: _Ibid. _, pp. 466-475. ([Greek: z]. ) Chronicon _Silensis_ Monachi, written _circa_ 1100. Sidenote: _Ibid. _, xvii. 270-330. ([Greek: ê]. ) _Lucas of Tuy_, "Chronicon Mundi, " written _circa_ 1236. Sidenote: Schott, iv. 1-116. ([Greek: th]. ) _Alfonso_, Bishop of Burgos, "Anacephalaiosis rerumHispanarum, " etc. Sidenote: _Ibid. _, i. 246-291. ([Greek: i]. ) _Luitprand_, died 972. The Chronicon and Adversariaattributed to him are by a later hand, and extend over the years606-960. The author of these is generally called the Pseudo-Luitprand, and very little credit can be placed in his statements. Sidenote: Migne, cxxxvi. Pp. 770-1179. ([Greek: k]. ) _Rodrigo_, Archbishop of Toledo, "History of the Arabsfrom Christian and Arabic Sources, carried down to 1140. " He died in1245. The work is full of irrelevant references to Scripture and toprofane history. He does not even mention the Christian martyrdoms inthe ninth century. Sidenote: Schott, "Hisp. Illustr. , " i. Pp. 121-246 ([Greek: l]. ) _Annales Bertiniani_, from the French point of view. Sidenote: Florez, x. 570-579. ([Greek: m]. ) _Johannes Vasaeus_, "Hispaniae Chronicon. " Sidenote: Schott, i. 700 ff. The above writers must not be regarded as of equal value. Some arevaluable, but all are meagre to the last degree; others are nearlyworthless. Other authorities there are of a different kind--not historians, butwriters on incidental subjects, whose works throw great light on thehistory of the time. Among these are-- (_a. _) _Elipandus_, Bishop of Toledo; died 810. Letters-- Sidenote: Migne, xcvi. to Migetius. Sidenote: pp. 859-867. to Charles the Great. Sidenote: pp. 867-869. to Albinus (Alcuin). Sidenote: pp. 870-882. to Fidelis, an abbot (783). Sidenote: pp. 918, 919. (_b_. ) _Felix_, Bishop of Urgel; died 816. Confessio fidei (799). Sidenote: Migne, xcvi. Pp. 882-888. (_c_. ) _Beatus_, Priest of Libana (or Astorga). Letter to Elipandus. Sidenote: " 894-1030. (_d_. ) _Letters of Spanish Bishops_ to Bishops of Gaul. Sidenote: _Ibid. _, ci. 1321-1331. (_e_. ) _Alcuin_. Letters-- Sidenote: _Ibid. _, c. And ci. Ad Felicem haereticum (793). Ad Elipandum. Ad Carolum Magnum (800), sending his work against Felix. Epistle XC. (800), Epistle CXIII. (800). Ad Aquilam Pontificem (800). Books-- Adversus Felicis haeresin ad abbates et monachos. Gothiae missus (libellus), vii. Books. Adversus Elipandum, iv. Books. Epistola ad Leidradum et Nefridium Episcopum. Altera ad eosdem. (_f. _) _Adrian_, Pope. Sidenote: _Ibid. _, xcviii. P. 373. Epistola Episcopis per universam Spaniam commorantibus directa, maxime tamen Elipando, vel Ascarico (785). Ad Egilam Episcopum (in Spania) seu Johannem presbyterum (782). Sidenote: _Ibid. _, p. 336. Ad Carolum Magnum. Epistle lxiv. (_g_. ) Letter from _Louis the Débonnaire_ to the Christians of Merida(826). Sidenote: Florez, xiii. 416. (_h_. ) _Etdogius_, priest of Cordova, and bishop-designate of Toledo. Died 859. Sidenote: Migne, cxv. 703-966. Letter to Alvar, sending his book. "Documentum Martyrii, " dedicated to Flora and Maria, Virgins and Martyrs, Oct. 851. Letter to Alvar: another letter to the same, sending "Memorialis Sanctorum Liber, " 3 books. "Liber Apologeticus Martyrum" (857). "De Vita et Passione SS. Virginum Florae et Mariae. " (_i_. ) _Alvar_, Paulus, [1] of Cordova, and, according to his letters, both of Jewish birth and Gothic lineage. Died, 869, according to thePseudo-Luitprand. Sidenote: Florez, "Esp. Saagr. ", xi. [1] Robertson says Peter. Confessio. Sidenote: pp. 62-81. Letter to John of Seville, Sidenote: " 81-88. To the Same. Sidenote: " 88-91. To John of Seville. Sidenote: " 101-129. To the Same. Sidenote: " 129-141. To Speraindeo. Sidenote: "Florez, "Esp. Sagr. , " xi. Pp. 147, 148. To Romanus, a doctor (860). Sidenote: " 151-156. To Saul of Cordova. Sidenote: " 164-165. To the Same. Sidenote: " 167-171. To Eleazar, a transgressor. Sidenote: " 171-177. To the Same. Sidenote: " 178-189. To the Same. Sidenote: " 189-217. To the Same. Sidenote: " 218-219. To Eulogius. Sidenote: " 291-292. To Eulogius. Sidenote: " 296-299. Life of Eulogius. Sidenote: _Ibid. _, x. 593 ff. Indiculus Luminosus, so called because "Luminasse quae sequenda sunt docet, et apertis indiciis hostem ecclesiae, quem omnis vitare Christianitas debet, ostendit. " Sidenote: _Ibid. _, xi. 219-275. [1] [1] Ascribed by Luitprand, sec. 309, to Bonitus, Bishop of Toledo. Morales doubts Alvar's authorship, from there being no mention of Eulogius; but see sec. 19, where _praesul_ is spoken of. (_k_. ) _John of Seville_. Letter to Alvar. Sidenote: Florez, xi. Pp. 91-101. To the Same. Sidenote: _Ibid. _, 142-147. (_l_. ) _Speraindeo_, Abbot, flourished 820. Letter to Alvar (853). Sidenote: _Ibid. _, 148-151. (_m_. ) _Saul_ of Cordova. Letter to other Bishops. Sidenote: _Ibid. _, xi. Pp. 156-164. To the Same. Sidenote: " 165-167. (_n_. ) _Eleazar_, an apostate to Judaism. Letter to Alvar. Sidenote: " 177-178. To the Same. Sidenote: " 189, 190. To the Same. Sidenote: " 217, 218. (_o_. ) _Leovigildus_, priest of Cordova, flourished 860. "De habituClericorum. " Sidenote: Migne, cxxi. P. 565. (_p_. ) _Cyprianus_, arch-priest of Cordova. "Epigrammata. " Sidenote:_Ibid. _, p. 567. (_q_. ) _Samson_, priest of St Zoilus at Cordova, Abbot of the Monasteryof Pegnamellar, died 890. (See Epigram or Epitaph of Cyprianus. )"Apologeticus Liber contra perfidos" (Jan. 1, 863). (_r_. ) _Jonas Aurelianensis_. "De cultu imaginum. " An Answer toClaudius, Bishop of Turin (842). Sidenote: Florez, xi. 300-516. (_s_. ) _De Translatione SS. Martyrum Georgii_ Monachi, Aurelii etNathaliae ex urbe Cordubae Parisios auctore _Aimoino_ monacho: fromUsuard and Odilard, monks. Sidenote: Migne, cxv. Pp. 939 ff. (_t_. ) _Vita Johannis Abbatis Gorziensis_ (died 973), by John, Abbot ofSt Arnulph. Sidenote: _Ibid. _, cxxxvii. Pp. 239-310. (_u_. ) _John of Cirita_, Abbot of Tharauca, in Spain. Sidenote: _Ibid. _, clxxxviii. Pp. 1661-1671. (_v_. ) _Life of St Rudesindus. _ Sidenote: Florez, xviii. 379 ff. (_w. _) _Passio St Nicholai Alsamae_ regis filii et sociorum martyrum quipassi sunt apud Ledesmam. A purely fabulous account. Sidenote: Florez, xiv. , 392. (_x. _) _Vita et passio B. Virginis Argenteae_ et comitum eius qui passisunt Cordobae, Id. Maii. Sidenote: Florez. (_y. _) _Life of Beatus_, by an anonymous author. Not verytrustworthy, --_e. G. _, death of Elipandus placed in 798 (sec. 8):mythical council mentioned (sec. 7). Sidenote: Migne, xcvi. 890-894 And the following _Charters_, etc. :-- Of Alfonso III. To the Church of Auria, 826. Sidenote: Florez, xvii. 244. Of the same to the Church of Mindumnetum, 867. Sidenote: _Ibid. _, xviii. 312. Of Bermudo II. (982-999) to the Church of Compostella. Sidenote: _Ibid. _, xvii. 397. Assembly of Bishops pro restauratione monasterii St Mariae de Logio aparentibus Rudesindi instaurati, 927. Sidenote: _Ibid. _, xvii. 326 II. SECONDARY AUTHORITIES:-- (1. ) "Histoire generale d'Espagne" par _Loys de Mayerne Turguet_. Bookxvi. (1608. ) Sidenote: Schott. (2. ) _John de Mariana_. [1] "History of Spain. " Books vi. -xi. , translatedfrom the Spanish by John Stevens. (1699. ) [1] Dr Dunham says of his work: "It is well that it is sunk in oblivion. No one reads it in Spain. " (3. ) _Fleury_, "History of the Church, " translated from the French. (1727. ) Vol. V. Books xli. Ff. (4. ) _Morales_. "Remarks on the State of the Christian Religion underthe Arabs at Cordova. " Sidenote: Migne, cxv. P. 917. (5. ) _Froben_. "Dissertatio Historica de haeresi Elipandi et Felicis. " Sidenote: _Ibid. _, 305-336. (6. ) _Enhueber's_ "Dissertation against Walchius' view of Adoptionism. "Sidenote: _Ibid. _, 338-438. (7. ) _Dunham_. "History of Spain and Portugal" (Lardner), 1832. Buckle, "Civilization in England, " p. 430, says of this history, veryextravagantly, that it is "perhaps the best history in the Englishlanguage of a foreign modern country. " It certainly has the merit--nosmall one in so confused a period--of being clear and succinct; but hehas a bias against the Moors. (8. ) _W. H. Prescott_. "Ferdinand and Isabella. " An excellent work. Theparts chiefly bearing on the present subject are the Introduction andchapter viii. The great drawback to the work is the want of directcitations of authorities used. (9. ) _Hardwicke's_ "History of the Christian Church in the Middle Ages, "1853. (10. ) The Abbé _Rohrbacher_. "Histoire Universelle de l'EgliseCatholique. " Paris, 1844. Vols. Xi. , xii. , xiii. (11. ) _Neander_. "General History of the Christian Religion and Church"(Bohn's Translation). Vol. V. Pp. 218-233, 461-475; vol. Vi. 119-132. (12. ) "Histoire d'Afrique et de l'Espagne sous la domination desArabes, " par _M. Cardonne_. 3 vols. , 1765. A history based chiefly onArab writers, but not very trustworthy, as Conde (Pref. , p. 14) andMurphy (notes, passim) have shown. (13. ) _Dozy_. "Histoire des Mussulmans d'Espagne jusqu' à la conquête del'Andalousie par les Almoravides, 711-1110. " 4 vols. , Leyden, 1861. Aninvaluable history of the time, being both lucid and thorough. (14. ) _E. A. Freeman_. "History and Conquests of the Saracens. " Sixlectures (ed. 1870). Spanish affairs are treated rather as a [Greek:parergon] in Lecture v. An unprejudiced and accurate writer, with astrong bias, however, against chivalry (see Lecture v. , p. 182). (15. ) _Ockley_. "History of the Saracen Empire" (Reprint inthe Chandos Classics). (16. ) _Gibbon_. The parts relating to the Saracens are convenientlyreprinted in the "Chandos Classics. " (17. ) _Robertson's_ "History of the Christian Church. " Vol. Iii. (18. ) _Milman's_ "Latin Christianity. " Bk. Ix. (19. ) _Stanley_. "Lectures on the Eastern Church. " Lect. Viii. (20. ) _Hallam's_ "Middle Ages. " Vol. Iii. (Chivalry). (21. ) _Geddes_. Expulsion of the Moriscoes, in his Miscellaneous Tracts. 1730. Also Account of MSS. And Relics found at Granada in 1588; and Viewof Court of Inquisition in Portugal. (22. ) _Lecky's_ "Rise and Influence of Rationalism in Europe. "2 vols. (23. ) _Buckle_. "History of Civilisation in England, " chap. Viii. "Spanish Intellect from Fifth to Nineteenth Centuries. " Vol. Ii. Pp. 425-597. (24. ) _Carlyle_. "Hero Worship. The Hero as Prophet. " (25. ) _C. M. Yonge_. "Christians and Moors in Spain. " "Golden Treasury"Series. 1878. Obscure in method, and often inaccurate in facts. To giveone instance only out of many--The authoress says (p. 29), that Ali, theson-in-law of the Prophet rebelled and died in battle. It is well known(Gibbon, vi. 274, 276) that he did neither. (26. ) _R. Bosworth Smith. _ "Mohammed and Mohammedanism. " 1874. Abrilliant, but essentially unfair book, Christianity being extolled intheory, but sneered at in practice. We are too forcibly reminded of"Brutus is an honourable man. " His own accusation of others falls uponhimself. P. 61, he says--"Most other writers have approached the subjectonly to prove a thesis. Mohammed was to be either a hero or an impostor:they have held a brief for the prosecution or the defence. " (27. ) _S. Lane-Poole. _ "The Moors in Spain. " "Story of the Nations"Series. 1887. A clever and popular compilation from De Gayangos'translation of Al Makkari, Dozy, Southey's "Chronicle of the Cid, " andWashington Irving's "Granada. " (28. ) _Blunt. _ "Dictionary of Sects, Heresies, and Schools of Thought. "1874. The articles on Mohammedanism, the Adoptionists, and others I havefound very useful. There is, however, nothing said of thePriscillianists (of Spain), or the Druses. (29. ) _Hughes. _ "Dictionary of Islam. " (30. ) _The Koran. _ Sale's edition. (31. ) _Encyclopaedia Metropolitana. _ Vol. Xi. (32. ) _Encyclopaedia Britannica. _ Article on Averroes. III. POETRY:-- (_a. _) _Lockhart's_ "Spanish Ballads. " 1823. Reprint, with Introduction, in the "Chandos Classics. " (_b. _) _Southey's_ "Chronicle of the Cid. " Reprinted, with Introduction, in the "Chandos Classics. " A truly admirabletranslation. (_c. _) _Southey's_ "Roderic, " with many interesting notes. (_d. _) _Scott's_ "Don Roderic. " IV. REFERRED TO:-- (_a. _) _Romey. _ "Histoire D'Espagne. " 1839. 4 vols. (_b. _) _Reinaud. _ "Invasion des Sarrasins. " 1836. (_c. _) _Moshieim. _ "Institutes of Ecclesiastical History. " Translatedby Murdoch. 1845. PRINTED BY TURNBULL AND SPEARS, EDINBURGH.