Produced by Michael Ciesielski, Turgut Dincer, Leonard Johnson and
the PG Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net.






CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM
IN 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 of
Chapter VIII.]

TABLE OF CONTENTS.


CHAPTER I.

Invasion of Spain by the barbarians--Its easy conquest--Quarrels among
the conquerors--Departure of the Vandals--Visigoths gain the
supremacy--Conflict with Eastern Empire--Reduction of the Suevi--All
Spain becomes Gothic--Approach of Saracens--Planting of Christianity in
Spain--St James--Gospel first preached at
Elvira--Irenaeus--Persecutions--Martyrs--Council of Elvira--Council of
Nice--Number of Christians--Paganism
proscribed--Julian--Arianism--Ulphilas--Conversion of
barbarians--Degeneracy of religion--Priscillian--His heresy
condemned--Priscillian burnt--Paganism, in Spain--The Gothic
Government--Church and State--Power of king--Election of
bishops--Arianism of Goths--Ermenegild--Bigotry in
Spain--Jews--Influence of clergy--Of the pope      1-11


CHAPTER II.

Period of Gothic rule--Degeneracy of Goths--Causes of their
fall--Battle of Guadalete--Resistance of towns--Theodomir--Remnant in
the North--Mohammedanism--Its rise and progress--Reduction of
Africa--Siege of Constantinople--Attacks on Spain--Tarif--Arabs in
Gaul--Anarchy in Spain--Christians in the North--Clemency of the
Arabs--Treaties--Conquest easy--Rhapsodies of
Isidore--Slaves--Jews--Impartiality of Arab governors--Khalifate
established--Feuds of Arabs and Berbers--Revolt of Berbers--Syrian
Arabs--Settlement of Arabs--Effect of Berber wars      11-25


CHAPTER III.

Landing of Abdurrahman--Khalifate of Cordova--Condition of
Christians--Proselytism--Apostates--Arabs and Spaniards--Evidence of
Christian writers--Condition of the people--Serfs--No revolts--No
solidarity with the Christians in the North--Relations with Arabs at
first friendly--The jehad in Spain--Martyrs in battle--Fabulous
martyr--Anambad, first martyr--Peter of Najuma--No other till 824--John
and Adulphus--Causes of Martyrdoms--Amalgamation of the two
peoples--Intermarriage--Children of mixed parents--Nunilo and
Alodia--Mania for martyrdom--Voluntary martyrdoms--The Spanish
confessors--Threatened deterioration in the Church--Christianity
infected with Moslem customs--Religious fervour in
convents--Fanaticism, of monks--Fresh martyrs--Perfectus, John,
Isaac--Arab inability to understand the motives of these
martyrs--Causes of fanaticism--Sanctus--Peter--Walabonsus, etc     25-40


CHAPTER IV.

Flora and Maria--Their adventures--Trial--Meet Eulogius in
prison--Their execution--Other martyrs--Hidden Christians--Aurelius,
Sabigotha, etc--Plan for procuring martyrdom--Miracle in
prison--Execution--Other martyrs--Death of Abdurrahman II.--Mohammed
I.--Martyrs--Prodigy upon their execution--Outrage in a
mosque--Punishment of offenders--Apprehension of king--Meditates a
persecution--Even a massacre--Series of martyrdoms--Cloister of Tabanos
suppressed--Columba, Pomposa--Abundius a true martyr--Others
martyred--Censor of Cordova--Persecution and death of
Ruderic--Eulogius--Parentage and antecedents--Opposes amalgamation of
Arabs and Christians--Encourages learning of
Latin--Imprisonment--Elected Bishop of Toledo--Again
imprisoned--Trial--Execution--His relics      40-54


CHAPTER V.

Doubtful martyrs--No persecution raging--The Muzarabes--Churches in
Cordova--Arab description of a church--Monasteries outside the
city--Voluntary martyrs, chiefly from Cordova--No ferment at
Elvira--Enthusiasts not a large body--Their leaders--The moderate
party--Objections against the martyrs--Voluntary martyrdoms forbidden by
the Church--Answer of apologists--Evidence as to persecution--Apologists
inconsistent--Eulogius and Alvar--Reviling of Mohammed--Martyrs worked
no miracles--Defence of apologists illogical--Martyrs put to death not
by idolaters--Death without torture--Their bodies corrupted--Moslem
taunts--Effect of martyrdoms on the Moslems--Prohibition of
relics--Traffic in relics--They work miracles--Relics taken from Spain
to France--Expedition of monks for that purpose--St Vincent's
body--Relics of George, Aurelius, etc., carried off--Return to
France--Measures of the moderate party--Of the
Moslems--Reccafredus--supported by the majority of Christians--Fanatics
coerced--Anathematized--Action of king--Suspects political
movement--Revolt at Toledo--Grand Council--Measures against
zealots--Meditated persecution--The extreme party broken
up--Apostasies--Reason of these--The exceptor Gomez--The decision of the
Council--Cessation of martyrdoms      54-73


CHAPTER VI.

National party--Revolt of Spaniards against Arabs--Martyrs in
battle--Martyrdoms under Abdurrahman III.--Pelagius--Argentea--The
monks of Cardena--Eugenia--No real persecution under the Great
Khalif--General view of Christian Church in Spain under Abdurrahman
II.--Civil position of Christians--Councils--Neglect of Latin--Arabic
compulsory--Protests of Alvar, etc.--Latin forgotten--Cultivation of
Moslem learning--Moslem theology--Church abuses--Simony--Breach of
canons--Unworthy priests--Rival pastors--Heresy in the
Church--Depravity of clergy--Their apostasy--Their
deposition--Muzarabes--Free Christians in the North--The Church in the
North--Its dangerous position--Cut short by Almanzor--Clergy oppress
Christians--Count of Cordova--Ill-treats the Christians--Councils--Held
by Elipandus--By Reccafredus--By Hostegesis--Jews and Moslems
summoned--Council held by Basilius      73-86


CHAPTER VII.

Khalifate saved by Abdurrahman III.--Commander of the Faithful--His
character--Embassy to the Emperor of the West--Return embassy--John of
Gorz--Detained in Cordova--Messengers from the king--Cause of
detention--John of Gorz and John of Cordova--The king's
threats--Dead-lock--Fresh embassy to Otho--A second embassy from
Otho--First embassy received--Condescension of Sultan--Tolerance of
Moslems--Mohammed's injunctions--Tolerant Mohammedan rulers
elsewhere--Alcuin--Arnold of Citeaux--Bernard, Archbishop of
Toledo--Christians tolerated, even encouraged--"Officer of
protection"--Christian courts--Censors--Sclavonian bodyguard--Arab
pride of race--Partial Amalgamation of races--Alliances between Arabs
and Christians--Intermarriages--Offspring of these--The maiden
tribute--Evidence in its favour--No myth--Conversions--Mohammedan view
of apostasy      86-98


CHAPTER VIII.

Arab factions--Berbers--Spaniards--Muwallads--Despised by
Arabs--Revolts at Cordova, &c.--Intrigues with the Franks--Letter of
Louis--Revolt of Toledo--Christians and Muwallads make common
cause--Omar--Begins life as a bandit--Captured--Escapes--Heads the
national party--Becomes a Christian--Utterly defeated--Muwallads desert
him--Death of Omar--Stronghold of Bobastro captured--End of
rebellion--Christians under Abdurrahman III.--Almanzor--Anarchy--End of
Khalifate--Knowledge of Christianity and Mohammedanism slight among
those of the opposite creed--Christian writers on
Islam--Eulogius--Mohammed's relation to Christianity--Alvar--Unfair to
Mohammed--His ignorance of the Koran--Prophecy of Daniel.--Moslem
knowledge of Christianity--Mistaken idea of the Trinity--Ibn Hazm--St
James of Compostella      98-114


CHAPTER IX.

Traces of amalgamation of religions--Instances elsewhere--Essential
differences of Islam and Christianity--Compromise attempted--Influence
of Islam, over Christianity--Innovating spirit in Spain--Heresy in
Septimania--Its possible connection with Mohammedanism--Migetian heresy
as to the Trinity--Its approach to the Mohammedan doctrine--Other
similar heresies--Adoptionism--Our knowledge of it--Whence
derived--Connection with Islam--Its author or authors--Probably
Elipandus--His opponents--His character--Independence--Jealousy of the
Free Church in the North--Nature of Adoptionism--Not a revival of
Nestorianism---Origin of the name--Arose from inadvertence--Felix--His
arguments--Alcuin's answers--Christ, the Son of God by adoption--Unity
of Persons acknowledged--First mention of theory--Adrian---Extension of
heresy--Its opponents--Felix amenable to Church discipline--Elipandus
under Arab rule--Councils--Of Narbonne--Friuli--Ratisbon--Felix abjures
his heresy--Alcuin--Council of Frankfort--Heresy
anathematized--Councils of Rome and Aix--Felix again recants--Alcuin's
book--Elipandus and Felix die in their error--Summary of evidence
connecting adoptionism with Mohammedanism--Heresy of
Claudius---Iconoclasm Libri Carolini--Claudius, bishop of
Turin--Crusade against image-worship--His
opponents--Arguments--Independence--Summoned before a Council--Refuses
to attend--Albigensian heresy      114-136


CHAPTER X.

Mutual influences of the two creeds--Socially and intellectually--"No
monks in Islam"--Faquirs--The conventual system adopted by the
Arabs--Arab account of a convent--Moslem nuns--Islam
Christianised---Christian spirit in Mohammedanism--Arab
magnanimity--Moslem miracles---like Christian ones--Enlightened
Moslems--Philosophy--Freethinkers--Theologians--Almanzor--Moslem
sceptics--Averroes--The faquis or theologians--Sect of Malik ibn
Ans--Power of theologians---Decay of Moslem customs--Wine drunk--Music
cultivated--Silk worn--Statues set up--Turning towards Mecca--Eating of
sow's flesh--Enfranchisement of Moslem women--Love--Distinguished
women---Women in mosques--At tournaments--Arab love-poem--Treatise on
love      136-149


CHAPTER XI.

Influence of Mohammedanism--Circumcision of Christians--Even of a
bishop--Customs retained for contrast--Cleanliness rejected as peculiar
to Moslems--Celibacy of clergy--Chivalry--Origin--Derived from
Arabs--Favoured by state of Spain--Spain the cradle of chivalry--Arab
chivalry--Qualifications for a knight--Rules of knighthood--The
Cid--Almanzor--His generosity--Justice--Moslem military orders--Holy
wars--Christianity Mohammedanized--The "Apotheosis of
chivalry"--Chivalry a sort of religion--Social compromise--Culminates
in the Crusades      149-156




APPENDICES.


APPENDIX A.

Jews persecuted by Goths--Help the Saracens--Numbers--Jews in
France--Illtreated--Accusations against--Eleazar, an apostate--Incites
the Spanish Moslems against the Christians--Intellectual development of
Jews in Spain--Come to be disliked by Arabs--Jews and the
Messiah--Judaism deteriorated--Contact with Islam--Civil position--Jews
at Toledo--Christian persecution of
Jews--Massacre--Expulsion--Conversion--The "Mala Sangre"--The
Inquisition      156-161


APPENDIX B.

Spain and the papal power--Early independence--Early importance of
Spanish Church--Arian Spain--Orthodox Spain--Increase of papal
influence--Independent spirit of king and clergy--Quarrel with the
pope--Arab invasion--Papal authority in the North--Crusade
preached--Intervention of the pope--St James' relics--Claudius of
Turin--Rejection of pope's claims--Increase of pope's power in
Spain--Appealed to against Muzarabes--Errors of Migetius--Keeping of
Easter--Eating of pork--Intermarriage with Jews and Moslems--Fasting on
Sundays--Elipandus withstands the papal claims--Upholds intercourse
with Arabs--Rejects papal supremacy--Advance of Christians in the
North--Extension of power of the pope--Gothic liturgy
suspected--Suppressed--Authority of pope over king--Appeals from the
king to the pope--Rupture with the Roman See--Resistance of sovereign
and barons to the pope--Inquisition established--Victims--Moriscoes
persecuted--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 so
many of their possessions behind them, the Suevi, Alani, and Vandals, at
the invitation of Gerontius, the Roman governor of Spain, burst into
that province over the unguarded passes of the Pyrenees.[1] Close on
their steps followed the Visigoths; whose king, taking in marriage
Placidia, the sister of Honorius, was acknowledged by the helpless
emperor independent ruler of such parts of Southern Gaul and Spain as he
could conquer and keep for himself. The effeminate and luxurious
provincials offered practically no resistance to the fierce Teutons. No
Arthur arose among them, as among the warlike Britons of our own island;
no Viriathus even, as in the struggle for independence against the Roman
Commonwealth. Mariana, the Spanish historian, asserts that they
preferred the rule of the barbarians. However this may be, the various
tribes that invaded the country found no serious opposition among the
Spaniards: the only fighting was between themselves--for the spoil. Many
years of warfare were necessary to decide this important question of
supremacy. Fortunately for Spain, the Vandals, who seem to have been the
fiercest horde and under the ablest leader, rapidly forced their way
southward, and, passing on to fresh conquests, crossed the Straits of
Gibraltar in 429: not, however, before they had utterly overthrown their
rivals, the Suevi, on the river Baetis, and had left an abiding record
of 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 late
crushing defeat, would subject to themselves the whole of Spain, but
under Theodoric II. and Euric, the Visigoths definitely asserted their
superiority. Under the latter king the Gothic domination in Spain may be
said to have begun about ten years before the fall of the Western
Empire. But the Goths were as yet by no means in possession of the whole
of Spain. A large part of the south was held by imperialist troops; for,
though the Western Empire had been extinguished in 476, the Eastern
emperor had succeeded by inheritance to all the outlying provinces,
which had even nominally belonged to his rival in the West. Among these
was some portion of Spain.

It was not till 570, the year in which Mohammed was born, that a king
came to the Gothic throne strong enough to crush the Suevi and to reduce
the imperialist garrisons in the South; and it was not till 622, the
very year of the Flight from Mecca, that a Gothic king, Swintila,
finally drove out all the Emperor's troops, and became king in reality
of all Spain.

Scarcely had this been well done, when we perceive the first indications
of the advent of a far more terrible foe, the rumours of whose
irresistible prowess had marched before them. The dread, which the Arabs
aroused even in distant Spain as early as a century after the birth of
Mohammed, 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, it
will be well to take a brief retrospect of the condition of Christianity
in Spain under the Gothic domination, and previous to the advent of the
Moslems.

    [1] Migne's "Patrologie," vol. xcvi. p. 814.

There can be no doubt that Christianity was brought very early into
Spain by the preaching, as is supposed, of St Paul himself, who is said
to have made a missionary journey through Andalusia, Valencia, and
Aragon. On the other hand, there are no grounds whatever for supposing
that 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 story
framed to account for their presence in a remote corner of Spain so far
from the scene of the Apostle's martyrdom, is a fable too childish to
need refutation.

The honour of first hearing the Gospel message has been claimed (but, it
seems, against probability) for Illiberis.[1] However that may be, the
early establishment of Christianity in Spain is attested by Irenæus, who
appeals 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 the
succeeding persecutions Spain furnished her full quota of martyrs, but
she suffered most under Diocletian (303). It was in this emperor's reign
that nearly all the inhabitants of Cæsar Augusta were treacherously
slaughtered on the sole ground of their being Christians; thus earning
for their native city from the Christian poet Prudentius,[3] the proud
title 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 time
the last, which afflicted the Church under the Roman Empire. Diocletian
indeed proclaimed that he had blotted out the very name of Christian and
abolished their hateful superstition. This even to the Romans must have
seemed an empty boast, and the result of Diocletian's efforts only
proved the truth of the old maxim--"the blood of martyrs is the seed of
the Church."

The Spanish Christians about this time[1] held the first ecclesiastical
council whose acts have come down to us. This Council of Illiberis, or
Elvira, was composed of nineteen bishops and thirty-six presbyters, who
passed 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 held
the first General Council of the Church under the presidency of the
emperor, Constantine, himself an avowed Christian. Within a quarter of a
century of the time when Diocletian had boasted that he had extirpated
the Christian name, it has been computed that nearly one half of the
inhabitants of his empire were Christians.

The toleration, so long clamoured for, so lately conceded, was in 341
put an end to by the Christians themselves, and Pagan sacrifices were
prohibited. So inconsistent is the conduct of a church militant and a
church triumphant! In 388, after a brief eclipse under Julian,
Christianity was formally declared by the Senate to be the established
religion of the Roman Empire.

But the security, or rather predominance, thus suddenly acquired by the
church, resting as it did in part upon royal favour and court intrigue,
did not tend to the spiritual advancement of Christianity. Almost
coincident with the Edict of Milan was the appearance of Arianism,
which, after dividing the Church against itself for upwards of
half-a-century, and almost succeeding at one time in imposing itself on
the whole Church,[1] finally under the missionary zeal of Ulphilas found
a new life among the barbarian nations that were pressing in upon all
the northern boundaries of the Empire, ready, like eagles, to swoop down
and 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, adopted
the semi-Arian Christianity first preached to them by Ulphilas towards
the close of the fourth century. Consequently the nations that forced
their way into Southern Gaul, and over the Pyrenees into Spain, were,
nominally at least, Christians of the Arian persuasion. The extreme
importance to Spain of the fact of their being Christians at all will be
readily apprehended by contrasting the fate of the Spanish provincials
with that which befell the Christian and Romanized Britons at the hands
of our own Saxon forefathers only half-a-century later.

Meanwhile the Church in Spain, like the Church elsewhere, freed from the
quickening and purifying influences of persecution, had lost much of its
ancient fervour. Gladiatorial shows and lascivious dances on the stage
began to be tolerated even by Christians, though they were denounced by
the more devout as incompatible with the profession of the Christian
faith.

Spain also furnishes us with the first melancholy spectacle of Christian
blood shed by Christian hands. Priscillian, bishop of Avila, was led
into error by his intercourse with an Egyptian gnostic. What his error
exactly was is not very clear, but it seems to have comprised some of
the erroneous doctrines attributed to Manes and Sabellius. In 380, the
new heresy, with which two other bishops besides Priscillian became
infected, was condemned at a council held at Saragoza, and by another
held five years later at Bordeaux. Priscillian himself and six other
persons were executed with tortures at the instigation of Ithacius,[1]
bishop of Sossuba, and Idacius, bishop of Merida, in spite of the
protests of Martin of Tours and others. The heresy itself, however, was
not thus stamped out, and continued in Spain until long after the Gothic
conquest.

There is some reason for supposing that at the time of the Gothic
invasion Spain was still in great part Pagan, and that it continued to
be so during the whole period of Gothic domination.[2] Some Pagans
undoubtedly 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 eighth
century is improbable.

Dr Dunham, who has given a clear and concise account of the Gothic
government in Spain, calls it the "most accursed that ever existed in
Europe."[4] This is too sweeping a statement, though it must be allowed
that the haughty exclusiveness of the Gothic nobles rendered their yoke
peculiarly galling, while the position of their slaves was wretched
beyond all example. However, it is not to their civil administration
that we wish now to draw attention, but rather to the relations of
Church and State under a Gothic administration which was at first Arian
and 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 military
character, gradually tended to become a theocracy--a result due in great
measure to the institution of national councils, which were called by
the king, and attended by all the chief ecclesiastics of the realm. Many
of the nobles and high dignitaries of the State also took part in these
assemblies, though they might not vote on purely ecclesiastical matters.
These councils, of which there were nineteen in all (seventeen held at
Toledo, the Gothic capital, and two elsewhere), gradually assumed the
power of ratifying the election of the king, and of dictating his
religious policy. Thus by the Sixth Council of Toledo (canon three) it
was enacted that all kings should swear "not to suffer the exercise of
any other religion than the Catholic, and to vigorously enforce the law
against all dissentients, especially against that accursed people the
Jews." The fact of the monarchy becoming elective[1] no doubt
contributed a good deal to throwing the power into the hands of the
clergy.

Dr Dunham remarks that these councils tended to make the bishops
subservient 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 a
compensation he gained somewhat more authority over Church matters. He
could, for instance, issue temporary regulations with regard to Church
discipline. Witiza, one of the last of the Gothic kings, seems even to
have authorized, or at least encouraged, the marriage of his clergy.[2]
The king could preside in cases of appeal in purely ecclesiastical
affairs; and we know that Recared I. (587-601) and Sisebert (612-621)
did in fact exercise this right. He also gained the power of nominating
and translating bishops; but it is not clear when this privilege was
first conceded to the king.[3] The Fourth Council of Toledo (633)
enacted that a bishop should be elected by the clergy and people of his
city, and that his election should be approved by the metropolitan and
synod of his province: while the Twelfth Council, held forty-eight years
later, evidently recognizes the validity of their appointment by royal
warrant alone. Some have referred this innovation back to the despotic
rule of Theodoric the Ostrogoth, at the beginning of the sixth century;
others to the sudden accumulation of vacant sees on the fall of Arianism
in Spain. Another important power possessed by the kings was that of
convoking 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 is
a noticeable phenomenon. All the barbarian races that invaded Spain at
the beginning of the fifth century were inoculated with the Arian
heresy. Of these the Vandals carried their Arianism, which proved to be
of a very persecuting type, into Africa. The Suevi, into which nation
the 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 589
namely, when Recared I., the son of Leovigild, held a national council
and solemnly abjured the creed of his forefathers, his example being
followed by many of his nobles and bishops.

The Visigoths, while they remained Arian, were on the whole remarkably
tolerant[1] towards both Jews and Catholics, though we have instances
to the contrary in the cases of Euric and Leovigild, who are said to
have persecuted the orthodox party. The latter king, indeed, who was
naturally of a mild and forgiving temper, was forced into harsh measures
by the unfilial and traitorous conduct of his son Ermenegild. If the
latter had been content to avow his conversion to orthodoxy without
entering into a treasonable rebellion in concert with the Suevi and
Imperialists against his too indulgent father, there is every reason to
think that Leovigild would have taken no measures against him. Even
after a second rebellion the king offered to spare his son's life--which
was forfeit to the State--on condition that he renounced his
newly-adopted creed, and returned to the Arian fold. His reason--a very
intelligible one--no doubt was that he might put an end to the risk of a
third rebellion by separating his son effectually from the intriguing
party of Catholics. To call Ermenegild a martyr because he was put to
death 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 the
Spanish Church, as is sufficiently shewn by the canon above quoted from
the Sixth Council of Toledo. A subsequent law was even passed forbidding
anyone under pain of confiscation of his property and perpetual
imprisonment, to call in question the Holy Catholic and Apostolic
Church; the Evangelical Institutions; the definitions of the Fathers;
the decrees of the Church; and the Sacraments. In the spirit of these
enactments, severe measures were taken against the Jews, of whom there
were great numbers in Spain. Sisebert (612-621) seems to have been the
first systematic persecutor, whose zeal, as even Isidore confesses, was
"not according to knowledge."[1] A cruel choice was given the Jews
between baptism on the one hand, and scourging and destitution on the
other. When this proved unavailing, more stringent edicts were enforced
against them. Those who under the pressure of persecution consented to
be baptised, were forced to swear by the most solemn of oaths that they
had in very truth renounced their Jewish faith and abhorred its rites.
Those who still refused to conform were subjected to every indignity and
outrage. They were obliged to have Christian servants, and to observe
Sunday and Easter. They were denied the _s connubii_ and the _ius
honorum_. Their testimony was invalid in law courts, unless a Christian
vouched for their character. Some who still held out were even driven
into exile. But this punishment could not have been systematically
carried out, for the Saracen invasion found great numbers of Jews still
in 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 turned
their eyes to their co-religionists in Africa; but, the secret
negotiations between them being discovered, the persecution blazed out
afresh, and the Seventeenth Council of Toledo[1] decreed that relapsed
Jews should be sold as slaves; that their children should be forcibly
taken from them; and that they should not be allowed to marry among
themselves.[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 dominant
influence of the clergy, who requited the help they thus received from
the secular arm by wielding the powers of anathema and excommunication
against the political enemies of the king.[1] Moreover the cordial
relations which subsisted between the Church and the State, animated as
they were by a strong spirit of independence, enabled the Spanish kings
to resist the dangerous encroachments of the Papal power, a subject
which 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 short
period we are asked by some writers to believe that the invaders quite
lost their national characteristics, and became, like the Spaniards,
luxurious and effeminate.[1] Their haughty exclusiveness, and the fact
of their being Arians, may no doubt have tended to keep them for a time
separate from, and superior to, the subject population, whom they
despised as slaves, and hated as heretics. But when the religious
barrier was removed, the social one soon followed, and so completely did
the conquerors lose their ascendency, that they even surrendered their
own 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 generally
supposed. Their Saracen foes did not thus undervalue them. Musa ibn
Nosseyr, the organiser of the expedition into Spain, and the first
governor of that country under Arab rule, when asked by the Khalif
Suleiman for his opinion of the Goths, answered that "they were lords
living in luxury and abundance, but champions who did not turn their
backs to the enemy."[1] There can be no doubt that this praise was well
deserved. Nor is the comparative ease with which the country was
overrun, any proof to the contrary. For that must be attributed to
wholesale treachery from one end of the country to the other. But for
this the Gothic rulers had only themselves to blame. Their treatment of
the Jews and of their slaves made the defection of these two classes of
their subjects inevitable.

The old Spanish chroniclers represent the fall of the Gothic kingdom as
the direct vengeance of Heaven for the sins of successive kings;[2] but
on the heads of the clergy, even more than of the king, rests the guilt
of their iniquitous and suicidal policy towards the Arians[3] and the
Jews. The treachery of Julian,[4] whatever its cause, opened a way for
the Arabs into the country by betraying into their hands Ceuta, the key
of the Straits. Success in their first serious battle was secured to
them by the opportune desertion from the enemy's ranks of the
disaffected political party under the sons of the late king Witiza,[5]
and an archbishop Oppas, who afterwards apostatized; while the rapid
subjugation of the whole country was aided and assured by the hosts of
ill-used slaves who flocked to the Saracen standards, and by the Jews[6]
who hailed the Arabs as fellow-Shemites and deliverers from the hated
yoke 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--as
brave, indeed, as our Saxon forefathers against the Normans. The first
decisive 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 being
driven into the sea. This is apparent from Tarik's address to his
soldiers in the heat of battle: "Moslems, conquerors of Africa, whither
would you fly? The sea is behind you, and the foe in front. There is no
help for you save in your own right hands[2] and the favour of God." Nor
must 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 was
disaffected. It is probable that only the Goths made a determined stand;
and even after such a crushing defeat as they received at Guadalete, and
after the loss of their king, the Gothic nobles still offered a stubborn
resistance in Merida, Cordova, and elsewhere.[3] One of them,
Theodomir, after defending himself manfully in Murcia for some time, at
last by his valour and address contrived to secure for himself, and even
to hand down to his successor Athanagild, a semi-independent rule over
that 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 ancient
hardihood and nobleness, is afforded by the fact that, when they had
been driven into the mountains of the North and West, they seem to have
begun at once to organize a fresh resistance against the invaders. The
thirty[1] wretched barbarians, whom the Arabs thought it unnecessary to
pursue into their native fastnesses, soon showed that they had power to
sting; and the handful of patriots, who in the cave of Covadonga
gathered round Pelayo, a scion of the old Gothic line, soon swelled into
an army, and the army into a nation. Within six years of the death of
Roderic had begun that onward march of the new Spanish monarchy, which,
with the exception of a disastrous twenty-five years at the close of the
tenth century, was not destined to retrograde, scarcely even to halt,
until it had regained every foot of ground that had once belonged to the
Gothic kings.

Let us turn for a moment to the antecedents of the Arab invaders.
History affords no parallel, whether from a religious or political point
of view, to the sudden rise of Mohammedanism and the wonderful conquests
which it made. "The electric spark[2] had indeed fallen on what seemed
black unnoticeable sand, and lo the sand proved explosive powder and
blazed heaven-high from Delhi to Granada!" Mohammed began his preaching
in 609, and confined himself to persuasion till 622, the year of the
Flight from Mecca. After this a change seems to have come over his
conduct, if not over his character, and the Prophet, foregoing the
peaceful and more glorious mission of a Heaven-sent messenger, appealed
to the human arbitrament of the sword: not with any very marked success,
however, the victory of Bedr in 624 being counterbalanced by the defeat
of Ohud in in the following year. In 631, Arabia being mostly pacified,
the first expedition beyond its boundaries was undertaken under
Mohammed's own leadership, but this abortive attempt gave no indications
of the astonishing successes to be achieved in the near future. Mohammed
himself died in the following year, yet, in spite of this and the
consequent revolt of almost all Arabia, within two years Syria was
overrun and Damascus taken. Persia, which had contended for centuries on
equal terms with Rome, was overthrown in a single campaign. In 637
Jerusalem fell, and the sacred soil of Palestine passed under the yoke
of the Saracens. Within three years Alexandria and the rich valley of
the Nile were the prize of Amru and his army. The conquest of Egypt only
formed the stepping-stone to the reduction of Africa, and the victorious
Moslems did not pause in their career until they reached the Atlantic
Ocean, and Akbah,[3] riding his horse into the sea, sighed for more
worlds to conquer. We may be excused perhaps for thinking that it had
been well for the inhabitants of the New World, if Fortune had delivered
them into the hands of the generous Arabs rather than to the cruel
soldiery 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 of
Mohammed, the Moslems undertook the siege of Constantinople. Fortunately
for the cause of civilisation and of Christendom, this long siege of
several years proved unsuccessful, as well as a second attack in 717.
But by the latter date the footing in Europe, which the valour of the
Byzantines denied them, had already been gained by the expedition into
Spain under Tarik in 711. The same year that witnessed the crossing of
the Straits of Gibraltar in the West saw also in the East the passage of
the Oxus by the eager warriors of Islam.

There seems to be some ground for supposing that the Saracens had
attacked Spain even before the time of Tarik. As early as 648, or only
one year after the invasion of Africa, an expedition is said to have
been made into that country under Abdullah ibn Sa'd,[1] which resulted
in the temporary subjugation of the southern provinces. A second inroad
is 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) we
have the authority of the Spanish historians, Isidore of Beja and
Sebastian of Salamanca, the former of whom adds the fact that the
Saracens were invited in by Erviga, who afterwards succeeded Wamba on
the throne--a story which seems likely enough when read in the light of
the subsequent treason of Julian. These earlier attacks, however, seem
to have been mere raids, undertaken without an immediate view to
permanent conquest.

By way of retaliation, or with a commendable foresight, the Goths sent
help to Carthage when besieged by the Arabs in 695; and, while Julian
their general still remained true to his allegiance, they beat off the
Saracens from Ceuta. But on the surrender of that fortress the Arabs
were enabled to send across the Straits a small reconnoitring detachment
of five hundred men under Tarif abu Zarah,[3] a Berber. This took place
in 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 have
been a preliminary engagement before the decisive one of Gaudalete (July
19th-26th)--the Gothic general in the former being stated variously to
have 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 in
detail. It is enough to say that in three years almost all Spain and
part of Southern Gaul were added to the Saracen empire. But the Arabs
made the fatal mistake[1] of leaving a remnant of their enemies
unconquered in the mountains of Asturia, and hardly had the wave of
conquest swept over the country, than it began slowly but surely to
recede. The year 733 witnessed the high-water mark of Arab extension in
the West, and Christian Gaul was never afterwards seriously threatened
with the calamity of a Mohammedan domination.

The period of forty-five years which elapsed between the conquest and
the establishment of the Khalifate of Cordova was a period of disorder,
almost amounting to anarchy, throughout Spain. This state of things was
one eminently favourable to the growth and consolidation of the infant
state which was arising among the mountains of the Northwest. In that
corner of the land, which alone[2] was not polluted by the presence of
Moslem masters, were gathered all those proud spirits who could not
brook subjection and valued freedom above all earthly possessions.[3]
Here all the various nationalities that had from time to time borne
rule in Spain,

    "Punic and Roman Kelt and Goth and Greek," [4]

all the various classes, nobles, freemen, and slaves, were gradually
welded by the strong pressure of a common calamity into one compact and
homogeneous whole.[5] Meanwhile what was the condition of those
Christians who preferred to live in their own homes, but under the
Moslem yoke? It must be confessed that they might have fared much worse;
and the conciliatory policy pursued by the Arabs no doubt contributed
largely to the facility of the conquest. The first conqueror, Tarik ibn
Zeyad, was a man of remarkable generosity and clemency, and his conduct
fully justified the proud boast which he uttered when arraigned on false
charges before the Sultan Suleiman.[6] "Ask the true believers," he
said, "ask also the Christians, what the conduct of Tarik has been in
Africa 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 the
following provisions: that the citizens should give up all their horses
and arms; that they might, if they chose, depart, leaving their
property; that those who remained should, on payment of a small tribute,
be permitted to follow their own religion, for which purposes certain
churches were to be left standing; that they should have their own
judges, and enjoy (within limits) their own laws. In some cases the
riches of the churches were also surrendered, as at Merida,[1] and
hostages given. But conditions even better than these were obtained from
Abdulaziz, son of Musa, by Theodomir in Murcia. The original document
has been preserved by the Arab historians, and is well worthy of
transcription:

"In the name of God the Clement and Merciful! Abdulaziz and Tadmir make
this treaty of peace--may God confirm and protect it! Tadmir shall
retain the command over his own people, but over no other people among
those of his faith. There shall be no wars between his subjects and
those of the Arabs, nor shall the children or women of his people be led
captive. They shall not be disturbed in the exercise of their religion:
their churches shall not be burnt, nor shall any services be demanded
from them, or obligations be laid upon them--those expressed in this
treaty alone excepted.... Tadmir shall not receive our enemies, nor fail
in fidelity to us, and he shall not conceal whatever hostile purposes he
may know to exist against us. His nobles and himself shall pay a tribute
of 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 of
Tadmir, and every man subject to tax, shall pay the half of these
imposts."[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 of
King Roderic, and the deference which he paid to her. This predilection
for the Christians brought the son of Musa into ill favour with the
Arabs, 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 accomplished
with wonderfully little bloodshed, and with few or none of those
atrocities which generally characterize the subjugation of a whole
people by men of an alien race and an alien creed. It cannot, however,
be denied that the only contemporary Christian chronicler is at variance
on this point with all the Arab accounts.

"Who," says Isidore of Beja, "can describe such horrors! If every limb
in my body became a tongue, even then would human nature fail in
depicting this wholesale ruin of Spain, all its countless and
immeasurable woes. But that the reader may hear in brief the whole story
of sorrow--not to speak of all the disastrous ills which in innumerable
ages past from Adam even till now in various states and regions of the
earth a cruel and foul foe has caused to a fair world--whatever Troy in
Homer's tale endured, whatever Jerusalem suffered that the prophets'
words might come to pass, whatever Babylon underwent that the Scripture
might be fulfilled--all this, and more, has Spain experienced--Spain
once full of delights, but now of misery, once so exalted in glory, but
now 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 ravings
of the British monk Gildas, though far less justified as it seems by the
actual facts. Rodrigo of Toledo, following Isidore after an interval of
500 years, improves upon him by entering into details, which being in
many particulars demonstrably false, may in others be reasonably looked
upon with suspicion as exaggerated, if not entirely imaginary. His words
are: Children are dashed on the ground, young men beheaded, their
fathers fall in battle, the old men are massacred, the women reserved
for greater misfortune; every cathedral burnt or destroyed, the national
substance plundered, oaths and treaties uniformly broken.[1]

To appreciate the mildness and generosity of the Arabs, we need only
compare their conquest of Spain with the conquest of England by the
Saxons, the Danes, and even by the Christian Normans. The comparison
will be all in favour of the Arabs. It is not impossible that, if the
invaders had been Franks instead of Moors, the country would have
suffered even more, as we can see from the actual results effected by
the invasion of Charles the Great in 777. Placed as they were between
the devil and the deep sea, the Spaniards would perhaps have preferred
(had the choice been theirs) to be subject to the Saracens rather than
to 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 to
pronounce the simple formula: "There is no God but God, and Mohammed is
his Prophet": and he was immediately free. To the Jews the Moslems
brought toleration, nay, even influence and power. In fact, since the
fall of Jerusalem in 588 B.C. the Jews had never enjoyed such
independence and influence as in Spain during the domination of the
Arabs. Their genius being thus allowed free scope, they disputed the
supremacy in literature and the arts with the Arabs themselves.

Many of the earlier governors of Spain were harsh and even cruel in
their administration, but it was to Moslems and Christians alike.[1]
Some indeed increased the tribute laid upon the Christians; but it must
be 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 the
Christians against illegal exactions. Among these was Abdurrahman al
Ghafeki (May-Aug. 721, and 731-732), of whom an Arab writer says:[3] "He
did equal justice to Moslem and Christian ... he restored to the
Christians such churches as had been taken from them in contravention of
the stipulated treaties; but on the other hand he caused all those to be
demolished, which had been erected by the connivance of interested
governors." Similarly of his successor Anbasah ibn Sohaym Alkelbi
(721-726), we find it recorded[4] that "he rendered equal justice to
every man, making no distinction between Mussulman and Christian, or
between Christian and Jew." Anbasah was followed by Yahya ibn Salmah
(March-Sept. 726), who is described as injudiciously severe, and dreaded
for his extreme rigour by Moslems as well as Christians.[5] Isidore says
that he made the Arabs give back to the Christians the property
unlawfully taken from them.[6] Similar praise is awarded to Okbah ibn
ulhejaj Asseluli (734-740).[7] Yet though many of the Ameers of Spain
were just and upright men, no permanent policy could be carried out with
regard to the relations between Moslems and Christians, while the Ameers
were so constantly changing, being sometimes elected by the army, but
oftener appointed by the Khalif, or by his lieutenant, the governor of
Africa for the time being. This perpetual shifting of rulers would in
itself have been fatal to the settlement of the country, had it not been
brought to an end by the election of Abdurrahman ibn Muawiyah as the
Khalif of Spain, and the establishment of his dynasty on the throne, in
May 756. But even after this important step was taken, the causes which
threatened to make anarchy perpetual, were still at work in Spain. Chief
among these were the feuds of the Arab tribes, and the jealousy between
Berbers 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 such
Arabs as came in with them belonged mostly to the Maadite or Beladi
faction.[1] The Berbers, besides being looked down upon as new converts,
were also regarded as Nonconformists[2] by the pure Arabs, and
consequently a quarrel was not long in breaking out between the two
parties.

As early as 718 the Berbers in Aragon and Catalonia rose against the
Arabs under a Jew named Khaulan, who was put to death the following
year. In 726 they revolted again, crying that they who had conquered the
country alone had claims to the spoil.[3] This formidable rising was
only put down by the Arabs making common cause against it. But the
continual disturbances in Africa kept alive the flame of discontent in
Spain, and the great Berber rebellion against the Arab yoke in Africa
was a signal for a similar determined attempt in Spain.[4] The
reinforcements which the Khalif, Yezid ibn Abdulmalik, sent to Africa
under Kolthum ibn Iyadh were defeated by the Berbers under a chief named
Meysarah, 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 cause
of the Berbers, procured the deposition of Okbah ibn ulhejaj in his own
favour, but, this done, broke with his new allies. He was then compelled
to ask the help of the Syrian Arabs, who were cooped up in Ceuta, though
previously he had turned a deaf ear to their entreaties that they might
cross over into Spain.

The Syrians gladly accepted this invitation, and under Balj ibn Besher,
nephew of Kolthum, crossed the Straits, readily promising at the same
time to return to Africa when the Spanish Berbers were overcome. This
desirable end accomplished, however, they refused to keep to their
agreement, and Abdalmalik soon found himself driven to seek anew the
alliance of the Berbers and also of the Andalusian Arabs against his
late allies.[2] But the latter proved too strong for the Ameer, who was
defeated 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 the
accession of Berbers now to one side, now to the other, continued
without intermission till the first Khalif of Cordova, Abdurrahman ibn
Muawiyah, established his power all over Spain.

The successor of Balj and Thaleba ibn Salamah did indeed try to break up
the Syrian faction by separating them. He placed those of Damascus in
Elvira; of Emesa in Seville; of Kenesrin in Jaen; of Alurdan[1] in
Malaga and Regio; of Palestine in Sidonia or Xeres; of Egypt in Murcia;
of Wasit in Cabra; and they thus became merged into the body of
Andalusian Arabs.

These Berber wars had an important influence on the future of Spain;
for, since the Berbers had settled on all the Northern and Western
marches, when they were decimated by civil war, and many of the
survivors compelled to return to Africa,[2] owing to the famine which
afflicted the country from 750 to 755, the frontiers of the Arab
dominion were left practically denuded of defenders,[3] and the
Christians at once advanced their boundaries to the Douro, leaving
however a strip of desert land as a barrier between them and the
Moslems. This debateable land they did not occupy till fifty years
later.[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 May
756. 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 on
a firm basis, or was recognised as ruler by the whole of Moslem Spain.

During the forty-five years of civil warfare which intervened between
the invasion of Tarik and the landing of Abdurrahman, we have very
little knowledge of what the Christians were doing. The Arab historians
are too busy recounting the feuds of their own tribes to pay any
particular attention to the subject Christians. But we may gather that
the latter were, on the whole, fairly content with their new
servitude.[1] The Moslems were not very anxious to proselytize, as the
conversion of the Spaniards meant a serious diminution of the
tribute.[2] Those Christians who did apostatize--and we may believe that
they were chiefly slaves--at once took up a position of legal, though
not social, equality with the other Moslems. It is no wonder that the
slaves became Mohammedans, for, apart from their hatred for their
masters, and the obvious temporal advantage of embracing Islam, the
majority of them knew nothing at all about Christianity.[3] The ranks of
the converts were recruited from time to time by those who went over to
Islam to avoid paying the poll-tax, or even to escape the payment of
some penalty inflicted by the Christian courts.[4] One thing is
noticeable. In the early years of the conquest there was none of that
bitterness displayed between the adherents of the rival creeds, to which
we are so accustomed in later times. Isidore of Beja, the only
contemporary Christian authority, though he rhapsodizes about the
devastations committed by the conquerors, and complains of enormous
tributes exacted, yet speaks more fairly about the Moslems[5] than any
other Spanish writer before the fourteenth century. "If he hates the
conquerors," says Dozy,[6] "he hates them rather as men of another race
than of another creed;" and the marriage of Abdulaziz and Egilona
awakens 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 or
renegade, was certainly preferable to their state before the
conquest.[1] Those serfs who remained Christian, if they worked on State
lands, payed one-third of the produce to the State; if on private lands,
four-fifths to their Arab owners.[2] The free Christians retained their
goods, and could even alienate their lands. They paid a graduated tax
varying from thirteen pounds to three guineas.[3] In all probability the
Christians under Moslem rule were not worse off than their
coreligionists in Galicia and Leon. A signal proof of this is afforded
by the fact that, in spite of the distracted state of the country, which
would seem to hold out a great hope of success, we hear of no attempts
at 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 the
ambition of an Arab chief.[4] They were even somewhat indifferent to the
cause of their coreligionists in the North, and the attempts which
Pelayo and his successors made to induce them to rise in concert with
their 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 at
first existed between the Moslems and their Christian subjects,
gradually gave place to a very different state of things, owing in no
small degree to the free Christians in the North, whose presence on
their borders was a continual menace to the Moslem dominion, and a
perpetual incentive to the subject Christians to rise and assert their
freedom.

Our purpose now is to trace out, so far as the scanty indications
scattered in the writers of the time will allow, the relations that
existed between the two religions during the 275 years of the Khalifate,
and the influence which these relations had upon the development of the
one and the other. It will be agreeable to the natural arrangement to
take the former question first.

With a view to the better understanding of the position of Christianity
and Mohammedanism at the very beginning of our inquiry, we have thought
it advisable to point out in a preliminary sketch the development of
Christianity in Spain previous to the period when the Moslems, fresh
from their native deserts of Arabia and Africa, bearing the sword in one
hand and the Koran in the other, possessed themselves of one of the
fairest provinces of Christendom. This having been already done, we can
at once proceed to investigate the mutual relations of Christianity and
Mohammedanism in Spain during the 300 years of the Khalifate of Cordova.

It was in fulfilment of a supposed prophecy of Mohammed's, and in
obedience to the precepts of the Koran itself, that the Arabs, having
overrun Syria, Egypt, and Africa, passed over into Spain, and the war
from the very first took the character of a jehad, or religious war--a
character which it retained with the ever-increasing fanaticism of the
combatants until every Mohammedan had been forced to abjure his creed,
or been driven out of Spain. But, as we have seen, the conquest itself
was singularly free from any outbursts of religious frenzy; though of
course there must have been many Christians, who laid down their lives
in defence of all that was near and dear to them, in defence of their
wives and their children, their homes and their country, their religion
and their honour. One such instance at least has been recorded by the
Arab historians,[1] when the Governor, and 400 of the garrison, of
Cordova, after three months' siege in the church of St George, chose
rather to be burnt in their hold than surrender upon condition either of
embracing Islam, or paying tribute.

Omitting the story of the fabulous martyr Nicolaus, as being a tissue of
errors and absurdities,[2] the first martyr properly so called was a
certain bishop, named Anambad, who was put to death by Othman ibn abi
Nesah (727-728)--a governor guilty of shedding much Christian blood, if
Isidore 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 same
tactics as the pseudo-martyrs in the next century, brought about his
own condemnation and death. He held a responsible post under Government,
that of receiver of public imposts, and seems to have stood on terms of
friendship with many of the Arab nobles. Perhaps he had been rather lax
in his religious observances, or even disguised his Christianity from
motives of interest. However, he fell sick, and thinking that his life
was near its end, he called together his Moslem friends, and thanking
them for showing their concern for him by coming, he proceeded, "But I
desire you to be witnesses of this my last will. Whosoever believeth not
on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the Consubstantial Trinity,
is blind in heart, and deserveth eternal punishment, as also doth
Mohammed, your false prophet, the forerunner of Antichrist. Renounce,
therefore, these fables, I conjure you this day, and let heaven and
earth witness between us." Though greatly incensed, as was natural, the
hearers resolved to take no notice of these and other like words,
charitably supposing the sick man to be light-headed; but Peter, having
unexpectedly recovered, repeated his former condemnation of Mohammed,
cursing him, his book, and his followers. Thereupon he was executed, and
we cannot be altogether surprised at it.[1]

Besides these two isolated cases of martyrdom, we do not find any more
recorded until the reign of Abdurrahman II. (May 822-Aug. 852). In the
second year of this king's reign, two Christians, John and Adulphus,
making public profession of their faith, and denouncing Mohammed, were
put 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 shown
by the Moslems was beginning to be abused by their Christian subjects;
and there can be no reasonable doubt that this ill-advised conduct on
the part of the latter was the main cause of the so-called persecution
which followed. But besides this fanaticism on the part of a small
section of the subject Christians, there were other causes at work
calculated to produce friction between the two peoples. During the
century which had elapsed since the conquest, the Christians and
Mohammedans, living side by side under the same government, and one
which, considering the times in which it arose, was remarkable no less
for its equity and moderation than for its external splendour and
magnificence, had gradually been drawn closer together. Intermarriages
had become frequent among them;[1] and these proved the fruitful cause
of religious dissensions. Accordingly we find that the religious
troubles 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 Christian
mother. Their father was a tolerant man, and, apparently, while he
lived, permitted his children to profess the faith of their mother. On
his death, the mother married again, and the new husband, being a
bigoted Mohammedan, and actuated, as we may suppose, by the _odio
vitrici_, immediately set about reclaiming his step-children to the true
faith of Islam, his efforts in this direction leading him to ill-treat,
even to torture,[2] the young confessors. His utmost endeavour to effect
their conversion failing, he delivered them over to the judge on the
charge of apostasy, and the judge to the executioner, by whom they were
beheaded 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 the
sufferers truly earned their title of martyrs,--and we may believe that
all such cases have not been recorded--yet the vast majority of those
which followed in the years 851-860 were of a different type. They were
due to an outbreak of fanatical zeal on the part of a certain section of
the Christians such as to overpower the spirit of toleration, which the
Moslem authorities had so far shown in dealing with their Christian
subjects, and to raise a corresponding tide of bigotry in the less
enlightened, and therefore more intolerant, masses of the Mohammedans.
The sudden mania for martyrdom which manifested itself at this time is
certainly the most remarkable phenomenon of the kind that has been
recorded in the annals of the Christian Church. There had been
occasional instances before of Christians voluntarily offering
themselves to undergo the penalty of the laws for the crime of being
Christians. One such instance in the case of a Phrygian, named Quintus,
had caused grave scandal to the Church of Smyrna; for, having gone
before the proconsul and professed himself ready to die for the faith,
when the reality of the death, which he courted, had been brought home
to him by the sight of the wild beasts ready to rend him, the courage of
the Phrygian had failed, and he had offered incense to the gods. Africa
also had had her self-accused martyrs.

But the Spanish confessors have an interest over and above these, both
by reason of their number and the constancy which they displayed in
their self-imposed task. Not a single instance is recorded, though there
may have been some such, where the would-be martyr from fear or any
other cause forwent his crown. Moreover these martyrdoms, by dividing
the Church on the question of their merit, whether, that is, the
victims were to be ranked as true martyrs or not, and, giving rise to a
written controversy on the subject, has supplied us with ample, if
rather one-sided, materials for estimating the provocation given, and
received, on either side.

As time went on, and the Christians and Moslems mingled more closely
together in political and social life, the Church no doubt suffered some
deterioration. Every interested motive was enlisted in favour of
dropping as far as possible out of sight[1] those distinctive features
of Christianity which might be calculated to give offence to the
Moslems; of conforming to all those Mohammedan customs, which are not in
the Bible expressly forbidden to a Christian;[2] and, generally, of
emphasizing the points on which Christianity agrees with Mohammedanism,
and ignoring those (far more important ones) in which they differ. The
Moslems had no such reason for dissembling their convictions, or
modifying their tenets. Consequently a spiritual paralysis was creeping
upon the Church, which threatened in the course of time, if not checked,
to destroy the very life of Christianity throughout the peninsula. The
case of Africa, from which Islam had extirpated Christianity, showed
that this was no imaginary danger. But Spain had this advantage over
Africa: it contained a free Christian community which had never passed
under the Moslem yoke, where the fire of Christianity, in danger of
being swept away by the devouring flames of Mohammedanism, might be
nursed and cherished, till it could again blaze forth with its former
brilliancy.

    [1] See below, p. 72, note 5.

    [2] _E.g.,_ circumcision.

Yet in Mohammedan Spain religious fervour was not wholly vanished: it
was still to be found among the clergy, and specially among the dwellers
in convents. Monks and nuns, severed from all worldly influences, in the
silence of their cloisters, would read the lives of the Saints[1] of
old, and meditate upon their glorious deeds, and the miracles which
their faith had wrought. They would brood over such texts as, "Ye shall
be brought before rulers and kings for My sake;"[2] and, "Every one who
shall confess Me before men, him will I also confess before My Father,
which is in Heaven;"[3] till they brought themselves to believe that it
was 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, as
the apologists of their doings have not failed to point out, to the
first two victims that suffered in this persecution.

Perfectus,[1] a priest of Cordova, who had been brought up in the school
attached to the church of St Acislus, on going out one day to purchase
some necessaries for domestic use, was stopped by some of the Moslems in
the street, and asked to give his opinion of their Prophet. What led
them to make this strange request, we are not told,[2] but stated thus
barely it certainly gives us the impression that it was intended to
bring the priest into trouble. For it was a well-known law in Moslem
countries 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 who
spoke evil of Mohammed, and extending even to a Mussulman ruler, if he
heard the blasphemy without taking notice of it.[4] Perfectus,
therefore, being aware of this law, gave a cautious[5] answer, declining
to comply with their request until they swore that he should receive no
hurt in consequence of what he might say. On their giving the required
stipulation, he quoted the words, "For there shall arise false Christs
and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch
that if it were possible they shall deceive the very elect,"[6] and
proceeded to speak of Mohammed in the usual fashion, as a lying impostor
and a dissolute adulterer, concluding with the words, "Thus hath he, the
encourager 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 revere
Christ, and the ungenerous advantage taken of the oath, which they had
made, naturally incensed his hearers to an almost uncontrollable degree.
They respected their promise, however, and refrained from laying hands
on him at that time, with the intention, says Eulogius, of revenging
themselves 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 his
former interrogators, who, on the charge of reviling Mohammed, and doing
despite to their religion, dragged him before the Kadi. Being
questioned, his courage at first failed him, and he withdrew his words.
He was then imprisoned to await further examination at the end of the
month, which happened to be the Ramadhan or fast month. In prison the
priest repented his weakness, and when brought again before the judge on
the Mohammedan Easter, he recanted his recantation, adding, "I have
cursed and do curse your prophet, a messenger not of God, but of Satan,
a dealer in witchcraft, an adulterer, and a liar." He was immediately
led off for execution, but before his death prophesied that of the
King's minister, Nazar, within a year of his own. He was beheaded on
April 18, 850.[2] The apologists, on insufficient evidence, describe the
death of two Moslems, who were drowned the same day in the river, as a
manifest 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 doubt
the evidence which it gave of the ease and comparative painlessness,
with which a martyr's crown could be obtained, was not lost upon the
brooding and zealous spirits living in solitary retreats and trying by a
life of religious devotion to cut themselves off from the seductive
pleasures 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 had
aroused the animosity of his Moslem rivals by a habit which he had
contracted of pronouncing the name of the Prophet in his market
transactions, taking his name, as they thought, in vain, and with a view
to attracting buyers.[2] John, being taxed with this, with ill-timed
pleasantry retorted, "Cursed be he who wishes to name your Prophet." He
was haled before the Kadi, and, after receiving 400 stripes,[3] was
thrown into prison. Subsequently he was taken thence and driven through
the city riding backwards on an ass, while a crier was sent before him
through the Christian quarters, proclaiming: "Such shall be the
punishment 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 by
the apologists of the martyrs against the Moslems, can be more or less
sustained, but the next instance is of a different character. Isaac,[1]
a monk of Tabanos, and descended from noble and wealthy ancestors, was
born in 824, and by his knowledge of Arabic, attained in early life to
the position of an exceptor, or scribe,[2] but gave up his appointment
at the age of twenty, in order to enter the monastery of Tabanos, which
his 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, he
voluntarily 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: "He
has lied unto you--may the curse of Heaven consume him!--who full of all
wickedness has led astray so many men, and doomed them with himself to
the lowest deep of hell. Filled with Satan, and practising Satanic arts,
he hath given his followers a drink of deadly wine, and will without
doubt expiate his guilt with everlasting damnation." Hearing these, and
other like _chaste_[1] utterances, the judge listened in a sort of
stupor of rage and astonishment, feelings which even found vent in
tears; till, his indignation passing all control, he struck the monk in
the face, who then said, "Dost thou strike that which is made in the
image of God?"[2] The assessors of the Kadi also reproached him for
striking a prisoner, their law being that one who is worthy of death
should not suffer other indignities. The Kadi, having now recovered his
self-command, gave his decision, that Isaac, whether drunk or mad, had
committed a crime which, by an express law of Mohammed's, merited
condign punishment. He was accordingly beheaded, and, his body being
burnt, his ashes were cast into the river (June 3, 851). This was done
to prevent the Christians from carrying off his body, and preserving it
for the purpose of working miracles.[3]

Isaac's conduct and fate, Eulogius tells us, electrified the people, who
were amazed at the _newness_ of the thing.[4] It was at this point that
Eulogius himself began to shew his sympathy with these fanatical doings
by 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 threw
their lives away is certainly remarkable, and seems to have struck the
Moslems as perfectly unaccountable. The Arabs themselves were as brave
men as the world has ever seen, and, by the very ordinances of their
faith, were bound to adventure their lives for their religion in actual
human conflict with infidel foes, yet they were unable to conceive how
any man in his senses could willingly deprive himself of life in such a
way as could do no service to the cause, religious or other, which he
had at heart. They were quite unable to appreciate that intense
antagonism towards the world and its perilous environment, which
Christianity teaches; that spirit of renouncement of the vanities, nay,
even of the duties of life, which prompted men and women to immure
themselves in cloisters and retreats, far from all spheres of human
usefulness. Life under these circumstances had naturally little to make
it worth the living, and became all the more easy to relinquish, when
death, in itself a thing to be desired, was further invested with the
glories of martyrdom.

The example of Isaac was therefore followed within two days by a monk
named Sanctius[1] or Sancho, who was executed on June 5th. Three days
later were beheaded Peter, a priest of Ecija; Walabonsus, a deacon of
Ilipa; Sabinianus and Wistremundus, monks of St Zoilus; Habentius, a
monk of St Christopher's Church at Cordova; while Jeremiah,[2] uncle of
Isaac, was scourged to death. Their bodies were burned, and the ashes
cast into the river.

Sisenandus of Badajos[3] found a similar fate on July 16th: four days
subsequently Paul, a deacon of St Zoilus, gave himself up; and the same
number of days later, Theodomir, a monk of Carmona: all of whom were
beheaded.

    [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 have
regarded one of these maidens, Flora, with a Platonic love mingled with
a sort of religious devotion.

Flora,[1] the daughter of a Moslem father and a Christian mother, was
born at Cordova. She is said to have practised abstinence even in her
cradle. At first she was brought up as a Moslem, and lived in conformity
with that faith, until, being converted to Christianity about eight
years before this time, and finding the intolerance of her father and
her brother unbearable, she deserted her home. But when her brother, in
his efforts to discover and reclaim her, persecuted many Christian
families, whom he suspected of conniving at her escape, she voluntarily
surrendered herself to him, saying, "Here am I whom you seek, and for
whose sake you persecute the people of God. I am a Christian. Do your
best to annul that confession: none of your torments will be able to
overcome my faith." Her brother, after trying in vain, by alternate
threats and blandishments, to bring her back from her error, finally
dragged her before the Kadi; and he, hearing her brother's accusation,
and her own confession, ordered her to be barbarously beaten, and then
given up nearly dead to her brother. She managed, however, to recover,
and escaped under angelic guidance.[2] Shortly afterwards, while praying
in a church, she was found by Maria, sister of Walabonsus
above-mentioned,[3] who had been martyred a few months previously.
Their father, being a Christian, converted his unbelieving wife. They
came to live at Froniano, near Cordova, and their daughter was educated
at the nunnery of Cuteclara, near the city, under the care of the
abbess, Artemia. Brooding over her brother's martyrdom, and perhaps, as
was so often the case, seeing his glorified spirit in a vision, she left
the cloister, determining to follow in his saintly footsteps. While on
her way to give herself up, she turned aside into a church to pray, and
found 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 imprisoned
them. News of his sister's imprisonment being brought to Flora's
brother, he induced the judge to make a further examination of her, and
she was brought out of prison before the Kadi, who, pointing to her
brother, asked her if she knew him. Flora answered that she did--as her
brother according to the flesh. "How is it, then," asked the judge,
"that he remains a good Moslem, while you have apostatized?" She
answered that God had enlightened her; and, on professing herself ready
to repeat her former denunciations of the Prophet, she was again
remanded to prison. Here she and Maria are threatened with being thrown
upon the streets as prostitutes[2]--a punishment far worse than the
easy death they had desired. This shakes their constancy; when they
find an unexpected comforter in Eulogius himself, who is now imprisoned
for being an encourager and inciter of defiance to the laws. It is
strange that he should have been allowed to carry on in the prison
itself the very work for which he had been imprisoned. The support of
Eulogius enabled these tender maidens to stand firm through another
examination, 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 to
intercede before the throne of God for his release, which accordingly is
brought to pass six days after their own execution.[3]

An interval of only a little more than a month elapsed before
Gumesindus, a priest of the district called Campania, near Cordova, and
Servus 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 it
seemed as if the Church had come to its right mind upon this subject.
This, however, was far from being the case. Hitherto the victims had
been almost without exception priests, monks, and nuns; but the next
martyrs afford us instances of married couples claiming a share in this
doubtful honour. These were Aurelius, son of a Moslem father and a
Christian mother, and his wife Sabigotha (or Nathalia), the daughter of
Moslem parents, whose father dying, her mother married a Christian and
was converted; and Felix and his wife Liliosa.[1] It would seem that
with all the harm that was done by this outbreak of fanaticism, some
good was also effected in awaking the worldly-minded adherents of
Christianity from the spiritual torpor into which they were sinking; for
these new martyrs were of the class of hidden[2] Christians, who were
now shamed into avowing their real creed.[3] Yet surely it had been far
better if they had been content to live like Christians instead of dying
like suicides. In their case, indeed, we find no sudden irresistible
impulse driving them to defy the laws, but a slowly-matured conviction
that it was their duty, disregarding all human ties, to give themselves
up to death. In this resolution they were fortified by the advice and
encouragement of Eulogius and Alvar,[4] the latter of whom prudently
warns Aurelius to make sure that his courage is sufficient to stand the
trial.[5] Sabigotha is persuaded to accompany her husband in his
self-destruction, her natural reluctance to leave her children being
overcome by Eulogius,[6] who recommends that they should be given over
to the care of a monastery. A seasonable vision, in which Flora and
Maria 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 business
connected with his monastery to Africa, had crossed over in Spain,
impelled by the wild enthusiasm there prevailing, determined to offer
himself as a candidate for martyrdom with the four persons above
mentioned.

They then take counsel together how they may best effect their purpose,
there being evidently enough difficulty in procuring martyrdom for
themselves to shew the statements of the apologists, that there was a
fierce persecution raging, to be at least much exaggerated, if not
entirely without foundation. The plan decided upon, which the devisers
audaciously attributed to the suggestion of God,[1] was that the women
should go forth unveiled and with hurried steps to the church, in the
hope that such an unwonted sight would direct attention to them, and
occasion the arrest of the whole number. It fell out as desired, and
they were all brought before the judge, and interrogated with the usual
result, except that the judge on this occasion dismissed them with
scornful anger.[2] But George, disappointed at his untoward clemency, as
they were being led away broke out with,[3] "Can you not go down to hell
without seeking to drag us also thither as your companions?"

This incoherent abuse naturally incensed the soldiers, as it was no
doubt intended that it should. Accordingly the prisoners were dragged
again 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 become
Moslems again. On their refusal they were remanded for two days, which
seemed a very long time, so eager were they to die. They pass the time
with singing hymns, and are blessed with visits of angels and miraculous
signs. Their chains drop off, and the gaolers dare not again bind those
whom Christ Himself had loosed.[5] The authorities, now as ever, anxious
if possible to avoid extreme penalties, determine to release George,
because they had not themselves[6] heard his blasphemy. He baulks their
merciful intention by repeating his words on the spot, and he is
accordingly 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, are
executed for the same offence and in the same manner, their dead bodies
being nailed to stakes. While taking the air in his palace,[8] the king
saw these bodies, and ordered them to be burnt, and the ashes scattered
in the river. The same night Abdurrahman II. was struck down with
apoplexy, and the martyrs' friends hailed it as a manifest judgment from
Heaven.

    [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 more
bigoted ruler than his father. No sooner was he on the throne than
Emila, a deacon, and Jeremiah a priest of St Cyprian's church, near
Cordova, following in the footsteps of so many predecessors, came
before the Kadi, and reviled Mohammed,--the former being enabled to do
this with the more point and effect, as he was to a remarkable degree
master of the Arabic language.[1] Emila and Jeremiah won the prize they
coveted, and were put to death (September 15, 852). The customary
prodigy occurred after the execution, in describing which the pious
Eulogius breaks into metre, saying, "Athletas cecidisse pios elementa
fatentur."

On the following day occurred an outrage which the most bigoted
partizans of the martyrs must have blushed to record. Two eunuchs,
Rogel, a monk of Parapanda, near Elvira, and Servio Deo, a eunuch of
foreign extraction, forced their way into a mosque, and by way of
preaching--as they said--to the assembled worshippers, they reviled
their Prophet and their religion. [2] Being set upon and nearly torn in
pieces 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 be
beheaded; 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 knew
no bounds. He might well be pardoned for thinking that this defiance of
the laws, and religious fanaticism, could only mean a widespread
disaffection and conspiracy against the Moslem rule. In fact, as we
shall see, the Christians of Toledo raised the banner of revolt in
favour of their Cordovan brethren at this very time. Mohammed therefore
seems to have meditated a real persecution, such as should extirpate
Christianity in his dominions.[1] He is said even to have given orders
for a general massacre of the males among the Christians, and for the
slavery, or worse, of the women, if they did not apostatize.[2] But the
dispassionate advice of his councillors saved the king from this crime.
They pointed out that no men of any intelligence, education, or rank
among the Christians had taken part in the doings of the zealots, and
that the whole body of Christians ought not to be cut off, since their
actions were not directed by any individual leader. Other advisers seem
to have diverted the king from his project of a wholesale massacre by
encouraging him to proceed legally against the Christians with the
utmost rigour, and by this means to cow them into submission.[3]

These strong measures apparently produced some effect, for no other
executions are recorded for a period of nine months; when Fandila, a
priest of Tabanos,[4] and chosen by the monks of St Salvator's monastery
to be one of their spiritual overseers, came forward and reviled the
Prophet: whereupon he was imprisoned and subsequently beheaded (June 13,
853). His fate awakened the dormant fanaticism of Anastasius,[5] a
priest of St Acislus' church; of Felix, a Gaetulian monk of Alcala de
Henares; 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; their
example 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 the
Government now suppressed the place, removing the nuns and shutting them
up to prevent others giving themselves up.[1] One of these however,
Columba,[2] sister of Elizabeth and of the abbot Martin, contrived to
escape. This Columba had persisted in remaining a virgin, in spite of
her mother's efforts to make her marry, which only ceased when the
mother 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 these
executions, which was not broken till July 11th of the following year,
when Abundius, a priest, was martyred. He seems to have really deserved
the name of martyr, for he was given up to the authorities by the
treachery 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, the
deacon, beheaded four years before, shared the same fate (April 30,
855).[5]

After nearly a year Witesindus, a repentant renegade; Elias, an old
priest of Lusitania; and Paul and Isidore, young monks, gave themselves
up to execution[6] (April 17, 856.) In June of that year a more
venerable victim was, like Abundius, betrayed to his destruction. This
was Argimirus, an old monk, once Censor of Cordova (June 28).[7] Exactly
one month later Aurea, a virgin and sister of the brothers John and
Adulphus, whose martyrdom has been already mentioned, was brought before
the magistrate. Descended from one of the noblest Arab families,[8] she
had long been left unmolested, though her apostasy to Christianity was
well known. She was now frightened into temporary submission; but soon
repenting of her compliance, and avowing herself truly a Christian, she
gained 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 intervened
as a peacemaker, in a quarrel, in which his brother was engaged. With
the usual fate of peacemakers, he was set upon by both parties, and
nearly killed. In fact his brother supposed him to be quite dead, and
had the body carried through the town, proclaiming that his brother had
become a Mussulman before his death.[2] However, Ruderic recovered, and
made his escape, but being obliged to return to Cordova, met his
brother, who immediately brought him before the Kadi on a charge of
apostasy. His life and liberty were promised to him if he would only
acknowledge that Christ was merely man, and that Mohammed was the
messenger of God. On refusing, he is imprisoned, and finds in prison a
certain Salomon, also charged with apostasy from Islam. The two
fellow-prisoners contract a great friendship and are consequently
separated. After a third exhortation, they are condemned to death, but
not before the judge had done his best to bribe them to forego their
purpose by offers of honour and rewards.[3] They were executed March 13,
857, and their bodies thrown into the river--even the stones sprinkled
with their blood being taken up and cast into the water, lest the
Christians should preserve them as relics. Ruderic's body was washed on
shore, fresh as when killed; while Salomon, not being equally fortunate,
informed a devout Christian in a vision, where his body lay in a
tamarisk thicket near the town of Nymphianum.

Hitherto the aider and abettor of these martyrdoms had himself contrived
to escape the penalty, which he had urged others to brave. Whether this
was due to any unworthy fear of death on his part is not clear, but it
may have been owing to the respect in which he was held by the Moslem
authorities. To these he was well known as a man of irreproachable
character and unaffected piety, and several Arabs of high rank, who were
his personal friends, shewed themselves anxious to screen him from the
effects of his folly. Eulogius[4] was descended from a Senatorial family
of Cordova, and was educated at the Church of St Zoilus, where he
devoted himself to ecclesiastical studies, and soon surpassed his
contemporaries in learning. With his friend Alvar he sat at the feet of
Speraindeo, an eminent abbot in the province of Baetica. Besides a
sister Anulo, Eulogius had two brothers engaged in trade, and another
brother, 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 his
desire for the life of a monk,[1] and for the glory of martyrdom. When
strong measures were taken by the authorities, in concert with
Reccafredus, Bishop of Seville, to stamp out the mania for martyrdom by
threats, stripes, and imprisonment, though many were frightened into
submission, Eulogius, Alvar tells us,[2] remained firm, in spite of his
being singled out as an "incentor martyrum" by a certain Gomez, who was
a 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 and
check that amalgamation of the Christians and Arabs which he saw going
on round him. Believing that such close relations between the peoples
tended to the spiritual degradation of Christianity, he set himself
deliberately to embitter those relations, and, as far as he could, to
make a good understanding impossible. To discourage the learning of
Arabic by the Christians, he brought back with him from a journey to
Pampluna 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, but
for some reason he tried to abstain from officiating at the mass on the
ground that he was himself a great sinner.[1] However, his
ecclesiastical superior[2] (? Saul, Bishop of Cordova), soon made him
take a different view of the question by threatening him with anathema
if he neglected his duty any longer. Coming forward as a prominent
champion of the extreme party in the Church, he was imprisoned in 851,
where he wrote treatises in favour of the martyrs, and was released, as
we have seen, by the intercession of Flora and Maria on November 29th of
that 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 by
the votes of the people[2] to succeed him as Bishop of Toledo;
but from some cause, perhaps by the intervention of the
Moslems, he was prevented from occupying his see. The
people then determined to have no bishop, if they might
not have him.[3] Yet, adds the pious Alvar, he got his
bishopric after all, for "all holy men are bishops, though
not 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 of
the public peace, but as on a former occasion he had been allowed to
support and encourage Flora and Maria, so now was he permitted to finish
in prison a book in defence of the martyrs,[1] which had the direct
tendency of inciting others to go and do likewise. The occasion of
Eulogius' second imprisonment was as follows:--Leocritia, a maiden of
Arab extraction and of noble birth,[2] had been secretly baptised by
Liliosa, the wife of Felix. Her parents, learning her apostasy, cruelly
ill-treated, and even beat her, in order to make her renounce Christ.
She naturally turned to Eulogius and his sister Anulo for advice in her
afflictions, expressing a wish to escape to a part of Spain where the
Christian worship was free. As a first step to this, she leaves her
parents under pretence of going to a wedding, and takes refuge with
Eulogius. Her parents, furious at her escape, get all sorts of people
imprisoned on the charge of aiding her; and she is at last betrayed and
surprised at the house of her protector. They are both dragged before
the Kadi, who asks Eulogius angrily why he persists in defying the laws
in this way.[3] The bishop defends himself by pleading that Christian
clergy are bound to impart a knowledge of their religion, if asked, as
he had been by Leocritia.[4] The judge then threatens to have him
scourged, but Eulogius, preferring death to so painful and degrading a
punishment, repeats the lesson which he had taught to so many others,
and reviles Mohammed. Even so the judge shows a disposition to treat him
with leniency, and he is remanded to prison with Leocritia.

When brought up again before the royal Council,[5] an influential friend
makes a last effort to save him, saying: "Fools and idiots rush on their
own destruction, but what induces you, a man of approved wisdom and
blameless character, in defiance of all natural instincts, to throw away
your life in this manner?" He urges Eulogius to say but one word of
concession in the hour of peril, promising that he should afterwards be
free to exercise his religion as he pleased, without let or hindrance.
But the bishop could hardly turn back now, and he rejected all such
offers with the ejaculation, "If they only knew the joy that awaits us
on 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 one
cheek, he turned the other meekly to the striker. He was beheaded on
March 11, 859, and Leocritia four days later. Miraculous appearances
honoured the body of the martyred bishop, which was buried in the Church
of St Genesius, whence it was translated in the next year to his own
church of St Zoilus, and in 883 was given up, together with that of
Leocritia, 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 to
an end, and it will be convenient at this point to consider the whole
question of the relation of the Church to the civil power, and how far
those "confessors," who were put to death under the circumstances
already related, were entitled to the name of martyrs. Unfortunately the
evidence we have on the subject is drawn almost entirely from the
apologists of their doings, and therefore may fairly be suspected of
some bias. Yet even from them can be shown conclusively enough that no
real persecution was raging in Mohammedan Spain at this time, such as to
justify 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 instance
of a Christian being put to death for his religion by the Arabs in
Spain before the middle of the ninth century. The Muzarabes,[1] as the
Christians living under the Arabs were called, enjoyed a remarkable
degree of freedom in the exercise of their religion--the services and
rites of the Church being conducted as heretofore.[2] In Cordova alone
we find mention of the following churches:[3] the Church of St Acislus,
a former martyr of Cordova; of St Zoilus; of the Three
Martyrs--Faustus, Januarius, Martialis; of St Cyprian; of SS. Genesius
and 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 the
principal Christian Church. I found it all strewed with green branches
of myrtle, and planted with cypress trees. The noise of the thundering
bells resounded in my ears; the glare of the innumerable lamps dazzled
my eyes; the priests, decked in rich silken robes of gay and fanciful
colours, and girt with girdle cords, advanced to adore Jesus. Everyone
of those present had banished mirth from his countenance, and expelled
from his mind all agreeable ideas; and if they directed their steps
towards the marble font it was merely to take sips of water with the
hollow of their hands. The priest then rose and stood among them, and
taking the wine cup in his hands prepared to consecrate it: he applied
to the liquor his parched lips, lips as dark as the dusky lips of a
beautiful maid; the fragrancy of its contents captivated his senses, but
when he had tasted the delicious liquor, the sweetness and flavour
seemed to overpower him." On leaving the church, the Arab, with true
Arabian facility, extemporized some verses to the following effect: "By
the Lord of mercy! this mansion of God is pervaded with the smell of
unfermented red liquor, so pleasant to the youth. It was to a girl that
their prayers were addressed, it was for her that they put on their gay
tunics, instead of humiliating themselves before the Almighty." Ahmed
also says: "the priests, wishing us to stay long among them, began to
sing round us with their books in their hands; every wretch presented us
the palm of his withered hand (with the holy water), but they were even
like the bat, whose safety consists in his hatred for light; offering us
every attraction that their drinking of new wine, or their eating of
swine's flesh, could afford." This narrative is in many respects very
characteristic of an Arab writer, who would not feel the incongruity of
an illustration on such a theme drawn from "the lips of a maid," or the
irrelevancy of a reference to swine's flesh. But the account merits
attention on other grounds, for it shews how little even the more
intelligent Moslems understood the ceremonies of the religion which they
had conquered, though they might be pardoned for thinking that the
Christians worshipped the Virgin Mary, both because Mohammed himself
fell into the same error, and because probably the Roman Church and its
adherents had already begun to pay her idolatrous worship.

The chief church in Cordova at the conquest seems to have been the
church of St Vincent. On the taking of the town,[2] the Christians had
to give up half of it to the Arabs, a curious arrangement, but one
enforced elsewhere by the Saracens. In 784 the Christians were induced,
or compelled, to sell their half for 100,000 dinars, and it was pulled
down to make room for the Great Mosque.[3] In 894 we find that the
Cordovans 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 and
churches in the immediate neighbourhood of Cordova: among them the
monastery of St Christopher, the famous one of Tabanos, suppressed as
above mentioned, in 854;[1] those of St Felix at Froniano, of St Martin
at Royana, of the Virgin Mary at Cuteclara, of St Salvator at
Pegnamellar; and the churches of SS. Justus and Pastor, and of St
Sebastian.

We have given the names of these churches and monasteries[2] at or near
Cordova, both to shew how numerous they were, and also because from one
or other of them came nearly all the self-devoted martyrs, of whom we
are about to consider the claims. Except in cases like that
above-mentioned, the Christians were not allowed to build new
churches,[3] but considering the diminution in the numbers of the
Christians owing to the conquest, and the apostasy of a great many, this
could not be reckoned a great hardship. Moreover the Christian churches,
it was ordained, should be open to Moslems as well as Christians, though
during 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, the
cradle of Spanish Christianity, it was shortly after the Cordovan
martyrdoms (in 864) that the mosque, founded in the year of the
conquest, and left unbuilt for 150 years, was finally finished. What we
hear 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 in
Cordova that the main interest at this period centres; and to Cordova we
will for the present confine our attention.

There is abundant evidence to show that the party of enthusiasts, both
those who offered themselves for martyrdom, and those who aided and
abetted their more impulsive brethren, were a comparatively small body
in the Church of Spain; and that their proceedings awakened little short
of dismay in the minds of the more sensible portion of the Christian
community, both in the Arab part of Spain, and perhaps in a less degree
in the free North.[2] The chief leaders of the party of zealots--as far
as we find mention of them--were Saul, bishop of Cordova (850-861),
Eulogius, and Samson, abbot of the monastery of Pegnamellar; while
Reccafredus, bishop of Seville, and Hostegesis of Malaga, were the
prominent 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 the
Moslem authorities to put down the dangerous outbreak of fanaticism, it
will be interesting to note what was the attitude of the different
sections of the Church towards the misguided men who gave themselves up
to death, and their claims to the crown of martyrdom. Those who denied
the validity of these claims, rested their contention on the grounds,
that the so-called martyrs had compassed their own destruction, there
being no persecution at the time; that they had worked no miracles in
proof of their high claims; that they had been slain by men who believed
in the true God; that they had suffered an easy and immediate death; and
that their bodies had corrupted like those of other men.

It was an abuse of words, said the party of moderation, to call these
suicides by the holy name of martyrs, when no violence in high places
had forced them to deny their faith,[1] or interfered with their due
observance of Christianity. It was merely an act of ostentatious
pride--and pride was the root of all evil--to court danger. Such conduct
had never been enjoined by Christ, and was quite alien from the meekness
and humility of His character.[2]

They might have added that such voluntary martyrdoms had been expressly
condemned,

(_a._) By the circular letter of the Church of Smyrna to the other
churches, describing Polycarp's martyrdom, in the terms: "We commend not
those who offer themselves of their own accord, for that is not what the
gospel teacheth us:"[3]

(_b._) By St Cyprian,[4] who, when brought before the consul and
questioned, said "our discipline forbiddeth that any should offer
themselves of their own accord;" and in his last letter he says: "Let
none of you offer himself to the pagans, it is sufficient if he speak
when 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 give
themselves 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, who
was killed on the spot for breaking idols:

(_e._) By Mensurius, bishop of Carthage, who, when consulted on the
question of reducing the immense lists of acknowledged martyrs, gave it
as his opinion that those should be first excluded who had courted
martyrdom.[6] One bishop alone, and he a late one, Benedict XIV. of
Rome,[7] has ventured to approve what the Church has condemned. Nor is
this the only instance in which the Roman Church has set aside the
decisions 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 no
persecution worthy of the name, such as to justify their doings, and
that those doings themselves were contrary to the teaching and spirit of
Christianity. 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, "the
destruction of our churches,[2] the insults heaped upon our clergy, the
monthly tax[3] which we pay, the perils of a hard life, lived on
sufferance, are nothing." These insults and affronts are continually
referred to. "No one," says the same author,[4] "can go out or come in
amongst us in security, no one pass a knot of Moslems in the street
without being treated with contumely. They mock at the marks[5] of our
order. They hoot at us and call us fools and vain. The very children
jeer at us, and even throw stones and potsherds at the priests. The
sound of the church-going bell[6] never fails to evoke from Moslem
hearers the foulest and most blasphemous language. They even deem it a
pollution to touch a Christian's garment." Alvar adds that the Moslems
would fall to cursing when they saw the cross;[7] and when they
witnessed a burial according to Christian rites, would say aloud, "Shew
them no mercy, O God," throwing stones withal at the Lord's people, and
defiling their ears with the filthiest abuse.[8] "Yet," he indignantly
exclaims, "you say that this is not a time of persecution; nor is it, I
answer, 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 intolerable
taxes, 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 the
lower classes of Moslems did not take any pains to conceal their dislike
and scorn of such Christian beliefs and rites as were at variance with
their own creed, and moreover regarded priests and monks with especial
aversion, there can be no doubt. But, on the other hand, there is no
want of evidence to show that the condition of the Christians was by no
means so bad as the apologists would have us suppose. Petty annoyances
could not fail to exist anywhere under such circumstances, as were
actually to be found in Spain at this time, and we may be sure that the
Christian priests in particular did not bear themselves with that
humility which might have ensured a mitigation of the annoyances.
Organised opposition to Christianity, unless the Moslem rule can itself
be called such, there was none, till it was called into being by the
action of the fanatics themselves. But apart from all the other facts
which point to this conclusion, we can call the apologists themselves in
evidence that there was no real persecution going on at the time of the
first martyrdoms.

Eulogius[1] admits that the Christians were not let or hindered in the
free exercise of their religion by saying that this state of things[2]
was not due to the forbearance (forsooth!) of the Moslems, but to the
Divine mercy. Alvar, too, in a passage which seems to contradict the
whole position which he is trying to defend, says[3]:--"Though many were
the victims of persecution, very many others--and you cannot deny
it--offered themselves a voluntary sacrifice to the Lord. Is it not
clear that it was not the Arabs who began persecuting, but we who began
preaching? Read the story of the martyrs, and you will see that they
rushed voluntarily on their fate, not waiting the bidding of
persecutors, nor the snares of informers; aye, and--what is made so
strong a charge against them--that they tired out the forbearance of
their 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 no
martyrs, Eulogius could only declaim against the Scriptures quoted by
his opponents,[1] and refer to the morally blind, who make evil their
good, and take darkness to be their light;[2] while he brought forward a
saying of certain wise men that "those martyrs will hold the first rank
in the heavenly companies who have gone to their death unsummoned."[3]

He also sought to defend the practice of reviling Mohammed by the plea
that exorcism was allowed against the devil, which is sufficiently
ridiculous; but Alvar goes further, and calmly assures us that these
insults and revilings of the prophet were merely a form of preaching[4]
to the poor benighted Moslems, naïvely remarking that the Scriptures
affirm that the Gospel of Christ must be preached to all nations.
Whereas, then, the Moslems had not been preached to, these martyred
saints 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 no
miracles--a serious deficiency in an age when miracles were almost the
test of sanctity. Eulogius[6] could only meet the charge by admitting
the fact, but adding that miracles were frequent in the early ages, in
order to establish Christianity on a firm basis; and that the constancy
of the martyrs was in itself a miracle (which was true, but not to the
point). Had he been content with this, he had done wisely; but he goes
on: "Moreover, miracles are no sign of truth, as even the unbelievers
can work them."[7] Now, by trying to show why these martyrs did not
perform any miracles, he admits by implication that they were deficient
in this particular;[8] and yet in other parts of his work he mentions
miracles performed by these very martyrs, as, for instance, by Isaac,
and by Flora, and Maria.[9] So that the worthy priest is placed in this
dilemma: If miracles are really no sign of truth, why attribute them to
the martyrs, when, as is allowed elsewhere, they were unable to work
them? if, on the other hand, they did perform these miracles, why not
adduce 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 to
death by idolaters, but by men worshipping God and acknowledging a
divine law,[1] and therefore were not true martyrs. Eulogius misses the
true answer, which is obvious enough, and scornfully exclaims:--"As if
they could be said to believe in God, who persecute His Church, and deem
it 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 Eulogius
points out,[3] pain and torture give no additional claim to the martyr's
crown.

Lastly, it was objected that the bodies of these martyrs, as indeed was
to be expected, corrupted, and were even, in some cases, devoured by
dogs. "What matter," says Eulogius,[4] "since their souls are borne away
to 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 that
Eulogius took upon himself to answer, but also the taunts and scoffs of
the Moslems. "Why," said they, "if your God is the true God, does He not
strike terror into the executioners of his saints by some great
prodigy? and why do not the martyrs themselves flash forth into miracles
while the crowd is round them? You rush upon your own destruction, and
yet you work no wonders that might induce us to change our opinion of
your creed, thereby doing your own side no good, and ours no harm."[1]

Yet the constancy of the martyrs affected the Moslems more than they
cared to confess, as we may infer from the taunts levelled at the
Christians, when, in Mohammed's reign, some Christians, from fear of
death, even apostatized. "Whither," they triumphantly asked,[2] "has
that bravery of your martyrs vanished? What has become of the rash
frenzy with which they courted death?" Yet though they affected to
consider the martyrs as fools or madmen, they could not be blind to the
effect that their constancy was likely to produce on those who beheld
their death, and to the reverence with which their relics were regarded
by the Christians. They therefore expressly forbade the bodies of
martyrs to be preserved[3] and worshipped, and did their best to make
this in certain cases impossible by burning the corpses and scattering
the ashes on the river, though sometimes they contented themselves with
throwing 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 secretly
carried off and entombed in churches, where they were looked upon as
the most precious of possessions; and martyrs, who, by the admission of
their 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 the
darkness of the Middle Ages.

We happen to possess a very interesting account of the circumstances
under which the relics of three of these Cordovan martyrs were
transferred from the troubled scene of their passion to the more
peaceful and more superstitious cloisters of France.[1]

It was in 858 that Hilduin, the abbot of the monastery of St Vincent and
the Holy Cross, near Paris, learning that the body of their patron
saint, St Vincent, was at Valencia, sent two monks, Usuard and Odilard,
with the king's[2] permission, to procure the precious relics for their
own monastery. On their way to perform this commission, the monks learnt
that the body was no longer at Valencia. It had been, in fact,
carried[3] by a monk named Andaldus to Saragoza. Senior, the bishop of
that city, had seized it, and it was still held in veneration there, but
under the name of St Marinus, whose body the monk had stoutly asserted
it to be. Senior apparently doubted the statement, and tortured Andaldus
to get the truth out of him, but in vain; for the monk, knowing that St
Vincent had been deacon of Saragoza, feared that the bishop would never
surrender the body if aware of its identity. However, Usuard and Odilard
knew 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 at
Barcelona, thinking to pick up some other relics, when a friend, holding
a high position in that town, Sunifridus by name, mentioned the
persecution at Cordova, news of which does not seem to have travelled
beyond Spain. They determine at once to go to Cordova, relying on a
friend there, named Leovigild, to help them to obtain what they wished.
Travelling in Spain, however, seems to have been by no means safe[1] at
this period, and their bold resolution is regarded with fear and
admiration by their friends. The lord of the Gothic marches, Hunifrid,
being on friendly terms with the Wali of Saragoza, writes to him on
their behalf, and he entrusts them to the care of a caravan which
chanced 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 arrival
brings Leovigild (called Abad Salomes), who proves a very useful friend,
and Samson, who just at this juncture is made abbot of the monastery at
Pegnamellar, where the bodies of George, Aurelius, and Sabigotha were
buried--the very relics which they had decided to try and obtain.

The monks of the monastery naturally object to parting with such
precious possessions, but Samson contrives to get the bishop's
permission to give up the bodies.

This was all the more opportune, as a chance was now given them of
returning to Barcelona, by joining the expedition which Mohammed I. was
on the point of making against Toledo. Orders had been given that all
the inhabitants, strangers as well as citizens, except the city guard,
should go out with the King. However, the Frankish monks were met by an
unexpected difficulty. In the temporary absence of the abbot, the monks
of Pegnamellar refused to give up the relics, and it was only with much
difficulty that the bishop Saul was induced to confirm his former
permission to remove them.

The bodies were now exhumed without the knowledge of the Moslems, and
sealed with Charles' own seal, brought for that purpose. George's body
was found whole, but of the other two, only the head of Nathalia, and
the trunk of Aurelius' body. The two latter are united to form one
corpse, as it is written, "they two shall be one flesh." After a stay in
Cordova of eight weeks, they set out under the protection of some
Christians serving in the army. Leovigild, who had been away on the
King's business, now returns, and escorts them to Toledo. The approach
of the army having cleared away the brigands who infested those parts,
the monks with their precious freight got safely away to Saragoza, and
returned with their booty to France, where the relics worked numbers of
astonishing miracles.

Let us return from this digression to the steps taken by the moderate
party among the Christians, and by the Moslem authorities, to put an end
to what seemed so dangerous an agitation. That Reccafredus was not the
only ecclesiastic of high position who took exception to the new
movement we learn clearly enough from Alvar,[1] who tells us that
"bishops, priests, deacons, and 'wise men' of Cordova joined in
inveighing against the new martyrdoms, under the impulse of fear
wellnigh denying the faith of Christ, if not in words, yet by their
acts." We may, therefore, conclude that the greater part of the
ecclesiastical authorities were heart and soul with the Bishop of
Seville, while the party led by Eulogius and Saul was a comparatively
small one. However, strong measures were necessary, and Reccafredus did
not hesitate to imprison several priests and clergy.[2] Eulogius
complains that the churches were deprived of their ministers, and the
customary church rites were in abeyance, "while the spider wove her web
in the deserted aisles, tenanted only by a dreadful silence." In this
passage the writer doubtless gives reins to his imagination, yet there
must have been a certain amount of truth in the main assertion, for he
repeats it again and again.[3]

The evidence of Alvar is to the same effect: "Have not those who seemed
to be columns of the church, the very rocks on which it is founded, who
were deemed the elect of God, have they not, I say, in the presence of
these Cynics, or rather of these Epicureans, under no compulsion, but of
their own free will, spoken evil of the martyrs of God? Have not the
shepherds of Christ, the teachers of the Church, bishops, abbots,
priests, the chiefs of our hierarchy, and its mighty men, publicly
denounced 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 forced
them to swear that they would not snatch at the martyr's palm by
speaking evil of the Prophet.[1] Those who disobeyed were threatened
with unheard-of penalties, with loss of limbs, and merciless
scourgings.[2] This last statement must be taken with reservation, at
least if put into the mouth of the Christian party under Reccafredus.
It is extremely unlikely that Christian bishops and priests should have
had recourse to such treatment of their coreligionists: yet they had a
spiritual weapon ready to their hands, and they were not slow to use it.
They anathematised[3] those who aided and abetted the zealots; and
Eulogius himself seems to have narrowly escaped their sentence of
excommunication.[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 at
the instigation of the Moslem authorities, yet in close concert with
them. Eulogius[1] attributes all the evils which had befallen the
Church, such as the imprisonment of bishops, priests, abbots, and
deacons, to the wrath of the King; and Alvar distinctly states that the
King was urged, even bribed, to take measures against the Christians.[2]
It is not likely that the King required much persuading. Mohammed at
least seems to have been thoroughly frightened by the continued
agitation against Mohammedanism. He naturally suspected some political
plot at the bottom of it; a supposition which receives some countenance
from the various references in Eulogius[3] to the martyrs as "Soldiers
of God" bound to war against His Moslem enemies; and from the undoubted
fact that the Christians of Toledo did rise in favour of their
coreligionists at Cordova.[4] However that may be, the King in 852
certainly took counsel[5] with his ministers, how the agitation should
be met, and he seems to have assembled a sort of grand council[6] of
the Church, when the same question was discussed. Stronger measures were
in consequence taken, and a more rigorous imprisonment resorted to. But
Mohammed went farther than this. He deprived of their posts all
Christians, who held offices in the palace,[7] or in connection with the
Court, and withdrew from the Christian "cadet corps,"[8] the royal
bounty usually extended to them. He ordered the destruction of all
churches built since the conquest, and of all later additions to those
previously existing. He made a severe enactment against those who
reviled Mohammed.[9] He even had in mind to banish all Christians from
his dominions.[10] This intention, together with the order respecting
the churches, was not carried out, owing probably to the opportune
revolt 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 the
intervention of the martyrs should bring disaster on the Church in
Spain, just as the intervention of Moses in Egypt did much at first to
aggravate the hardships of the Israelites.[1] He ought not, therefore,
to have been surprised, when such a result actually did follow; nor
ought he to complain that now the Moslems would only let the Christians
observe their religion in such a way as they chose to dictate; and that
the Christians were subjected to all sorts of taxes and exactions.[2]

These combined measures of repression, taken by the King and the Bishop
of Seville, soon produced their effect. The extreme party were broken
up, some escaping to quieter regions, others hiding, and only venturing
abroad in disguise and at night--not, as Eulogius is careful to add,
from fear of death, but because the high prize of martyrdom is not
reserved 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 the
proceedings of the martyrs, now called them indiscreet, and blamed them
for indulging in a selfish desire to desert the suffering Church for an
early mansion in the skies.[2] Others, in order to retain posts under
Government, 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 by
one of the royal secretaries, Gomez, son of Antonian, son of Julian,[4]
as the ringleader of the new seditious movement. This man was a very
worldly-minded Christian,[5] and was, no doubt, at this time, in fear of
losing his lucrative office at Court, which he had obtained by his
remarkable knowledge of Arabic. He did, in fact, lose his post with all
the other Christian officers of the Court, but regained it by becoming a
Moslem;[6] and such was the ardour of the new proselyte that he was
called "the dove of the mosque."[7]

The result of this council was, as we have seen, hostile to the party of
which Eulogius and Saul were the chiefs, but the former writer,
mentioning the actual decree that was passed, pretends that it was
merely a blind to deceive the king, and spoken figuratively; and he
acknowledges that such hypocrisy was unworthy of the prelates and
officers assembled.[8] Is it not more reasonable to suppose that
Eulogius and his supporters voted for it--as they seem to have
done--with a mental reservation, while their opponents honestly
considered 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 dubious
martyrdoms which had for some years become so common, though the spirit,
which prompted the self-deluded victims, was by no means stifled either
in Spain or the adjoining countries.[1] Yet the measures taken to put
down the mania for death succeeded in preventing any fresh outbreak for
some time.

Under the weak government of Abdallah (888-912) the Christians,
determining to lose their lives to better purpose than at the hands of
the executioner, rose in revolt, as will be related hereafter, in
several parts of Spain. After the battle of Aguilar, or Polei, in 891,
between the Arab and Spanish factions, 1000 of the defeated Christians
were given the choice of Islam or death, and all, save one, chose the
latter alternative.[2]

During the long reign of Abdurrahman III. (912-961) there were a few
isolated cases of martyrdom, which may as well be mentioned now. After
the great battle in the Vale of Rushes,[3] where Abdurrahman defeated
the kings of Navarre and Leon, one of the two fighting bishops, who were
taken prisoners on that occasion, gave, as a hostage for his own
release, a youth of fourteen, named Pelagius. The king, it is said,
smitten with his beauty, wished to work his abominable will upon the
boy, but his advances being rejected with disdain, the unhappy youth was
put to death with great barbarity, refusing to save his life by
apostasy.[4] A different version of the story is given by a Saxon nun of
Gaudersheim, named Hroswitha, who wrote a poem on the subject fifty
years later. She tells us that the king tried to kiss Pelagius, who
thereupon struck him in the face, and was in consequence put to death by
decapitation (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 in
Spain of a Christian seeking martyrdom. She was the daughter of the
great rebel Omar ibn Hafsun,[1] and his wife Columba, and was born at
that chieftain's stronghold of Bobastro. Upon her mother's death Omar
wished her to take up her mother's duties in the palace, for Omar had
become a sort of king on his own domain. She declined, asking only for a
quiet retreat, where she might prepare her soul for martyrdom; and she
wrote to a devout Christian, whose wishes inclined him in the same
direction, suggesting that they should seek the crown of martyrdom
together.[2] On the destruction of Bobastro by Abdurrahman in 928, she
went to Cordova.[3] She there met with a Gaul named Vulfura, who had
been warned in a dream that in that city he should find a virgin, with
whom he was to suffer martyrdom. However, his object becoming known,
Vulfura is cast into prison by the governor of the city. Argentea goes
to visit him there, and is stopped by the guards, who, finding she is a
Christian, take her before the judge as a renegade, and she is
imprisoned with Vulfura. The alternative of Islam instead of death being
refused, they are both executed, but Argentea, as being an "insolens
rebellis," 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 being
massacred by the Berbers in Abdurrahman's army; and in some sense they
can 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 thirty
years later, the last martyrs of whom we have any record under the Arab
rule. Dominicus Sarracinus, son of John, and his companions taken
prisoners at the capture of Simancas, were kept for two years and a-half
in prison.[2] They were then brought out and put to death, just when
Ramiro III., or his successor, had sent to ransom them.[3]

There is no evidence whatever to show that there was a persecution of
the Christians under the great Abdurrahman, and the statements of those
writers who intimate the contrary may be set aside as unsupported by
evidence.[4]

We will now turn back and take a general view of the Christian Church
and its condition under the Arabs in Spain, especially--for our
information is greatest as to those periods--under the two kings
Abdurrahman II. and III.

Under the former of these sovereigns the condition of the Christians,
until the persecution, which they themselves provoked, began, was very
tolerable, and the majority of the Christians were quite content with
their lot. They served in the army, both free men and slaves; they held
lucrative posts at Court, or in the houses of the Arab nobles, or as
government officials. But though the lay community was well off, the
clergy and stricter churchmen had something to complain of; for the
Church[5] could not be said to be free, though the worship was, since
the 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 not
unknown, of atheists and heretics holding the titles, and drawing the
emoluments, 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 throughout
the country, and even before the ninth century the Scriptures were
translated into the tongue of the conquerors [1] by Odoarius, Bishop of
Accita, and John of Seville. Hischem I. (788-796) forbade the use of any
language but Arabic, so that his Christian subjects had to use Arabic
Gospels;[2] and the Spaniards were soon not even permitted to write in
Latin.[3] Even if this statement be doubtful, we know that Latin came
gradually to be neglected and forgotten. Alvar utters an eloquent
protest against this: "Alas, the Christians are ignorant of their own
tongue, and Latins neglect their language, so that in all the College of
Christ[4] there is scarcely to be found one who can write an address of
welcome to his brother intelligibly in Latin, while numbers can be found
competent to mouth the flowery rhetoric of the Chaldeans."[5] In the
department of poetry--the peculiar boast of the Arabs--the Christians
seem even to have surpassed their masters; and to the rivalry of the two
nations in this art we may attribute the excellence and abundance of
native 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; but
it is doubtful whether his efforts had much result. We can see from the
remains of the Spanish writers which we possess that the structure of
that 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 of
Malaga, of not being able to write Latin; and similarly Jonas of Orleans
(839) accusing Claudius, Bishop of Turin, who was himself a Spaniard, of
the same defect.

The neglect of Latin was accompanied by an increasing indifference to
the doctrinal basis of Christianity, educated Christians being led to
devote their time, which might have been more profitably spent on their
own Scriptures, to becoming acquainted with the Mohammedan religion, and
even to unravelling the intricacies of the controversial theology which
had grown up round, and overlaid, the original simplicity of the
Koran.[2] The great Fathers of the Church were laid aside unread, and
even the Prophets and Apostles, and the Gospel itself, found few to
study them. While the higher classes were indifferent to religion, the
lower were sunk in poverty[3] and ignorance.[4] The inevitable result of
this indifference, ignorance, and poverty, was a visible deterioration
in the character of Spanish Christianity, of which there are only too
many 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 of
Malaga, of simony, asserting that he sold the priesthood to low and
unworthy people;[1] while Alvar charges Saul, Bishop of Cordova, with
obtaining his bishopric by bribery.[2] Other irregularities imputed to
Hostegesis were that he held his see from his twentieth year, contrary
to the canons of the church, and that he beat priests, in order to
extort money from them, till they died under his hands.

Besides the election to the priesthood, by unworthy means, of unworthy
men, whose ignorance and impudence the congregation had to endure in
silence,[3] many were informally ordained without vouchers for character
being given, or the assent of their fellow-clergy and flocks being
obtained.[4] Many churches presented the unseemly spectacle of two rival
pastors, contrary to the ordinances received from the Fathers.[5]

Changes, too, were made in doctrine and ritual, for which no authority
could be alleged, in contravention of established custom and the
teaching of the Church. So far was this carried that Samson was accused
by his opponents of being a heretic and an idolator because he permitted
the marriage of cousins; dissented from the view that God was ever
enclosed in the chambers of the Virgin's heart;[6] asserted the
omnipresence 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 exalted
throne above his creatures. From this it is clear that Hostegesis and
those who thought with him[8] were infected with the anthropomorphite
heresy.

    [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 their
depravity was notorious. Hostegesis did not blush to spend the produce
of the church tithes and offerings, which he had with difficulty
extorted from his flock,[1] in bribing the court officials and the
king's sons, giving them feasts at which open and flagrant vice was
indulged in.[2] The clergy were not above pretending illness in order to
avoid paying the monthly tax to their Moslem rulers.[3] Some, even in
the highest positions in the Church, denied their Saviour and
apostatized to the Moslems; one of these renegades being Samuel, Bishop
of Elvira, the uncle of Hostegesis' mother, who, with a pervert's zeal,
persecuted the Church he had deserted, imprisoning the clergy, taxing
his former flock, and even forcing some to embrace Islam.[4]

It is not surprising, therefore, that bishops and clergy were sometimes
deposed. Samson, indeed, underwent this disgrace at the hands of a
hostile faction under Hostegesis, on the ground of his pretended heresy;
and, similarly, Valentius,[5] Bishop of Cordova, was deprived of his see
because he was a supporter of Samson. But these instances reflect more
discredit on the deposers than on their victims. Instances of deposition
are not wanting, in the free states the North. Sisenandus, seventh
Bishop of Compostella (940), was deposed by King Sancho for dissolute
living, and malversation of Church moneys.[6] On the king's death he
recovered his see, driving out his successor. Pelayo, another bishop of
Compostella, 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 when
Alfonso took Toledo in 1085, his wife, Constance of Burgundy, and her
spiritual adviser, a monk named Bernard, were horrified at the laxity in
morals and doctrine of the Muzarabic Christians. Their addiction to
poetry and natural science was regarded with suspicious aversion, and
the pork-eating, circumcision, and, not least, the cleanly habits,[1]
contracted from an intercourse with Moslems, were looked upon as so many
marks of the beast. In 1209 the Crusaders, who had swarmed to the wars
in Spain, even wished to turn their pious arms against these poor
Muzarabes, so scandalised were they at the un-Romish rites. Yet we are
told that Alfonso the Great, when building and restoring churches in the
territory newly wrested from the Moors, set up again the ordinances of
the Goths, as formerly observed at Toledo.[2]

The free church in the North had itself been in great danger of
extinction, when the armies of the great Almanzer (977-1002) swept
yearly through the Christian kingdoms like some devastating tempest.[3]
Fifty-two victorious campaigns did that irresistible warrior lead
against the infidels.[4] Barcelona, Pampluna, and Leon fell before his
arms, and the sacred city of Compostella was sacked, and for a time left
desolate, the bells of St James' shrine being carried off to Cordova to
serve as lamps in the grand mosque. We are not, therefore, surprised to
find 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 named
Sabaricus, being driven from his own see by the Arabs, was given that of
Mindumetum by Alfonso III. in 867,[5] and twenty years later a bishop
named Sebastian received the see of Auria in the same way.[6]

It is natural enough that the Moslems and the clergy of the Christian
Church should be hostile to one another, but it is surprising to
find--as we do find in some cases--the latter making common cause with
the Arabs in ill-treating their fellow-countrymen and coreligionists.
Thus, as we have seen, Hostegesis, relying on the support of the secular
arm,[7] beat and imprisoned the clergy for withholding from him the
Church tithes, dragging them through the city naked, with a crier crying
before them:--"Such is the punishment of those who will not pay their
tithes to their bishop."[8] Bishops were even found to make episcopal
visitations, getting the names of all their flock, as if with the
intention of praying for them individually, and then to hand in their
names to the civil power for the purpose of taxation.[9] Others obtained
from the Arabs the privilege of farming the revenues derived from
Christian 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 not
instigated, by Servandus, the Christian Count of Cordova. He was the son
of a serf of the Church,[1] and married a cousin of Hostegesis.[2]
Instead of championing the cause of the Christians, as his position
should have impelled him to do, he went so far in the opposite direction
as to call them up before him, and try to shake their attachment to
Christianity--a religion, nominally at least, his own also. Those who
held firm he forced to pay increased taxes, and even levied blackmail on
the churches. He did not scruple to drag forth the bodies of martyrs
from under the altars of churches, and, showing them to the king, to
remind him that it had been forbidden to Christians to bury their
martyrs.[3]

Following up the hostile measures instituted by Hostegesis against
Samson and Valentius, he proceeded to accuse them of inciting the
fanatics to revile Mohammed, urging that they should be tested with this
dilemma. They should be asked whether what the revilers said were true
or not. "If they answer, 'true,' let them be punished as well as the
reviler; if 'false,' bid them slay the man themselves; refusing which,
you will know that they have aided and abetted him to abuse your
Prophet. In that case, give me permission, and I will slay the three
myself."[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, and
national, Councils held in Spain under the Arabs, and it will be worth
while to enumerate all the instances which are recorded, that we may
contrast them with those held under the Goths. It was one of the most
characteristic features of the Old Church in Spain that it was united
so closely with the civil power as almost to render the Government of
Spain a theocracy. This intimate connection of Church and State was
naturally overthrown by the Arab conquest; but the Moslem rulers, seeing
how useful such institutions as general councils were likely to be in
adjusting the relations between Mussulmans and Christians, both allowed
purely ecclesiastical councils to be called under their jurisdiction,
and also summoned others in which they took part themselves, together
with Jews, to the great scandal of the stricter Christians.[1]

To the purely ecclesiastical kind belong a council held at Seville by
Elipandus[2] to condemn the errors of Migetius; and another, held by
Cixila at Toledo in 776, against the errors of Egila, bishop of
Elvira.[3] Whether Egila abjured his error is not known, but it is
certain that he remained bishop.

Elipandus is also said, but on very doubtful authority, to have held a
council, 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 partly
political, seem to have been commoner, and we have already seen how
Reccafredus, Bishop of Seville, in conjunction with the Moslem
authorities, held such a council, in order to coerce the fanatical party
among the Christians; and we have a more particular account of another,
which was held by Hostegesis, Bishop of Malaga, and Servandus, Count of
Cordova.[1] This council seems to have had some connection with the
preceding one under Reccafredus, for Servandus was a strong and
unscrupulous opponent of the party led by Eulogius, while Samson was
their devoted supporter, though he did not carry his opinions so far as
to suffer martyrdom in his own person. Samson was now accused of
heresy[2] and sacrilege, as has been already mentioned. Hostegesis
forced his views on the assembled bishops by the help of the secular
arm, and a sentence of anathema and deposition was accordingly
pronounced against the unfortunate Abbot.[3] One of the apparently
consenting bishops was Valentius, Bishop of Cordova, but his judgement
had evidently been coerced, for after the close of the council he
sounded the other consenting bishops, and some who had not attended, as
to their opinions, and found that most of them were ready to affirm
Samson's orthodoxy, and a memorial was drawn up to that effect This
action of Valentius' brought upon him also a sentence of deposition, and
he was succeeded by Stephanus Flaccus,[4]--the election of the latter
being quite informal, as no metropolitan assisted thereat,[5] and
neither the clergy nor laymen of his diocese made a petition in his
favour.

    [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 at
the church of St Acislus; Flaccus, and some of those who had sided with
Valentius, but were now terrified into submission, being in attendance;
while the places of those who refused to come were taken by Jews and
Moslems.[1] These high-handed proceedings nearly led to an open rupture
in 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 Khalifs
of 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 as
the Solomon of the Spanish Sultans. Succeeding to the throne when quite
a youth, to the exclusion of his uncles, the sons of the late Sultan, he
found the country torn by innumerable factions, and the king's power
openly defied by rebels, Arab, Berber, and Christian. In person, and
through his generals, he put down all these rebels, and though not
uniformly successful against the Christians in the North, yet he
defeated them in a series of great engagements.[1] He welded all the
discordant elements under his rule into one great whole,[2] thereby
giving the Arab domination in Spain another lease of life. In 929 he
took the title of Amir al Mumenin, or Commander of the Faithful. His
alliance was sought by the Emperor of the East,[3] and he treated on
equal terms with the Emperor of Germany and the King of France. To this
great king, with more truth than to his namesake Abdurrahman II., may be
applied the words of Miss Yonge:--[4]

"He was of that type of Eastern monarch, that seems moulded on the
character of Solomon--large-hearted, wise, magnificent, tolerant, and
peaceful. He was as great a contrast to the stern, ascetic,
narrow-minded, but earnest Alfonso or Ramiro, as were the exquisite
horse-shoe arches, filagree stonework lattices, inlaid jewellery of
marble pavements, and slender minarets, to their dark vault-like,
low-browed churches, and solid castles built out of hard unmanageable
granite."

    [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 in
Mohammed, even though Omar, the arch rebel, and Christian renegade,
still held out at Bobastro, when he ascended the throne; and his
treatment of Christians was, throughout his reign, tolerant and politic.

But his claims in this respect will be best seen from a very interesting
fragment that has come down to our own times, describing the embassy of
a certain John of Gorz, a monk from an abbey near Metz, who carried
letters from Otho, emperor of Germany, to the Spanish Sultan.[1]

In 950 Abdurrahman had sent an embassy to the emperor. A bishop who had
been at the head of this embassy died, and this seems to have caused a
delay in the answer. As the Khalif's letter contained blasphemies
against 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. A
certain bishop, Adalbero, was appointed to be at the head of the return
embassy,[2] and he asks the abbot of the monastery of Gorz to give him
two assistants. Two are chosen, but one of these quarrels with his
superior, and is expelled from the body; whereupon John offers himself
as a substitute. The abbot only gives his consent to John's going with
great reluctance, knowing that the young monk had an ardent longing to
be 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 reached
the frontier town, Tortosa, and at last got to Cordova, where they were
assigned a house two miles from the palace, and, though well
entertained, were informed, to their dismay, that, as the Moorish
ambassadors had been made to wait three years for an answer, Otho's
messengers would have to wait nine years. Moreover, they now discovered
that the king had been already apprised of the contents of the letter,
which Otho had sent, by a comrade of the late ambassador-bishop, whom
John and his companions had taken with them to Barcelona.

The king employs Hasdai, a Jew, as his go-between; who warns them not to
divulge the contents of the letter, as it would make them liable to
punishment; for the letter contained what Moslems would consider
blasphemy against their Prophet. Soon after this John, the Bishop of
Cordova, is sent to them to suggest that they should carry their gifts
to the king, and say nothing of the letter. But John of Gorz stoutly
refused to do this, saying that the delivery of the letter was his chief
duty, and that as Abdurrahman had begun by reviling Christ, he must not
be surprised at Otho's retaliating against Mohammed. However, John of
Cordova begs him to remember the position in which the Christians stood,
viz., under Pagan rule. "We are forbidden," he said, "by the apostle to
resist the powers that be. In our calamity, we have this one
consolation, we are allowed to observe our own laws and rites, and our
rulers, 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 other
things." The bishop was anxious, therefore, that the letter should be
suppressed, as calculated to do harm to the Christian community, and no
good to Otho. His advice, however, fell on deaf ears. The monk of Gorz
was resolved on doing what he deemed his plain duty; nor was he content
to forego his chance of martyrdom, though his action might entail
disastrous consequences on the Christians subject to the Moors. He
taunted the bishop with giving his advice from a fear of man. "Better
die of hunger than eat the salt of unbelievers;" and expressed horror at
the fact that the bishop was circumcised, and also abstained from
certain meats in deference to Moslem scruples. It was in vain that the
bishop pointed out that otherwise they could not live with the Saracens.

John of Gorz now expressed his intention of delivering the letter
forthwith; but the king denied the ambassadors an audience, leaving them
to themselves for six or seven weeks. Early in 955, however, the king
sent to them, and asked if they held firm to their previous resolve, and
on receiving an answer in the affirmative, he threatened all the
Christians in his dominions with loss of privileges and even death. John
of Gorz merely answers that the guilt would be on the king's head; but
the latter is persuaded to milder counsels by his advisers, who remind
him of Otho's power, and the certainty that he would interfere in favour
of his ambassadors.

John of Gorz now proposes the only practicable course, that Abdurrahman
should send a fresh embassy to Otho and ask for instructions for his
ambassadors under the circumstances. Recemundus,[1] a Christian, offers
to go as ambassador, if a vacant bishopric be given him as a reward. He
sets out and reaches Gorz in February 956. Otho gives him a fresh
letter, with instructions to suppress the former one, to conclude an
alliance with the Sultan, and make an arrangement with him for putting
down 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 reached
Cordova on June 1st, but the Sultan declined to receive the second
comers till he had received the earlier embassy. So, after three years
semi-captivity, John is released, and told to prepare himself for the
king's presence by shaving, washing, and putting on new apparel. He
declines 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 monk
accepts the gift and distributes it to the poor, but says he will only
see the king as a poor monk. The king good-naturedly said: "Let him come
as he likes." On June 21, 956, the ambassadors were conducted to the
king's presence along a road thronged with sight-seers. The steps of the
palace were laid down with tapestry, and a guard of honour lined both
sides of the approach. On John's entrance, the king, as a great mark of
distinction, gave him his open palm to kiss, and beckoned him to a seat
near his own couch. After a silence Abdurrahman apologised to the monk
for 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, whose
virtue and wisdom he could not but acknowledge. As a proof that this was
no mere empty compliment, the king expressed his readiness to give him
whatever he asked. John's wrath vanishes at these gracious words, and
they talk amicably together. But when the monk asks leave to depart
Abdurrahman says:--"After waiting so long to see one another, shall we
part so soon?" He suggests that they should have at least three
interviews. At their next meeting they discourse on the respective power
of the empires of Otho and the Khalif himself; and the Sultan, taught by
the experience of Spain, points out the unwisdom of allowing feudal
subjects to become too powerful, by dividing kingdoms between them.

So ends this unique and interesting fragment, which throws so pleasant a
light on the character and the Court of the greatest of Spanish Sultans,
and proves that the Christians at that time enjoyed considerable
freedom, and even honour, at the hands of the Moslem Government.

The reason why the king was unwilling to receive the first letter
brought by John was not so much because he was reluctant to read words
against Mohammed, as because he would by so doing render himself liable
to the penalty of death, which was ordained by law to any Moslem--king
or slave--who listened to abuse of the Prophet without exacting summary
vengeance from the blasphemer. But--and here was the king's dilemma--he
could not punish the ambassadors without incurring the enmity of Otho.
The only possible alternative was that suggested by John, that Otho
should be asked to withdraw the objectionable letter, without the Sultan
having officially read it, and this Abdurrahman adopted. The moderation
of the king is conspicuous throughout, for we must regard the threat
against the Christians as merely a threat, never really intended to be
put into execution.

In showing tolerance towards their Christian subjects, the Spanish
khalifs might be thought to have forgotten the traditions of Islam; but,
as a matter of fact, Mohammed seems to have been very inconsistent in
his views with regard to Christians and Jews at different times of his
career, and while he enjoined the necessity of Holy Wars,[1] he
permitted the people of the book to be admitted to tribute.[2] In one
passage he even seems to allow the possibility of salvation to Jews,
Christians, and Sabians: "Verily they who believe, and those who
Judaize, and the Sabians, and the Christians--whoever of these believeth
in God and the last day, and doeth that which is right--there shall come
no fear on them, neither shall they be grieved."[3] And there is one
remarkable text to find in the mouth of Mohammed, "Let there be no
violence in religion." [4]

Moreover, some of the best Mohammedan rulers that have ever lived upheld
the 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's
consciences, and I will never interfere with what belongs to the
tribunal of the great Creator and Lord of the Universe."[5] Again,
Akbar, one of the greatest kings that ever lived, followed in practice
the principle thus expressed by his minister, Abul Fazl: "Persecution
after all defeats its own ends; it obliges men to conceal their
opinions, but produces no change in them."[6] Noble sentiments surely,
and such as we should expect from followers of Christ rather than of
Mohammed!

    [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 conspicuous
for intolerance rather than tolerance. Alcuin, indeed, does say in his
letter to Aquila, Bishop of Winchester, that he does not approve of
punishing 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 the
wicked turn from his way and live;"[1] but Alcuin was a man of unusual
mildness and sweet reasonableness, as his letters to Felix and Elipandus
testify. On the other hand, there were too many frantic bigots in the
Church, like Arnold of Citeaux, whose impious words, in connection with
the 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 the
Mohammedan in this respect, that their toleration was made a principal
argument against the Moors by the Archbishop of Valencia in his memorial
to Philip III. at the end of the sixteenth century.[2]

A very melancholy instance of bigotry and intolerance is afforded by
Bernard, a French monk, who was made Archbishop of Toledo by Alfonso, on
the capture of that city in 1085. By the treaty of capitulation certain
mosques had been expressly reserved to the Moslems, just in the same way
as 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 defiance
of the king's plighted word, chose to perform mass in the chief mosque.
Alfonso was furiously angry when he heard of his archbishop's
proceedings, but the Moslems, with wonderful forbearance, seeing that
the king had not authorised Bernard's outrageous conduct, came forward
of their own accord and begged him to pardon the act, and even
voluntarily surrendered their mosque.[3]

Not only were the Christians allowed to practise their religion, but
even, as we have seen above, encouraged in it.[4] Almanzor, the champion
of Islam, allowed his Christian servants to rest on Sundays. Christians
in every reign held high posts at court[5] and throughout the land, and
not only timeserving Christians but men like Samson and Leovigild, who
were known to sympathise with the party of zealots, were employed by the
king 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 office
of Kitabatu-dh-dhimam, which, being interpreted, is "the office of
protection." The Christians and Jews were under his general
jurisdiction, and were called "the people of the protection."[1] But
besides this Arab "Secretary of State for the Christians," the latter
had their own counts--a relic of the Gothic system--who, however, did
not always stand up for their interests.[2] There were also Christian
censors,[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, and
numbers of Sclavonian Christians served in the king's bodyguard, of whom
under 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 two
peoples, so unlike in race, habits, prejudices, and religion, lived so
comparatively quietly side by side in spite of a perpetual state of
warfare between the Arabs and the Christians in the North, which tended
to keep alive the animosities of the two races in that part of Spain
which was under Mohammedan rule.[1] Moreover, the pride of race was very
strong in the pure-blooded Arabs. Thus the poet Said ibn Djoud, in a
poem called the "battle of the town" (Polei), boasts that the conquerors
are of the pure race of Adnan and Kahtan, without any foreign admixture;
while he calls the defeated Spaniards miscreants, followers of a false
faith,[2] sons of the pale-faces. The haughty Arabs, in fact, were too
prone to look upon all the Spaniards, both renegades and Christians, as
mere canaille.[3]

But, in spite of this, the races to a certain extent amalgamated; and
Eulogius endeavours to prove that, but for the outbreak of fanaticism in
the middle of the ninth century, this amalgamation would have had
serious results for Christianity in Spain.[4]

The Arabs did not disdain to seek the alliance of the free Christian
States, nor were the latter averse from doing the same, when political
occasion demanded it. As early as 798 the Walis of the frontier cities
sought to make themselves independent by what the Arab writer describes
as "vile policy and unworthy acts," _i.e._, by seeking the friendship of
the Christian kings;[5] and there are many instances of these kings
asking 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, intermarriages
were common between the two races. The example was early set by the
widow of Roderic, the last Gothic king, marrying Abdulaziz, son of Musa.
The sons of Witiza also married Arab women, and Sarah, the daughter of
one of these princes, was the progenetrix of a noble family of Arabs,
one of her descendants being the historian, Ibn al Kuttiya, which means
son of the Gothic princess.[1] Abdurrahman Anassir, the greatest of all
the Spanish Sultans, was the son of a Christian slave, named Maria,[2]
and the mighty Almanzor had for grandmother the daughter of a renegade
Christian.[3] These are some instances, but it is not necessary to dwell
on what was so common an occurrence as intermarriage between the
peoples, and is forbidden neither by the Koran,[4] nor by the Bible.

However, there is one point in this connection which deserves a more
particular notice. The intermingling of the races has been supposed to
have been facilitated in part by the yearly tribute of 100 maidens paid
by the northern kings to the earlier Arab Sultans. Modern historians
mostly throw doubt upon the story, saying that of the early historians
none mention it, and that the Arabs do not even allude to it.[5] But if
Conde is to be trusted, an Arab writer does speak of it, as of a thing
well known. In a letter of Omar[6] ibn Alaftas Almudafar, King of
Algarve, to Alfonso VI., in 1086, occur the words:--"Do thou remember
the time of Mohammed Almanzor, and bring to thy mind those treaties
wherein thy forefathers offered him the homage even of their own
daughters, and sent him those damsels in tribute even to the land of our
rule."

    [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 ancient
ballads by the Christian Spaniards. The following are
two 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 was
on this subject. The evidence, then, of the ballads is strong for a fact
of this kind, telling, too, as it does, so much against the writers of
the ballads.[2]

As to the Christian chroniclers, it is quite true that we find no
mention of this tribute in the history of Sebastian of Salamanca and the
Chronicle of Albeldum, but there is a direct allusion to it in a
document included in the collection of Florez.[3] "Our ancestors," says
Ramiro, "the kings of the land--we blush to record it--to free
themselves from the raids of the Saracens, consented to pay them yearly
a shameful tribute of a hundred maidens distinguished for their beauty,
fifty of noble birth, and fifty from the people." It was to put an end
to this nefarious tribute that Ramiro now ordered a levy _en masse_.
This, if the document is genuine (and Florez gives no hint to the
contrary), is good evidence for the fact. Many succeeding writers
mention it. Lucas of Tuy[4] says that Ramiro was asked for the tribute
in 842. Johannes Vasaeus[5] speaks of it, as also Alfonso, Bishop of
Burgos;[6] and lastly, Rodrigo of Toledo[7] says that Mauregatus
(783-788), having obtained the throne of Leon by Saracen help, agreed to
send this tribute yearly.

On the whole, then, the evidence is in favour of the maiden tribute
being no myth, but of its having been regularly paid for more than fifty
years. Most of these Christian maidens probably embraced the religion of
their husbands, but in some cases they no doubt converted them to their
own faith.

From different causes, some of which will be mentioned elsewhere,
conversions were frequent from one religion to the other. Motives of
worldly interest naturally caused the balance in these to fall very much
against the Christians, but as the Mohammedan power declined the
opposite was the case. Though voluntary apostasy was, and is,
unpardonable, Mohammed seems to have made allowances for those who
apostatized under compulsion; for when one of his followers, Ammar ibn
Yaser, being tortured by the Koreish, renounced his belief in God and in
Mohammed's mission, but afterwards came weeping to the Prophet, Mohammed
received him kindly, and, wiping his eyes, said: "What fault was it of
thine, 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 at
first we can sufficiently gather from the fact that the new converts
formed a large and important party in the State, and almost succeeded in
wresting the government of Spain from the Arabs. The disorder and civil
war which may almost be said to have been chronic in Spain during the
Arab dominion were due to the fact that three distinct races settled in
that country were striving for the mastery, each of these races being
itself divided into two bitterly hostile factions. The Arabs were split
up into the two factions of Yemenite or Beladi Arabs, the descendants of
Kahtan, and Modharites, the Arabs of Mecca and Medina, who claimed
descent from Adnan.[1] To the latter section belonged the reigning
family of Umeyyades. The Berbers, who looked upon themselves as the real
conquerors of Spain, and whose numbers were subsequently reinforced by
fresh immigrations, were composed of two hostile tribes of Botar and
Beranis. Thirdly, there were the Spaniards, part Christian, part
Mohammedan; the latter being either renegades themselves or the
descendants of renegades. These apostates were called by the Arabs
Mosalimah, or New Moslems,[2] and their descendants Muwallads,[3] or
those not of Arabic origin. The Christians were either tribute-paying
Christians, called Ahlu dh dhimmah; or free Christians, under Moslem
supremacy, called Ajemi;[4] or apostates from Islam,[5] called
Muraddin. The Muwallads, in spite of the Mohammedan doctrine of the
equality and brotherhood of Moslems, were looked down upon with the
utmost contempt by the pure-blooded Arabs.[6] Their condition was even
worse than that of the Christians, for they were, generally speaking,
excluded from lucrative posts, and from all administration of affairs--a
dangerous policy, considering that they formed a majority of the
population.[7] Stronger and more humane than the Berbers, they were
friends of order and civilization. Intellectually they were even
superior to the conquering Arabs.[8]

The natural result of their being Spaniards by race, and Arabs by
religion, 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 of
the Sultan against his rebellious subjects. After breaking with the
Sultan 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 certain
theologians, revolted under Hakem I., but the rising was suppressed. In
814, however, they again rose, and the rebellion being put down with
great severity by the help of the Berbers, the Cordovan Muwallads were
exiled, 1500 going to Alexandria, and 8000 to Fez.[1] But though
exterminated in Cordova, the renegades still mustered strong in Spain.
At Elvira they rose in Abdallah's reign, under a chief named Nabil, and
threw off the Arab yoke;[2] and, previously to this, Abdurrahman ibn
Merwan ibn Yunas and Sadoun had headed similar revolts at Badajos and
Merida.[3] At Seville the Muwallad element was specially strong, as we
see from the many family names, such as Beni Angelino, Beni Sabarico,
which betray a Spanish origin. The majority of the inhabitants embraced
Islam early, and had their mosque by the middle of the ninth century,
but they retained many Spanish customs and characteristics. When the
Arabs of Seville revolted against the Sultan, the renegade party joined
the latter. At Saragoza, the Beni Kasi, descendants of a noble Gothic
family, set up an independent kindgom, waging war indifferently with all
their 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 the
history of all the revolts made by the Arabs or Berbers against the
Sultan's authority, but the policy and position of the Muwallads and
Christians are a necessary part of our subject. The latter, though well
treated on the whole, naturally looked back with regret to the days of
their own supremacy, and were ready to intrigue with anyone able to
assist them against their Arab rulers. Accordingly we find them
communicating with the kings of France; and there is still extant a
letter from Louis the Debonnaire to the people of Merida, written in
826, which is as follows:--"We have heard of your tribulation, which you
suffer from the cruelty of your king Abdurrahman, who has tried to take
away 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, turned
you from friends into enemies, and from obedient to disobedient
vassels, inasmuch as he infringed your liberties. But you, like brave
men, we hear, are resisting the tyrant, and we write now to condole with
you, and to exhort you to continue your resistance, and since your king
is 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 there
till you give us the signal for action. Know then that, if you will
desert 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 under
your own laws."[1]

The army promised was sent under the king's son, but seems to have
effected nothing.

During the period of religious disturbance at Cordova, when the
voluntary martyrdoms became so frequent, and just at the time of
Mohammed's accession, the Christians of Toledo, encouraged, we may
suppose, by their proximity to the free Christians, revolted in favour
of their coreligionists at Cordova. No wonder then that Mohammed
imagined that the outbreak of fanaticism in Cordova was but the signal
for a general mutiny of his Christian subjects. As we have already seen,
the king set out with an army against the Toledans, who appealed to
Ordono I. of Leon for help. Glad enough to get such an opportunity for
weakening the Arab government, Ordono sent a large auxiliary force, but
the Toledans and Leonnese were defeated with great slaughter by the
Sultan's troops.[2] Within twenty years, however, Toledo became
practically 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 old
Arabs, and ready to make common cause against them. The unity of race
prevailed over the difference of creed, as it did in the case of the
English Roman Catholics in the war with Spain, and as it usually will
under such circumstances. The national party were fortunate enough to
find an able leader in the person of the celebrated rebel, Omar ibn
Hafsun, who came near to wresting the sovereignty of Spain from the
hands of the Umeyyades. Omar was descended from a Count Alfonso,[1] and
his family had been Christians till the apostasy of his grandfather
Djaffar. Omar, being a wild unmanageable youth, took up the lucrative
and honourable profession of bandit, his headquarters being at Bobastro
or Bishter, a stronghold somewhere between Archidona and Ronda, in the
sierra stretching from Granada to Gibraltar.[2] After a brief sojourn in
Africa, where his ambition was inflamed by a prophecy announcing a great
future, he returned to Spain, and at once began business again as
brigand at Bobastro with nearly 6000 men.[3] Being captured, he was
brought to Cordova, but spared on condition of enlisting in the king's
forces. But he soon escaped from Cordova, and became chief of all the
Spaniards in the South, Moslem and Christian,[4] whose ardour he aroused
by 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 you
let yourselves be trampled on by the Arabs, who look upon you as their
slaves? It is not ambition that prompts me to rebel, but a desire to
avenge you and myself." To strengthen his cause he made alliances at
different 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 by
Almundhir, the king's son, who succeeded his father in 886. Omar was
further strengthened by the accession to his side of Sherbil, the Count
of Cordova.[1] The death of Almundhir in 888 removed from Omar's path
his only able enemy, and, during Abdallah's weak reign, the rebel leader
was virtual king of the south and east of Spain. The district of
Regio[2] was made over to him by the king, and Omar's lieutenant, Ibn
Mastarna, was made chief of Priejo.

This protracted war, which was really one for national independence, was
carried on year after year with varying success. At one time Omar
conceived the intention of proclaiming the Abasside Khalifs,[3] at
another he grasped at the royal power himself; and Abdallah's empire was
only 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 Moslems
taunted their enemies with having such a joyful feast, and so many
victims to commemorate it with. This shows that a large, perhaps the
largest, part of Omar's army was Christian. Another indication of this
is found in a poem of Tarikh ibn Habib,[5] where, speaking of the coming
destruction of Cordova, he says: "The safest place will then be the hill
of Abu Abdu, where once stood a church," meaning that Omar's Christian
soldiers would respect that sanctuary, and no other. Indeed, it is
certain that Omar himself became a Christian some time before this
battle,[6] as his father had done before him. He took the name of
Samuel, 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 became
Christian 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 his
supremacy, though Omar and his followers still held out. Omar himself
did not die till 917, some years after Abdallah's death. The king's
successor, Abdurrahman III., was a different stamp of man from Abdallah,
and the reduction of Omar became only a question of time, though, in
fact, the apostasy of Omar from Islam had made the ultimate success of
the national party very doubtful, if not impossible. After Omar's death,
his son, Djaffar, thought to recover the support of the Spanish Moslems
by embracing Islam; but he thereby lost the confidence of the
Christians, by whom he was murdered. In 928 his brother Hafs
surrendered, with Bobastro, to the Sultan, and the great rebellion was
finally extinguished.

So ended the grand struggle of the national party, first under
the-direction of the Muwallads, and then of the Christians, to shake off
the Arab and Berber yoke. During the remainder of the tenth century the
strong administration of Abdurrahman III., Hakem II., and the great
Almanzor, gave the Christians no chance of raising the cry of "Spain for
the Spanish." The danger of a renewal of the rebellion once removed, the
position of the Christians does not seem to have been made any worse in
consequence of their late disaffection, and Abdurrahman, himself the
son of a Christian mother, treated all parties in the revolt with great
leniency, even against the wishes and advice of the more devout Moslems.
Almanzor, too, made himself respected, and even liked, by his Christian
subjects, and there is no doubt that his victories over the Christian
States in the North[1] were won very largely with the aid of Christian
soldiers. His death was the signal for the disruption of the Spanish
Khalifate, and from 1010-1031, when the khalifate was finally
extinguished, complete anarchy prevailed in Saracen Spain. The Berbers
made a determined effort to regain their ascendency, and their forces,
seconded by the Christians, succeeded in placing Suleiman on the throne
in 1013. A succession of feeble rulers, set up by the different
factions--Arab, Berber, and Slave--followed, until Hischem III. was
forced to abdicate in 1031, and the Umeyyade dynasty came to an end,
after lasting 275 years. By this time the Christians in the North had
gathered themselves together for a combined advance against the Saracen
provinces, never again to retrograde, scarcely even to be checked, till
in 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 ONE
ANOTHER'S CREED.


In spite of the close contact into which the Christians and Mohammedans
were brought in Spain, and the numerous conversions and frequent
intermarriages between the two sections, no thorough knowledge seems to
have existed, on either side, of the creed of the other party. Such, at
least, is the conclusion to which we are driven, on reading the only
direct records which remain on the subject among Arab and Christian
writers. These on the Christian side consist chiefly of quotations from
a book on Mohammedanism by the abbot Speraindeo in a work of his
disciple, Eulogius;[1] and some rather incoherent denunciations of
Mohammed and his religion by Alvar,[2] another pupil of the abbot's. In
these, as might be expected, great stress is laid on the sensuality of
Mohammed's paradise,[3] and the lewdness of the Prophet himself. As to
the latter, though many of Gibbon's coarse sarcasms do not rest on good
authority, very little can be said for the Prophet. But among other
blasphemies attributed by Speraindeo to Mohammed is one of which we find
no mention in the Koran--the assertion, namely, that he would in the
next world be wedded to the Virgin Mary. John, Bishop of Seville, is
equally incorrect when, in a letter to Alvar,[4] he alleges a promise on
the part of Mohammed that he would, like Christ, rise again from the
dead; whereas his body, being neglected by his relations, was devoured
by dogs. The Christian bishop does not hesitate to add--sepultus est in
infernum--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, and
this appears to have been the opinion of Alvar;[1] but the same witness
acknowledges that the Koran was composed in such eloquent and beautiful
language that even Christians could not help reading and admiring it.[2]

On the important question of Mohammed's position with regard to
Christianity, 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 from
God;[7] like Adam in His creation,[8] but not equal to God (the
Creator);[9] and that by reason of His blameless[10] life, being filled
with the Holy Spirit,[11] He showed marvellous signs and wonders through
the power of God,[12] not working by His own Godhead, but as a righteous
Man, and an obedient servant,[13] obtaining much power and might from
the 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 he
even seems to have had a prejudiced idea[1] that the Prophet set himself
deliberately to preach doctrines the opposite of those taught by Christ.
It would be nearer to the truth to say that the divergence between the
two codes of morals was due to the natural ignorance of an illiterate
Arabian, brought into contact only with an heretical form of
Christianity, the real doctrines of which he was therefore not likely to
know.

According to Alvar, the sixth day of the week was chosen for the
Mohammedan holy day, because Christ suffered on that day. We shall
realise the absurdity of this when we consider the reverence in which
Mohammed held the very name of Christ, going so far even as to deny that
Christ Himself was crucified at all.[2] The true reason for selecting
Friday, as alleged by Mohammed himself, was, because the work of
creation ended on that day.[3]

Again, sensuality was preached, says Alvar, because Christ preached
chastity. But Mohammed cannot fairly be said to have preached
sensuality, though his private life in this respect was by no means
pure.

Gluttony was advocated instead of fasting. A more baseless charge was
never made; for how can it be contended that Christianity enjoins
fasting, while Islam disapproves of it, in the face of such texts as
Matthew ix. 14,[4] and Isaiah lviii. 6--"Is not this the fast that I
have chosen? To loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy
burdens, and to let the oppressed go free?" on the one hand; and on the
other the express injunction of the Koran[5]:--"O true believers, a fast
is 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 ye
fast." But Alvar goes on to make a more astonishing statement
still:--"Christ ordained that men should abstain from their wives during
a fast, while Mohammed consecrated those days to carnal pleasure."
Christ surely gives us no such injunction, though St Paul does say
something of the kind. The Koran[6] explicitly says--"It is lawful for
you on the night of the fast to go in unto your wives; they are a
garment unto you, and you are a garment unto them." We even find an
incident recorded by an Arabian writer, where Yahya ibn Yahya, the
famous faqui, imposed a penance of a month's extra fast on Abdurrahman
II. (822-852) for violating the Prophet's ordinance, that wives should
be 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 best
explanation of the matter. In one place[8] he informs us of his
intention of writing a book on the Cobar,[9] but the work, if ever
written, has not survived. Nor is this much to be regretted, if we may
judge by the wild remarks he indulges in elsewhere[10] on this theme. In
that passage he seems to apply the obscure prophecy of Daniel[11] to
Mohammed, forgetting that verse 37 speaks of one who "shall regard not
the 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 Mohammedan
Cobar;[12] and the strange god, whom he shall acknowledge, Alvar
identifies with the devil which inspired the Prophet in the guise of the
angel Gabriel. All this, as the writer himself allows, is very
enigmatical.

    [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, asserting
that the Arabian tribes worship their idol (the Caaba black stone[1]) as
they 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 of
Antichrist,[3] or as Antichrist himself.[4]

Let us now see how far we can gather the opinions of educated Moslems
with regard to Christian doctrine and worship. If we find these to be no
less one-sided and erroneous than the opinions of Christians as to
Mohammedanism, yet can we the more easily excuse the Moslems, for the
Koran itself, the very foundation and guide of all their religious
dogmas, is full of incorrect and inconsistent notions on the subject.

The most important of these mistakes was that the Christians worshipped
a Trinity of Deities--God, Christ, Mary.[5] The inclusion of the Virgin
Mary into this Trinity was perhaps due to the fact that worship was paid
to her even at that early date, as it certainly is among the Roman
Catholics at this day. As will have been seen from a passage quoted
above,[6] something very like adoration was already paid to the Virgin
in 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 ibn
Hazm,[1] the prime minister of Abdurrahman V. (Dec. 1023-March 1024),
will show that some educated Moslems knew enough of the Christian creed
to appreciate its difficulties:--"We need not be astonished," says Ibn
Hazm, "at the superstition of men. Look at the Christians! They are so
numerous that God only knows their numbers. They have among them men of
great intelligence, and princes of great ability. Nevertheless they
believe that three is one, and one is three; that one of the three is
the Father, another the Son, another the Spirit; that the Father is, and
is not, the Son; that a man is, and is not, God; that the Messiah is God
in every respect, and yet not the same as God; that He who has existed
from all eternity has been created.

"One of their sects, the members of which they call Jacobites, and which
number hundreds of thousands, believes even that the Creator Himself was
scourged, crucified, and put to death; so that the Universe for three
days was deprived of its Governor."

Another extract from an Arabic writer will show us what the Moslems
thought of the worship of St James, the patron saint of Spain, round
whose shrine rallied the religious revival in the north of the
Peninsula. It is Ibn Hayyan,[2] who, in his account of Almanzor's
fiftieth expedition against the Christians, says:--"Shant Yakoh
(Santiago)[3] is one of the sanctuaries most frequented, not only by the
Christians of Andalus, but of the neighbouring continent, who look upon
its church with a veneration such as Moslems entertain for the Caaba of
Mecca; for their Caaba is a colossal idol (statue) which stands in the
middle of the church. They swear by it, and repair to it in pilgrimage
from the most distant parts, from Rome, as well as other countries
beyond Rome, pretending that the tomb to be seen in the church is that
of Yakob (James), one of the twelve apostles, and the most beloved by
Isa (Jesus).--May the blessing of God be on him, and on our
Prophet!--The Christians call this Yakob the brother of Jesus, because,
while he lived, he was always with him. They say that he was Bishop of
Jerusalem, and that he wandered over the earth preaching the religion
[of Christ], and calling upon the inhabitants to embrace it, till he
came 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 it
in that church, as the most remote part, where he had left traces [of
his 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, as
they were in Spain during the time of Arab domination, and where the
rivalry of Christian, Jew, and Moslem produced a sustained period of
intellectual activity such as the world has rarely seen, controversial
theology could not fail to have been largely developed. But the books,
if any were written, from the Christian or Moslem standpoint, have all
perished, and we have only such slight and unsatisfactory notices left
to us as those already quoted.

In estimating, therefore, what influences the rival religions of Spain
had upon each other, we are driven to draw such inferences as we can
from the meagre hints furnished to us by the writers of the period; from
our knowledge of what Christianity was in Spain, and Mohammedanism in
Africa, before they were brought into contact in Andalusia, compared
with what they became after that contact had made itself felt; and from
the observed effects of such relations elsewhere. Upon a careful
consideration of these scattered hints we shall see that certain
effects were visible, which, had the amalgamation of the two peoples
been allowed to continue uninterruptedly for a longer period, and had
there been no disturbing element in the north of Spain and in Africa,
would in all probability have led to some marked modification in one or
both 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 may
have been a cross between Judaism, Christianity, and Magianism.[1] But
Mohammedanism itself has furnished the most marked instances of such
amalgamation. In Persia Islam combined with the creed of Zoroaster to
produce Babyism; while in India Hinduism and Mohammedanism, fused
together by the genius of Nanak Guru, have resulted in Sikhism.

It may be said that Mohammedanism has been able to unite with
Zoroastrianism and Hinduism owing to their very dissimilarity with
itself, whereas Christianity is too near akin to Islam to combine with
it in such a way as to produce a religion like both, and yet different
from either.[2] Christianity and Mohammedanism, each have two cardinal
doctrines (and two only) which cannot be abrogated if they are to remain
distinctive creeds. In one of these, the unity of God, they agree. In
the other they do, and always must, differ. The divinity of Christ on
the one side, and the divine mission of Mohammed on the other, are
totally incompatible doctrines. If the one is true, the other cannot be
so. Surrender both, and the result is Judaism. No compromise would seem
possible. Yet a compromise was attempted, if we can credit a statement
attributed by Dozy to Ibn Khaldun,[3] in recounting the history of the
successful rebel, Abdurrahman ibn Merwan ibn Yunas, who during the last
quarter of the ninth century, while all Moslem Spain was a prey to the
wildest anarchy, became a leader of the renegade or Muwallad party in
Merida and the neighbourhood. Thinking to unite the Muwallads and
Christians in one revolt, he preached to his countrymen a new religion,
which held a place halfway between Christianity and Islam. This is all
we are told of an endeavour, which might have led to the most important
consequences. That we hear no more of it is evidence enough that the
attempt proved abortive. The only other attempt, if it can be called so,
to combine Islam and Christianity has resulted in that curious compound
called 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 and
Christianity, arose in Spain, yet those religions could hardly fail to
undergo considerable modifications in themselves by reason of their
close 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 in
Spain during this period. These will require a somewhat strict
examination to be made to yield up their secret.

The Church of Spain seems to have gained a reputation for introducing
innovations[1] into the doctrines and practices of the true faith, and
even of priding itself on its ingenuity in this way. The very first
Council whose acts have come down to us, held at Elvira in Spain, early
in the fourth century, contains a canon censuring the use of pictures.
The very first heretics, who were punished for their error with death by
the hands of their fellow-Christians, were reared in the bosom of the
Spanish Church. The doctrine, novel then, but accepted now by all the
Western Churches, of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son as
well as from the Father, was first formulated in a Spanish Council at
the end of the sixth century, but not universally received in the West
until 600 years later.[2] And as we have seen, the use of pictures was
denounced long before the times of the Iconoclasts.

We will now take in order the several heresies that made themselves
noticeable in Spain, or Gothic Gaul, during the Arab supremacy, and see
if we can trace any relation between them and the Moslem faith.

To take an unimportant one first, a heresy is mentioned as having arisen
in Septimania (Gothic Gaul), presumably during the eighth century.[3] It
was more practical than speculative, and consisted in a denial of the
need of confession to a priest, on the (unimpeachable) ground that men
ought to confess to God alone. This appears to us Protestants a wholly
laudable and reasonable contention; but not so to the worthy abbé who
records it: cette doctrine, _si favorable à libertinage_, trouva un
grand 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 in
the neighbouring territories of Spain, it is of course impossible to
affirm, but at all events the reform was quite in the spirit of the
verses of the Koran: "O ye who have received[1] the Scripture come to a
just determination between us and you, that we worship not any except
God, and associate no creature with Him: and that the one of us take not
the other for lords, beside God." And "They take their priests and monks
for 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 to
Migetius (_circa_ 750). According to the rather obscure account, which
has come down to us,[1] he seems to have regarded the Three Persons of
the Trinity, at least in their relations with the world, as corporeal,
the Father being personified in David, the Son in Jesus, and the Holy
Ghost in Paul. It is difficult to believe that the doctrine, thus
crudely stated by Elipandus, was really held by anyone. We may perhaps
infer[2] that Migetius revived the error of Priscillian (itself a form
of 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 first
and last of these three recipients of the Divine powers were confessedly
men, it follows that Migetius was ready to strip Jesus of that Divinity,
which is the cardinal doctrine of Christianity, and which more than any
other doctrine distinguishes it from the creed of Mohammed. Accordingly
he appears to have actually denied the divinity of the Word,[3] and in
this 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 those
who, as we learn from a letter of Alvar to Speraindeo, did not believe
the Three in One and One in Three, "denying the utterances of the
prophets, rejecting the doctrine of learned men, and, while they claimed
to 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,' to
prove 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 to
the abbot, spoke of three powers (_virtutes_) forming one Person, not,
as the orthodox held, three Persons forming one God.[2] Here we see a
close resemblance to the error mentioned in the preceding paragraph; but
the heretics we are now dealing with make an even closer approach to the
teaching of Mohammed in their quotation of John xx. 17 given above, as
will be seen, if we compare with that text the following passages of the
Koran, put into the mouth of Christ: "Verily, God is my Lord, and your
Lord; therefore serve him:"[3] "They are surely infidels who say,
verily, God is Christ, the Son of Mary, since Christ said, O children of
Israel, serve God, my Lord and your Lord:"[4] and, "I have not spoken
unto them any other than what thou didst command me--namely, worship
God, 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 and
original of those innovations to which Alcuin taunts the Spanish Church
with being addicted. Unfortunately we derive little of our knowledge of
the new doctrine from the originators and supporters of it--our
information on the subject coming chiefly from passages quoted by their
opponents (notably our own Alcuin) in controversial works. But that the
heresy had an important connection with the Mohammedan religion has been
the opinion of many eminent writers on Church history. Mariana, the
Spanish historian, and Baronius, the apologist for the Roman Church,
held that the object of the new heresiarchs was, "by lowering the
character of Christ, to pave the way for a union between Christians and
Mohammedans."[1] Enhueber,[2] also, in his treatise on this subject,
quotes a tract, "De Primatu Ecclesiae Toletanae," which attributes the
heresy to its author, Elipandus, being brought into so close a contact
with 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 defending
Christianity against objections brought against it from the Moslem
standpoint,[5] and in proving the divinity of Christ, so that they might
be induced to accept it. Felix, therefore, may have been led to embrace
this particular doctrine, called Adoptionism, from a wish to bring the
Christian view of Christ nearer to the Mohammedan opinion.

There is considerable doubt as to who first broached the new theory, the
evidence being of a conflicting character, and pointing now to
Elipandus, 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 of
Orleans; while Paulinus of Aquileia, in his book entitled
"Sacrosyllabus," expressly calls Elipandus the author of the baneful
heresy; and Alcuin, in his letter to Leidrad,[3] says that he is
convinced that Elipandus, as he was the first in rank, so also was the
chief offender.

The evidence being inconclusive, we are driven to follow _à priori_
considerations, and these point to Elipandus as the author. According to
Neander,[4] he was a violent, excitable, bigoted man; and he certainly
uses some very strong language in his writings against his opponents,
and stands a good deal on his dignity as head of the Spanish Church. For
instance, speaking of his accusers, Etherius, Bishop of Osma, and
Beatus,[5] a priest of Libana, he says of the former that he wallows in
the mire of all lasciviousness;[6] that he is totally unfit to officiate
at God's altar;[7] that he is a false prophet[8] and a heretic; and,
forgetting the courtesies of controversy, he doesn't hesitate, in
another place, to call him an ass. Beatus also he accuses of gross
sensuality, and calls him that iniquitous priest of Astorga,[9]
accusing him of heresy, and giving him the title Antiphrasius, which
means that instead of being called Beatus, he should have been named the
very 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 the
venerable Elipandus too hardly. Alcuin himself, in his letter to the
bishop, written, as he says, "with the pen of charity," speaks of him as
most blameless,[1] and confesses that he has heard much of his piety and
devotion, an admission which he also makes with regard to Felix, in a
letter to him.[2] Yet in his book against Elipandus, he exclaims, not
without a touch of bathos: "For all the garments of wool on your
shoulders, and the mitre upon your brow, wearing which you minister to
the people, for all the daily shaving of your beard[3] ... if you
renounce not these doctrines, you will be numbered with the goats!"
Another testimony (of doubtful value, however) in Elipandus' favour is
to be found in the anonymous life of Beatus,[4] where Elipandus is said
to have succeeded Cixila in the bishopric of Toledo, because of his
reputation 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 Migetian
errors, and who also took up so independent an attitude with regard to
the See of Rome, was not the man to endure being dictated to in the
matter of what was, or what was not, sound doctrine, and, in the letter
quoted above, he scornfully remarks that he had never heard that it was
the province of the people of Libana to teach the Toledans. Here, as in
the defiant attitude taken up towards the Pope, we may perhaps see a
jealousy, felt by the old independent Church of Spain under its own
primate, towards the new Church, that was growing up in the mountains of
the North, the centre of whose religious devotion was soon to be
Compostella, and its spiritual head not the primate of Spain, but the
bishop of Rome.

It is now time to explain what the actual heresy advocated by Elipandus
and Felix was. Some have held the opinion that Adoptionism was merely a
revival 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 of
the controversy between the schools of Antioch and Alexandria;[3] or
that it was an attempt to reform Christianity, purging it from later
additions.[4] Alcuin, however, speaks of its followers as a new sect,
unknown to former times.[5] Stated briefly, the new doctrine was that
Jesus, in so far as His manhood was concerned, was son of God by
adoption. This error had been foreseen and condemned in advance by Cyril
of Alexandria (348-386):[6] by Hilary of Arles (429-449).[7] The
Eleventh Council of Toledo had also guarded against this same error a
hundred years before this (675), affirming that Christ the Son of God
was 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 of
Nestorianism.[1] It agreed with the latter in repudiating the term
"Mother of God" as applied to the Virgin Mary,[2] but it differed from
it in the essential point of acknowledging the unity of person in
Christ. What Felix--and on him devolved the chief onus of defence in the
controversy--wished to make clear, was that the predicates of Christ's
two natures could not logically be interchanged.[3] He therefore
reasoned 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 in
essence, but by being taken into union with Him, who _is_ in essence
God, and Son of God. Therefore Christ, unless He derived His humanity
from 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 the
Man to God he preferred to describe by the term Adoption--a word not
found in Scripture in this connection, "but," says Felix, "implied
therein,[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 no
thought of raising a metaphysical discussion on so knotty a point. Being
brought to task, however, for using the word by those whom he deemed his
ecclesiastical inferiors, he was led to defend it from a natural dislike
to acknowledge himself in the wrong. "We can easily believe," says
Enhueber, "that Elipandus, who appears to have been the chief author of
the heresy at this time, fell into it at first from ignorance and
inadvertently, and did not appear openly as a heretic, till, admonished
of his error, he arrogantly and obstinately defended a position which he
had only taken up through ignorance."[6]

Elipandus also seems to have applied to Felix[7] for his opinion on
Christ's Sonship; and the latter, who was a man of great penetration and
acuteness, first formulated the new doctrine, stating in his answer that
Christ must be considered with regard to His Divinity as truly God and
Son 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, it
will be necessary to state some of the arguments of Felix, and in
certain cases Alcuin's rejoinders. These are:--

_(a.)_ "If Christ, as man, is not the _adopted_ Son of God, then must
His Manhood be derived from the essence of God and consequently must be
something different from the manhood of men."[1] To this Alcuin can only
oppose another dilemma, which, however, is more of the nature of a
quibble. "If," he says, "Christ is an adopted Son of God, and Christ is
also God, then is God the adopted Son of God?"[2] Here Alcuin confounds
the predicates of Christ's two natures--the very thing Felix protested
against--and uses the argument thus obtained against that doctrine of
Felix, which was based on this very denial of any interchange of
predicates.

_(b.)_ Christ is spoken of sometimes as Son of David, sometimes as Son
of God. One person can only have two fathers, if one of these be an
adoptive father. So is it with Christ. Alcuin answers: "As a man (body
and soul) is called the son of his father, so Christ (God and man) is
called Son of God."[3] But to those who deny that a man's soul is
derived from his father, this argument would carry no weight.

_(c.)_ Christ stood in a position of natural dependence towards God over
and above the voluntary submission which He owed to His Father as
God.[4] This dependence Felix expresses by the term _servus
conditionalis_, 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. to
Philipp. ii. 7, "He took upon. Him the form of a servant, and was made
in the likeness of men."[6] Or perhaps he had in his mind, if the theory
of the influence of Mohammedanism is true, those passages of the Koran
which speak of Christ as a servant, as, "Christ doth not proudly disdain
to be a servant unto God,"[7] and, "Jesus is no other than a
servant."[8]

(_d._) To prove that Scripture recognises a distinction between Christ
the Man and Christ the God, Felix appeals to Luke xviii. 19, "Why
callest thou Me good? There is none good, save one, even God;" Mark
xiii. 32, "Of that day, or that hour, knoweth no one, not even the
angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." Texts such as these
can 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 death
upon 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 the
Man 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 specifically
higher. It differed also from man's adoption in not being entered into
at baptism, since Christ's baptism was only the point at which His
adoption was outwardly made manifest by signs of miraculous power, which
continued till the resurrection. Christ's adoption--according to Felix,
was assumed at His conception, "His humanity developing in accordance
with its own laws, but in union with the Logos."[2] It will be seen
that though Felix wished to keep clear the distinction between Christ as
God, and as Man, yet he did not carry this separation so far as to
acknowledge two persons in Christ. "The Adoptionists acknowledged the
unity of Persons, but meant by this a juxtaposition of two distinct
personal beings in such a way that the Son of God should be recognised
as the vehicle for all predicates, but not in so close a manner as to
amount to an absorption of the human personality into the Divine
Person."[3] The two natures of Christ had been asserted by the Church
against the Monophysites, and the two wills against the Monothelites,
but the Church never went on to admit the two Persons.[4] With regard to
the contention of Felix, we are consequently driven to the conclusion
that either the personality ascribed to Christ was "a mere abstraction,
a metaphysical link joining two essentially incompatible natures,"[5] or
that the dispute was only about names, and that by adopted son Felix and
the 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 to
the Abbot Fidelis, written in 783,[1] but it did not attract notice
till a little later. The pope Adrian, in his letter to the orthodox
bishops of Spain (785), speaks of the melancholy news of the heresy
having 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 new
doctrine seems to have made its way quickly over a great part of
Spain,[3] while Felix propagated it with considerable success in
Septimania. The champions of the orthodox party in Spain were Beatus and
Etherius, whom we have mentioned above, and Theudula, Bishop of Seville;
while beyond its borders Alcuin, Paulinus of Aquileia, and Agobard of
Lyons, under the direction of Charles the Great and the Pope, defended
the 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 the
overlordship, was amenable to his ecclesiastical superiors, and suffered
for his opinions at their hands; but Elipandus, living under a
Mohammedan government, could only be reached by letters or messages. He
seems even to have received something more than a mere negative support
from the Arabs, if we are right in so interpreting a passage in the
letter of Beatus and Etherius.[1] But it is hard to believe that
Elipandus was on such friendly terms with the Arab authorities; indeed,
from passages in his writings, we should infer that the opposite was
rather the case.[2] Neander suggests that it may have been a Gothic
king in Galicia who supported Elipandus, but this seems even more
unlikely than the other supposition.

The first council called to consider this question was held by the
suggestion of the Emperor and the Pope at Narbonne in 788, when the
heresy was condemned by twenty-five bishops of Gaul.[3]

A similar provincial council was held by Paulinus at Friuli in 791, with
the same results.[4] But in the following year the heresy was formally
condemned at a full council held at Ratisbon, under the presidency of
the Emperor. Here Felix abjured his error, and was sent to Rome to be
further condemned by the Pope, that the whole Western Church might take
action in the matter. Felix was there induced to write a book condemning
his 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 orthodox
position. He wrote at once to Felix a kindly letter, admonishing him of
his errors, and acknowledging that all his previous utterances on
theology had been sound and true. Felix answered this letter, but his
reply is not preserved. To the same, or following, year belongs the
letter of Elipandus and the bishops of Spain to Charles and the bishops
of Gaul, defending their doctrine, and asking for the restoration of
Felix.

In 794 was held another council at Frankfurt, at which Alcuin and other
English clergy were present. Felix was summoned to attend, and heard his
heresy again condemned and anathematised, the decree to this effect
being sent to Elipandus.[1] Alcuin's book was read by Charles, and sent
into Septimania by the hands of the abbot Benedict.

The next council was held at Rome in 798 to confirm the one at
Frankfurt.[2] In 799 came out Felix's answer to Alcuin, sent by him
first to Elipandus, and, after being shewn to the Cordovan clergy, sent
on to Charles. Alcuin is charged to answer it, with Paulinus and the
Pope as his coadjutors.

In the same year another council was held at Aix, where Alcuin argued
for a week with Felix, and apparently convinced him, for Felix again
recanted, and even wrote a confession of faith discarding the word
adoption, but still preserving the distinction of predicates belonging
to 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 which
was the means of converting twenty thousand heretics in Gothic Gaul.[4]
But in spite of Emperor or Pope, of the books of Alcuin, or the
anathemas of the councils, neither Felix nor Elipandus really gave up
his new doctrines, and even the former continued to make converts.
Elipandus, though very old[5] at this time (800 A.D.), lived ten years
longer, and Felix survived him eight years;[6] and they both died
persisting 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 from
its interest and importance, and because, as mentioned above, there are
some reasons for thinking that it was the outcome of a wish to
conciliate Mohammedan opinion. It will be as well to recapitulate such
evidence as we have obtained on this point. But we must not expect to
find the traces of Mohammedan influence in the development, so much as
in 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 genuine
Christianity--setting aside for a moment the transcendental mystery of
the Trinity--was the Divinity of Christ. Anything, therefore, that
tended to emphasise the humanity of Jesus, or to obscure the great fact
of Christ the Man, being Son of God, which sounded so offensive to
Mohammedan ears, would so far bring the Christian creed nearer to the
Mohammedan's acceptance, by assimilating the Christian conception of
Christ, to that which appears so often in the Koran.[1] There can be no
doubt that the theory of adoption, if carried to its logical
conclusion, did contribute to this result:

(_b._) That Elipandus was accused of receiving the help of the secular
arm in disseminating his heretical opinions:

(_c._) That the application of the term _Servant_ to Christ, besides
being authorised by texts from Scripture, is countenanced in two
passages from the Koran:

(_d._) That Leo III., speaking of, Felix's return to Spain, and his
relapse into error, implies that it was due to his renewed contact with
infidels who held similar views:

(_e._) That in a passage, quoted by Enhueber, Elipandus is said to have
lost his hold on the truth in consequence of his close intercourse with
the Arabs:

(_f._) That Elipandus accused Etherius of being a false prophet, that
is, for giving, as has been conjectured, a Mohammedan interpretation to
the Beast in the Revelation of St John.

Something must now be said of one more doctrine, which, though it did
not arise in Spain, nor perhaps much affected it, yet was originated by
a Spaniard, and a disciple of Felix,[2]--Claudius, Bishop of Turin. Some
have seen in this doctrine, which was an offshoot of Iconoclasm, traces
of Adoptionism, a thing not unlikely in itself.[3]

Of the relations of Claudius to the Saracens we have the direct
statement 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 side
highly commended them _and the Saracens_.[4] Yet his tendency seems to
have 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, undoubtedly
received its originating impulse from the Moslems. In 719 the Khalif
destroyed all images in Syria. His example was followed in 730 by the
Eastern Emperor, Leo the Isaurian. He is said to have been persuaded to
this measure by a man named Bezer, who had been some years in captivity
among the Saracens.[1] In 754 the great council of Constantinople
condemned images. Unfortunately neither the great patriarchates nor the
Pope were represented, and so this council never obtained-the sanction
of all Christendom; and its decrees were reversed in 787 at the Council
of Nicæa. In 790 appeared the Libri Carolini, in which we rejoice to
find our English Alcuin helping Charles the Great to make a powerful and
reasonable protest against the worship of images.[2] In 794 this protest
was upheld by the German Council of Frankfurt. But the Pope, and his
militia,[3] the monks, made a strenuous opposition to any reform in this
quarter, and the recognition of images became part and parcel of Roman
Catholic Christianity.

Claudius was made bishop of Turin in 828.[4] Though placed over an
Italian diocese, he soon shewed the independence, which he had imbibed
in the free air of Spain, where the Mohammedan supremacy had at least
the advantage of making the supremacy of the Pope impossible. Finding
that the people of his diocese paid worship to their images, Claudius
set to work to deface, burn, and abolish, all images and crosses in his
bishopric. In respect to the crosses he went further than other
Iconoclasts, in which we can perhaps trace his Adoptionist training.[5]

These new views did not, as might be expected, find favour with the
Catholic party, whose cause was taken up by Theodemir, abbot of Nîmes, a
friend 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 for
his 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 his
opponents' 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 beings
be adored, whom the images represent. But we are not permitted to adore
God's works, much less may we worship the work of men:[1]

_(c.)_ The cross has no claim to be adored, because Jesus was fastened
to it: else must we adore other things with which Jesus was similarly
connected; virgins, for example, for Christ was nine months in a
virgin's womb; mangers, asses, ships, thorns, for with all these Jesus
was connected. To adore the cross we have never been told, but to bear
it,[2] that is to deny ourselves. Those generally are the readiest to
adore it, who are least ready to bear it either spiritually or
physically.[3]

Claudius also had very independent views on the question of papal
supremacy.[4] Being summoned before a council, with more wisdom than
Felix, he refused to attend it, knowing that his cause would be
prejudged, and contented himself with calling the proposed assembly a
congregation 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 the
first three hundred years of Arab domination, and which seem to have
been, in part at least, due to Mohammedan influence. One more there was,
the Albigensian heresy, which broke out one hundred and fifty years
later, and was perhaps the outcome of intercourse with the Mohammedanism
of 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), it
will fall within the scope of our inquiry to estimate the extent to
which those influences were reciprocally felt by the two religions in
their social and intellectual aspects; and how far the character of a
Christian or a Mohammedan was altered by contact with a people
professing a creed so like, and yet so unlike.[1] This influence we
shall find more strongly manifested in the action of Christianity on
Islam, than the reverse.

It is well known that Mohammed, though his opinion as to monks seems to
have varied[2] from time to time, is reported to have expressly declared
that he would have no monks in his religion.[3] Abubeker, his
successor,--if Gibbon's translation may be trusted,--in his marching
orders to the army, told them to let monks and their monasteries
alone.[4] It was not long, however, before an order of itinerant
monks--the faquirs--arose among the Moslems. In other parts of their
dominions these became a recognised, and in some ways privileged, class;
but in Andalusia they did not receive much encouragement,[5] though they
were very numerous even there. Most of them, says the Arabian
historian,[6] were nothing more than beggars, able but unwilling to
work. This remark, however, he tells us, must not be applied to all,
"for there were among them men who, moved by sentiments of piety and
devotion, left the world and its vanities, and either retired to
convents to pass the remainder of their days among brethren of the same
community, or putting on the darwázah, and grasping the faquir's staff,
went through the country begging a scanty pittance, and moving the
faithful to compassion by their wretched and revolting appearance." That
Moslem monkeries did exist, especially in rather later times, we can
gather from the above passage and from another place,[7] where a convent
called Zawiyatu l'Mahruk (the convent of the burnt) is mentioned. On
that passage De Gayangos[8] has an interesting note, in which he quotes
from an African writer an account of a monastic establishment near
Malaga.[9] The writer says: "I saw on a mountain, close to this city, a
convent, which was the residence of several religious men living in
community, and conversant with the principles of Sufism: they have a
superior to preside over them, and one or more servants to attend to
their wants. Their internal regulations are really admirable; each
faquir lives separately in a cell of his own, and meets his comrades
only at meals or prayers. Every morning at daybreak the servants of the
community go round to each faquir, and inquire of him what provisions he
wishes to have for his daily consumption.... They are served with two
meals a day. Their dress consists of a coarse woollen frock, two being
allowed yearly for each man--one for winter, another for summer. Each
faquir is furnished likewise with a regular allowance of sugar, soap to
wash his clothes, oil for his lamp, and a small sum of money to attend
the bath, all these articles being distributed to them every Friday....
Most of the faquirs are bachelors, a few only being married. These live
with their wives in a separate part of the building, but are subject to
the same rule, which consists in attending the five daily prayers,
sleeping at the convent, and meeting together in a lofty-vaulted
chamber, where they perform certain devotions.... In the morning each
faquir takes his Koran and reads the first chapter, and then that of
the king;[10] and when the reading is over, a Koran, previously divided
into sections, is brought in for each man to read in turn, until the
whole is completed. On Fridays and other-festivals these faquirs are
obliged 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 observed
with them are as follows:--If a stranger present himself at the door of
the convent in the garb of a faquir, namely, with a girdle round his
waist, his kneeling-mat suspended between his shoulders, his staff in
his right hand, and his drinking vessel in his left, the porter of the
convent comes up to him immediately, and asks what country he comes
from, what convent he has resided in, or entered on the road, who was
the superior of it, and other particulars, to ascertain that the visitor
is not an impostor.... This convent was plentifully endowed with rents
for the support of its inmates, for besides the considerable revenue in
lands which was provided by its founder, a wealthy citizen of Malaga,
who had been governor of the city under the Almohades, pious men are
continually adding to the funds either by bequests in land or by
donations in money."

The resemblance between these faquirs and Christian monks is
sufficiently obvious, and need not be dilated upon: and though this
particular convent was established at a later time, we cannot doubt that
the influence, which produced such a modification of the very spirit of
Islam, must have made itself felt much earlier. This is apparent in the
analogous case of Moslem nuns, as a passage from an Arab writer seems to
shew,[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 had
retired 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, Islam
shews signs of having become to a certain extent pervaded with a
Christian spirit. It is easy to be mistaken in such things, but the
following 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 it
on whom He will, and from whom He will He taketh it away.[1] But since
God hath given to us the royal authority and power, which is in our
hands by His goodness only, let us obey His holy will, which is no other
than that we do good to all men,[2] and in especial to those placed
under our protection. See thou therefore, O my son, that thou distribute
equal justice to rich and poor, nor permit that any wrong or oppression
be 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 the
creatures of God."[3]

The son was not inferior to the father, and capable, as the following
story shews, of the most Christian generosity.[4] One of the faquirs who
had rebelled against Hakem being captured and brought into the presence
of the king, did not shrink in his bigotry and hate from telling the
Sultan that in hating him he was obeying God. Hakem answered: "He who
bid thee, as thou sayest, hate me, bids me pardon thee. Go, and live in
God'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 the
miracles and wonders, which are described in their histories, it must be
acknowledged that their capacity for imagining and believing in
miracles never equalled that of Christian priests in the Middle Ages.[1]

We hear indeed of a vision of Mohammed appearing to Tarik, the invader
of Spain;[2] of a miraculous spring gushing forth at the prayer of Akbar
ibn Nafir;[3] of the marvellous cap of Omar;[4] of the wonders that
distinguished the corpse of the murdered Hosein; of the vision shewing
the tomb of Abu Ayub;[5] but nothing that will bear a comparison with
the invention of St James' body at Ira Flavia (Padron), nor the clumsy
and unblushing forgery of relics at Granada in the year of the
Armada.[6] Yet the following story of Baki ibn Mokhlid, from Al
Kusheyri,[7] reminds us forcibly of similar monkish extravagancies. A
woman came to Baki, and said that, her son being a prisoner in the hands
of 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 he
requested her to wait for his answer. He then went out and prayed
fervently for her son's release, and telling the mother what he had
done, dismissed her. Some time after the mother came back with her son
to thank Baki for his pious interference, which had procured her son's
release. The son then told his story:--"I was the king's slave, and used
to go out daily with my brother slaves to certain works on which we were
employed. One day, as we were going I felt all of a sudden as if my
fetters were being knocked off. I looked down to my feet, when lo! I
saw the heavy irons fall down broken on each side." The inspector
naturally charged him with trying to escape, but he denied on oath,
saying that his fetters had fallen off without his knowing how. They
were then riveted on again with additional nails, but again fell off.
The youth goes on:--"The Christians then consulted their priests on the
miraculous occurrence, and one of them came to me and inquired whether I
had a father. I said 'No, but I have a mother.' Well, then, said the
priest to the Christians, 'God, no doubt, has listened to her prayers.
Set him at liberty,'" which was immediately done. As a set-off to this
there is a remarkable instance of freedom from superstition recorded of
King Almundhir(881-2).[8] On the occasion of an earthquake, the people
being greatly alarmed, and looking upon it as a direct interposition of
God, this enlightened prince did his best to convince them that such
things were natural phenomena, and had no relation to the good or evil
that men did,[9] shewing that the earth trembled for Christian and
Moslem alike, for the most innocent as well as the most injurious of
creatures 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 that
philosophic spirit which first shewed itself in Spain in the reign of
this Sultan's predecessor.[1] The philosophizers were looked upon with
horror by the theologians, who worked upon the people, so that at times
they were ready to stone and burn the free-thinkers.[2] The works of
Ibnu Massara, a prominent member of this school, were burnt publicly at
Cordova;[3] and the great Almanzor, though himself, like the great
Caesar, indifferent to such questions,[4] by way of gaining the support
of the masses, was ready, or pretended to be ready, to execute one of
these philosophers. At length, with feigned reluctance, he granted the
man's life at the request of a learned faqui.[5]

Even among the Mohammedan "clergy"--if the term be allowable--there were
Sceptics and Deists,[6] and others who followed the wild speculations of
Greek philosophy. Among the last of these, the greatest name was
Averroes, or more correctly, Abu Walid ibn Roshd (1126-1198), who
besides holding peculiar views about the human soul that would almost
constitute him a Pantheist, taught that religion was not a branch of
knowledge that could be systematised, but an inward personal power:[7]
that science and religion could not be fused together. Owing to his
freedom of thought he was banished to a place near Cordova by Yusuf abu
Yakub in 1196. He was also persecuted and put into prison by Abdulmumen,
son of Almansur,[8] for studying natural philosophy. Another votary of
the same forbidden science, Ibn Habib, was put to death by the same
king.

    [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 freethinkers
lived the faquis or theologians. The Andalusians originally belonged to
the Mohammedan sect of Al Auzai[1] (711-774), whose doctrines were
brought into Spain by the Syrian Arabs of Damascus. But Hischem I., on
coming to the throne, shewed his preference for the doctrines of Malik
ibn Aus,[2] and contrived that they should supplant the dogmas of Al
Auzai. It may be that Hischem I. only shewed a leaning towards Malik's
creed, without persuading others to conform to his views, but at all
events the change was fully accomplished in the reign of his successor,
Hakem I., by the instrumentality of Yahya ibn Yahya Al Seythi, Abu
Merwan Abdulmalek ibn Habib,[3] and Abdallah Zeyad ibn Abdurrahman
Allakhmi, three notable theologians of that reign. Yahya returned from a
pilgrimage to the East in 827, and immediately took the lead in the
opposition offered to Hakem I. on the ground of his being a lax
Mussulman, but, in reality, because he would not give the faquis enough
power in the State.[4]

In the reign of Mohammed (852) these faquis had become powerful enough
to impeach the orthodoxy of a well-known devout Mussulman, Abu
Abdurrahman ibn Mokhli, but the Sultan, with a wise discretion, as
commendable as it was rare, declared that the distinctions of the Ulema
were cavils, and that the expositions of the new traditionist "conveyed
much useful instruction, and inculcated very laudable practices."[5]

Efforts were made from time to time to overthrow this priestly
ascendency, as notably by Ghàzali, the "Vivificator," as he was called,
"of religious knowledge." This attempt failed, and the rebel against
authority was excommunicated.[6] Yet the strictly oxthodox party did not
succeed in arresting--to any appreciable extent--the progress of the
decay which was threatening to attack even the distinctive features of
the Mohammedan religion.[7] It is a slight indication of this, that the
peculiar Moslem dress gradually began to be given up, and the turban was
only worn by faquis,[8] and even they could not induce the people to
return 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 disintegrating
effect which intercourse with Christians had upon the social
institutions of the Koran.[1]

_(a.)_ Wine, which is expressly forbidden by Mohammed,[2] was much drunk
throughout the country,[3] the example being often set by the king
himself. Hakem I. seems to have been the first of these to drink the
forbidden juice.[4] His namesake, Hakem II. (961-976), however, set his
face against the practice of drinking wine, and even gave orders for all
the vines in his kingdom to be rooted up--an edict which he recalled at
the instance of his councillors, who pointed out that it would ruin many
poor families, and would not cure the evil, as wine would be smuggled in
or illicitly made of figs or other fruit. Hakem consequently contented
himself with forbidding anew the use of spirituous liquors in the most
stringent terms.[5] Even the faquis had taken to drinking wine, and they
defended the practice by saying that the prohibition might be
disregarded by Moslems, who were engaged in a perpetual war with
infidels.

_(b.)_ Music was much cultivated, yet a traditionary saying of Mohammed
runs thus: "To hear music is to sin against the law; to perform music is
to sin against religion; to enjoy music is to be guilty of
infidelity."[6] Abdurrahman II. (822-852) in especial was very fond of
music, and gave the great musician Ziryab or Ali ibn Nafi a home at his
Court, when the latter was driven from the East by professional
jealousy. Strict Mohammedans always protested against these violations
of their law. The important sect of Hanbalites in particular, like our
own Puritans, made a crusade against these abuses. They "caused a great
commotion in the tenth century in Baghdad by entering people's houses
and spilling their wine, if they found any, and beating the
singing-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 not
seem to have indulged themselves in this way.[8]

_(d.)_ The prohibition of sculptures, representing living creatures, was
disregarded. We find a statue, raised to Abdurrahman's wife Zahra, in
the Medinatu'l Zahra, a palace built by Abdurrahman III. in honour of
his beloved mistress. Images of animals are mentioned on the
fountains,[9] and a lion on the aqueduct.[10] We also hear of a statue
at the gate of Cordova.[11]

_(e.)_ The Spanish Arabs even seem to have given up turning towards
Mecca: for what else can we infer from a fact mentioned by an Arab
historian,[12] that Abu Obeydah was called Sahibu l'Kiblah as a
distinctive nickname, because he did so turn?

_(f.)_ A reformer seems even to have arisen, who wished to persuade his
coreligionists to eat the flesh of sows, though not of pigs or
boars.[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 more
unreasonable prohibitions of the Koran was due to contact with a
civilised and Christian nation, partly in subjection to the Arabs, and
partly growing up independently side by side with them. But in nothing
was this shewn more clearly than in the social enfranchisement of the
Moslem women, whom it is the very essence of Mohammed's teaching to
regard rather as the goods and chattels than as the equals of man; and
also in the introduction among the Moslems of a more Christian
conception of the sacred word--Love.

Consequently we become accustomed to the strange spectacle--strange
among a Mohammedan people--of women making a mark in the society of men,
and being regarded as intellectually and socially their equals. Thus we
hear of an Arabian Sappho, Muatammud ibn Abbad Volada, daughter of
Almustakfi Billah;[1] of Aysha, daughter of Ahmad of Cordova--"the
purest, loveliest, and most learned maiden of her day;"[2] of Mozna, the
slave and private secretary of Abdurrahman III.[3]

Again, contrary to the invariable practice elsewhere, women were
admitted into the mosques in Spain. This was forbidden by Mohammedan
law,[4] the women being obliged to perform their devotions at home;
"if," says Sale, "they visit the mosques, it must be when the men are
not there; for the Moslems are of opinion that their presence inspires a
different kind of devotion from that which is requisite in a place
dedicated to the service of God." Sale also quotes from the letter of a
Moor, censuring the Roman Catholic manner of performing the mass, for
the reason, among others, that women were there. If the evidence of
ballads be accepted, we shall find the Moorish ladies appearing at
festivities and dances.[5] At tournaments they looked on, their bright
smiles heartening the knights on to do brave deeds, and their fair hands
giving the successful champion the meed of victorious valour.[6] Their
position, in fact, as Prescott remarks, became assimilated to that of
Christian 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 not
fail to reflect itself in the conception of love among the Spanish
Arabs; and, accordingly, we find their gross sensuality undergoing a
process of refinement, as the following extract from Said ibn Djoudi,[1]
who wrote at the close of the ninth century, will shew. Addressing his
ideal 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 Provençal
troubadour. They breathe the delicateness of Christian chivalry."

This Christianising of the feeling of love is even more clearly seen in
a passage from a treatise on Love by Ali ibn Hazm, who was prime
minister to Abdurrahman V. (Dec. 1023-Mar. 1024). He calls Love[3] a
mixture of moral affection, delicate gallantry, enthusiasm, and a calm
modest beauty, full of sweet dignity. Being the great grandson of
Christian parents, perhaps some of their inherited characteristics
reappeared in him:--"Something pure, something delicate, something
spiritual 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 social
and intellectual character of Mohammedanism; let us now turn to the
analogous influence of Mohammedanism on Christianity under the same
aspects. This, as was to be expected, is by no means so marked as in the
reverse case. One striking instance, however, there is, in which such an
influence was shewn, and where we should least have thought to find it.
We have indisputable evidence that many Christians submitted to be
circumcised. Whether this was for the sake of passing themselves off on
occasion 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 the
beast, when setting at nought the customs of the fathers, we follow the
pestilent ways of the Gentiles; when, neglecting the circumcision of the
heart,[3] which is chiefly commanded us, we submit to the corporeal
rite, which ought to be avoided for its ignominy, and which can only be
complied 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 know
that the Mohammedan king, under whom this occurred, had at one time the
intention of forcing all his Christian subjects to be circumcised.[5]

Another sign of an approximation made by Christians to the outward
observances of Moslems, was that some among them thought it necessary to
abstain from certain meats,[6] those, namely, forbidden by the
Mohammedan law.

A bishop, being taxed with compliance of this kind, gave as his excuse
that otherwise the Christians could not live with the Saracens.[7] This
was, naturally, not considered a good reason by the stricter or more
bigoted party, who regarded with alarm and suspicion any tendency
towards amalgamation with Mohammedans. If we can credit certain
chroniclers, a council was even held some years before this time by
Basilius, Bishop of Cordova, for considering the best method of
preventing the contamination of the purity of the Christian faith by its
contact 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 some
habit or rite of their own from a mere spirit of opposition to a reverse
custom among Moslems. Thus we know that the monks in the East became the
more passionately devoted to their image-worship, because Iconoclasm
savoured so much of Mohammedanism. In the same way, but with far more
objectionable results, the clergy in Spain did their best to impress the
people with the idea that cleanliness of apparel and person, far from
being next to godliness, was incompatible with it, and that baths were
the 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 Spanish
dominions destroyed, on the ground that they were relics of
infidelity.[2]

Celibacy of the clergy, again, was strongly advocated as a contrast to
the polygamy of Mohammedans; and an abbot, Saulus, is mentioned with
horror as having a wife and children, one of whom afterwards succeeded
him, and also married.[3]

One of the last acts of a Gothic king had been to enforce the marriage
of 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 Witiza
wished 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 the
origin of chivalry. Though forming no part of the doctrines of
Christianity or Islam, chivalry and its influences could not with
justice be wholly overlooked in a discussion like the present. The
institution known by that name arose in the age of Charles the Great
(768-814),[1] and was therefore nearly synchronous with the invasion of
Europe by the Arabs. Its origin has been, indeed, referred to the
military service of fiefs, but all its characteristics, which were
personal and individual, such as loyalty, courtesy, munificence, point
to a racial rather than a political source, and these characteristics
are found in an eminent degree among the Arabs. "The solitary and
independent spirit of chivalry," says Hallam,[2] "dwelling as it were
upon a rock, and disdaining injustice or falsehood from a consciousness
of internal dignity, without any calculation of the consequences, is not
unlike what we sometimes read of Arabian chiefs or American Indians."

Whatever the precise origin of chivalry may have been, there can be no
doubt that its development was largely influenced by the relative
positions of Arabs and Christians in Spain, and the perpetual war which
went on between them in that country.

Though not a religious institution at the outset, except perhaps among
our Saxon forefathers,[3] chivalry soon became religious in character,
and its golden age of splendour was during the crusades against the
Moslems of Spain and Palestine. Spain itself may almost be called the
cradle of chivalry; and it must be allowed that even in the first flush
of conquest the Arabs shewed themselves to be truly chivalrous enemies,
and clearly had nothing to learn from Christians in that respect. The
very earliest days of Moslem triumph, saw the same chivalrous spirit
displayed at the capture of Jerusalem, forming a strange and melancholy
contrast to the scene at its recapture subsequently by the Crusaders
under 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 the
tenth 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, be
denied that the action displeased many of the king's followers, who
complained 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 qualities
enumerated 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 Yusuf
ben Harun, or Abu Amar, addressing an elegant poem to Hakem II.
(961-976) on its duties and obligations;[3] nor was it long before the
Moorish kings learnt to confer knighthood on their vassals after the
Christian fashion, and we have an instance of this in a knighthood
conferred 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 the
Cid, so we may perhaps regard the historic Almanzor as the Moorish
knight _sans peur et sans reproche;_ and though, if judged by our
standards, he was by no means _sans reproche_, yet many are the stories
told of his magnanimity and justice. On one occasion after a battle
against the Christians, the Count of Garcia being mortally wounded, his
faithful Castilians refused to leave him, and were hemmed in by
Almanzor's men. When the latter was urged to give the word, and have the
knot of Christians put to the sword, he said: "Is it not written? 'He
who slayeth one man, not having met with violence, will be punished like
the 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 of
Ishmael, make way; let the Christians live and bless the name of the
clement and merciful God." [2]

On another occasion Almanzor is asked by the Count of Lara for wedding
gifts for an enemy[3] of the Arabs, another Christian count, and he
magnanimously sends the gifts; or we see him releasing the father of the
Infantes 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 romantic
ballad style, but anecdotes of generosity do not gather round any but
persons who are noted for that virtue, and though the instances should
be false in letter, yet in spirit they may be eminently true. However
this may be as respects Almanzor's generosity, of his justice we have
unimpeachable evidence. The monk who wrote the "Chronicle of Silo," says
that the success of his raids on the Christian territories was due to
the large pay he offered his soldiers, and also to his extreme justice,
"which virtue," says the chronicler, "as I learned from my father's
lips, 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 Christian
Spaniards seem to have borrowed from the Moors--those military orders,
namely, which were so numerous in Spain. "The Rabitos, or Moslemah
knights," says Conde,[1] "in charge of the frontier, professed
extraordinary austerity of life, and devoted themselves voluntarily to
the continual exercise of arms. They were all men of high distinction;
and bound themselves by a vow to defend the frontier. They were
forbidden by their rules to fly from the enemy, it being their duty to
fight and die on the spot they held."

In any case, whether the Christian military orders were derived from the
Moorish, or the reverse, one thing is certain, that it was the Moors who
inoculated the Christians with a belief in Holy Wars, as an essential
part of their religion.[2] In this respect Christianity became
Mohammedanized first in Spain. Chivalry became identified with war
against the infidel, and found its apotheosis[3] in St. James of
Compostella, who--a poor fisherman of Galilee--was supposed to have
fought in person against the Moors at Clavijo.[4] In the ballad we hear
of Christian knights coming to engage in fight from exactly that same
belief in the efficacy and divine institution of holy wars, as animated
the Arab champions. The clergy, and even the bishops, took up arms and
fought against the enemies of their faith. Two bishops, those of Leon
and Astorga,[5] were taken prisoners at the battle of Val de Junqueras
(921).[6] Sisenandus of Compostella was killed in battle against the
Northmen (979); and the "Chronicle of the Cid" makes repeated mention of
a 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 engendered
and accompanied it, chivalry proved to be the only common ground on
which Christian and Moslem, Arab and European, could meet. It was in
fact a sort of compromise between two incompatible religions mutually
accepted by two different races. Though perhaps not a spiritual
religion, it was a social one, and served in some measure to mitigate
the horrors of a war of races and creeds. Chivalry culminated in the
Crusades, and Richard I. of England and Saladin were the Achilles and
the Hector of a new Iliad.

With this short discussion of the origin and value of chivalry as a
compromise between Christianity and Mohammedanism, we will now conclude.
In discussing the relations between Christianity and Mohammedanism, we
have been naturally led to compare not only the religions but their
adherents, for it is difficult to distinguish between those who profess
a creed, and the creed which they profess; but at least we may have thus
been enabled to avoid missing any point essential to the proper
elucidation of the mutual relations which existed between the two
greatest religions of the world, and the influence they had upon each
other.




APPENDIX.

A.

THE JEWS IN SPAIN.


The persecution of the Jews by the Gothic Spaniards naturally made them
the implacable enemies of the Christians. Being a very numerous colony
in Spain--for Hadrian had transported thither many thousand
families--the Jews gave the Arabs very effective help in conquering the
country, both by betraying places to them, and garrisoning captured
towns while the Arabs went on to fresh conquests. Consequently the
relations between the Jews and Moslems were for a long time very
cordial, though this cordiality wore off in the course of time. Their
numbers seem to have been considerable under the Moslem occupation, and
whole towns were set apart as Jewries.[1]

In France the prejudice against the Jews shewed itself very strongly
among the clergy, though Louis I. and his wife Judith favoured them.
They were generally ill-treated, and their slaves were induced by the
clergy to be baptized. Thereupon they became free, as Jews were not
allowed to have Christian slaves.[2] But it must be admitted that the
Franks had reason for disliking the Jews, as it was well known that they
sold 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 the
Christians, and we hear of one apostate of this kind, named Eleazar, to
whom Alvar addressed several letters under the title of "the
transgressor." This man's original name was Bodon. A Christian of German
extraction,[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 a
negotiation with the Jews in France to sell his companions as slaves,
stipulating only to keep his own grandson. The next year he let his hair
and beard grow, and went to Spain, where he married a Jewess, compelling
his grandson at the same time to apostatise. In 845 or 847 his attitude
became so hostile to the Christians in Spain, that the latter wrote to
Charles, praying him to demand Eleazar as his subject, which however
does not seem to have been done. There seems good reason to believe that
Eleazar stirred up the Moslems against the Christians, and the deaths of
Prefectus and John may have been due to him.[4] After this we hear no
more of Eleazar; but the position of the Jews with regard to the Arabs
seems to have been for long after this of a most privileged character.
Consequently the Jews in Spain had such an opportunity to develop their
natural gifts as they have never had since the capture of Jerusalem by
Nebuchadnezzar; and they shewed themselves no whit behind the Arabs, if
indeed they did not outstrip them, in keeping alive the flame of
learning in the dark ages.[5] In science generally, and especially in
the art of medicine they had few rivals, and in learning and
civilisation they were, no less than the Arabs, far ahead of the
Christians.[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 gradual
process of time gave place to an ill-concealed hostility, and at the
beginning of the twelfth century there seems even to have been a project
formed for forcing the Jews to become Moslems on the ground of a promise
made by their forefathers to Mohammed that, if in five centuries their
Messiah had not appeared, they would be converted to Mohammedanism.[1]
Perhaps this was only a pretext on the part of the Moslems for extorting
money; at all events the Jews only succeeded in evading the alternative
by paying a large sum of money. Even in the early years of the conquest
they were subject to the rapacity of their rulers, for when, on the
rumour of the Messiah having appeared in Syria, many of the Spanish
Jews, leaving their goods, started off to join him, the Moslem governor,
Anbasa, seized the property so left, and refused to restore it on the
return of the disappointed emigrants.

From their contact with Arabs and Christians the Jews seem to have lost
many of their distinctive beliefs, and in the twelfth century
Maimonides,[2] the greatest name among the Spanish Jews, wrote against
their errors. One of these seems to have been that the books of Moses
were written before the Creation;[3] another, that there was a series of
hells in the next world.[4]

Many Jews attained to very high positions among the Arabs, and we hear
of a certain Hasdai ibn Bahrut, who was inspector of customs to
Abdurrahman III., ambassador to the King of Leon in 955, and the king's
confidential messenger to the monk, John of Gorz, a few years later. He
was 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 of
Spain, the lot of the Jews, even in Christian territories, was by no
means unendurable. They were sometimes advanced to important and
confidential posts, and it was the murder of Alfonso VI.'s Jewish
ambassador by the King of Seville which brought about the introduction
of the Almoravides into Spain.

There is a strange story told of the Jews at the taking of Toledo by the
Christians in 1085. They waited on Alfonso and assured him that they
were 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 advice
respecting the person who claimed to be the Messiah, the Toledan Jews
returned for answer, that in their judgment the prophecies seemed to be
fulfilled in Him, and therefore He ought not by any means to be put to
death. This reply they produced in the original Hebrew.[1] It is
needless to say that the whole thing was a fabrication.

Gradually, as the Christians recovered their supremacy in Spain, the
tide of prejudice set more and more strongly against the Jews. They were
accused of "contempt for the Catholic worship, desecration of its
symbols, sacrifice of Christian infants,"[2] and other enormities.
Severe laws were passed against them, as in the old Gothic times, and
their freedom was grievously curtailed in the matters of dress,
residence, and profession. As a distinctive badge they had to wear
yellow 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, and
15,000 Jews were massacred in different parts of Spain. Many were
nominally converted, and 35,000 conversions were put to the credit of a
single saint. These new Christians sometimes attained high
ecclesiastical dignities, and intermarried with the noble families--the
taint of which "mala sangre" came afterwards to be regarded with the
greatest horror and aversion.

It was against the converted Jews that the Inquisition was first
established, and they chiefly suffered under it at first. In 1492, on
the final extinction of the Arab dominion in Spain, a very large number
of Jews were expelled from Castile,[1] the evil example being afterwards
followed in other parts of Spain. The story of the treatment of Jews by
Christians 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 study
as the consideration of those gradual steps by which, from being one of
the most independent of Churches, she has become the most subservient,
and therefore the most degraded, of all. The question of how this was
brought about, apart from its intrinsic interest as illustrating the
development of a great nation, is well worth investigating, from the
momentous influence which it has had upon the religious history of the
world at large. For it is not too much to say that Rome could never have
made good its ascendency, spiritual no less than temporal, over so large
a part of mankind, had not the material resources and the blind devotion
of Spain been ready to back the haughty pretensions and unscrupulous
ability 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 their
entirety--doctrines which the whole Christian East repudiated from the
first with scorn, and which the North and (with the exception of Spain)
the West of Europe--the birthplace and cradle of the mighty Teutonic
races--have agreed with equal disdain to reject and trample under their
feet.

This result is all the more remarkable, from the fact that in early
times the Church of Spain, from its rapid extension, its greatness, and
its prosperity, held a position of complete equality with the Roman and
other principal churches. The See of Cordova held so high a rank in the
fourth century that Hosius, its venerable bishop, was chosen to preside
at the important councils of Nice (325) and Sardica (347).

The Gothic invasion at the beginning of the fifth century made Spain
still less likely to acknowledge any supremacy of Rome, for the Goths,
besides being far more independent in character than the Romanized
Kelts, were Arian heretics, and cut off, in consequence, from all
communion with Rome. The orthodox party, however, gradually gained
strength, and in 560 the remnants of the Suevi abjured Arianism, and the
Gothic king's son Ermenegild, with their help, revolted against his
father. He was finally put to death for his treason, but his brother,
Recared, on ascending the throne in 589, avowed his conversion to the
orthodox creed, his example being followed by most of his nobles and
prelates.

The reception of Recared and his Court into the Catholic fold was the
signal for an attempt to establish the papal authority, which was the
more dangerous now, as the popes had gained a great increase of power
since Spain was cut off from orthodox Christendom by the invasion of the
Arian 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 thus
acknowledged was soon exercised in--

_(a.)_ Deciding ecclesiastical appeals without regard to the laws of the
land;

_(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 Spanish
Church, came gradually to be recognised, owing to the papal practice of
sending letters to the chief bishops of the country. They became
invested in consequence with certain important powers, such as those of
convoking provincial councils; of consecrating suffragans; of holding
ecclesiastical courts, and watching over the conduct of bishops.[1]

But though a certain authority over the Spanish Church _was_ thus
conceded to the pope, yet owing to the independent spirit of the Spanish
kings and clergy, he contented himself with a very sparing use of his
power. In two points, in especial, the claims of the pope were
strenuously resisted.

_(a.)_ The purchase of dispensations from Rome was expressly forbidden.

_(b.)_ Papal infallibility was a dogma by no means admitted. Thus the
prelates of Spain in the fifteenth and sixteenth councils of Toledo,
defended the orthodoxy of their fellow-bishop, Julian, against the
strictures of the then pope, Bendict II.; and Benedict's successor, John
V., confessed that they had been in the right.[2]

This spirit of opposition to the supremacy of the pope we find
manifested to the last by the Spanish kings, and there is some reason
for 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 his
clergy being at variance with the pope, the latter encouraged and
favoured 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, the
invasion did not help the pope much directly, though indirectly, and as
events turned out, the Arab domination was undoubtedly the main cause of
the ultimate subjection of Spain to the papal yoke, which happened in
this way:--The Christian Church in the North being, though free, yet in
a position of great danger and weakness, would naturally have sought
help from their nearest Christian neighbours, the Franks. But the
selfish and ambitious policy of the latter, who preferred extending
their temporal dominion to fighting as champions of Christianity in
defence of others, naturally forced the Spanish Christians to look to
the only Christian ruler who could afford them even moral assistance;
and the popes were not slow to avail themselves of the opportunity thus
offered for establishing their authority in a new province. It was by
the intervention of the popes that the war against the Arabs partook of
the nature of a crusade, a form of warfare which carried with it the
advantage of filling the treasury of the Bishops of Rome. By means of
indulgences, 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 and
obtained was in 808, when, the body of St James being miraculously
discovered, Alfonso wrote to the pope asking leave to move the see of
Ira Flavia (Padron) to the new church of St lago,[2] built on the spot
where the relics were found. The birth of the new Spanish Church dates
from this event, which was of ominous import for the future independence
of the Church in that country. What the claims of Rome had come to be
within a quarter of a century of this epoch, we may see from the
controversy which arose between Claudius, Bishop of Turin, and the papal
party. Claudius was himself a Spaniard, and a pupil of the celebrated
Felix, 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 us
of his writings,[3] on the grounds, first, that Christ did _not_ say to
Peter, "What thou loosest in heaven, shall be loosed upon earth;"
meaning by this that the authority vested in Peter was only to be
exercised during his life; secondly, in answer to the supposed efficacy
of a pilgrimage to Rome, Claudius retorts on his accuser, Theodomir,
abbot of a monastery near Nîmes:--"If a doing of penance to be effectual
involves a journey to Rome, why do you keep so many monks in your
monastery and prevent them from going--as you say is necessary--to Rome
itself?" As to the journey itself, Claudius said that he neither
approved nor disapproved of it, knowing that it was not prejudicial to
all, nor useful to all: but this he was assured of, that eternal life
could not be gained by a mere journey to Rome; thirdly, as to the pope
being the Dominicus Apostolicus, as his supporters called him,
apostolic, says Claudius, is a title that does not belong to one "who
fills 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 proved
contumacious, and refused to go, calling the proposed assemblage a
congregation of asses. In spite of his independence of spirit Claudius
remained Bishop of Turin till his death in 839.

The pope's authority being once recognised in Spain, the sphere of his
interference rapidly enlarged, and we soon find the king unable even to
call a council of bishops without a papal bull. This became the
established practice.[1] In the tenth century Bermudo II. (982-999), in
confirming the laws of the Goths, took the opportunity to make the
canons and decrees of the pope binding in secular cases.[2]

Meanwhile, even before the free Christians in the North had established
their independence, the weakness of the Christian Church under Arab
domination seemed to afford a good opportunity for obtaining from them a
recognition of the authority of the pope. We accordingly find that an
appeal was made to the pope towards the close of the eighth century to
give an authoritative decision with regard to what the appellants deemed
to be certain irregularities which had found their way into the practice
of those Christians who were under the Arab yoke. The Pope Adrian
readily undertook to define what was, and what was not, in accordance
with Christianity. In a letter addressed to the Bishops of Spain he
inveighs against the following errors, countenanced by a certain
Migetius, and by Egila, Bishop of Elvira, and sometimes called in
consequence the Migetian errors:--

_(a.)_ The wrong celebration of Easter. This had already been noticed
and condemned by Peter, a deacon of Toledo, in a letter to the people of
Seville (750).[3] The error was not the same as that of the
Quarto-decimani, but consisted apparently in deferring Easter to the
twenty-second day, if the full moon fell on the 14th, and the following
day was Sunday. Curiously enough this very error had been held by the
Latin Church itself till the sixth century.[4] The fulminations of the
Pope failed in suppressing the error. As late as 891 it was sufficiently
general in Andalusia to cause the date of a battle which took place at
the Easter of that year to be placed in the year of the Hegira 278,
which only began on April 15th, whereas had Easter been observed
according to the usage of the Latin Church, the Paschal feast would have
been already past.[5]

_(b.)_ The eating of pork and things strangled.[6] With respect to these
innocent articles of food, the pope goes so far as to threaten anathema
against those who will not abstain from them. It is curious to find the
Christian Church upholding the eating of pork, when brought into contact
with the Moslems, and forbidding it elsewhere.

_(c.)_ Intermarriage with Jews and Moslems, which had become very
common, is denounced and forbidden.[7]

_(d.)_ The Pope cautions the Spanish Church against consecrating priests
without 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 ordered
Cixila, Bishop of Toledo, to hold a council and condemn Egila for not
fasting 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 pretensions
of the pope, yet many of the clergy and laity, headed by the venerable
Elipandus, Bishop of Toledo (782-810), boldly resisted the encroachments
of the Bishop of Rome. Elipandus himself, as Primate of all Spain, wrote
to Migetius condemning him for certain heresies, and boasts of having
completely refuted and silenced him;[1] but at the same time Elipandus
shewed his independence of the Roman Pontiff by characterising those who
abstained 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 Church
of Jerusalem in the earliest days of Christianity.[3]

Another doctrine combated by Elipandus was the unscriptural one, that it
was unlawful to eat with unbelievers, or even to take food touched by
them. It was easy for him to quote texts such as: "Not that which
entereth into the mouth defileth the man; but that which proceedeth out
of the mouth, this defileth the man;" [4] or "to the pure all things are
pure;"[5] and to point out that Christ ate with publicans and sinners.

But the assumption which Elipandus, like his fellow-countrymen, Claudius
of Turin, later, especially attacked, was that which regarded the Roman
See as alone constituting the Catholic Church and the power of God.[6]
This he very properly calls a heresy; and indignantly denies that
Christ's words, "Thou art Peter," &c., apply to the Church of Rome
alone, affirming that they were spoken of the whole Church. "How," he
adds, "can the Roman Church be, as you say it is, the very power of God
without spot or blemish, when we know that at least one bishop of Rome
(Liberius) has been branded as a heretic by the common voice of
Christendom."

    [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 be
established over it, Spain could never have become the priest-ridden
country which it now is; but the gradual advance of the Christian arms
in the North brought in its train a more and more complete subserviency
to the pope.

As the kings of Castile and Leon gradually won back towns and provinces
from the Arabs, some difference was observed to exist between the
religious usages of the newly freed Christians and of those who had set
them free. This was specially apparent in the old Gothic liturgy, which
the Muzarabic Christians had used all along, and were still using,
whereas the Christians of Leon and the Asturias had imported a newer
recension from Rome.

Rumours of these discrepancies in religious ritual reached Rome, and
accordingly a legate,[1] named Zanclus, was sent to Spain in 925 from
John X. to inquire into matters of religion, and particularly into the
ceremony of the mass, the opinion being prevalent at Rome that the mass
was incorrectly performed according to the Gothic liturgy, and that
false doctrines were taught. However, Zanclus found that the divergence
was not sufficiently wide to warrant the suppression of the ancient
ritual. It may be that the power of the Roman Church was not established
so securely as to admit of an interference so unpalatable to the ancient
church. She was content to bide her time; for such a standing witness
to the primitive usage[2] of the Church against the innovations of the
Roman See could not long be allowed to continue. Accordingly, we find
that very soon after the fall of Toledo in 1085, the question of the old
Gothic liturgy came up for discussion again. The Gothic and the Roman
books were subjected, after the absurd fashion of the times, to two
ordeals--by water and by fire; but in spite of the fact that the Gothic
liturgy, thanks to its greater solidity and stronger binding, resisted
both those elements incomparably better than its younger rival, and so,
if the ordeal went for anything, should have been hailed victorious, the
old native liturgy was partially suppressed at the bidding of the pope,
and by the consent of the Spanish king Alfonso VI. of Leon,[3] and
Sancho IV. of Aragon. Yet the Muzarabic Christians were loath to give up
their customary liturgy, and it remained in use in several churches of
Toledo 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 to
the 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 kingdom
were laid under an interdict by Celestine III. because he had married
within forbidden limits, and refused to divorce his wife at the bidding
of the pope. He did in the end divorce her, but only to repeat the same
offence with a second wife, Berengaria, and incur the same penalty at
the hands of Innocent III. Encroachments on the king's power went on
apace, and gradually appeals came to be referred to Rome from the king's
courts, and the pope took upon himself to appoint to benefices and
bishoprics; a usurpation which was countenanced by Alfonso X.
(1252-1284).[1] But this result was not attained without remonstrances
from the Cortes, and finally, under Ferdinand and Isabella, the question
came to an open rupture between the Spanish Court and the reigning pope,
Sixtus IV. Isabella, though so ready to submit herself in matters of
personal religion to the pope and his legates, refused, like her later
namesake of England, to bate one jot of her ecclesiastical rights; and
the pope had to give way, contenting himself with the barren power of
appointing those nominated by the sovereigns of the land. But if the
sovereign was jealous of his rights, no less so were the barons of
theirs, 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, and
excommunicated the rebellious barons, they firmly answered that "those
who had advised the pope that he had a right to interfere in the
temporal concerns of Castile had deceived him; and that they, the barons
of the kingdom, had a perfect right to depose their sovereign on
sufficient grounds, and meant to exercise it."[2]

A similarly independent spirit shewed itself in Aragon. In 1213 Pedro
II. died fighting against the papal persecutor of the Albigensians, and
down to the time of Charles V., the princes of Aragon were at open
enmity with the Roman See,[3] and the Aragonese strenuously resisted the
establishment 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 unmerited
suffering and more unmixed evil than any other devised by man, whereby
more innocent people passed through the fire than were perhaps ever
sacrificed at the altar of Moloch, was first put into action in
September 1480, during the reign of the pious and noble-minded
Isabella.[1] The festival of Epiphany in the following year was selected
as an appropriate date for the manifestation of the first auto da fé,
when six Jews were burnt at Seville; for it was against that unfortunate
people that this inhuman persecution was devised, or at least first
used. That one year witnessed the martyrdom of 2000 persons, and the
infliction on 17,000 others of punishments only less than death itself.
During the administration of Thomas of Torquemada, which lasted eighteen
years, more than 10,000 persons perished at the stake, nearly 100,000
were, as the phrase went, reconciled.[2] The confiscation of property
which accompanied all this burning and imprisoning brought in enormous
sums into the coffers of the Inquisitors.

The Jews being burnt, converted, or expelled the country, the
Inquisition was turned upon the wretched Moriscoes, as the Moors under
Christian government were called, who were oppressed and persecuted in
the same way as the Jews, and finally driven from Spain.

But a more important conquest than these--more important, that is, to
the supremacy of the Roman See--was the undoubted conquest achieved by
the Inquisition over the reforming doctrines which in the sixteenth
century began to find their way into Spain from Germany and England.
Finding a congenial soil, the reformation began to spread in Spain with
wonderful rapidity. The divines sent by Charles V. into England were
themselves converted, and returned full of zeal for the Protestant
faith--"Their success," says Geddes,[3] "was such that had not a speedy
and full stop been put to their pious labours by the merciless
Inquisition, the whole kingdom of Spain had in all likelihood been
converted to the Protestant religion, in less time than any other
country had ever been before."[4] So untrue is it to say that
persecution always fails of its object! In Spain it has riveted the
fetters, which the weakness and superstition of the earlier kings of
Leon and Castile, together with the piety and misdirected enthusiasm of
Isabella, 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 to
the 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 notes
by 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. The
author (Preface, p. 2) says that "he has compiled his work from Arabian
memorials and writings in such sort that those documents may be read as
they were written;" (p. 18), "The student of history may read this book
as written by an Arabic author."

Older writers used to speak very highly of this work, but their modern
successors cannot find a good word for it.[1] De Gayangos, the learned
translator of the Arabic history of Al Makkari, though not blind to the
"unmethodical arrangement of the whole work, the absence of notes and
citations of authorities, and the numerous errors and
contradictions,"[2] yet does not hesitate to call Conde's book the
foundation of all our knowledge of the history of Mohammedan Spain. It
certainly is astonishing that Conde, who points out[3] the errors of his
predecessors, makes precisely the same kind of mistakes himself, not
only once, but constantly. Claiming to be above all things faithful to
his 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," with
additions by Professor Shakespear, 1816. This work is based on
Mohammedan sources, those, namely, which are mostly to be found in Al
Makkari's compilation. The concluding chapters on the influence,
scientific and literary, exercised by the Arabs in Europe, are
exhaustive and interesting.

(4.) _Ahmed ibn Mohammed Al Makkari_. "History of the Mohammedan
Dynasties 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 whole
very trustworthy, and its notes form a perfect mine of information for
the student wandering helplessly among the mazes of Arab history. Al
Makkari, a native of Africa, flourished at the beginning of the
seventeenth century; but he quotes from many old Arabic writers, whose
evidence is most valuable. Among these are--

[Greek: a.] _Abu Bekr Mohammed ibn Omar, Ibn al Kuttiyah_, descended
from the grand-daughter of Witiza; died, 877.

[Greek: b.] _Ahmed ibn Mohammed ibn Musa Arrazi_, flourished in the
reign 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 at
Cordova, 994; died, 1064.

[Greek: e.] _Abu Merwan Hayyan ibn Khalf ibn Huseyn ibn Hayyan,_ born at
Cordova, 1006.

[Greek: z.] _Abul Kasim Khalf ibn Abdilmalik ibn Mesud ibn Musa Al
Anssari_, Cordova, 1101-1183.

[Greek: ê.] _Abul hasan Ali ibn Musa ibn Mohammed ibn Abdalmalik ibn
Said_ 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 useful
collection of Spanish writers, together with much information about
them, written in Spanish.

(3.) _Migne's_ "Patrologia," Latin and Greek, a most invaluable
collection in several score volumes. The following is a list of those
consulted:--

([Greek: a].) _Isidore of Beja_, "Epitome Imperatorum vel Arabum
Ephemerides atque Hispaniae Chronographia," being a continuation of the
Chronicle 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 to
973.) This is also called Chronicon Emilianense. It was perhaps begun by
Dulcidius, Bishop of Salamanca, and carried on by the monk Vigila.
    Sidenote: _Ibid._ 1146.

([Greek: d].) Chronicon _Sampiri_ "Asturicensis Episcopi" (written about
1000), 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 the
epithet "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 rerum
Hispanarum," etc.
    Sidenote: _Ibid._, i. 246-291.

([Greek: i].) _Luitprand_, died 972. The Chronicon and Adversaria
attributed to him are by a later hand, and extend over the years
606-960. 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 Arabs
from Christian and Arabic Sources, carried down to 1140." He died in
1245. The work is full of irrelevant references to Scripture and to
profane history. He does not even mention the Christian martyrdoms in
the 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 are
valuable, but all are meagre to the last degree; others are nearly
worthless.

Other authorities there are of a different kind--not historians, but
writers on incidental subjects, whose works throw great light on the
history 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 the
Pseudo-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 habitu
Clericorum."
    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 Monastery
of Pegnamellar, died 890. (See Epigram or Epitaph of Cyprianus.)
"Apologeticus Liber contra perfidos" (Jan. 1, 863).

(_r_.) _Jonas Aurelianensis_. "De cultu imaginum." An Answer to
Claudius, Bishop of Turin (842).
    Sidenote: Florez, xi. 300-516.

(_s_.) _De Translatione SS. Martyrum Georgii_ Monachi, Aurelii et
Nathaliae ex urbe Cordubae Parisios auctore _Aimoino_ monacho: from
Usuard and Odilard, monks.
    Sidenote: Migne, cxv. pp. 939 ff.

(_t_.) _Vita Johannis Abbatis Gorziensis_ (died 973), by John, Abbot of
St 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 qui
passi sunt apud Ledesmam. A purely fabulous account.
    Sidenote: Florez, xiv., 392.

(_x._) _Vita et passio B. Virginis Argenteae_ et comitum eius qui passi
sunt Cordobae, Id. Maii.
    Sidenote: Florez.

(_y._) _Life of Beatus_, by an anonymous author. Not very
trustworthy,--_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 a
parentibus Rudesindi instaurati, 927.
    Sidenote: _Ibid._, xvii. 326


II. SECONDARY AUTHORITIES:--

(1.) "Histoire generale d'Espagne" par _Loys de Mayerne Turguet_. Book
xvi. (1608.)
    Sidenote: Schott.

(2.) _John de Mariana_.[1] "History of Spain." Books vi.-xi., translated
from 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 under
the 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, very
extravagantly, that it is "perhaps the best history in the English
language of a foreign modern country." It certainly has the merit--no
small one in so confused a period--of being clear and succinct; but he
has a bias against the Moors.

(8.) _W.H. Prescott_. "Ferdinand and Isabella." An excellent work. The
parts chiefly bearing on the present subject are the Introduction and
chapter viii. The great drawback to the work is the want of direct
citations of authorities used.

(9.) _Hardwicke's_ "History of the Christian Church in the Middle Ages,"
1853.

(10.) The Abbé _Rohrbacher_. "Histoire Universelle de l'Eglise
Catholique." 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 des
Arabes," par _M. Cardonne_. 3 vols., 1765. A history based chiefly on
Arab writers, but not very trustworthy, as Conde (Pref., p. 14) and
Murphy (notes, passim) have shown.

(13.) _Dozy_. "Histoire des Mussulmans d'Espagne jusqu' à la conquête de
l'Andalousie par les Almoravides, 711-1110." 4 vols., Leyden, 1861. An
invaluable history of the time, being both lucid and thorough.

(14.) _E.A. Freeman_. "History and Conquests of the Saracens." Six
lectures (ed. 1870). Spanish affairs are treated rather as a [Greek:
parergon] in Lecture v. An unprejudiced and accurate writer, with a
strong bias, however, against chivalry (see Lecture v., p. 182).

(15.) _Ockley_. "History of the Saracen Empire" (Reprint in
the Chandos Classics).

(16.) _Gibbon_. The parts relating to the Saracens are conveniently
reprinted 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 View
of 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 give
one instance only out of many--The authoress says (p. 29), that Ali, the
son-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. A
brilliant, but essentially unfair book, Christianity being extolled in
theory, but sneered at in practice. We are too forcibly reminded of
"Brutus is an honourable man." His own accusation of others falls upon
himself. P. 61, he says--"Most other writers have approached the subject
only 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," and
Washington Irving's "Granada."

(28.) _Blunt._ "Dictionary of Sects, Heresies, and Schools of Thought."
1874. The articles on Mohammedanism, the Adoptionists, and others I have
found very useful. There is, however, nothing said of the
Priscillianists (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 admirable
translation.

(_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." Translated
by Murdoch. 1845.


PRINTED BY

TURNBULL AND SPEARS,

EDINBURGH.