Romania: The Jewries of the Levant after the Fourth Crusade

ROMANIA THE JEWRIES OF THE LEVANT AFTER THE FO UR TH CRUSADE

BY

JOSHUA STARR

OFFICE DES EDITIONS UNIVERSITAIRES 2,

RUE

CLAUDE-LORRAIN

-

PARIS

(16 F )

To .N[y Teacher a1Jd Colleague SALO W. BARON

CONTENTS Preface

Bibliographical Note 1.

II. III. IV. V.

The Thirteenth Century Constantinople under the Palaeologoi Chalcis (Negroponte) Modon and Coron Patras

Thessalonica under the Rule of Venice VII. Durazzo VIII. Rhodes under the Knights Hospitallers IX. Chios under the Genoese VI.

X. XI.

Cyprus Taxation

Appendix : An Anonymous Letter from Negro-

ponte to the Jewish Community of Rome, written about 1300

Index

9 13 1.5

25

37 63

73

77 81 85

95 101

III

PREFACE

FOR about nine centuries the Balkan peninsula, together with the islands of the Aegean, formed part of the Byzantine Empire. By the beginning of the 13th century the Empire had begun to totter, and in the

space of a few months the disjointed forces of the Fourth Crusade (1203-1204) carved the historic realm into a bewildering multiplicity of colonies and dominions. In a previous monograph I presented the results of a study of the Jewish situation under Byzan-

tine rule from the Muslim expansion to the eve of this dismemberment. For the ensuing three centuries there are a number of local studies, which tell the story of a few, relatively well-known, communities. The existence of other Jewries has remained virtually unnoticed. It is true that the material is scanty and does not yield a continuous record, but the fragments are often rich in scope and historical interest. One need not be surprised that there is little correlation between the variations in fullness of information and the relative importance of the several communities. For the groups subject to imperial rule, Constantinople Jewry in particular, the extant material is quite sporadic, and far more meager than the sources pertaining to a number of smaller centers. The history 9

of all these communities reflects the commercial spurt initiated dramatically by the Fourth Crusade, and the chronic international strife, the effects of which were aggravated by natural disasters. There was, to be sure, no absence of specifically Jewish activities and difficulties. We shall have occasion to consider two instances of official intolerance in the extreme sense; there is, however, no comparison between conditions in the East and the suffering inflicted on the Western

Jews in the same period. A striking example is the Black Death, which spread by way of Constantinople. Whereas in the West the plague years brought catastrophe in the form of intensified hatred and pogroms, the fatal epidemic made no change in the political and

social status of the Jews in the Latin Orient or the Byzantine state.

Between the Eastern Adriatic coast and the shores

of Asia Minor there were more than forty island and mainland towns (in addition to a fair number of villages), which were inhabited by Jewish groups. Of these some twenty-five appear in the itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela, and the others in later sources.. The reader will find that in a few instances I have tried to reconstruct the local scene at some length. Elsewhere I have had to be content with a briefer sketch, and with no more than a passing mention of various communities. All these localities are in territory which passed from Christian to Ottoman control in the 14th, 15th or 16th century. The advent of the Turk in each locality essentially marks the end of the period to which I have addressed myself.

I have, nevertheless, not refrained from

crossing the line, where the material at my disposal warranted the extension. If my pages on the later period command some interest from the standpoint 10

of local Graeco-Jewish history, I must at the same time emphasize my recognition of the need for a fuller investigation of the Turkish epoch. Among the modern Romaniote communities, which struck root in the Middle Ages, one of the most important is undoubtedly Janina, but the recorded history of this Jewry falls essentially within the post-Byzantine period. In an excellent article, Prof. Nikos A. Bees (in By,antinisch-Neugriechische Jahrbucher, vol ii [1921])

laid the foundations for further research on this community, which awaits the attention of a scholar versed in both the Jewish and other sources. It is a pleasure to acknowledge my appreciation of the editorial aid of my faithful friend, Dr. Solomon

F. Bloom, whose criticism of my writing has been extremely valuable. Prof. Franz Dolger kindly placed a number of important publications at my disposal.

Paris, May 1948.

J. S.

II

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE The publications bearing directly on aspects of our subject are quite limited in number and extent. The works of Cecil Roth, Abraham Galante' and Solomon A. Rosanes have been utilized, as has Peter Charanis' noteworthy article on the policy of the early Palaeologoi emperors. Frequent reference is also made to the present author's book on Byzantine Jewry and to his article on the Jews of Crete under Venetian rule. The author is indebted to several works of general scope. In particular, attention should be called to

the well-known book of Wilhelm Heyd, Histoire

du Commerce du Levant au Moyen Age (Leipzi(y 18 8 5 and

later reprint editions; z vols.), and the two by William Miller, The Latins in the Levant (Cambridge 1908), and Essays on the Latin Orient (Cambridge 19zi). For purposes of general orientation, the most recent guides are Charles Diehl et al., L'Europe orientale de 1081 a

145 3

(Paris 1945), and Rene' Grousset, L'Empire du Levant (Paris 1946). For the travel-books of the period the bibliography compiled by Heyd may be extensively supplemented

by referring to Enrico Cerulli, Gli Etiopi in Terra

Santa (Rome 1943, vol. 1). I cannot, however, claim to have canvassed every source of this type. 13

I

THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY

T the turn of the 13th century the Byzantine .1 1 Empire e had a widely distributed Jewish population, which had enjoyed more than two centuries of political and economic stability. In the major centers, such as Constantinople and Thebes, Jewish artisans were prominent in the production of silk garments, and, in addition to other artisans and the merchant

group, a fair number were engaged in agriculture. This stable situation was undermined by the impact of the Fourth Crusade. The communities were no longer under a common regime, but had to make their

peace with one or another of the invading powers; in the unconquered territory they fell prey to rulers who suddenly proscribed Judaism. The disruptive effect of the partition of the Empire

must not, however, be permitted to obscure the speedy adaptation of most of the local Jewries to the new era. We are, it is true, in no position to compare the pattern of the communal life of the izth century with that of the later period. It is only with the beginning of the 13th century that we possess communal documents and related materials which reveal Jewish life as it flourished in the Byzantine milieu. We propose, accordingly, to devote the first part of 15

this chapter to the consideration of certain well-rooted features of communal life, which weathered the advent of the Latin masters. With this background we may

thereafter proceed to view the negative side of the situation in proper perspective.

The only communal documents available for our period are those of the Jewry of Candia, the capital of the Venetian colony of Crete, and these may be considered at least tentatively as typical of the region as a whole. The earliest statutes of Candial are testimony that the structure of Jewish self-government held firm, despite the repeated outbreaks of violence and the difficulty of maintaining communication with the larger Jewish centers. Can we assume that the Jewries of Romania as a whole displayed this resilience

and cohesion during the violent events of the same century?

We have the testimony of two visitors

from the West, which suggests that they did. The ranking community after 1204 was no longer Constantinople but Thebes, hitherto a close rival of the former in population and in fame as a producer of silk garments. After visiting the entire area in 12 18, the poet Judah al-Harizi of Spain lauded the scholars and poets of Thebes, the only town that he deigned to call by name2. Al-Harizi thus rescued from oblivion a thriving center, whose history is deplorably obscure.

For a glimpse into the inner life of Romania as a whole, however, we must draw on the responsa of the famous rabbi of Trani, Isaiah b. Mali, who spent his life in a Jewish cultural milieu very closely related to that of Greece3.

Besides attesting the vitality of these long-established Jewries during the aftermath of the Fourth Crusade, these valuable responsa bring to light a number of distinctive traits. The author was in cor16

respondence with the local groups not later than 12044, a short time before he journeyed to Palestine. Isaiah

was conversant with the writings of scholars who flourished in the Byzantine area (including some that

have since disappeared), and showed deference to his older contemporary, R. Isaac of Romania. He indicates, in the first place, that Jewish law had a relatively limited application in this region. Parties

to a dispute not involving ritual problems could either take their case to the secular court or request the rabbi to arbitrate; as far as is known, the commun-

ity did not object to the former procedure, which elsewhere would have violated the jurisdiction of the Jewish court. In Romania, moreover, the arbitrator was concerned with arranging a compromise without regard to the bearing of Jewish civil law on the case. Although outside observers like Isaiah of Trani viewed

this procedure with disfavor, the practice persisted among the Romaniotes into the Turkish period. There is no reason to suppose that this disregard of Jewish

law developed as a result of the neglect of rabbinic studies. It represents rather an adjustment to the limita-

tion of the power of the Jewish court in the Byzantine Empire, which did not recognize the competence of communal authorities in secular affairs.

Inasmuch as Isaiah's opinion was sought only in particularly thorny cases, his responsa tend to give an unduly seamy picture. He indicates, for example, that a self-confident, and presumably wealthy, Jew could on occasion commit offenses with impunity,

knowing that the community would not dare to threaten him with excommunication. A distressing example was given by one who virtually stole a bride from another man, on the basis of a ritual technicality. Unable to recite the "seven benedictions", the bride17

groom had requested a treacherous acquaintance to pronounce them; the latter acceded and promptly took the girl to wife. That the legal distinction between betrothal and marriage was often honored in the breach, is implied by communal regulations directed

against parents permitting the betrothed couple to live as man and wife. Indeed, the recitation of the benedictions solemnizing the marriage directly followed the betrothal ceremony, and was repeated at the wedding, which took place later. The term stefanonlata

(referring to the crowns worn by the Christian bridal pair) was the regular designation of the Jewish wedding. There is a curious case of the husband, who proposed to celebrate the anniversary of his marriage

by re-enacting the stefan&vata, but Isaiah of Trani ruled this to be inadmissible. The tendency to ignore the legal distinction between the force of the ceremonies of betrothal and marriage is a peculiarity, which raises the question of Christian

influence on the customs of the Jews of Romania. Friendly intercourse between Jew and Christian was undoubtedly not a rare phenomenon in medieval Europe as a whole. In the East, by the end of the iith century the larger Greek cities harbored colonies of heretical Armenians as well as unbelieving Jews and Muslims, who maintained amicable relations with their Orthodox neighbors. A sufficient number of the Greeks persisted in eating together with the Jewish

and Muslim groups, despite the canonical ban, to constitute one of the problems posed before the Patriarch (ca. 1' 5 o) 5. Hence, it is at least curious to observe

that the recitation of the nuptial benediction at the betrothal ceremony was well established in the Church6.

One may suspect that the Jewish group borrowed this custom, just as it took over the vernacular term 18

for wedding. Child marriage, on the other hand, was

quite frequent in both religious communities, and its prevalence throughout the Jewish world does not warrant any inference as to Christian influence. It seems likely that the custom of child marriage resulted

in a high rate of divorce among the Romaniote Jews, and that the action was often inspired by the parents. Such matters could not, of course, always be arranged amicably. If the husband resisted the father-in-law's demand, the latter would not hesitate to call on the secular authorities to use force. Although the Karaites were conspicuous only in Constantinople and Cyprus, there are definite traces of their influence. In contradistinction to the general principle among non-Karaites, in Romania a married

woman retained full title to her dowry; blood relatives rather than her spouse were her heirs. To what extent this degree of equality between the sexes was reflected in daily life is not known, but the practice was not, at any rate, among those opposed by outside rabbis, in whose environment the dowry was subject to the husband's control. Isaiah of Trani and others,

on the other hand, severely censured the imitation of the Karaites by the Romaniotes in regard to the ritual bath prescribed for the womenfolk7.

Turning now from the internal situation to the impact of political events, we find that the Latin invaders showed no inclination to revise the status of their Jewish subjects. The Fourth Crusade was, indeed, marked by considerable bloodshed and destruction, particularly in the capital. Wherever possible,

however, the conquerors settled down to rule and exploit the resources and trade of their possessions, a policy rarely affected by religious zeal. Even while 19

establishing their clerical institutions in the midst of a dissident population, the conquerors soon realized that it was to their interest to interfere as little as possible with existing conditions. Inasmuch as the Jews formed a relatively important sector in handicraft and trade,

their status seems to have improved to a degree in consequence of the commercial policies of the Latin regimes.

The Greek rulers in Epirus and Asia Minor (Empire of Nicaea), on the other hand proceeded differently. Theodore I Dukas Angelos (1214-3o), second Despot

of Epirus, who added the Kingdom of Thessalonica to his domain (in zz23 or 1224), initiated an antiJewish policy which was due to be extended. Theodore, relates a well-informed Hebrew writer, enriched himself by confiscating the wealth of the Jews, and refused them redress against injustices. The charge that the Despot went further and proscribed Judaism is confirmed by a later chronicle, which records two decrees in "Greece" at an interval of 35 years9. The date of the earlier event, however, corresponds to i 196

and seems to be at least a decade in advance of any The later one undoubtedly refers such measure. to the decree issued at Nicaea by John III Dukas Vatatzes (1222-54), which is also mentioned by the earlier Hebrew sources". One should, moreover, note that this measure is credited to Vatatzes in a late hagio-

graphic source (17th century), which embodies the

popular tradition in which this emperor attained "canonization"ii As for the motive of the persecution, we can only conjecture that it reflects the upsurge of nationalism in the provinces remaining under Greek rule. The presence of a Jewish population in the Latin states and

in the realm of the ambitious Bulgarian monarch, 20

John Asen (1218-41), apparently reinforced the dis-

trust of the Greek rulers in regard to their Jewish

subjects, both in Asia and in Europe. While the territorial expansion of Bulgaria may have brought some

relief to the Jews, the decay of the Latin Empire was bound to have an adverse effect on them. In 1246

Vatatzes entered Thessalonica, and by the end of the decade the Greeks controlled the region from Adrianople to Stobi and Skoplje, including in their domain the towns of Kastoria and Ochrida12. The restoration of Byzantine rule over a considerable portion of the Balkans meant the suppression of various Jewish communities, regarding which there is scarcely any information. There is, however, one relevant

document, which deals with the claim of a convert, Manuel, formerly Israel b. Abraham, to a vineyard in Vrastiana, near Kastoria (Macedonia). This property had belonged to the claimant's parents and had passed into the possession of his stepfather. During the period of Bulgarian rule, the litigation was submitted to the archbishop at Ochrida, Demetrios Khomatianos (1220-34), who upheld the claimant13. We may assume that for the communities of Kastoria, Thessalonica, and several others, the victorious Greek advance was a serious blow. If the ban on Judaism served any purpose as long

as the Greek rump states were striving to recover their capital, it became pointless once they reached their goal. Michael VIII (1258-82), whose reconquest of Constantinople was but the beginning of a notable reign, undertook to repopulate and reconstruct the ravaged metropolis. Evidently he realized

that his program required the co-operation of all elements, other than those who were then actively hostile (notably the citizens of Venice and the Kingdom 21

of Naples). We do not know whether he found any Jews in Constantinople upon his entry, but the period of persecution was definitely terminated. According

to our only source, Jacob b. Elijah, the emperor gathered together the learned men of Israel throughout

his realm and announced that he had discarded the policy of Vatatzes. Thereafter the Jewish subjects of the Palaeologoi were as unhampered in their religious life as their fellows in the Latin colonies. i.

Tagqanot Caidia ve-Zikronoteha, ed. A. S. Artom and M. D. A. Cassuto (Jerusalem 1943); see also Starr, "Jewish Life in Crete under the Rule of Venice", Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, vol. x11 (1942), 59-114 (hereafter cited as PAAJR). 2. Tahkemoni, ed. P. Lagarde : Macamae (Hannover 1924), pp. 92, 184. For Hebrew mss. copied here, Neubauer, A., Catalogue of the Hebrew manuscripts in the Bodleian Library (Oxford 1836), vol. 1, no. 2513

(1267), no. 1550 (1415). See also Elijah Mizrahi, Responsa (Jerusalem 1938), no. 71 (1507), p. 240. The Catalan sources contain no information; Rubio i Lluch, A., La poblacio de la Grecia catalana en el XIVen segle (Barcelona 1933), p. 19See. Asaf, S., "On the Family Life of the Jews of Byzantium", 3(Hebrew) Sefer ha yobel le-kebod ha-Professor S. Krauss (Jerusalem 1937),

pp. 169-177; Schechter, S., "Notes on Hebrew Mss. at Cambridge", Jewish Quarterly Review, vol. iv (1892), 9o-loo; Gross, H., "Jesaja b. Mali da Trani", Zeitschrift fiir hebraische Bibliographic, vol. x111 (1909), 46-554.

Date of the responsum addressed to the seaport Durachi(um),

modern Durazzo (see ch. vii), cited by Gross, loc. cit., p. 51 (cf. P. 52). Cf. Krauss, S., Studien Zur byZaitinisch jiidischen Geschichte (Vienna 19,4),

p. 85, n. 4. 5.

Grumel, V., Los Regestes des actes c/u patriarcat de Constantinople,

vol. i, fasc. 3 (Paris 1947), p. Ioi, no. 1034 (s. 7)6. Ibid., P 77, CO- 995 (s. 9); Cf. Pp. 21 f., no. 886. 7.

In addition to sources cited by Asaf, see the admonition of

Eleazar b. Samuel of Verona (early 13th century) to two scholars in an unnamed maritime town; Gross, MagaZin fiir die ll7issenschaft des Judentums, vol. x (1881), 71. 8.

Text edited by Kobak, J., in Jeshurun, vol. vi (1868), 24-26;

reprinted in Eisenstein, S., Osar TVikkuhim (New York 1928), p. 191.

See also Mann, J., "Une Source de l'histoire juive au xxne siecle : la lettre polemique de Jacob b. Elie a Pablo Christian", Revue des etudes juives, vol. Lxxxii (1926), 372 f. 22

9.

Samuel Algazi (of Candia), Toledot Adam (Venice 1585),

pp. 7b-8a; this chronicler's dates are often inexact. Vatatzes undoubfedly continued Theodore's decree at Thessalonica; the date 1253,

mentioned by Charanis, P., "The Jews in the Byzantine Empire

under the First Paleologi". Speculum, vol. xx11 (1947), 75, seems rather late, although it is indicated by Jacob b. Elijah.

The passage of Jacob b. Elijah (n. 8) describing the fina illness of Vatatzes should be compared with Nicephorus Gregoras, 10.

Historia Byzantina, ed. L. Schopen [Bonn Corpus, vol. xix] (1829), vol. I, P. 49. ii. Cited but rejected as in need of emendation by Heisenberg, A., `.`Kaiser Johannes Batatzes der Barmherzige", ByZantinische Zeitschrift, vol. xIV (1905), 188. 12. Pappadopoulos, J. B., Theodore II Lascaris, Empereur de

Nicee (Paris 1908), pp. 56 f. 13. Pitra, J. B., Analecta sacra et classica (Rome 1891), vol. V1, no. 85, cols. 377-82; cf. the variant Latin summary, p. 812: "Israel... tutorem habuit Chrysen, qui pupillum pessumdedit famelicum, vagum, etiam mulieri Sagae (read : Sarae) derelictum, frustra reluctante episcopo Castoriensi". (For the date, see ch. vii, n. 3, below.) On the community of Kastoria, see Starr, J., The Jews in the Byzantine Empire, 641-1204 (Athens 1939), pp. 216-i8. For the modern period there is a work which I have not seen : Molho, M., Histoire des israelites de Castoria (Saloniki 1938).

23

II

CONSTANTINOPLE UNDER THE PALAEOLOGOI T the time of the Latins' entry the Jewish populaLion was not permitted to reside in the capital,

A but only in a designated quarter within the suburb of Pera. Housing the largest community in the Empire, this ghetto in the Pegal district (modern Cassim Pasha)

was subdivided to segregate the 50o Karaites from the 2,000 Rabbinite Jews; the district at large was inhabited by colonies of foreigners (from Italy and Russia)'. The Crusaders scarcely had time to admire the wealth and beauty of the Jewish quarter2, when fighting broke out: in Iz03 the Flemish troops under Baldwin proceeded from the tower of Galata to the ghetto and set it aflame3. This disaster, which wiped

out a center noted for the manufacture of luxurious garments, was but a prelude to the holocaust a few months later. The seat of the Latin Emperors (12041261) was a shambles. The fall of "mighty Tyre" may well have kindled imminent messianic hopes within

the local Jewry; those in other lands had, indeed, responded to the dramatic events of the preceding century as though their redemption were at hand. The unknown author of a Hebrew "Vision of Daniel",

evidently a survivor of the fall of Constantinople, reviewed the vicissitudes of his ancestors under the 25

Emperors and apparently regarded his experience as foreshadowing the advent of the Messiah4. Following the Latin interlude (for which there are no data on our subject), we find Jews residing on

both sides of the Golden Horn, in various parts of the city proper as well as in Pera. In the mid-14th cen-

tury one traveller observed "many 'Jews" on the western shore of the Golden Horn, adjoining the Venetian quarter; by a coincidence this group lived near the Jews' Gate, an ancient designation which had survived the long absence of the Jews from the districts. Another quarter, mentioned at a later date, was situated to the southeast°; during the Turkish period the Karaite community claimed that it had occupied this district before 145 3. There was a third group in the Balat quarter'. On the Pera side likewise the Jewish population was distributed in two or more parts of the suburb. Some lived within the limits of the Genoese colony, which virtually monopolized the lucrative trade between the Black Sea region and Italy. The name Qarakioi, attached to a section of

the waterfront, suggests that there were Karaites among the subjects of the Genoese. There may also have been a Jewish group in Ortakoy, on the Bosphorus, although the evidence is rather late8. The treaties of the Palaeologoi with Genoa and Venice provided for certain extra-territorial rights,

which governed the status both of the citizens of these republics and of a larger number of residents, designated as "white" Genoese and Venetians. Thus, among the subjects of the podesta of Pera and of the bailo of Venice, in addition to Italians there were persons of mixed parentage, Jews, Armenians, and even Greeks. The Jews of Pera are mentioned in pass-

ing by Bertrandon de La Brocquiere (143z)9. One z6

named Leoninus was fined by the podesta in 1390, and half a century later an ordinance required Jews, together with other residents, to observe the official rest-days of the colony'°. Of the commercial connections between these Jews and those of Kaffa", the major Genoese colony on the coast of the Black Sea, nothing is known. In Constantinople proper we find the emperor's Jewish subjects living together with those who belong-

ed to the Venetian colony12. The development of a Jewish quarter on this, side of the Golden Horn, after several centuries of exclusion, evoked a formal protest

on the part of Patriarch Athanasius. The Jews were only one of the minority groups, whose appearance coincides with the program of Michael VIII for the rebuilding and repopulation of the ruined city; before the century was over Andronicus II (1282-1328) receiv-

ed a bitter message from the Patriarch, decrying the freedom of Jews, Armenians and Turks. In addition to pointing out the incongruity of synagogues, mosques and heretical churches in the Orthodox capital, Athanasius charged that the Jews had gained "great power" through Kokalas, apparently an official, and insinuated

that they had suborned himi3. In this protest, which evidently went unheeded, we see the reaction of the conservative spirit of a monk to the change in the local atmosphere.

Athanasius seems to have been the first and only medieval Greek dignitary to have voiced a fear of the power of the Jews, and one doubts whether any such danger existed. The Jews were in fact not powerful enough to liberate themselves from the obligation of providing an executioner, when the emperor willed it. Thus, the sentence of Andronicus on his general, Alexios Philanthropenos, whose troops had rebelled, 27

was carried out by Jews, in accordance with a standing

custom14. We shall also have occasion to see how the same emperor imposed a grievous restriction on Jewish craftsmen. The employment of a Jew in the imperial court was an extremely rare phenomenon. Of the two instances on record, one served as physician to Manuel I, prior to our period, and the other appears in connection with the visit of Ibn Batuta (ca. 1330), in the reign of Andronicus III. One of the three officials who received this visitor was a Jew from Syria who acted as inter-

preter during the audience with the emperor15. In later years the emperors had occasional contact with converts. One of these was Makarios, confessor to Manuel II (1391-1425); the other, Zenon by name, engaged in a disputation with John VIII in 1447, and his conversion was the sole "momentous conquest" which Gibbon could ascribe to that reign". If Jewish merchants attained any prominence in the economic life of the declining capital, the fact has left few traces in the source material. It is significant that the diplomatic correspondence of the early 14th century, between Venice and the Palaeologoi, did involve the local Jewry, but as craftsmen rather than as traders. Some time before 1319 Andronicus II had assigned a residential quarter to the Jews, adjacent to the Venetian colony, and had fixed their tax payment. The main occupation of this Jewish group was dressing furs and tanning hides from the Crimea; it will be recalled that Benjamin of Tudela had observed this craft in the Pera ghetto, and we shall have further occasion to

advert to it in Modon and Rhodes. Forming in effect

a guild under state control, the group admitted to its ranks a number of other Jews falling into a different category, namely, subjects of Venice, who could not 28

be taxed by the emperor. The newcomers agreed to work exclusively on furred skins (pelanzina), leaving the hides (coria) in the domain of the emperor's subjects. This arrangement worked smoothly until 1319, when Andronicus II suddenly ordered his Jews to discontinue plying their craft and to turn to other occupations. The "Venetian" Jews thereupon seized the opportunity to take over the tanning of hides, which the emperor clearly was determined to reserve for Greeks. A painful tug-of-war now ensued. When the "Venetian" Jews disregarded the order to confine themselves, as previously, to pelamina, an armed squad invaded their shops and confiscated the coria, much of which was burned or dumped into the Golden Horn. Thereafter, no subject of Venice, whether Jew or Christian, was permitted to engage in tanning bides. The Jewish workers were evicted from their homes

after having sustained

a loss,

assessed

by the

bailo at 1,741.5 hyperpera17. In the meantime Greek envoys proceeded to Venice, where they demanded that the recalcitrants either confine themselves to pela vina, or, if they insisted on invoking their extra-territorial rights, to remove themselves to the Venetian colony. Rejecting this demand, Venice argued that, under the terms of its treaty, its subjects had the right of free residence and choice of vocation throughout the Empire; those residing outside its colony could be required to pay a rental or a property tax, but no more. The Republic affirmed that its subjects had a legal right to work as tanners as well as to dress furred skins. In reply the Greeks emphasized two points : i. The Jews had violated an agreement to limit themselves to pelamina, and the emperor was determined to enforce that restriction. 2. The violation had impelled the emperor's Jewish 29

subjects to evict the offenders (a questionable assertion), an action with which the state could not properly interfere. No violation of the treaty had occurred, the reply added, for no Byzantine subject could be compelled to let space to an unwanted tenant; the Jews were free to exercise that prerogative even against Greeks". In the course of this exchange of complaints, the Greeks alleged that most of the "Venetian" Jews were residents of imperial territory, over whom the emperor had graciously waived control. In one of its notes Venice asserted that these persons had leased their space either from the empress, her agents or imperial officials, with the understanding that like the established Jewry these subjects of the Republic could build dwellings thereon and engage in any occupation they chose. The provision for the construction of houses in the Jewish quarter corresponds to the stipulation in the privileges granted to the Latin merchant colonies. At the end of a 29-year period the occupants acquired title to the land by right of emphyteusis. It is significant that, in designating a sector of the city for a group of Jewish subjects and in defining their rights therein, Andronicus II evidently followed an established pattern, which is not to be confused with the premises of the ghetto system. There is no indication that Byzantine-Jewish subjects were restricted to this particular quarter. Without claiming that the Jewry established beside the Venetian colony enjoyed a status equal to that of other legally recognized colonies, there is an instructive parallel between the chrysobulls pertaining to the Italians and Catalanslsa and the provision for the Jewish group in question. The intransigence of the emperor in the affair of the 30

Jewish tanners is underscored in a complaining despatch from the bailo, under date of March 3, 1320. Andronicus, he wrote, had betrayed his promise to permit Venetian subjects to work on jtelanzina, and only Greeks were allowed to handle skins or hides. Efforts to obtain satisfaction for the losses of the Jews had been utterly wasted. It is well to note that this particular grievance was but a part of the far-reaching complaint as to the unjust treatment of the subjects of the Republic" Whatever the merits of the case, it arose at a juncture at which the position of Venice was pathetically weak, and the emperor saw no reason to make amends. In 1322 the Republic instructed its envoy to investigate claims for indemnification, including those presented by Jews20, but some years were yet to elapse before diplomatic relations improved. By that time both

parties had shifted their attention to other issues. As the champion of the rights of its subjects abroad, Venice was as much interested in the welfare of the Jews as in that of any others. In the mixed society of Constantinople, where many persons (including nonItalians) tended to seek the protection of Genoa21, the Jewish fur and leather workers and the merchants were particularly precious to the rival Republic. The obligations of these subjects toward the bailo were evidently inconsiderable, compared with the levies prevailing in other Venetian colonies. We know only of the payment of the following regalia: io hyperpera on the arrival of a new bailo, every other year; four payments of a like amount each on certain holidays; at the beginning of each winter the bailo received boots to the value of 4 hyperpera, and every March brooms for his palace at a cost of 8 hyperpera22. This list may be incomplete, but if this Jewry paid the cus31

tomary annual tax, such as was levied in the other colonies, the fact has not been brought to light. Whereas no conflict as serious as that involving the Jewish craftsmen occurred in later years, the status of Jews claiming Venetian protection was the subject of a series of disputes. In 14z3 the bailo reported that many Jews, whose ancestors had been registered as "white" Venetians some eighty years before23, had been molested by Greek officials; these men had been forced to render labor service (angariis et gravaminibus grecorusmz) despite their claim to exemption. Several months after this abuse was broached to the Greek envoys at Venice, the bailo again had occasion to com-

plain against the mistreatment of Jewish and other subjects24.

As one might have suspected, the irregularities were not all on the side of the Greeks. The reverse side

of the medal is exemplified by the complaint of

Manuel II (1418) in regard to merchants, including Jews, who took undue advantage of the privileges of Venetian subjects; declaring the cargoes imported by them in behalf of Greeks and Turks as their own, these traders were defrauding the customs office. The Republic drily advised the emperor to take the matter up with the bailo25. The Greek officials for their part tended to ignore the distinction between the "Venetian" Jewish merchants and other Jewish exporters. The latter were obliged to pay a duty of half a hyperper on each cask of wine (shipped eastward), and their privileged compatriots were frequently compelled to do the same. This practice was one of the various grievances discussed in 145 o, during the negotiations for the renewal of the treaty between the two states, and Constantine XI formally pledged himself to respect the rights of the Jewish wine exporters 26 3z

In view of the financial plight of the imperial court, one may speculate as to the part of the Jews in alleviating this condition. According to Gennadios Scholarios, some of the church treasures were sold to nonGreeks, but it is not clear whether Jews were among the purchasers27.

Did the Jews take an active part in the defense of Constantinople? It is hard to imagine that they had no share in the operations, for which all civilians were mobilized, but the numerous sources on this final tragedy provide no answer. From Nicolo Barbaro, a survivor of the Venetian colony, we learn only that the wealth of the Jewish quarter determined one of the points at which the Turks made a landing. One squadron commenced its land operations by looting the homes of Jews, which were reputed to be stocked with riches, particularly in the form of jewels28. In carrying off the survivors as captives, the Turks made no distinction between Jew and Christian29. The

re-establishment of the community and its rise to pre-eminence as a Sephardic center forms, of course, a much more significant chapter than its medieval history,30 but at this point we must turn our attention to other parts of the Greek world. i. Starr, Jews in the Byzantine Empire, pp. 231, 240. It has subsequently been suggested, on excellent grounds, that Benjamin of Tudela should be understood as describing a Jewish guild engaged in the manufacture of silk garments; Baron, S. W., The Jewish Commu-

nity (Philadelphia 1942), vol. 1, 363; see further, Lopez, R. S., "Silk Industry in the Byzantine Empire", Speculum, vol. xix (1945), 242. Geoffroi de Villehardouin, La Conquete de Constantinople (Paris 1938) vol. 1, 158-

Tafel, G. L. Fr., and Thomas, G. M., in Fontes Rernm AustriaCorrect accordingly the remark in Starr, op. cit., p. 434. Text in Ginzberg L., Ginze Schechter (New York 1928) vol. r, 313-23, following the dating proposed by S. Krauss, whose study is cited in Starr, op. cit., p. 135 3.

carumr (Vienna 1856) vol. x11, 297.

33

5.

Stephen of Novgorod, ed. N. M. Speranski. 133 erapxna0l3

aonropoAcico» nnreparyptii XIV nexa. (Leningrad 1934), P. 55; cf. the editor's note, p. 72, and the map in MEya.Aij `Ek171vrr7j 'Ey%uA6IWaL6E(a, vol. xv, 607.

On the topographic aspects, see

also Galante, A., Les Juifs de Constantinople sons Byyance (Istanbul 1940); the author has consulted scarcely any of the source material for our period. 6. See the citation from Barbaro at the conclusion of this chapter. 7. Galante, op. cit., pp. 31, z6. 8. Ibid., 59 f., 32-36. 9. Le Voyage d'outre nner, ed. Ch. Schefer (Paris 1892), p. 141. On the colony, cf. Bratianu, G. I., Recherches sur le commerce genois daps la Mer Noire an XIIIC siecle (Paris 1929), pp. 89-107; Sauvaget, J.,

"Notes sur la colonie genoise de Pera", Syria, vol. xv (1934), 252-75 io. lorga, N., Notes et extraits pour servir a 1'histoire des croisades an XVe siecle (Paris 1899), vol. 1, 47, 11, 52; cf. ch. iv, below. ii. See the two documents (1449 and 1455) in the series published by P. Amedeo Vigna, in Atti della Societd Ligura di Storia Patria,

vol. vi (1878), no. cxxxl, pp. 319 f. (cf. Pp. 246 f.); vol. vu, pt. z

(1879), no. 40, pp. 630 f. 12. On this colony, see Diehl, Ch.,.Etudes by.Zantines (Paris 1905), PP- 241-75; Heyd, Histoire du commerce, vol. 1, 464-68; 11, 284 f13.

Banescu, N., "Le Patriarche Athanase Ier et Andronic II

14.

Georgios Pachymeres, Chronicon, ed. A. I. Bekker (Bonn

Paleologue. Etat religieux, politique et social de 1'Empire", Academia Roumaine: Bulletin de la section bistorique, vol. xxiii (194?), 35 f.; cf. Charanis, in Speculann, vol. xxrr, 75-77, and the correction below, ch. vu.

Corpus, vol. 1x, 1835), p. 229; cf. below, ch. in. 15. Voyages, ed. C. Defremery and B. R. Sanguinetti (Paris 1879 and 1914), vol. 11, p. 428 f.; H. A. R. Gibb, Ibn Batuta: Travels in Asia and Africa, 1325-54 (London 1929), Pp. 158 f16. Georgios Phrantzes, Chronicon, ed. J. B. Papadopoulos (Leipzig 1935), vol. 1, 127, 164-176 (the authorship of Phrantzes is no longer accepted); Gibbon, E., Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (London 1898), vol. vu, 99. While the literary polemic had become

virtually extinct by this date, two examples were contributed by Patriarch Gennadios of which one was written in 1464; Petit, L., et. al., CEuvres completes de Gennade Scholarios (Paris 1930), vol. in, 215-314 (cf. pp. xx-xxi).

The account of this episode is based on several documents : Thomas, G. M., Diplomatariwn Veneto-Levantinuty (Venice 188o), vol. 1, 125, 129, 142 ff.; text and translation in Minotto, D., Cbronik der Familie Minotto (Berlin 1901), vol. 1, 195, z18, 234 f. (sequence differs from the edition of Thomas). Cf. ch. xi, below. 17.

18. On the separate quarters for each guild, see Ibn Batuta,

Voyages, vol. 11, 431. 18 a. Cf. the texts and bibliography in Marinescu, C., "Notes 34

sur les Catalans dans l'Empire byzantin pendant le regne de Jacques II (1291-1327)", Alelanges d'histoire die moyen age offerts a M. Ferdinand Lot (Paris 1925), PP- 501-513 19. Thomas, op. cit., 165, 167; Minotto, ap. cit., 208, 210 f. 20. Thomas, op. cit., 187; Minotto, ap. cit., 254-2572.1. Thomas, op. cit., 103-10522. Filiasi, G., Alemorie storiche de' Veneti priori e secondi (Venice 1797), vol. vi, pt. 2, 220 f. 23. Cf. the case of the albi Veneti, who were Greeks; Noiret, H., Documents inedits pour servir a 1'histoire de la domination venitienne en Crete (Paris 1892), p. 18324. Sathas, C. N., Documents inAdits relatifs a l'histoire de la Grece an nroyen dge (Paris 1890), vol. I, 159; Iorga, op. cit., vol. 1, 365 f. 25. Ibid., 281. 26. Thomas, op. cit., it, 379 f.: on the scribania vegetum judeorum venetorunr ; correct accordingly Romanin S., Storia documentata di

VeneZia (Venice 1855), vol. Iv, 245, n. 3 (dated 1451).

The involvement of the Jews is suggested by Diamantopoulos, A. N., "Gennadios Scholarios as a source for the history of the period of the fall", (Greek) `EAXgvczu, vol. ix (1936), 299. z8. Giornale dell' assedio di Costantinopoli 1453,. ed. E. Cornet (Vienna 1856), p. 56: "parte de quela armada muntd in tera da la banda de la zudeca, per poder meio robar per esser li assai richeza in caxa de queli zudei, e masima de zoie." Cf. Pears, E., The Destruction of the Greek Empire (London 1903), pp. 360-65. 27.

See the eyewitness account of the papal legate, Cardinal Isidore, in Iorga, Notes et extraits, vol. 11, 522-24; cf. the German 29.

version in Feyrabend, S., Reyssbucb des heyligen Landes (Frankfort 1584), fol. 117 a. 30. The most recent survey is Galante, A., Histoire des juifs d'Istanbul depuis la prise de cette ville en 145 3, par FatibMebmed II, jusgu'

d nor jours (Istanbul 1941-42) 2 vols.

Addendum to p. z8

In a letter written at Constantinople, about 1300, Maximos Planoudes mentions the concentration of Jewish tanners in the Vlanka quarter, just outside the city wall, and in the immediate vicinity of the Prodromos church. This group evidently established itself earlier than the one which figures in the dispute between Andronicus II and Venice. For the text see Treu, M., Maximi monachi Planudis epistulae (Breslau 1886-90), no. 31, pp. 50-52, cf. p. 261. In connection with the anti-Jewish letter of Patriarch Athanasius (p. 27), the prelate wrote

two others on the same subject; Banduri, A., Imperium Orientale Venice 1729), p. 470 (cited by Treu, op. cit., p. 226).

35

III

CHALCIS (Negroponte)

xE island of Euboea, just off the eastern coast of Thessaly, was under Latin domination from 1204 until 1470. The capital, Chalcis, a port of some consequence before this period, became a major center of Venetian trade, ranking second to Constantinople, as well as a naval base. At the outset Venice had to be content with the usual privileges for its merchants in this port, while the island was partitioned into fiefs awarded to three noblemen of Verona (treaty of i209). These Lombard barons, however, solicited the protective suzerainty of the Republic, in preference to the overlordship of the Latin Emperor of Constantinople. Thus, after an initial period, in which Venice

T

consolidated its hold, the island became a battleground as the Franks on the mainland (Morea) and after 1261 the Greeks contended vainly for its mastery. In the course of the 14th century, the fiefs were acquired by the Republic, while the islanders were exposed to disastrous raids on the part of the Genoese, Catalans,

and above all the Turks. The cost of defending the colony and of repairing the depredations had to be borne by the inhabitants, and by the middle of the 15th century their condition was most unenviable. An earthquake and epidemic had descended on the victims 37

of the Turkish attacks and no taxes could be collected

for a four-year period (reported in 145 z). Finally, in 1470 the island fell to the Ottoman Empire, under which it remained until 18331. The material bearing on the Jews is remarkable in one respect. As will be shown below, the ghetto of Negroponte comprised persons of servile status, officially designated serfs or villeins. These Jewish serfs, who appear in the 14th and 15th century, constitute a strange phenomenon. Before considering this problem, however, we must attempt to depict the life of this community insofar as the available sources permit. 1.

Benjamin of Tudela found a group of zoo Jews in Negroponte, whose descendants must have become subjects of the local Lombard baron some forty years later. For until 1338 there was a group which paid a collective tax to this lord, and which did not include the subjects of Venice. The universitas Judeorunz under the jurisdiction of the Venetian bailo may have developed in the first half of the 13th century, but the residents of this period undoubtedly fled during the hostilities of 1255-58. A decade later appears David, founder of the local synagogue, and the earliest explicit reference to the Jewry as such is dated 129 1 (see below). As for the other two towns on the island (Oreos and Karystos), their Jewries appear but once, in a document dated 1452. In the capital the Jewish quarter was at first situated outside of and adjacent to the Venetian compound. In 1304, the clash between the Lombards and Venetians resulted in considerable damage, which affected the Jews as well as their neighbors. The Republic now 38

deemed it necessary to construct strong gates for its compound, and the Jewish quarter was repaired about the same time2. Inasmuch as the wall around the Venetian compound, constructed during the succeeding years3, did not extend to the adjoining area, the Jewish homes remained exposed to attack. Apparently loath to lose these subjects, the Venetian authorities permitted the Jews to move into the walled area, and to rent whatever dwellings were available. In 1350 the Genoese despoiled and sacked the entire town, and five years later a section within the compound was assigned to the Jewry. The buildings in this Judaica were owned by the Republic, the local church and private citizens, who received an annual rental of over 6o hyperpera4. The synagogue outside the wall remained in use5. The wall enclosing the merchant colony proved inadequate to withstand the renewed attacks of the Genoese. In 13 5 5, the year in which the ghetto was instituted, it was destroyed by a fire started by the enemy, and in fact the entire compound was in need of reconstruction. At this point the Republic advised its officials to find a new site for the Jewry, but for reasons unknown no change was effected6. Indeed, Jewish merchants continued to arrive de terra frrma ;

presently Jewish tenants and even house-owners occupied buildings beyond the confines of the Judaica and within the walled area. In 1402, apparently in response to a protest against this expansion, the Repu-

blic ordered the Jews to vacate all premises outside of the ghetto and to close all but three entrances. In this connection, it was alleged that the house-doors opening into the non-Jewish section made it easy for the Jews to commit offenses, but no inkling was given as to what these were. 39

Inasmuch as a generation was to pass before the ordinance of 1402 was enforced, one may doubt whether popular opinion in Negroponte was as hostile as the official document implies. In 1423, when Venice

prohibited Jewish ownership of land or buildings

in that city, it was made illegal to own or occupy property outside the ghetto in any of the colonies; yet six years later the Jewish dwellings sitis in Civitate Nigropontis were noted and no action taken.

In the

interim, however, the ghetto attracted thieves, and in 1425 the community received permission to separate its two streets by erecting a wall. This physical change apparently played into the hands of residents who had previously raised objection to the expansion of the

Jews, for those who resided outside the enclosed quarter, among the Italians, now became a more conspicuous element. Accordingly, in 1439-40 the Republic promulgated a compromise ordinance, restricting the area of residence beyond the ghetto wall (from the Spirono Tower and the home of the Jew Rebelius Bonius to that wall). The community was required to extend its wall to include the addition, and persons presuming to buy or rent property elsewhere became subject to heavy penalties7. The Republic had good reason to provide space for the growing community. The taxes paid by this group, the duty paid by its merchants, and the sums loaned to the Republic constituted a resource which the regime well appreciated. Little as we may glean in regard to the Jews' economic role, its prominence is fairly clear. Thus, in regard to maritime trade, among those for whom Venice collected damages from the emperor in 13 z 1, after Greek seamen had despoiled a considerable number of Italian merchants, we find Jews mentioned". A trader of some means was Leo Psoma, 40

who in

received permission to travel on board the galley bound for Venice9. In the document of 1439-40 cited above, appears a significant statement which reads : "recognizing that they [the Jews] are 1361

beneficial in the said city, for it is largely they who carry on trade and enhance our receipts" [i.e. customs duties]. In this statement one may perhaps see the

official reply to merchants who wished to eliminate their Jewish competitors. At a later point we shall have occasion to note the wealth and importance of David Kalomiti and his heirs (13-i4th centuries). This family was undoubtedly active in maritime trade, and David employed agents to purchase silk and kermes (red dyestuff).10 Apart from the merchants, Jewish artisans

may have been involved in silk manufacture, as in Modon, but again the available sources make no mention of artisans.

The data regarding moneylending are likewise scarce. While the state obtained loans from Jewish as

well as Venetian merchants on the island, none of the former is known to have commanded resources comparable to those of the house of Andrea Ferro. That the Jews were at times unduly burdened by demands for loans is indicated in the ordinance of 1429, instructing officials to apportion such transactions fairly among Jewish and Christian sources11. In the

14th century the rate of interest for private loans was set at iz per cent12, as in Crete, but the situation in the

latter colony should caution one against assuming that Jews had a monopoly on usury in In 1402, when the acquisition of landed property and serfs bound thereto, by Jewish creditors, is reported to have reached a serious point, the Jews were ordered Negroponte13.

to dispose of all property outside of the ghetto.14 While this measure was not strictly enforced in the capi41

tal for many years, it may have imposed an effective curb on the business of Jews engaged in lending money to owners of estates. The trend of collective taxes paid by this Jewry may be described on the basis of a fairly consecutive series of documents. Until the last decade of the i 3th century, while the subjects of the Lombard baron paid ioo hyperpera annually, Venice collected a probably greater sum from the remaining group. Between 1291

and 1304 the latter tax was successively raised and

lowered, until stabilized at 300 hyperpera, which was evidently the original rate. The increase in 1291 was prompted by the higher salaries granted to the chief officials of the colony. The petition of the Jewry against the new rate was successful for two years (1295-96), but it was restored in 1297-5. Seven years later, when the gate for the Venetian compound was constructed at a cost of 2,000 hyperpera, the entire sum was levied on the Jewry, whose annual tax was thereafter reduced to 300. Another change occurred after the subjects of the Lombard baron voluntarily transferred themselves to Venetian juridisdiction. In 1340 the tax of this group was fixed at 200 hyperpera per year, or twice the rate paid hitherto16, and the Republic now received annually

500 hyperpera from the Jewry of the capital. (This transfer of jurisdiction was, of course, in line with the extension of Venetian power over the barons, whose elimination was completed half a century later). In later years a separate tax was still paid by each of the

two sections of the community. Shortly after the Genoese raid of 1350, the Republic reduced the rate levied on the former subjects of the Lombard to

ioo hyperpera for a 3-year period"; whether the other group received a similar concession is not 42

indicated. During the ensuing half-century, however,

the distinction was dropped and the Jewry paid

a

combined tax of 500 hyperpera. In addition to the basic levy and the extraordinary payment decreed by the Senate in 1304, there were certain customary taxes, which were apparently imposed by the bailo without specific authorization. Some of these were temporarily lifted in 1359, at the

instance of a Jewish representative who appeared

in Venice's, but again claimed attention half a century later. When the basic tax was doubled in 1410, the officials demanded payment of 1,ooo hyperpera and an additional 500 for special annual imposts. The Jewry contested the latter claim and sent a spokesman to Venice to plead that its poverty made an alleviation of the tax burden urgent. The Senate thereupon reduced the customary imposts to 240 or 25o hyperpera per year, and claims for arrears (1410-1414) in excess of this rate were waived19. The imposts in question were now restricted to the following : galley tax (8o hyperpera), the guarding of the clock-tower, and the banner of St. Mark. On the basis of the parallel custom under the Genoese on the island of Chios20, we infer that the official banner was renewed each year at the cost of the Jewry, or perhaps manufactured in a Jewish shop at communal expense.

If the Negroponte community was thereafter not troubled by irregular exactions, the smaller groups at Oreos and Karystos were less fortunate; in 145z the local officials were ordered to desist from this abuse among others, against which complaints had been lodged2

The doubling of the tax in 1410 is undoubtedly a reflection of the increase in the number of Jewish residents, as well as an aspect of the preparations made 43

to defend the colony against the Turks. The fear of the inhabitants was amply justified by the very devastating raid of 1416, which initiated the final economic decline of the colony. While the non-Jewish taxpayers, directly affected by the disaster, received a five-year moratorium22, no such concession was made to the Jewry. As far as is known, the collective tax remained as fixed in 141o, and was confirmed in 14.2923.

In accordance with a policy followed throughout the Levant in this period, the citizens of Venice had the privilege of free trade in the port of Negroponte, while Jewish merchants paid a duty of 5 per cent on exports and imports. If they brought goods into or out of Venice, they paid this rate again. As a reward for the loyalty of the Jews in the defense of the town against the Catalans, then the masters of the adjacent mainland, this duty was lifted in 1318. Two decades

later, however, in order to provide funds for the heightening of the wall around the Venetian compound, merchandise imported or exported by Jewish

or other non-citizens became subject to a 5 percent duty24. During the ensuing years the Republic adopted a liberal policy and granted citizenship enz masse to residents in its colonies, while explicitly excluding the Jews25. This policy was confirmed in 1401, when the trading rights of merchants on the island outside of the capital were equalized with those in the capita126 Thus, it is clear that Jewish merchants, with the exception of the chosen few, who held the status of citizens,

could not compete on equal terms with others. The Jews engaged in maritime trade were, to be sure, inured to their disadvantage and apparently managed to hold their own throughout this period. As has,, been shown in the foregoing pages, the inferior status of this Jewry was fixed by its segrega44

tion in a ghetto, by discriminatory taxation and by exclusion from the benefits of citizenship. Religious hostility, on the other hand, does not seem to have been marked. Thus, in 13 5 9, at the request of the com-

munity, the custom of locking the entrances to the ghetto on Good Friday was abolished, a step which in Corfu and many other localities would have opened the way to excesses27. Another established institut-

tion, the obligation of assigning one of the Jews to serve as executioner, likewise obtained in Negroponte until 145228. It should be noted that throughout the

years dominated by the Turkish peril, when the Greeks

were deemed unreliable, no suspicion fell on the Jews 29.

The welfare of this Jewry depended in large measure on the responsiveness of the Republic to requests sub-

mitted to it and on the attitude of the colony's officials. In addition to the instances cited above, where a Jewish representative was received at Venice, we may note one occasion, in 1429, when agents representing the colony as a whole negotiated on behalf of the Jews. These negotiations had to do with the collective tax and the loans to the state; further, in regard to the disposition of dwellings outside the ghetto, the Republic assured the Jewry through these representatives that the ordinance issued in 1402 (dis-

cussed above) would not affect any "privileges and concessions" extended to the Jewries of the maritime colonies 30 (Reference is here made to a specific pane

of general tenor, which remains to be discovered in the archives at Venice). Another document pertaining

to Euboea is the ordinance dated May 11,

145? :

according to the published summary, this enjoined the officials to mete out equal justice to Jews, abolished the obligation of providing an executioner, and admo45

nished the rectors of Oreos and Karystos to desist from further mistreatment of the Jews, as well as to repair the damage done by Catalan corsairs to the Jewish quarters 31

Turning to the cases involving individuals, the attitude of Venice is exemplified by an affair of the early 14th century. While serving as bailo in Negroponte a certain Quirini had neglected to punish his son for assaulting a Jew. When the two returned home, the father had to pay a fine of 50o ducats32. A rather different legal issue was involved in the case of a Jewess married to a serf of the baron of Karystos. Upon the termination of this marriage, she became the wife of a Venetian, while the baron claimed her

as his serf and, moreover, charged her with theft. In 1313, however, the bailo ruled that the Lombard had failed to prove his right to the accused33. There is further the case of the merchant Leo Psoma, who

recovered the sum of 4,000 hyperpera, which the authorities had seized on the basis of a false accusation (136I)34.

The policy of the Republic, as defined in the ordinance of 145z cited above, is remarkably liberal in spirit when compared with contemporary measures in Italy and other Latin states. During the ensuing

years, however, when Venice was eager to enlist papal support for another crusade, the policy encountered ecclesiastical opposition. Responsible officials, serving in the Stato del Mar as well as in the Italian territory under Venice, found themselves excommunicated. One may surmise that the conflict was kindled by the fanatical itinerant preachers (John Capistrano

and others), rather than by local clergymen intent on enforcing current papal bulls. At all events, Venice could not afford to sacrifice the benefits derived from 46

its liberal treatment of Jewish subjects, and made

sure to obtain an authoritative endorsement of its established policy.

This noteworthy feat was achieved through the intermediation of Cardinal Bessarion, the papal legate to Venice and its colonies, shortly after he had been named titular Patriarch of Constantinople by Pius II. In 1463 Doge Christopher Mauro laid before Bessarion a petitio on the Jewish question, a document which, if still extant, would probably be illuminating. Rendering his opinion, the eminent Greek humanist gave, in unreserved terms, ecclesiastical sanction to the policy followed by Venice for over two centuries. The Jews,

declared Bessarion, have the right of residence in all territories of the Republic, in the midst of Christians.

The agreements into which officials and citizens had

entered, and all rights extended to the Jews were valid; the officials and others were, moreover, free to take similar measures in the future, secure from the interference of the Church. "ludaeos inter Christianos habitare permittimus, ut si voluerint, possint aliquando commode resipiscere; nolentes vero, nullam valeant apud districtum judicem suae pertinaciae excusationem invenire... pacta, eisdem Iudaeis concessa, quae et quas de confirmatione seu consensu Dominationis tuae ac antecessorum et successorum tuorum cum civitatibus, civibus et universita-

tibus provinciarum tuarum, castrorum et locorum praedictorum quomodolibet hactenus inierunt et fecerunt, vel in posterum inibunt et facient, observentur et illis libere potiantur; quodque pacifice et quiete cum illis stare, vivere, conversari et traficari libere Iudaei ipsi permittantur".

In accordance with the purpose of this forthright decision, Bessarion ordered the clergy to revoke the 47

penalties imposed on those who had resisted attempts

to force them to repudiate their obligations to the Jews 35.

Within the Negroponte community the upper stratum comprised a number of relatively prosperous men, who had been admitted to citizenship and were consequently exempt from taxation. There exists a will, drawn up in Latin in 1329, for Elijah Delmedigo (Helyas de la Medega)36; this prosperous burgensis was no doubt related to the well-known family of the

same name in Crete (of German origin). A special case of exemption is represented by the physician Moses, who received recognition for his aid to the poor (1361)37. Other citizens are named in unpublished documents regarding Jews who had rendered valuable services to the Republic38. The most interesting data

regarding the privileged Jews pertain to a family of hereditary citizenship, which dominated the community during the 13th and 14th centuries. The official documents, which relate to David, his son Abba and his grandson Samuel, unfortunately do not give the family name. There is, however, reason to consider that these were the Kalomiti, who figure in the Hebrew document bearing on the problem of the serfs in the ghetto, which we must analyse in detail. The document in question, an undated letter written

at Negroponte, owes its survival to the fact that it was delivered to a communal leader in Rome. Inserted

between the pages of a manuscript, the two sheets were discovered at Livorno in 1910 by Carlo Bernheimer, who published the text; a photographic reproduc-

tion of this letter is appended to the present work. Although the eminent palaeographer did not attempt to interpret this unusual document, he identified the "Messer Filippo of Bologna" mentioned therein as 48

Filippo Belegno, bailo of the colony in 1329-3139. This date, however, can scarcely apply to a message requesting the Rome community to intervene with the Pope; between 1309 and 1376 the papal seat was, to be sure, not at Rome but at Avignon. As for the incumbent bailo, the letter cites him only by title (capitaneus [et] baiulus), whereas the Belegno in ques-

tion is rather a newly arrived judge. As it happens, this family was quite prominent in Venetian affairs, and, apart from the bailo, several men bearing the name Filippo Belegno appear in the documents of the same generation40. If the foregoing data do not quite warrant the dating

of our letter prior to the death of Pope Benedict XI (July 7, 1304), there is an additional clue which points

to about the year 1300. The events recounted, as

we are about to see, took place during the lifetime of

Rabbana David Kalomiti, the wealthy head of the community (parnas), and immediately following his death; his sons inherited both his control of the Jewry and his power in relation to the authorities. The deceased parnas, we learn, maintained business rela-

tions with "the lords of land", and such was his importance that the officials, and apparently the Lom-

bard barons (roenina) as well, were virtually at his bidding. His sons, who are regrettably not named, continued to rule the ghetto, and their power was also respected by "the lords" of Negroponte. The impregnable position of this family comports well with what is known of one David, who lived in the last third of the 13th century, and whose privileged status was inherited by his son and grandson. The certificate of citizenship awarded by the Doge in 1267-1268 to David of Negroponte, in recognition of valuable service to the state, was renewed by succes49

sive doges. The latest renewal on record is dated 13001301. This David founded a synagogue, which remained in the possession of his son and grandson. Both of these, Abba and Samuel, inherited their citizenship, and the latter is mentioned as owner of the synagogue in '373. Some years earlier (1359) the grandson had appeared in Venice as the representative of his community41. It seems plausible, therefore, to identify

the David of the official documents with the David Kalomiti of our Hebrew letter, and to assign the latter to the initial years of the 4th century. The parnas David, we are informed, was esteemed for his learning and beneficence, as well as as for his importance in the worldly affairs of the colony. It is significant that his wealth consisted not only of specie and merchandise but of land and serfs-the juxtaposition of land and `abadhv suggests this rendering rather than "slaves". As his right-hand man, David worked with a native of Thebes, Moses b. R. Shabbetai Shem Tob Galimidi, who had "fled" that city and had come to Negroponte as a young man. A man of scholarly attainments, Moses married a girl of good family and raised six sons. David appointed him to a communal post, in which he combined various functions (judge, scribe, shohet), and the education of the young Kalomiti was also entrusted to him. As the years rolled by, Moses and his sons became dependent

on their patron in other ways as well. On occasion the father acted as agent for Kalomiti in his transactions with officials and feudal lords, while the sons were

employed to purchase merchandise and collect outstanding accounts. The close dependence of the Galimidi family on their employer led them, of their own accord, it seems, to become the serfs (abadina) of the Kalomiti. The subsequent developments related by 50

our letter make it clear that this was a formal, lifelong status; it had nothing in common with the limited servitude of "the Hebrew slave". Indeed, as we are to see shortly, the Galimidi family were not the only Jewish serfs in Negroponte. While this family evidently had no reason to regret

the surrender of its freedom during the lifetime of David, his death had disastrous consequences. The

poignant struggle of the Galimidi brothers for emancipation from the grievous yoke of David Kalomiti's sons is the affair for which the aid of the pope in Rome was solicited. The Kalomiti turned against their old teacher and his sons, and apparently reduced them to dire straits. Vowing to "extirpate" the Galimidi family, the wealthy brothers forbade all persons to entrust

money or goods to these

serfs.

They did not,

however, attempt to restrain them from leaving Negroponte and thereby gaining their freedom. Five of the six Galimidi brothers fled, and one later rejoined the youngest who remained at home, where he was for a time placed in stocks (lusa). Absalom, who returned after reaching Karlnini (?), 42 found that his creditors-

almost certainly the Kalomiti-had sold his wife's clothing and his bedding at auction. Although he again fell under the heavy hand of his masters, he was apparently not punished for running away. As for his brother and companion in misery, we see that he was free to leave Negroponte when he decided to present his case in Rome. With regard to the four who fled, it may be noted that the oldest, Rabbana Shabbetai, went to Corinth and thence to Thebes, which during our period had a fairly important and probably large Jewish community..

Another brother, Elijah the cantor, proceeded to Salona (formerly Amphissa, likewise in Frankish 51

Morea); the third, Isaiah, settled in Constantinople, and Samuel in an unidentified place43. It is clear that two of these serfs ranked as communal personalities in their native town. Upon assuming his duties as judge, Belegno became acquainted with the plight of Absalom and Abraham Galimidi, who had repeatedly been subjected to fines at the instance of their masters. Belegno is depicted

as "an angel of God", who would have been happy to liberate the brothers. When they appeared before him, the judge expressed dismay : does not your law require a master to free his Jewish slave in the year of release? Acting on Belegno's suggestion, the serfs

hailed the Kalomiti to court, a step which they had hitherto not dared to take, and sued for emancipation. Belegno upheld the plaintiffs and submitted his opi-

nion to the bailo and his counsellor, but close to three months elapsed, and no administrative action ensued; we may assume that the Kalomiti had a hand in this delay. At this juncture certain sympathetic observers (apparently Christians) advised Abraham to go to Rome and present his claim to the Pope. He took with him a letter, written evidently by a man of some standing in his community, and presented it to the appropriate persons in Rome. If the servile status of the Galimidi appeared strange

to the recipients of this epistle, the author did not

consider that an unusual condition calling for explanation. To the present writer's knowledge, however, the only Jewish serfs known in medieval Europe were those found in the Byzantine area. The fact that the Jewish serfs at Janina and elsewhere, unlike the Galimidi of Negroponte, were under Christian masters44, is interesting, but the difference is not of primary importance. Should we conclude that serfdom was an 5z

established institution within the urban Jewish community of Negroponte? There is a cogent answer to this question in a Venetian document, which is dated September 4, 1414. In connection with the protest lodged against the "customary imposts", mentioned previously, the Senate took cognizance of a representat-

ive's plea that the Jewry of Negroponte was too poor to shoulder the burden, since the majority of this community mere serfs :

"Et pro parte ipsorum Iudeorum huc accesserit unus Iudeus supplicans, ut considerata eorum paupertate, nam pro maiori parte sunt servi, sive vilani, dignaremur providere, quod non habeant tantas gravedines, quia illas supportare non possent"45. The literal acceptance of this characterization proposed here undoubtedly raises more than one problem.

In the first place, how could such a community pay annual taxes amounting to 1,z5o hyperpera? That question must, however, stand until we have some data on the number of taxable persons and the apportionment of the collective tax between the two classes, free men and serfs. Secondly, the existence of a class

of urban serfs-not merely a few isolated individuals

as in Janina-obviously runs counter to the social basis of medieval town life. It would naturally be important to ascertain whether the Venetians in Negroponte owned serfs living in town, but no evidence for such a situation has come to attention.

Further consideration of our Hebrew letter will show it to be a candid account of one of the less.

appreciated aspects of Jewish self-government. Written by one who evidently had no personal grievance against the Kalomiti, the document describes the abrupt

transition from benevolent one-man rule of a community to a form of harsh despotism. Under the 53

prevailing circumstances, the case of the Galimidi could not have been tried by a local Jewish court, and nothing would have been gained by appealing to a rabbinic authority outside. The secular authorities were themselves in a weak position vis-d-vis the all-powerful Kalomiti. In desperation the victims

were driven to contemplate an appeal to the papal curia46.

2.

Following the sanguinary events of the year 1470 and the establishment of Ottoman rule, the small

Jewish groups at Oreos and Karystos disappeared completely. When a battery of ten cannons demolished the wall of the ghetto and of the adjacent district in the capital47, all non-combatants had been evacuated. A sufficient number of Jewish refugees settled in Constantinople to form a separate congregation, which was one of the recipients of an epistle by Joseph Colon of Pavia, dated about 147748. A century later (15 84) these "men expelled from Egriboz" still retained their organization48. Back in Chalcis a small Jewish group re-established itself and probably occupied the same quarter. To judge from the situation found by 17th-century travellers, the Turks and Jews settled inside the Venetian citadel, while the Greeks lived outside50. Although the island as a whole declined under the new regime, the Greeks-who outnumbered the Turks by far-and Jews seem to have lived together more or less harmoniously. Not many Sephardic Jews were attracted to Chalcis, where the community retained its Romaniote character

down to our own day, although it never recovered the modest cultural and material level of the Latin. 54

period. When David b. Elijah Barbazzo in 15 07 found

it necessary to secure a writ of divorce (sent to his wife in Constantinople), he obtained the instrument from the Jewish court at Thebes. Intervening as chief rabbi, because of a technical irregularity in the procedure, Elijah Mizrahi addressed himself to the responsible

persons in Chalcis as well as in Thebes, but it may be doubted whether the former then boasted a communal court". Before the close of the century, however, as is evidenced by a marriage agreement (1597), we find a rabbi (dayyan), one Abraham, member of a refugee family from Malta, serving the Chalcis community52. Descending to the first half of the 18th century, we note a business partnership divided between Chalcis

and Larissa, which figures in a litigation heard at Saloniki (17z8)53. As for the impact of the Greek rebellions, it is difficult to reconstruct a consistent account. The late Jewish historian, Solomon A. Rosanes, asserts that in 1769-70 the insurgents inflicted

casualties on both Turks and Jews, but cites no

source54. A generation later, on the other hand, the Jews of Chalcis are reported as actively siding with the Greeks; in a recent sketch G. D. Koromelas has given honorable mention to the Cohen and Crispi families for their contribution to the national

cause55.,

In the course of the successful war of independence,

while liberating the mainland, the Greeks fought a particularly bloody battle on this island, which remained

under Turkish rule until the early days of 1833. In contrast to the lasting disaster visited on the Jews elsewhere in the zone of hostitilies, there was no pogrom in Chalcis. As the last town of Greece to be liberated,

Chalcis probably afforded a temporary haven for. refugees. On the other hand, many of the Jews left with the Turks in 183o and later; the former joined 55

others from the battle zone who found refuge in On January 22, 18 3 3, when Chalcis was formally turned over to the Greek government, there Smyrna.

were few if any Jews in this town58

Within a few years some returned. In 1841 the French savant, Alexandre Buchon, found zoo Jews there, again living inside the walled area. There had

also remained about loo Turks, whose dignified reserve contrasted, writes Buchon, with the servility of the Jews vis-a-vis the Greeks : "Ils tachent de se faire tolerer des Grecs par leurs servility; les Turcs au contraire sont froids, dignes et fort estimes"57. The Turks, to be sure, were confident of the protection of the Sublime Porte, while their Jewish neighbours, the only group which had lived to see the rebirth of Hellas, sensed that their existence depended wholly

on the good will of the Greeks. No disturbance is recorded during the following century, until the German invasion of 1940 forced the Jews, then numbering 325, to go into hiding. Among the communities considered in this study, Negroponte alone has preserved medieval as well as later Hebrew tombstone inscriptions. Several of these

texts have been edited and two photographs have been published; of the ten noted by investigators, four were extant prior to 1940. The inscriptions range

from the 14th to 18th century, and all but one have the stereotyped phrase viasebet keburat in the first line 5 11:

1.-13z6: woman's name illegible; the town is designated both Evripos and Chalcis59.-z.-1348: Esther b. Elijah Verla (cf. n. 8).-3.-1499: name unknown.-4.-1578: Satanta[?], widow of the scholar Eliagim Saloniko.-5.-1596: Absalom, a scholar. -6.-1603 : Malkah b. Abraham Shealtiel.-7.-1613 : 56

Elijah Abraham of Saloniki, a wealthy man (gebir).-

8.-1642: name unknown.-9.-i645: Elijah Halevi Galimidi, a physician.-io.-i773 : Shabbetai Rosanes. 1.

See Bury, J. B., "The Lombards and Venetians in Euboia",

Journal of Hellenic Studies, vol. vii (1886), 309-352, VIII (1887), 194213 Ix (1888), 91-117; more briefly in Miller, The Latins in the Levant,

pp. 79, 209 f., 300-302, 365 f., 460. (Bury exploited the scattered material of Carl Hopf, to which frequent reference will be made, but overlooked the documents published by C. N. Sathas.) On the situation in the mid-,5th century, see G. Recoura's introduction to his edition of Les Assises de Romanie (Paris 1930) (I3ibl. de I'Ecole des Hautes Etudes, vol. 258), pp. 70-72.

Cecil Roth deserves credit for placing this Jewry within the pur-

view of medieval Jewish history, but the present writer's understanding of the fiscal policy is quite different; see Roth, Venice (Jemisb Commmities Series) (Philadelphia 193o), pp. 295 f2. Hopf, C., "Griechenland", in Ersch and Gruber's Allgemeine Encyklopadie, Vol. 85

(1866), 375.

Unfortunately, the 13th and

14th century documents cited here still remain unpublished. 3. A loan of 2,000 hyperpera for the construction was still needed in 1309; Giomo, G., "Lettere di Collegio rectius Minor Consiglio, 1308-1310", Miscellanea di storia Veneta 3rd. s., vol. x (1910), p. 313, no. 214Sathas, Documments inidits, vol. III, 279 f. (anno 1425); the southern gate of the citadel is still known as the Jews Gate; Girard, M.J., "Memoire sur file d'Eubee", "Archives des missions scientifiques, vol. ii 4-

(1851), 644; Wm. Miller, in (London) Morning Post, Oct. 24, 1924. Cf. la porta de la zudecba mentioned by Giacomo Rizzardo, La Presa de Negroponte, ed. E.A. Cicogna (Venice 1844), p 305. Hopf, loc. cit., Vol. 86, p. 176. 7.

Ibid., 453-

Based on a synthesis of four documents (1402-39); Sathas,

op. cit., it, 83-85; III, 279 f., 347 f., 464 f. The general parte of 1423 is in Noiret, Documents inddits, pp. 297 f.; also contains the earliest of those in Sathas (pp. 131-133). Cf. Schiavi, L.A., "Gli Ebrei in Venezia e nelle sue colonie", Nuova Antologia, Vol. cxxxl (1893), 3158. Thomas, Diplomatarium, 1, 183 f.: a document citing the claims

of Elia Verla of Negroponte, and of two other Jews, who may be assigned to the same locality, and whose surnames were Delmedigo and Cuci (Coucy). 9.

Miller, "Le Rubriche dei Misti del Senato Libri xv-xLxv".

AElTLOV `Ictot4s xai 'EOvoXoytt4c

vol. VII (1910), xoz;

Hopf, loc. cit., vol. 86, p. 17. (Psoma's son, a convert residing in Crete, is also mentioned; Miller, loc. cit., 103). 10. The Hebrew document concerning the Kalomiti is discussed

in detail below. For the little that is known regarding the local 57

silk industry, see Heyd, op. Cit., vol. 1, 283; the nearest sources of kermes (grana) were Crete and Coron (ibid., ri, 6o8). ii. Sathas, op. cit. 111, 347 f. The reference to the creditors of the Republic in 1452 does not indicate whether Jews were included; Recoura, op. cit., 7212. Hopf notes only the century; loc. cit., vol. 86, p. 140. See also the rubric of a regulation proposed in 1340, but not adopted, which would have fixed a maximum rate of 16 percent, and which refers to "Jews and others"; Miller, in Deltion, vii, 115. 13. Starr, in PAAJR, vol. x11, 8314. Sathas, op. cit., 83-85; similarly in Corfu, ibid., zo6 f. 15. Hopf, loc. cit., vol. 85, p. 371. 16. Ibid., p. 438, Miller, loc. cit., 95. 17. Miller, in Deltion, vol. vii, 99 (annis 1350-54). 18. Hopf, loc. cit., vol. 86, p. 17. 19. Sathas, op. cit., vol. 111, 73 f20. See ch. ix. 21. Hopf, loc. cit., vol. 86, p. 14122.

Cf. Manfroni, C., "La Battaglia di Gallipoli e la politica

veneto-turca (1381-1420)", Ateneo Veneto, vol. xxv, 2 (1902), 134, 138 f23-

It is not clear why the issue was raised at this date; Sathas,

op. cit., vol. 111, 34724. Hopf, loc. cit., vol. 85, pp 413, 438; cf. the decree of 1290 cited by Schiavi, loc. cit., p. 312. 25. Hopf. loc. cit., vol. 85, p. 450 and vol. 86, p. 140; cf. Miller, op. cit., p. 300; Bury, in journal of Hellenic Studies, vol. 1x, 9326. Sathas, op. cit., ii, 6o (rubric misplaced on p. 61), 65; for

cave (p. 6o, line z8) read campo. 27. Hopf, loc. cit., vol. 86, p. 17; Miller, in Deltion, vol. vii, 1oi. See Roth, C., "The Eastertide stoning of the Jews and its liturgical echoes", Jewish Quarterly Review, vol. xxxv (1945), 361-370. For Chios and Cyprus see ch. ix, x. The question whether the Passion Play was performed in these Greek communities remains unsettled. It is, however, significant that what "appears to be the first complete Passion play known to history" is a product of Greek life in 13th century Cyprus; Mahr, A. C., The Cyprus Passion Cycle (Notre Dame 1947), p. 17 quoted. 28. Hopf, loc. cit., 141; cf. Starr, loc. cit., pp. 75 f. Note that this obligation persisted in Naples into the 16th c.; Kaufmann, D., "Con-

tributions a l'histoire des juifs en Italie," REJ, vol. xx (1890), 63, cf. 4229. Cf. Hopf, loc. cit.,

W. For a

notice regarding a Jew who

informed the authorities at Negroponte regarding Turkish operations in 1430, see Iorga, Notes et extraits, 1, 520. 30. Sathas, op. cit., 111, 347 f31. Hopf, loc. cit., 141. 32. Hazlitt, W. C., The Venetian Republic (London 1915), vol. 1 58

532; Hodgson, F. C., Venice in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries

(London 1910), p. 21433. Predelli, R., I Libri Coinmeivoriali della Republica di VeneZia: Regesti (Venice 1876), vol. 1, 133 f34- Miller, in Deltion, vol. vii, 102. 35.

Vast, H., Le Cardinal Bessarion (1403-1472) (Paris 1878),

PP- 457 f.; also in Mohler, L., Aus Bessarions Gelehrterkreis (Quellen and Forschungen aus dent Gebiete der Geschichte, vol. xxiv) (Paderborn, 1942), PP- 529 f. The bulls of 1442 and 1456, mentioned by Vast, op. cit., 272 f., scarcely took effect, whereas the agitation of the friars

threatened the existence of Italian Jewry; Roth, History of the Jews in Italy (Philadelphia 1946), pp. 153-76. 36. lorga, N., "Nouveaux documents sur l'Orient venitien,

d'apres des registres des notaires aux archives de Venise", Revue historique du Sud-Est europeen, vol. xii (1935), 219; cf. n. 8, above. 37. 38.

Hopf, loc. cit., 17; Miller, loc. cit. (n. 34, above). Hopf, loc. cit., 17, n. 97 (1340). The rubric of a lost docu-

ment (early 14th century) refers to a Jew named Savius in terms suggesting that he was a citizen of Venice; Giomo, "Le Rubriche dei Libri Misti del Senato perduti", Archivio Veneto, vol. xx (188o), 86. 39. "Document relatif aux Juifs de Negrepont", Revue des etudes

juives, vol. Lxv (1913), 224-230; discussing the date again in a sub-

sequent article, Bernheimer placed Belegno's term ten years too early : "Una Trascrizione ebraica della Divina Commedia sugli inizi del sec. xiv", Giornale .rtorico della letteratura italiana, vol. Lxvi (1915), 122-127-

A comparison of Bernheimer's transcription with the photostat of the ms. shows some minor inaccuracies, of which two may be noted here : 1. 17 recto, read bi-mehilah for bi-tehilah ; 1. 6 from below, recto, insert ve-hayah le-mishpat preceding va yiheytt. (I am indebted

to Rabbi A. Toaff and Dr. L. Borghi for providing me with the

photostat.) 40. See the index to Predelli, op. cit., vol. 1; Giomo, in Misc. di st. ven., 3rd s., vol. 1, 280, 305; I Capitolari delle arti veneZiane, ed. G. Monticolo (Rome 1905), vol. it, 52341- Predelli, op. cit., vol. 1, 4, io f.; Hopf, loc. cit., vol. 85, p. 371, and vol. 86, p. 17. Romanin, op. cit., 11, 378 f., gives part of the text of the testimonial of the doge in favor of David, whose death occurred during the term of Pietro Gradenigo (1289-1311). The rubric of the decision authorizing Abba b. Samuel cohoperiri quandanr sinagogatrt, is given by Miller, loc. cit., io6. 42.

Perhaps one should read L'Armeni, i.e. Larmena, a few

miles south of Chalcis. 43.

Given in abbreviation ADRW, which possibly stands for

Androusa. As for Salona, Bernheimer carelessly refers to the ancient Dalmatian coastal city, which had been in ruins since the 7th century. 44. Lameris and his sons, David and Samarias, owned in 1321 by

the metropolitan of Janina; Miklosich, F., and Muller, J., Acta et 59

diplomata graeca medii aevi sacra et profana (Vienna 1887), vol. v, 86.

These serfs were required to render one day's service each week, an obligation inherited by their descendants for five centuries, according to Lamprides, J., 'H7z pwte7. C MEXEtrjN.ata (Athens 1887), vol. 1, p. 59,

cited by Paparousse, P., "The Metropolis of Joannina" (Greek), in `EXAfivwwos (l)0 oXoytzzos E6AXoyos (Istanbul), Hap&pt71[ia to vol. xxxiv

(1913-1921), ato; see further, ch. xi. In 1348, Anameres owned by the Lykousada monastery near Phanarion (Thessaly); see the documents ed. by Soloviev and Mosin, no. xx, cited below, ch. xi, n. 7. That conversion did not liberate a Jewish serf is indicated by the convert at Bare (= Mela) owned by the Mt. Lembos monastery (near Smyrna); Mildosich and Mailer, op. cit., vol. Iv, 25 (anno 1258);

date corrected by Dolger, F., Corpus der gr iechischen Urkunden des Mittelalters rind der neueren Zeit, vol. I, fast. 3 (Munich-Berlin 1932),

p. 29, no. 1853.

On the relatively favorable situation of such serfs, cf. Ostrogorsky, G., in The Cambridge Economic History of Europe from the Decline of the Roman Empire, ed. J. H. Clapham and E. Power (Cambridge 1941)

vol. 1, 218-22. 45. Sathas, op. cit., III, 73 f.

46. A few random details may be noted here. Residents who moved to Crete include the father of the philosopher Shemariah b. Elijah Ikriti, who is said to have been called to a rabbinical post. Shemariah is styled both Cretezzsis and "of Negroponte", although he was born in Rome; yet one can scarcely place his residence at "Negroponte in Crete" (1) ; Roth, History of the Jews in Italy (Philadelphia 1946), p. 96. Among the lay leaders of Candia we find Shemariah Delmedigo (1362), and Caleb b. Elqanah (1428, 1439), both from Negroponte; Taqqanot Candia, ed. Artom and Cassuto, vol. I, pp. 45, 65, 85. For the visit of the learned preacher, Ephraim b. Gershon of Verria (Berrhoea, near Saloniki), during the first half of the 15th century, see Steinschneider, M., in Hehrdische Bibliographie,

vol. xvi (1877), IZo f., 134-36; Margoliouth, G., Catalogue of the

Hebrew and Samaritan manuscripts in the British Museum (London 19o5),

vol. I, p. 42 (no. 379). On the tombstone inscriptions, see the end of this chapter. 47. See the chronicle of Domenico Malipiero, in Archivio storico italiano, vol. v11 (1843), 56 f. 48. Rosanes, S.A., Dihre yenze Israel be-Togarmah (Tel Aviv 193o), vol. 1, 45, 120. 49. Galante, A., Documents officiels turcs concernant les Juifs de Turquie (Istanbul 1931), p. 995o. Bernard Randolph, The Present State of the Morea (1676) (London 1689), pp. 2, 5; Spon, J., and Wheler, G., Voyage d'Italie,

de Dalmatie, de Grece et du Levant fait aux annt es 1675 et 1676 (Hague 1724), vol. 11, 188; Coronelli, IvI.V., Description geographique et historique de la Moree... (Paris 1687), vol. 11, 9451- Mizrahi, Responsa, no. 71; Rosanes, op. cit., vol. II, 4z. For 6o

a reference to a former resident living as a merchant at Ragusa in 1538, see Tadic, J., Jevreji ii Dubrovniku do polovine XVII sic feca (Sarajevo

1937), pp. 69 f. (Johanan b. Solomon). 52. Solomon Cohen, Responsa, vol. Iv, no. 36; cited by Assaf,

in Zion, vol. 11 (1927), 68, Ti. 4. 1742), p. 41a. 53. Amarillo, Moses, Debar Mosheb (Saloniki 54. Encyclopddia Judaica, vol. Iv (1930), 21755- 111ED'. `Efriv. 'E'Yzu2. vol. xi (1929), 701ube-aresot ha-kedem: 56. Rosanes, Korot hayehudim be-TurkiabThat some of the Jews ba-dorot ha-aharonint (Jerusalem 1945), p. 56. remained is assumed by Strzygowski, J., in Deltion, vol. 11 (1885), 712; c£ Caimi, M., and Deutsch, G., in Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. III (1906), 661. Voyage Bans l'Eube'e, les files ioniennes et les Cyclades en 1841, ed. 57.

J. Longnon (Paris 1911), p. 27Rapport stir tine mission de philo58. Five edited by Schwab, M.,

logie en Grece (Nouvelles archives des missions scientifigues et litteraires,

n.s., vol. x) (Paris 1913), pp. 90-92. Two photographs and two

illegible facsimiles published by Giannopoulos, N. I., "Contribution to the history of the Jewish settlements in eastern continental Greece," (Greek), 'E-,.ETYjO[C 'EtatOE(c..c BUraVTCVU)V EiLOUOO)V, Vol. x (1933),

187-91. A few years earlier Rosanes (loc. cit.) had read five inscriptions.

Published first as a synagogue kiscription by Schwab, " Une Inscription hebraique a Chalcis", REJ, vol. LIV (1907), 282 f. 59.

6z

IV

MODON AND CORON Occuli capitales cemmrnaris.

HE site of the first Venetian foothold on the Greek

mainland was the western tip of the Peloponnesus. For three centuries (i206-15oo) the Republic

held the two small ports of Modon and Coron, which together with the adjacent countryside formed a joint colony administered by two (later three) castellain. Relatively little disturbed by the events of the period, this possession enjoyed a degree of modest prosperity,

which it had not known previously and which was not equalled under Turkish rule. Through these "principal eyes of the state" a careful watch was maintained on all vessels plying the northern Mediterranean route, and the small harbor of Modon served an indispensable

purpose as "the safe receptacle and nest of all our galleys, ships and small vessels which go to the Levant" 1.

While the sources do not enable one to trace the changes within the Jewries of this colony, we have four travellers' accounts of the late 15 th century, which depict the ghetto of Modon. Meshullam b. Menahem of Volterra (1481) found a community of some 300 families

living outside the wall, "on the outskirts of the city" and engaged in trade and handicraft. He was entertained by a prosperous merchant, Abraham b. Matta63

thias, who with his three sons apparently dominated communal affairs 2. It is, however, the non-Jewish travellers who make note of the distinctive features of this Jewry. Arnold von Harff (1496) mentions the "long street" of the ghetto and the high-grade silk products made by the Jewesses :3 "item voert gyngen wit buyssen die portz an die eirste vurstat, dae inne steyt eyn lange straesse, dae ijdeliche [i.e. exclusively] joeden in wonen dae yet vrauen gar koestlich werck van sijden maichen, as gurdelen huven sleuwer [i.e. sloyer] ind faciolen [kerchiefs] der ich etzliche van inne keuffte".

Adjoining the Jewish quarter were the wretched hovels of the gypsy colony4. Noting that the suburb was enclosed by a wall,

Georges Lengherand (1485) also found that the refreshments in this quarter were superior to those sold in the town proper: 5 "De ce coste y a ung gros bourg ou it y a beaucop

de juifz, et lequel bourg est aussi fermet; en icellui

bourg les pellerins y treuvent mieulx a boire et mengier

que en ladicte ville". The fourth observer, Canon Pietro of Casola (1494), came away with a rather less favorable impression. Although he makes no explicit mention of the Jewish tanners, the fact that the ghetto was a center of leather as well as silk production, is clearly reflected in his remarks :5

"There is a large suburb, also walled. It seems to me that the greater part of the silk industry is carried on in the said suburb; certainly many Jews, both men and women live there, who work in silk. They are very dirty people in every way and full of very bad smells. Their society did not please me; I speak, however, of those outside the city". 64

The proximity of the gypsy quarter must have added

to the unpleasant effect of the tanning activities, as will appear from sources to be cited below. Some observers, in fact, simply lumped together the Jewish, Albanian and gypsy groups as constituting the exotic population outside the town wall7. One may find it instructive to consider the contrast between the scene outside of Modon and the impres-

sion made by the urbane Jewry of Candia. A writer who visited both places, Felix Fabri of Ulm (1480), decried the "power" of the latter; they monopolized the lucrative trade in oriental drugs and perfumes, with which they supplied the apothecaries of almost all Europe8. A more friendly visitor, Jacques Le Saige of Douai (1518), noted the trade in "Turkish" carpets and the Jewish moneylenders. Inasmuch as they dressed like their neighbors, he added, if it were not for their yellow hats, the Jews would not be recognizable9. Thus, notwithstanding Meshullam's failure

to report the distinctive picture presented by the Jewry of Modon, the low social status of that group should be recognized. This community ranked far below those of Cyprus and Candia in wealth, and probably was the least prosperous in the entire region.

As far as is known, the concentration of the Jews in certain occupations reflected the local economic pattern rather than any system of exclusion. The ordinances of the castellani, issued between 1337 and 148710, and other documents contain references to maritime traders, moneylenders and sheep-raisers as well as to leather workers, who were the major con-

cern of the authorities. The prevailing restrictions, such as exclusion from citizenship1' and the obligation of providing an executioner12, applied here as in other Venetian colonies. As for taxation, we have no data 65

regarding the usual collective payments, but Jews of both sexes were required to render certain labor services13, a practice presumably not followed in the other colonies. It is interesting to find that Modon had an

official Jewish physician; his arrival displeased the castellani, who in 1427 requested Venice to send a Christian citizen in his stead14. The importance of the tanning craft and the leather

trade at Modon is attested by a considerable number of ordinances, which indicate that the existence of a Christian guild (iv, 110, 175) had no adverse effect on .the Jewish workers. The castellani took various measures to control the supply, the quality and the price of the product. Leather could be sold only in the public market (1395), and Jews as well as others could sell only unsoaked skins (1389; iv, 6o). When the shortage became serious and the shoemakers complained, traders were ordered to sell to the shoemakers a third of all goods purchased at a fixed price, before exporting any of their leather (1437). This regulation was reinforced by a zo percent tax on leather exports, but the shoemakers continued to complain against the practices of Jewish merchants. For their part the latter declined to sell at the ceiling price on the ground of the higher prices which they had been forced to pay to the sellers. This trading activity went on within the Jewish group, and the authorities endeavored to cope with the familiar problem of checking inflation without being able to increase supply (iv, 16o-i6z).

It is significant that the castellani dealt with the communal leaders (university di Zudii) in such matters.

It was the community which, in 1456, requested and obtained permission for the sale of soaked as well as of unsoaked hides (iv, 161; but the restriction was reinstated in 1476). Several years later we find the 66

Jewish tanners mentioned as the only available workers

in this craft (1464). This situation, coinciding with an embargo on leather exports, worked to the disadvantage of stock-raisers, who now complained that the Jews offered unfavorable prices. In characteristic fashion, the castellani ordered these tanners to pay fixed prices and to purchase the hides offered

(N, 33 f). In addition to economic regulation, the leather

industry inevitably gave rise to problems of sanitation.

The contamination of the port of Modon and the disagreeable effects of the tanning process on life in the town were chronic nuisances, and a number of ordinances were specifically addressed to the Jews. In 139o, after the Jewish workers had disregarded warnings against the accumulation of refuse in front of their dwellings near the water-front, the castellani ordered them to move to a safe distance within 3o days.

The following year tanners were forbidden to live inside the wall of the fortress or in the vicinity of the harbor; a fine of 5 hyperpera awaited any person who dumped refuse at his door or who washed hides at a forbidden spot (iv, 64 f). The authorities found it necessary to renew such regulations in later years (1434 and 1436; 1v, 153, 159). Among the rural herdsmen in the vicinity, who supplied these workers with their products, mention is made of Jews, in connection with the tax payable by all persons owning sheep or goats (1483; rv, 127 f).

Apart from the exporters of leather, Jews engaged in maritime trade at Modon and Coron appear in only one of the published documents. It seems that customs officials had violated the rights of "our Jews", i.e., citizens of Venice or "white" Venetians, by collecting duties from them. In 1485 the Republic forbade 67

this abuse15. In regard to usury, the basic ordinance

(1341), which set the rate at 1o percent, makes no explicit reference to the Jews (iv, 5 f.). Similarly, both Christians and Jews were forbidden to lend money to the public crier (1416; 1v, 111). In 1434, however,

the Jewish usurers were singled out because their practice of accepting pawns, without the formality of a loan contract, was objectionable to the castellani. When litigants appealed to the authorities for justice and had no written instrument to show, the job of the castellani undoubtedly became tedious (1v, 154). The violation of the Sabbath rest by some of the Greeks irritated the officials in 1398 (1v, 87), and in the following century they issued ordinances which applied to the Jews as well. At first the castellani forbade the Jews to work on Sunday and on seven major holidays.

Seeing that the violations continued, in 1414 they drew up a new list of rest-days, comprising zi holidays and the entire week following Christmas, and imposed a fine of 2o soldi (1v, 107 f.). Six years later All Saints' Day was added and the penalty increased to 5 hyperpera (1v, 145). If we assume that this schedule was observed, it would mean that the Jews of Modon and Coron had a 5-day week and a Christmas "vacation", in addition to the workless days of their own calendar and the additional days prescribed by the ordinance of 1420. As part of the enforcement of the official Sabbath, in 145 0 the Jews were forbidden to purchase provisions and firewood on that day. This was bound to work a

serious hardship on a community which began its weekly rest before sundown on Friday, but fortunately the castellani yielded to the appeal of the Jews (1v, 176). If a Jew could discreetly circumvent the observance

of official days of rest, he would have found it less 68

easy to evade the regulation regarding the reverence due to religious processions. Vexed by the Jews' dis-

regard of the cross and icons, when carried in the street, in 1445 the castellaiii determined to correct the

situation. They directed the Jews to get out of sight promptly upon the appearance of such a procession, or to join the Christians in bowing. Offenders could

be divested of their clothing by any person, who wished to take advantage of the opportunity (iv, 169). It may be observed that the governor of Cyprus instituted a similar order in Famagusta, shortly after Venice took possession of this colony, a few decades later. The Jewry of Coron does not appear in any travel account, and other sources do not enable us to compare its situation with that of its sister community. Here and there one finds the two coupled together in a Jewish document, and occasional references to Coron alone. The name of Samuel Cosdino, who was apparently from Constantinople, and who served as rabbi at Coron, is known only from a letter of introduction for a visitor from Jerusalem, written in Crete (ca. 1473)16.

As the 15th century drew to a close, fear of the Turks caused a large part of the population to flee. The losses of the Jewish inhabitants in the course of hostilities were probably serious, but the burden imposed by the Republic on the Jewries of its Italian territory was in itself formidable. As part of its supreme effort to save its remaining possessions on the Greek main-

land, in April 1500 Venice demanded the staggering sum of 25,ooo ducats from its western Jewries17. The following August Coron and Modon fell. Jews reappeared in both towns, under Turkish rule, at an early date (in Modon during the first decade)"'. As in other towns of modern Greece, the Turks and Jews now occupied the walled area, and the Christians 69

had to live outside'9. In due course the old fortress lost its residents entirely, and only the Greek quarter retained some population. When the Knights of Malta, since 1502 relentless in pursuing non-Christians

(see ch. viii), raided Modon in 1531, they could not have failed to carry off Jewish as well as Muslim captives. The following year Andrea Doria, the famous Genoese condottiere in the service of Emperor Charles V, took Coron20 and transported Jews to Crete and Italy to be ransomed or sold into slavery21. It was not only the Turkish fleet that menaced the Christian occupation of Coron. In a despatch of August 15 3 3, sent by the English ambassador from Venice, we find an intriguing report : "As to Coron, it was reported a few days ago that Andrea Doria was informed that the famous Jewish pirate had prepared a strong fleet to meet the Spanish galleys which are to join Doria's nineteen."22 Whether the famous pirate was indeed Jewish remains open to question, at least until he is identified. The expected battle evidently did not take place, and we have no further

notice regarding this unique personality. Jews travelling in these waters on Venetian vessels faced a twofold peril: they could be taken captive either by the Knights or by Turkish pirates. The former often meant a watery grave. Notwithstanding the risk, and the additional expense involved in obtain-

ing protection, Modon remained the entrepot for Jewish as well as other maritime traders. Arriving at Zante in 1565, Johann Helffrich found six small craft carrying merchants, chiefly Jewish, to Morea, and the convoy proceeded to Modon23. This town apparently again had a Jewish community, as Coron is definitely known to have had. The existence of the latter ended in 168 5,when aWestern invader again carried off captives24. 70

I. In the absence of any adequate study of this colony, one can only refer to the following : Luce, S. B., "Modon-a Venetian Station in Medieval Greece", Classical and Medieval Studies in Honor of E.K.

Rand (New York 1938), pp. 195-208; Momferratos, A. G., MEOo)vl zai Kopnivq EEra' 'EvET07..po.T[at (Athens 1914); Zakythinos,

D. A., Le Despotat grec de Moree (Paris 1932), passim (see the index). 2. The name of the town is garbled in both the edition and trans-

lation; see Eisenstein, J. D., Osar Masaot (New York 1926), p. 104; Adler, E. N., Jewish Travellers (London 1930), p. 203 (the name of the nearby island should read Sapienza). Die Pilget fahrt des Fitters Arnold von Harff... wie er sich in den Jahren 1496 his 1499 volleudet..., ed. E. von Groote (Cologne i86o), p. 673.

Bernhard von Breydenbach, Peregrinations in terrain sanctam (Mayence 1486), fol. 19a; adapted and translated by a slightly later visitor, Nicole le Huen, La Peregrination en outre mer et en terre sainte (Lyon 1488). Both of these incunabula contain a sketch of the town. 4.

Voyage de Georges Lengberand, ed. Marquis de Godefroy Menilgaise (Mons 1871), p. 985.

the year 1494, translated by M. M. Newett (Manchester 1909), p. 192. Jerusalem

6.

Pilgrimage

7.

Anonymous (1480), Le Voyage de la saincte cytd de Hierusalem,

to

in

ed. Ch. Schefer (Paris 1882), pp. 46 f. Johann von Hassenstein of Lobkowitz (1493), ed. F. Strejcek, Jana Hasisteinskdho Z Lobkovic Putovani k Svatimu Hrobu (Prague 1902) (Ceske Akademie Cisare Frantiska Josefa pro Vedy, slovesnost a umeni : Sh.,rka Pramenuv kit poZndni literarihiho Zivota v cecach, in ),vorave a v sleZsku, Skupina I,

Rada ii, cislo 4), p. 8.

30-

Evagatoriuni in terrae sanctae, Arabiae, et Aegypti peregrinationem,

ed. C. D. Hassler (Stuttgart 1843-49), vol. in, 285. Half a century earlier (1431) an Italian wrote : "e stacci grande quantity di Giuderi, e fanno ogni arte. Sonci di grandissimi ricchi. Tutta la Malvagia si cava di qui"; Del Viaggio in Terra Santa fatto e descritto da Ser Marianno

da Siena nel secolo XV, ed. D. Moreni (Florence 1822), p. 9. Johann of Hassenstein (ed. cit., p. 33) : comprising 300 families in the suburb,

this Jewry had no usurers but consisted of merchants and artisans. Voyage, ed. H. R. Duthillo ul (Douai 1851), P. 52. io. Statuto di Corone e Modone, ed. Sathas, Documents, vol. iv, 1-186; this source is cited in our text by volume and page. 9.

ii. Hopf loc. cit. vol. 85, 12.

P 450 (Y,353)-

Sathas, `EXAtjvrra 'Avsr.Sota (Athens 1867), vol. 11, p. xxim

(1465); the executioner was not required to perform his duties on rest-days. Note also that during a meat shortage (1454) the Jews could not buy slaughter animals until the Christian butchers had made their purchases (Sathas, Documents, iv, 166 f.). 13.

Sathas, Documents, 1 294 (1485); the test implies that the

castellani had failed to check evasions. 14. Ibid., III, 321 (no. 906). 71

Ibid., I, 2.98. i6. Freimann, A. H., "Emissaries and pilgrims", (Hebrew) Zion, vol. 1 (1936), i88 and n. ii, and 191. 17. See the document (hitherto overlooked) published by Cogo, G., in Nuovo Archivio Italian, vol. xix (1900), 119 f.; c£ vol. XVIII, 361. This was much higher than the subsequent war levies mentioned by Roth, Venice, pp. 43-46. IS. Responsum (1509) cited by Gross, Zeit. f. hebr. 13ibl., vol. XIII, 49. 19. On Modon in 1573, see Philippe du Fresne-Canaye, Le Voyage du Levant, ed. and transl. R. M. Hauser (Paris 1897), p. 298=p. 18015.

2o. 21.

Miller, Latins in the Levant, 504 f. Moses Ibn Alashqar, Responsa (Sudzilkow 1834), no. 95, fol.

45b-46a; Loeb, I., in Revue des Etudes juives, vol. xw (1888), 46 £ The statutes of Candia (ch. 1, n. 1) record, in 1533, synagogue equipment was sold to provide funds. See also Marx, A., Studies in Jewish history and literature (New York 1944), p. 16o; Doria also took Patras ch. v). z2.

Gairdner, J., Letters and papers, foreign and domestic, of the reign of Henry VIII (London 1882), vol. VI, 427-

Text in Feyrabend, Reyssbuch, col. 376a. On the Knights, see the extensive study of Roth, C., "The Jews of Malta", Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society, vol. XII (1931), 187-251. On the Dalmatian pirates, Du Fresne-Canaye, ed. Cit., p. 214=p. 8; MitraniSamarian, S., "Deux Juifs captures par les Uscoques", Revue des 23.

Etudes juives, Vol. LIV (1907), 280 £ See further Monumenta Spectantia Historiam Slavortnn Meridionalium, vol. xxxii : Mornmienta Uscocchorum,

ed. K. Hot-vat (Zagreb 1910), nos. 19, 74, 91, 95, 143, 163, 209,. 213-14, 57924.

Roth., loc. cit., 2.26, 241.

Addendum to p. 64

The passage in the account of Arnold von Harff is given in the

translation of M. Letts, as follows : "Item we went further beyond the gate into the first suburb in which is a very long street inhabited solely by Jews, whose women-folk do beautiful work in silk, making girdles,

hoods, veils and face coverings, some of which I bought;" The

Pilgrimage of Arnold von Harff [Halduyt Society, set. 2, no. 941 (Lon-

don 1946), p. 81.

7z

V PATAAS N the portions of the Greek mainland, in which the Jews remained secure during the period of persecution (see ch. 1), there undoubtedly were several communities. The Negroponte letter (ca. 1300), it will be recalled (ch. III), mentions Corinth and Salona as well as Thebes. The obscurity surrounding the situation in this area is relieved only by a few facts regarding Patras, in which the Spanish mystic, Abraham Abulafia, sojourned in 12791. The existence of a Jewry in Clarentza, a port to the southwest of Patras, should also be noted : in 1430, when a Catalan adventurer evacuated Clarentza (which the Greeks had recovered in 14z7), he carried off all the Jews to be sold for ransom (retenuti tutti li giudei su le .roe galie) 2.

The information on Patras is drawn from a few documents which span the rule of the Latin archbishops (1366-14o8), succeeded by Venetian (1408-1430) and Byzantine control (1430-1458). The documents of the Leonessa, an Italian family in Patras, refer to Jews engaged in rural as well as urban occupations. Some years before the end of the 14th century this family purchased a town house from a Jewess named Protissa, wife of "ser Abracho de Caphara" (or Kafari), who moved to Corfu. The property, consisting of two 73

buildings on the main street, was sold for 7o hyper-, In another document, a loan contract (1424), we find a Jew, Solomon Bonsignore, signing as witness; the creditor in this transaction was the wife of Aegidius de Leonessa4. This lady's son-in-law had business relations with two Jewish moneylenders. In pera3.

his will (1430) the Italian assigned i,ooo pounds of iron (stored at Lepanto) and a sum of money to Meshullam b. Mordecai, and also provided for the repayment

of the debt due to Aron de Missael5. Aegidius de Leonessa was the owner of a farm in the Stro suburb, which was leased to Solomon b. Abraham and his father-in-law "Leakhos" (Elijah) of Modon. These tenants paid an annual rental of 5 hyperpera. The arrangement continued for some time after the Byzantine recovery of Patras, but for a number of years the owner neglected to collect the rental. In 1436, however, he demanded not only payment of the arrears but a like sum as the legal penalty for failure to pay on time. When the case came to trial, the defendants contended that since they had never refused to

pay, they should not be penalized for the plaintiff's negligence. Apparently admitting the validity of this argument, the judge denied the plaintiff's right to claim the penalty6.

In this period a Jewish landowner, Pothos Kafari, is mentioned as holding property inside the town of Patras (1440)7. The Jewish quarter (`E(3paiii), however, was outside the wall, at the "Jewish gate". This district suffered in 1429, when the Byzantine troops besieged the town and then withdrew until the following year8. Patras now formed part of the Despotat of Morea, which continued for five years after the fall of Constantinople. When the Ottomans invaded Greece in 1458, the inhabitants fled to the nearest 74

Venetian possessions, but soon accepted the Sultan's offer to return under favorable conditions°. Under Turkish rule the Jewry continued to inhabit the southeastern section of Patras, while its cemetery was in the northeast. In the latter 19th century there were some inscriptions still extant in the Jewish quarter, but these have never been studied'-0. Toward the year 1500 this community presumably received an influx from the Iberian peninsula. Like Coron, however, Patras was occupied in 153z by Doria, who carried off the Turks and Jews to be sold or ransomed in Italy:. Later in the century, the re-established community was the scene of a conflict between the Romaniote and Sephardic groups for the control of the Jewry, in which the latter were now in the majority12. By 1676, when the population of Patras had declined to 4,000-5,000, the Jews formed a third

of that number and maintained four synagogues13. The prominence of this community is attested as late as 1809, when the Jews headed the official procession of prayer during a severe drought14

Toward the end of Turkish rule, however, there remained no more than 17 Jewish families in a total population of 15,ooo'5, and the remnant fled at the outbreak of the war of independence (1821). Sixty years later Thomopoulos, a native historian,-guided

apparently by current tradition, if not by personal bias,-assigned an ignominious role to the Jews in the history of his birthplace. According to his account, they were dishonest moneychangers and their quarter had been the source of epidemics1E. In point of fact,

however, no hostile public opinion deterred a new community of Jewish citizens of Greece from taking up residence in Patras.

75

I.

Graetz, H., in Monatsscbrift fiir die Geschichte raid IVissenscbaft

des Judentums, vol. xxxvi (1887), 558. A century earlier Benjamin of Tudela had found 50 Jews in Patras. Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris, ms. italien 787, fol. 129r, correcting the inaccurate citation in Zakythinos, Le Despotat grec de Morde, 2.

p. 209, n. 3; Iorga, Notes et extraits, vol. 1, 511, n. a (quoting from unpublished chronicles). 3. Gerland, E., Neue Quellen Zur Geschichte des lateiniscbez ErZbistrrms

Patras (Leipzig 1903), pp. 191-93, cf. 113 £

Note the name of Aura-

chius de Chaffaro at Corfu; Romanos, J. A., in REJ, vol. xxni (1891), 704- Ibid., 201-204-

Ibid., 213, 215Ibid., 218-20, cf. 117 f. Cf. Heisenberg, A., in Philologische Ii7ochenschrift, vol. xxin (1903), 16547. Gerland, op. Cit., 224. In addition, one may note an un5-

6.

published document, dated 1412, bearing on a litigation between a Jew and a canon named Bonaiuti; Hopf, loc. cit., vol. 86, p. 72, it 19.

Phrantzes, ed. Papadopoulos, vol. 1, 140 f9. Zakythinos, op. cit., pp. 258, 264 f.r io. Thomopoulos, St. N., `Ic,opia tic Harpcv (Athens 1881), P. 317, n. 1, 358, n. 2; the author is in error insofar as he transfers to Patras the passage in Benjamin of Tudela, which pertains to 8.

Thebes.

ii.

Ibid., p. 349 (citing a Greek source); cf. ch. iv, above, n. 21. 12. Rosanes, op. cit., vol. n, 42. Cf. the incidental reference by a traveller from Palestine, ca. 1580; Sassoon, D. S., Ohel Dawid (London 1932), vol. n, 103213- Spon and Wheler, Voyage d'Italie, vol. 11, p. ii; cf. PouquevIlle, F.C.H.L., Voyage en Morde, a Constantinople, en Albanie... (Paris 1805), vol. 111, 50914. 15-

Thomopoulos, op. cit., p. 408Ibid., PP- 414 £ It is strange that in 1740 an English visitor

found only io Jewish families (in a total of over I,2oo families); Pococke, Richard A., Description of the East (London 1745), vol. II, Pt. 2, p. 176. x6. Thomopulos, op. cit., p. 317, n. I-

76

VI

THESSALONICA

UNDER THE RULE OF VENICE EsPITE the long association of medieval Jewry with Thessalonica, and the substantial number (500) mentioned by Benjamin of Tudela, the 13th and 14th centuries form a complete blank. This is partly due to the fact that in 1223 (or the following year) the city became the capital of Theodore I, Despot of Epirus, who did not tolerate Judaism in his domain. Thereafter we must descend to the last years of Christian rule (1423-1430), when Thessalonica submitted to the rule of Venice in the vain hope of saving itself from the Turks. When the first rettori arrived, the formerly populous metropolis had no more than 40,000 inhabitants. Saddled with a heavy tribute, which the Turks demand-

ed, and confronted with a critical situation, in which the good will of the townsfolk would seem an essential asset, the rettori displayed a rapacity quite out of keeping with the policy of the Republic. The inquisitori, who set out from Venice to reform the administration, arrived in the vicinity only to learn that the city was lost'. By the fourteenth century, if not earlier, the Jews had re-established themselves in the city. Our information regarding this period is limited to the fact that 77

the community paid an annual tax of I,ooo hyperpera

(equal to the rate paid in Negroponte), which the

Venetians continued to collect. Considering the sharp decline of Thessalonica, it is not surprising that by 1425 the Jewry had descended from its "zenith". Inasmuch as the exodus comprised the more prosperous elements, the residue was relatively poor as well as numerically weak. When the community requested a correspon-

dingly lower tax rate, to be based on its capacity to pay, the Republic granted only a slight concession, namely, a zo-percent reduction valid as long as the city's gates remained closed. As soon as the situation returned to normal, the customary rate (iuxta solitum)

was to be restored2.

As the flight of the Jews

continued, four years later a delegation from Thes-

salonica raised this question again, together with other matters. With the fate of the city hanging in the

balance, the representatives proposed, in the Jews' behalf, that the collection of the tax be suspended until the outcome of the Turkish threat appeared. As an alternative, the Republic was requested to adjust the rate to the reduced number of Jews remaining at Thessalonica.

Acting on the latter proposal, the

Republic instructed the rettori to determine whether the Jewry was still in a position to pay the rate fixed in 14z5. A second complaint, presented at the same time, had to do with the extortion of exorbitant fees for opening the city-gates, whenever a Jewish funeral took place; instructions were given to charge no more than the customary fee3. Presently, however, the fall of Thessalonica relieved the Republic of such worries. On the eve of the Turkish annexation occurred the death of Bishop Simon (1429) who, according to Anagnostes, was mourned by all elements of the population, including the Jews.4 This eyewitness notice need

not be dismissed as rhetoric, although similar statements can, of course, be found in the older hagiographic literature, and one can rarely ascertain their bearing on the relations between the local Jewry and its neighbors. An interesting survival of this period is represented by the Venezia family. During the Turkish period this Jewish family enjoyed the hereditary right to the post of the official who weighed merchandise. In support of this prerogative, the Venezia claimed that an ancestor had received the appointment under Venetian rules. Sathas, Doctanents, vol. iv, pp. xv-xxxrv. z. Mertzios [Merdjos], K.D., Mndmeia Makedonikds Historian (Saloniki 1947), p. 7 of document reproduced following P 48; cf. P 59, n. 1. Portion of text published by Lattes, M., in Mosd, vol. 1 (1878), 379, n. 4. x.

Mertzios, op. cit., pp. 5-6 of document reproduced following p. 88; portion of text also given by Lattes, loc. cit., and Iorga, Notes et 3.

extra its, vol. 1, 495 f. C£ Nehama, J., Histoire des isradlites de Salonique (Salonilci 1935), vol. 1, 109-12. 4. Joannes Anagnostes, ed. B. G. Niebuhr (Bonn Corpus,

vol. xxxvi, 1838), p. 4895.

Nehama, op. cit., vol. 11, 128.

79

VII

DURAZZO rl th.e Albanian region the one Jewry attested under Byzantine or Latin rule is that of Durazzol. This

community appears in 1204 in one of the responsa of Isaiah of Trani (see ch. I), dealing with a bill of divorcement, which was drawn up in the adjacent village of Gortzanos but dated at Durazzo2. Occupied briefly by Venice in 1205 and then recovered by the Despot of Epirus, between 1272 and 1379 this port

was held intermittently by the Angevins of Naples and enjoyed brief interludes of independence. It is reasonable to assume that the second Despot, Theodore (1214-1230), did not tolerate Judaism at Durazzo, yet a contemporary prelate seems to imply otherwise. We refer to a responsum of the archbishop of Bulgaria, Demetrios Khomatianos (1220-Iz34)3, in

reply to the query of the metropolitan of Durazzo, Constantine Cabasilas. Dealing with the question whether the Armenians may be permitted to build churches in the midst of Orthodox communities, Demetrios states that minority groups, including Jews

and Muslims, should be permitted no more than a limited degree of freedom; their houses of prayer should not be tolerated outside of the quarter assigned for their residence4. Hence, unless Demetrios saw 81

no need to take cognizance of the illegality of the practice of Judaism in the Despotat, it appears that he wrote at a time when the decree was ignored at Durazzo.

Toward the end of the century, under Charles II of Naples, Judaism was proscribed in that kingdoms, to which Durazzo was subject, but nothing is known as to the local enforcement of this forced conversion. In 13z2, when the population had declined seriously as the result of an earthhquake, an English traveller

mentions the Jewish group, together with Latins, Greeks and Albanianss. In the same century we find documents referring to the magister Judayce, David, who was evidently the official head of the community in 1368, when Durazzo was autonomous. Among his

business associates was a Moses, son of Mattathias the notarius, i.e. the notary of the community. The major export of Durazzo was sea salt, and the local Jewish exporters maintained trade relations with Italian merchants through agents at Ragusa, and imported textiles. In one of the contracts we find David undertaking to have his son Lazarus deliver a cargo of salt, sold for 50o ducats to a Serbian merchant at Valona7. These were years of decline for the formerly prosper-

ous port on the Western boundary of the empire. By the time it again became a Venetian colony (139z1501), the population of Durazzo had dwindled. The straitened circumstances of the Jewry impelled it in 1401 to present a request to the Republic (included

among a series brought by representatives of the colony) to be relieved at least in part of its special annual obligation. In accordance with a custom ante-

dating the advent of Venetian rule, each year this group had to present 16 brachia of catasamitum, i.e. over io yards of luxurious velvet cloth". This had become an undue burden on a community consisting of pau-

peres et pauce faivilie, who may have paid an annual

tax in addition. The Senate reserved decision pending the reply of the bailo, but the disposition of the matter is not known9.

It would be interesting to know whether catasarirititnz was manufactured locally, as silk was, during this period of Durazzo's decline. The obligation of the Jewry would seem to have been introduced not later than the i zth century, the heyday of the Byzantine-Jewish artisans working with this type of expensive fabric. i. See Jirecelc, K., "Die Lage and Vergangenheit der Stadt Durazzo in Albanien", in Thalloczy, L. von, ed. Illyrisch-AlbanLrche Forschungen (Munich-Leipzig i9i6), vol. 1, 152-67; and the important book by M. von Sufflay (n. 7 below). z. See ch. 1, n. 43.

Dates determined by Mercati, S. G., in Bulletin de l'institut

archlologique bulgare, vol. Ix (1935), 1704. Pitra, Analecta sacra et classica, vol. vi, col. 661-64 (no. xxn).

Charanis has cited this text (see ch. if, n. 13), but unfortunately relied on a previous edition, in which the query is attributed to an earlier

bishop in another locality ; see the discussion and bibliography in Gouillard, J., "Cabasilas (Constantin)", Dictionnaire d'histoire et de geographic eccldsiastiques, vol. xI (1939), 13 f. The issue was settled by Pavlov', A., "Who wrote the canonical responsa credited to Bishop

John of Kitros ? ", (Russian) BnsaaTHArimfi Bpeaielnnntcv, vol. r (1894), 493-502. 5.

Starr, J., "The Mass Conversion of the Jews in Southern

Italy (1290-93)," Speculum, vol. xxi (1946), 203-116. Itineraria Synronis Simeonis et rilhelmi de IY/orcestre, ed. J. Nasmith (Cambridge 1778), p. 14 (in Simeon). 7. Thalloczy, L. von, et at, Acta et diplomata res Albaneae mediae

aetatis illustrantia (Vienna 1918), vol. II, pp. 56 f., no. 248; Tadic, Jevreii u Dubrovniku, pp. 13 £, 413 f. Cf. Sufflay, M. von, Die Stadte and Bergen Albaniens hauptsachlich wdhrend des Mittelalters (Vienna

1925), p. 77 (Akad. d. Wiss., Philos.-hist. Kl., Denkschriften, vol. rxxin, Abh. 1). At Valona Jews are first mentioned in 1426, a few years after the advent of Turkish rule (1417); Iorga, Notes et extraits, vol. n, 232S. Cf. the note on scianrito by Heyd, Histoire du Commerce, vol. n, 699. 9. Von Thalloczy, Acta et diplomata, If, 201, no. 676; cf. Sufflay, op. cit., p. 64. 83

VIII RHODES

HE island of Rhodes, which had a Jewry of 400, according to Benjamin of Tudela, was one of the first Byzantine regions to be occupied by the Turks, in the 13th century. In 1310, however, they were

T

ousted by the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, the Knights Hospitallers, later known as the Knights of Together with several islands in the vicinity, Rhodes remained an advanced outpost of Latin Christendom until the Turkish conquest of 152-21. We know Malta.

nothing as to the impact of these changes on the Jewish group until it reappears in the 15th century. As the subjects of the Knights, the Jews lived inside

the walled town of Rhodes, occupying a quarter (vicars) which extended from the southeastern angle of the wall to the port reserved for merchant vessels2. When Grand Master Philibert de Naillac (1396-14x1) enlarged the port area, he pushed back the boundary of the ghetto3. Soon, however, his successor, Antoine de Fluvia (1421-37), saw fit to correct this restriction4. That the Order was mindful of the welfare of its Jewish subjects is indicated by an incident in 1442. Here we

find an official protest in behalf of a Jew who had been mistreated by a Genoese shipmaster; the victim is described as a man who knew no Latin5. 85

There is but one traveller prior to the disasters of 1480--8 i, who gives us some inkling of the local Jewish scene. This anonymous pilgrim from Cologne

(1472) praised the beauty of the Jewesses and their skill in making articles of silk, as followss : "In deser stad wanen veel joden and besunder veel scoen jodynnen, die wilche veel scoens werkes maechen

van costlichen sejden gurdel". The Christian women as well as the Jewesses of this town were noted for their beauty, and, as we shall see below, the statement quoted agrees remarkably with the account of a later Jewish visitor. A quarter of a century after the fall of Constantinople the Turks were conducting raids as far west as Styria, and in the spring of 1480 they occupied Otranto. Little wonder that the siege of Rhodes, following on the heels of the capture of an Italian port, evoked fore-

boding throughout the West. Although the Knights repulsed the enemy, this siege precipitated the disruption of the local Jewry. When Grand Master Peter

d'Aubusson summoned every man, woman, and child to fight and repair the defenses, the Jews as well

as the Greeks responded unstintingly, and Jewish fighters distinguished themselves in combat7. The chief objective of the 38-day bombardment was the "Jews' wall", which was demolished. In order to. fortify this sector, the homes of the Jews had to be torn down, and the crucial phase of the battle took place in the ghetto8. All seemed lost until the Turkish troops lost their zest-they had been ordered to turn

over the spoils of the city to the Sultan-and were overwhelmed by the defenders. The tide turned just as the fighting reached the synagogue, whereupon the invaders were routed and many taken captive9.

The victors attributed their deliverance to divine 86

intervention' 0, and the Grand Master erected two churches at the site of the miracle. One of these, Our Lady of Victory, stood within the Jewish quarter (in pomerio rnoenium hebreorurn), on land which d'Aubusson purchased from the Jews with personal funds"-. The synagogue now stood incongruously close to Our Lady of Victory, and there were those who urged d'Aubus-

son to take over the former structure, even before the new churches were put up. In the end the Jews had to yield, but in 1481 and for a few years afterward the synagogue could still be seen standing near the rebuilt town wall, where two niches commemorated the zone of the miracle of 148012. Presently, however, the earthquakes of 1481-8z caused even greater damage

than the historic siege, and the Jews applied for permission to rebuild this and other synagogues. Receiving

this request together with a similar one from the Greek community, the Grand Master responded and obtained a dispensation from Sixtus IV, in consideration of the bravery displayed by both goups13. Between 1483 and 1488, however, the main synagogue, apparently the only one required by the reduced commnunity, was converted into a church. Another building was

assigned in its stead, and in 1488 d'Aubusson gave the community 100 ducats to defray the expense of remodelling the new house of worship14. The memory of Jewish participation in the defense of Rhodes was still fresh when Meshullam of Volterra visited the town in 1481. Impressed by the beauty of

the rebuilt city, this visitor saw the Jewry leading a peaceful life. He also provides interesting information regarding the synagogue, which contemporary Christian writers preferred to gloss over, and mentions the scholar, R. Abraham Dafni (?), an Ashkenazi-5. A

realistic picture of conditions after the earthquakes 87

s given by Obadiah of Bertinoro (1488)16. From this we gather that the homes in the Jewish quarter were not rebuilt, except by the 22 families who remained after the others had sailed away. Although Obadiah states that the men were out of work and were dependent on the earnings of the womenfolk, he neverthe-

less mentions the male leather and fur workers

as

engaged in their craft. He considered these, like the other Jews of Rhodes, estimable men, all neatly dressed and well-mannered. The leading personality in this small group was Nathan of Volterra, brother of the traveller Meshullam. In shopping in the market-place of Rhodes, as in those of other localities, the Jew was not permitted

to touch an article, on pain of being compelled to buy it17. More serious was the lack of ritually slaughtered animals and of wine prepared in accordance with traditional regulations. Such handicaps were no doubt inevitable in view of the numerical and economic weakness of this Jewry. All wine had to be imported from Crete, and was an expensive item in Rhodes18,

but the discontinuance of ritual slaughter may be a symptom of difficulties of another order. The scene described by Obadiah is lightened by his remarks concerning the Jewesses, who supported their families by working at home for the Hospitallers. Inasmuch as these women of valor were noted for their beauty,

no less than for their skill, the Commanders of the Order were frequent visitors in their homes. Obadiah saw no need to defend the Jewesses against gossip, but one may take note of the difference between his story and that of a Muslim writer, Ramadan, who came to

the island with the conquerors in 15Z2, and who refers only to the Christian community. Rhodes, wrote Ramadan, abounded in beautiful married ladies, 88

who were pampered by their husbands. Both in their idleness and immoral conduct, he added, they led scandalous livesl9. The beauties of Rhodes have been immortalized by Emmanuel Georgillas, in a poem

written a dozen years after Obadiah's visit, and the modern historian may content himself with registering

the quaint coincidence; but he need not be so rash as to judge between the industrious housewives of the ghetto and their Christian female neighbours. A decade after Obadiah sojourned here, a spirit of

intolerance radiated from the Iberian peninsula. If Rhodes was visited by a two-year plague (1498-1500),

it seemed to some of the Knights a token of God's displeasure with a state ruled by a cardinal and under the threat of infidels, which continued to tolerate unbelievers in its midst. The problem was under discus-

sion for some months, until the Council took action (January 9, 1502). Addressing the special session, d'Aubusson assailed the Jews for their wickedness, and particularly for their obstinacy in refusing to acknowledge the import of the miracle of 1480. With one stroke the Grand Master, as the end of his days drew near, repudiated his friendly policy. The Council decreed that all Jews must leave or be baptized within forty days; this applied also to the Jews of Cos (Lan-

go)20 and the other islands held by the Order. All children were to be baptized regardless of the wishes of

their parents, a measure ostensibly derived from the

principle that, as the serfs and slaves of Christian princes, Jews had no jurisdiction over their children, but undoubtedly inspired by the precedent set by the king of Portugal (1497). The Jews could take their

possessions with them, but had to leave on a ship bound for Nice, to prevent them from proceeding to Ottoman territory21. 89

While no concrete record of the execution of the decree is available, there is no doubt as to its effectiveness. The synagogue was shut, and among those who remained, some suffered death22. During the ensuing

decades, however, the ships of the Knights brought Jewish captives to Rhodes, where they were held in slavery. In 1507, for example, of the z50 captives taken on a ship out of a North African port, zoo were Jewish. These unlucky travellers were set to work digging the moat and the like (Under the leadership of a Genoese renegade they conspired to take the fortress by surprise, only to be thwarted23). On one occasion the pirates of the Order of St. John had the audacity to despoil the Jewry of Parga, a Venetian colony near Corfu, and to carry off five victims (15 11)24.

The result of such feats was a new and fairly large group of Jews tolerated as such, whose number was estimated by one eyewitness as between two and three thousand25. This slave-community was the precursor

of the similar phenomenon on the island of Malta after 15 3 026 The final siege of Rhodes (1522) found the crypto-

Jewish group, like their parents in 1480, rendering loyal service to the Knights both in combat and in manufacturing weapons27. The captives, on the other hand, went over to the Turks, serving in a labor battalion which filled the moat28. One of the spies executed by the defenders was the Marrano physician,

John Battista (formerly Jacob Comtino), who had come to Rhodes from Constantinople29. Following the surrender, the liberated Jews reopened the synagogue, and shortly afterward some left for Crete, where the Knights also took refuge30 With the expulsion of the Christians from the fortress of Rhodes, and the influx of Jews from the Turkish go

mainland, the town became an important center of Sephardic Jewry. Although this is not the place to recount the modern history of this community, which has in fact received detailed study3i, we may call attention to the accounts of two visitors of the 16th century. According to Gabriel von Rattenberg (1527), when a

party of pilgrims ventured to land at Rhodes, the Jews claimed that they were spies. The pilgrims were forced to pay a substantial sum to the authorities before they could continue their journey32. In 1579 Carlier de Pinon found a Jewish population which outnum-

bered the Turks. The former, however, could not leave the island at will but had to apply for an exit visa33. i. Apart from the literature cited in subsequent notes, see Heyd, Histoire du Commerce, 1, 526 f.; Iorga, N., "Rhodes sous les Hospitaliers", Revue historique du Sud-Est europeen, vol. viii (1931), 32-51, 98-113, 169-87; Marinescu, C., "L'Ile de Rhodes au xve s. et l'Ordre de Saint-Jean de Jerusalem d'apres des documents inedits", Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati, vol. v (1946), 382-401. In regard to the Jews, there are some data in Galante, A., Histoire des Juifs de Rhodes, Chio, Cos, etc. (Istanbul 1935), PP- 7-132.

Gabriel, A., La Cite de Rhodes MCCCX-MDXXII (Paris

1921-1923), vol. 1, 14-

Delaville le Roulx, J., Les Hospitaliers d Rhodes jusqu'd la mort de Philibert de Naillac (Paris 1913), p. 356, n. i. 4. Lacroix, L., Les files de la GrPce (Paris 1881), pp. 165 f. (cites no source). 5. Iorga, Notes et extraits, vol. 11, 98. 6. Conrady, L., Vier Rbeinische Palaestina Pilgerschriften des XIV. XV. find XVL Jahrhunderts (Wiesbaden 1882), p. 109. 7. Fabri, Evagatorittnr, 1, 47; c£ the eyewitness account of Merri Dupui in Vertot, R. A. de, Histoire des chevaliers hospitaliers de St. Jean de Jerusalem (Paris 1726), vol. 11, 6o5-1z. See also Lacroix, op. cit., 170-73; Berg, A., Die Insel Rhodus (Brunswick 1862), pp. 136-458. Guillaume Caoursin, Obsidionis Rhodi urbis descriptio (Venice ca. 1480), fols. 6b, 16a, 17a. 9. Explicitly stated only by Meshullam of Volterra; see Eisenstein, op. cit., p. 88; Adler, op. cit., p. 156. io. See the letter of d'Aubusson to Sixtus IV, in Ludewig, J. P., Reliquiae nranuscriptoraan (Frankfurt-Leipzig 1723), vol. V, 290-993.

91

ii. Sommi Picenardi, G., Itineraire d'un chevalier de Saint-Jean de Jerusalem daps l'ile de Rhodes (Lille 1900), p. 1 i I.

iz.

See Meshullain (n. 9). Fabri, op. cit., In, 260; cf. his remark, "Judaei plures et synagogae Judeorum" (p. 255)14- Obadiah of Bertinoro, in Eisenstein, op. cit., p. nno; Adler, op. cit., 216 f. 15. See n. 9; see also references to R. Ezra and R. Joseph Rak, who corresponded with Michael Balbo of Crete; Freimann, in Zion, vol. 1, 187, n. 19113.

16.

See n. 14-

Cf. Starr, in PAAJR, vol. x11, 70, and below, ch. x. The statutes of Avignon (13th century) forbade Jews and prostitutes to touch bread or fruit in the market; Camau, E., La Provence a travers 17-

les sudcles (Paris 1908-30), vol. Iv, 282I& Le Saige, Voyage, 89.

i9.

Tercier, M., "Memoire sur la prise de la ville et de file de

Rhodes en 1522 par Soliman II...", Me'moires tires des registres de 1'Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, vol. XLV (1771), 473. According to a French visitor, who arrived in 1485, the belles fen;mes were prosti-

tutes (Voyage de G. Lengherand, p. 105), but Emmanuel Georgillas saw good reason, at all events, to sing the praises of the comely women of Rhodes; see the text of his poem on the plague of 1498-1500, in Legrand, E., Bibliotheque grecque vulgaire (Paris 1880), vol. 1, 203-2520.

Jewry.

Obadiah, who spent ten days at Cos, does not mention this

2.1. Bosio, Giacomo, Dell' Istoria della sacra religion et illustrissima militia di San Giovanni Gierosolonmitano (Rome 1603-20), vol. 11, 564; cf. Sommi Picenardi, Itineraire, pp. 106 f., and n. 19, above. Vertot,

op. cit., vol. u, 387, asserts that the expulsion was prompted by the desire to rid the town of usurers, which seems to be a gratuitous conjecture. On the addiction of the Knights to usury, cf. Iorga, Notes et extraits, vol. 11, 442 (1450)22. See the contemporary account of Elijah Capsali, in Lattes M., Ligquttm shonun (Padua 1869), 46-48. 23. Baumgarten, Martin, Peregrinatio in 1Egyptnm, Arabiam, Palaestinam et Syrian; (Nuremberg 1594), pp. 143, 148; cf. the parallel passages in George of Ganing, in Pez, B., Thesaurus anecdotorumr novissi-

mus (Augsburg 1725), vol. n, pt. 3, cols. 621, 634. On the captives in general, see Tercier, loc. cit., 453 f.; Rossi, E., Assedio e conquista di Rodi nel 1522 (Rome 1927), pp. z6 £ 24.

Viaggio di Francesco Grassetto da Lonigo lungo le coste dalmate greco-venete ed italiche cell' anno MDXI e seguenti, ed. A. Ceruti (Venice

1886), p. 17 (R. Deputazione Veneta di Storia Patria: Monumenti storici, series 4, vol. 1v): two officials set out from Corfu "per trovar

una fosta rodiota, In qual per intexa havea roba a judei, et fatone prexoni V ala Pargha". 25.

See Sommi Picenardi, op. cit. ibid. 92

26. See the article by Roth cited ch. 1v, It zz. 27. Biliotti, E., and Abbe Cotret, Histoire de Pile de Rhodes (Paris 1881), PP- 330, 56328. Sommi Picenardi, op. cit., ibid. 29. Bosio, op. cit., 11, 629; cf, Jacques de Bourbon, in Vertot,

op, cit., ii, 625 f., 643,653, who also mentions another convert; Joseph Hakohen, Sefer Dibre Hayomim (Amsterdam 1733), Pt. 2, fol. 71af. 30- Capsali, op. cit., p.48, and pp. 19-21; Galante, op. cit., pp. 12 31.

In addition to Galante : Pacifici, R., "Notizie sulla vita degli

ebrei a Rodi", Rassegna wensile di Israel, vol. viii (1933), 60-77; Markus, S., Toledot ha-rabbanim limishpahat Israel me-Rodos (Jerusalem 1935).

See also Galante, Appendice a 1'bistoire des iuifs de Rhodes, Chio, Cos, etc. (Istanbul 1948). 32. Rohricht, R., and Meisner, H., Deutsche Pilgerreisen nach dem Heiligen Lande (Berlin 188o), p. 404.

33 "Relation du voyage en Orient de Carller de Pinon", Revue

do 1'Orient latin, vol. x11 (1910-11), 370-

93

IX

CHIOS 11v the i ith century the Jewry of Chios consisted of 15 families, and by virtue of an unusual imperial decree the island was closed to other Jews. This restriction appears in the chrysobull of Constantine IX (1049) in favor of the Nea Mone (New Monastery), which collected an annual tax from the Jewry1. When Benjamin of Tudela visited the island a century later,

however, the ban on immigration was apparently no longer in effect. He estimated the population as 400, but was not aware of any restriction. Following a brief spell of Latin occupation, in 1247 Chios was recovered by John Vatatzes, the emperor of Nicaea whose suppression of Judaism has been noted. This probably explains why the chrysobulls renewing the privileges of the Nea Mone (1259, 1289) contain no reference to the Jews. A change occurred in 1346, when Genoa took possession and awarded the colony to a powerful commercial organization, the maona. The members of the maona belonged to the Giustiniani family, or adopted its name, and constituted the aristocracy of Chios during the ensuing two centuries. The island remained under Genoese rule until 15662. Apart from an incidental reference to the presence of Jews in 13893, the 95

information on this group falls almost entirely within the closing decades of the period. Judah Mosconi of Ochrida apparently found a well-established Jewry here about 1360, which he mentions in passing3a Since the early part of the 15th century the Giustiniani retained a precarious hold on Chios and were forced to pay tribute to the Ottomans. This suzerainty explains why Bayazid II could order the island opened to the exiles from Spain4, who apparently became the

dominant element in the Chios ghetto. Some forty years later, however, the enlarged community was seriously weakened by a plague and remained in a state of decline. According to Samuel de Medina, Chios suffered the loss of its scholars and leaders, leaving only a rabbi from Egypt, Abraham Ibn Sasson5. This decline seems to be confirmed by two offi-

cial documents, which give concrete illustrations of

the absence of effective control within the community. The disputes reported therein fall within the years in which the administration was disrupted by an Italian faction, which obstructed the representatives of Genoa at every turn. In 15 5 5, the office of podesta being

vacant, the two commissarii had to cope with the opposition as best they could6. At this juncture a

dispute between two Jewish parties developed from a litigation of minor importance into a cause celebre. When the plaintiff appeared before the officials and demanded a judgment in his favor, the commissarii replied that they would have to hear the defendants. The officials ignored the suggestion that they would be handsomely rewarded if they took administrative action. This Jewish claimant now took a more serious and distinctly irregular step, which resulted in a loss both to him and to his adversaries. Although the ecclesiast96

ical court had no jurisdiction over cases involving lay-

men only, he placed his claim before the episcopal vicar. Eager to demonstrate the power and indepen-

dence of the bishop, the vicar did not hesitate to summon the litigants to appear, under pain of severe penalty. Though they could scarcely risk the consequences of refusing to respond, the defendants nevertheless informed the vicar that they would not recognise his decision as binding. The case was tried, notwithstanding, and both sides were adjudged guilty. Thereupon the commissarii not only refused to execute judgment but threatened to penalize the plaintiff for his irregular behavior. At this point the bishop intervened and declared that he would excommunicate the officials if they took action. By this time the two factions seemed ready to come to blows, and a conference was called to determine whether the ecclesiastical court had the right to judge suits not involving clerics; the fact that the litigants in this test case were Jewish was incidental7. No clear-cut decision emerged, but we may conclude that the bishop was not forced to yield.

Within three years after this affair, we find the representative of Genoa in a much weaker position. In i 5 5 8

the commissario reported to the republic a similar clash again precipitated by a dispute between two Jews, which confirms the impression that communal discipline was at a low level. The parties involved were cantors, who had arranged to officiate in the synagogue alternately (cantare nella sinagoga a vicenda), but soon fell out. They took their case to the ecclesiast-

ical court, which awarded damages to the plaintiff; payment was to be made by the synagogue. The commissario refused to execute judgment on the ground that the ecclesiastical court had no jurisdiction over 97

this case : "according to the canons, the Church has no

concern with the ceremonies of the Jews, and is not interested in whether there is any singing or no singing

in the synagogue".

Although he held out for a

year against the pressure of the bishop, he was finally forced to yield". During the same years, in which Spanish influence was preponderant at Genoa, steps were taken to establish

the Inquisition at Chios. Some ambitious Dominicans arrived and let it be known that they were planning to

act against Greeks and Jews as well as heretics, but the commissario succeeded in nipping this project. The local clergy were unable to save the friars from expulsion, after the latter had threatened to do as they saw fit, regardless of the wishes of the regime, and Chios escaped the dubious benefits of the Holy Office9.

The accounts of a number of observers enable us to reconstruct certain aspects of the life of Chios Jewry, as seen about the time of the events recounted above. Nicolas de Nicolay ( 1 551 ) writes that the town contained a guantite de living in a separate quarter and wearing a large yellow hat in the shape of a cross bow (bonnet ti Arbaleste). "They conduct a great

traffic in money and other commodities, as they do in all other countries in which they reside". Less clear is this traveller's remark that the community paid a tax to the Sultan rather than to the local authorities : sont en grand nonabre soubs le tribut de la Seigneurie10

This corresponds, in parvo, to the annual tribute exacted

from the Giustiniani since the early 15th century, and suggests that the Jews were under Turkish protection. There are, on the other hand, reliable indications that the community had in general no such extra-territorial status.

As for the other information given by this 98

traveller, it may be noted that the Jewish quarter had a desirable location in the northern part of the walled town, west of the main gate11. Andre' Thevet writes : "They have a number of synagogues and some learned physicians among them"12. The Jewish hat was a feature of perhaps all the communities of the Latin Orient13 The native historian, Hieronimo Giustiniani, records

that the authorities had assigned a separate quarter to the Jews to protect them from the populace. During Easter Week the Jews were not permitted to leave the ghetto from Thursday to Monday'4. If this precaution fulfilled its purpose, the situation during the Christmas festivities was quite different. Each year the Jewry had to present a new banner of St. George, made by its members, and on Christmas Eve their representatives hoisted it above the tower'5. The following day the

Jews mingled with the friends and clients of the Giustiniani, who brought greetings to their patrons, as they sat enjoying their festive repast", and in the afternoon the fun began in earnest. On Christmas Day the podesta would receive the formal homage of the Greek clergy, the nobility and the general popu-

lation, as they marched past him. It was the duty of the Jews as well to appear in this procession, thereby giving the exuberant youth an opportunity to indulge

in horseplay. While the Jews could not evade the obligation of participating in this ceremony, they attempted to avoid unpleasantness by mingling with the ranks of the common folk, instead of marching as a separate unit. This stratagem worked poorly, for as soon as their presence was detected, the Jews would be assailed by a hailstorm of oranges. The guards were

unable to check such unseemly outbursts in the presence of the podesta, who, indeed, had to leave the scene until order was re-established17. 99

i. Starr, Jews in the Byzantine Empire, pp. 197 f.; renewed in 1o6z and 1079 (pp. 200 f., 202 f.). Listed as nos. vi, xv, and xix, in

Iakovenko, P. A., Hscneaoaamtn n oGnacTlt 13Fl3afTfliic1tfx rpancoT. rpantoTmi Hoaaro MouacTrilpn ua OCTpone Xioc.e. (Iur'ev 1917), pp. 16 f., 24-27; cf. p. 125. z. On this period, see Miller, Essays on the Latin Orient, pp. 298-

313, and the works cited below. The 3 vol. corpus of sources edited by Argenti, Ph. P., and Kyriakides, S. P., X:oc (Athens 1947), has not been available. 3. The death of a Jewess during an earthquake; Lampros, S. P., in `EXXi voir.v4p.wv, vol. vii (1911), 146 f. 3a. See Krauss, Studien, p. 132; Starr, op. cit., p. 236. 4. Capsali, op. cit., p. 12. 5. Cited by Rosanes, op. cit., 11, 136 (source also refers to the export of wine to Rhodes). The brief article by Rosanes, in Enc. Juel., vol. V, 486, may be ignored. 6. Argenti, Ph.-P., Chins Vincta (Cambridge 1941), pp. 56-68; cf. pp. L XII-vil. 7. See the text and analysis of the document by Argenti, ibid. 8. Argenti, op. cit., pp. 71-76; cf. pp. Lxxx f. 9. Argenti, ibid. in. Les Navigations, peregrinations et voyages faicts en la Turauie (Antwerp 1577), pp. 69, 247 f.; the statement regarding the tribute paid by the Jewry of Chios occurs in connection with the writer's wellknown account of the Jews of Constantinople. Hopf suggested that the unpopularity of the former (see bLlowv) was due to the role of the usurers; Ersch and Gruber's Encyklopddie, vol. 68, p. 339. u. Sgouros, K. A., `Icropia -, v4aou X(ou (Athens 1937), p. 216, n. 312. See the ms. excerpt given by Hasluck, F. W., in Annual of the British School at Athens, vol. xvi (1909-10), 184; on Thevet and his

special interest in the Jews of the islands, see idem, loc. cit., vol. xx (1913-14), 59-69.

See below, ch. x. Hieroninmo Giustiniani's History of Chios, ed. Ph. P. Argenti (Cambridge 1943), p 56 (Italian text published for the first time). This writer cites Martin Crusius, Turcograeciae libri octo (Basel 1584), p. 246, in confirmation of his remark regarding the choice location of the ghetto. Crusius, however, mentions only the existence of the ghetto and the yellow hat. 15. Giustiniani, p. 400; on the parallel custom at Negroponte, see above, ch. in. 16. Idem, 402 £ 13. 14.

17.

Idem, 404.

In regard to the later period, in 1677 the Jews

numbered 300 (Argenti, Chins Vincta, p. 249), and as late as the 19th

century they were restricted to the walled town (ibid., p. cL)xxl, n. 3). The earthquake of 1881, however, forced them to settle in the area outside.

See Galante, Jnifs de Rhodes, pp. 145-61. 100

X CYPRUS

THE conquest of Cyprus by Richard Lionheart-the first step toward the partition of the Byzantine Empire-marked the beginning of almost four cen-

I

turies of Latin rule.

Under the French house of

Lusignan (1192-1489) the island was an independent kingdom, which held a prominent place in the trade

and military ventures of the Latin Orient. In the

latter part of the 14th century, however, Genoa imposed its control over Cyprus, to be succeeded by Venice, which held this colony during the century preceding

the advent of the Turks (1570-71). During the last two hundred years of this period, the most prosperous of the Crusader states underwent a decline from which it has never recovered'-. On the eve of our period the Jewish population of Cyprus was perhaps greater than that of any of the Greek islands, and included an obscure heretical sect, in addition to a Karaite community and the Rabbinites. This is all the information afforded by Benjamin

of Tudela. Under the Lusignan kings we find substantial groups in the capital, Nicosia, and in the major

port town of Famagusta, and there were others at Paphos and Limassol2. On the Asiatic coast, the Jewries of Gorhigos (Corycus) and Attalia (now IOI

Adalia) were likewise subject to these rulers, from 1361

to 1448 and 1373, respectively3. In the absence of any formal statute governing the status of the Jews, we must depend on a few references in the Assizes of Jerusalem which were adopted by

this kingdom. In the legal and, to a considerable extent, the economic life of the towns there was evidently little discrimination against the non-Latin groups, which comprised Syrians, Armenians and Muslims, as well as Greeks and Jews. Unlike the practice in the West, when a Christian sued a Jew, the defendant might demand that the plaintiff produce Jewish witnesses in support of his claim. Only transactions involving formalities in the tours bourgeois, such as the purchase and sale of urban property, were closed to all except Latins, as the only class which had access to that court4. The effort of the Church to enforce the prohibition on the services of Jewish and Muslim physicians, represented by a declaration at

Nicosia in the 13th century, probably met with as little success as it did in other Crusader states. The Council of Limassol (1298) found it necessary to

renew the familiar ban on relations with non-Christian women5. In the early part of the following century, an enterprising prelate, Archbishop John del Conte (1319-32), introduced the yellow badge6. This marks the earliest appearance of the badge in a former Byzantine province, preceding by a century the extension of this measure to the Venetian possessions'. In this connection, one may point to the substitution of a yellow for a blue turban as the distinctive headgear of

the Jews in Egypt, at the beginning of the 14th century". According to the traveller Nicolo de Martoni (1394-95), moreover, following the three-day occupation of Alexandria by Peter I of Cyprus, in 1365 the 102

Muslim regime ordered the Jewish population to exchange the blue turban, which they were still wearing, for a yellow one9. The chroniclers of the house of Lusignan record no instance either of royal intolerance toward, or of special favor shown to Jewish subjects. The extraordinary tax levies of the 14th century were definitely beyond the king's control. During the first decade of the century Henry II was forced into exile for a few

years by his brother Amaury.

Arriving as papal

legate with a view to effecting a reconciliation between the brothers, Raymond de Pins took control of the state's affairs and carried out an extensive program for

the fortification and reform of the realm; the fall of Acre in i 291 had enhanced the position of Cyprus as a Latin outpost. In order to defray expenses Raymond

reaped a "great harvest of money from the Jews of Nicosia, Famagusta and throughout the realm". His three levies netted a total of ioo,ooo besants (equivalent

The entire population rejoiced at the return of Henry II in 131o, and at Nicosia the Jews joined in the festive welcome". After reaching the zenith of its power and prosperity under Peter I (1359-1369), the kingdom suffered a severe setback, which began in 1373, when the Genoese overran the island. Peter II was powerless to defend his realm against the unbridled cruelty and spoliation of the troops, who spared no one. The Genoese not only took possession of Famagusta,

to at least a5,ooo ducats)10.

which was cut off from the rest of Cyprus for go years (until 1464), but pillaged Nicosia repeatedly : "whatever men had either in secret or openly they carried it off, both from Jews and Christians"1" They agreed

to a peace on condition that the king pay them one million ducats, which he undertook to raise by means 103

of a forced loan. The quotas he assigned to the two chief cities are particularly instructive in showing the relative economic status ascribed to the two Jewries. At Nicosia the Jews were expected to contribute 70,000 ducats and the Christian burghers ioo,ooo; at Famagusta the respective quotas were 30,000 and 200,00013. Meeting with resistance to this extravagant demand, the Genoese again raided homes and commercial premises, never hesitating to subject

their victims to violent treatment. We may revert at this point to the situation in Famagusta, on which the documents of the 14th15th century cast a little light. In 1309 we find Venice awarding citizenship to a Jewish merchant, who had come from Acrei4. Others, however, labored under a handicap. Francesco Balducci Pegolotti of Florence (1324-25) complained that the Pisans in Famagusta

were in the habit of treating his compatriots "as if they were Jews or their slaves"15. If such was the

lot of merchants without special protection, those who came from Egypt probably fared better. In his nego-

tiations with the Sultan in 1368, Peter I invited the subjects of the former to trade in Cyprus, promising equal treatment to Jews and others'°. We find Jewish merchants (together with Greeks and Armenians) also within the powerful Genoese colony at Famagusta. In 1300 Raffael of Palermo came to the aid of six Jewish captives, whom he ransomed for 70 white besants. The redemption of captives was a virtually routine function of medieval Jewish communities, but in this instance the victims obtained private aid and promised to reimburse their benefactor. After accepting the stipulation to remain at Famagusta until they had repaid Raffael, the agreement was revised. The creditor's son Macalufo 104

accompanied the men to Candia, after they had signed a document obligating them to pay 24o hyperpera one week after arrival'7. Among the Jews mentioned

in the unpublished records of this colony (1427 and later), there were some from Ancona7 8

In 1438 one Aaron d'Oliveria was ordered to sell the slave he owned in violation of the well-known restriction19. Despite the predominant position of the Genoese, some of them had cause for resentment.

Complaining to the Republic of the treatment of these citizens by royal officials, the Genoese consul at Limassol commented bitterly (1447), "In these parts I would rather be called a Jew than a Genoese". The

following year one individual protested against the refusal of the Republic's representative. at Famagusta to appoint him to a salaried position; the official had distributed such appointments among Greeks, Armenians and Jews, "for reasons best kept silent for the time being"20.

The ruinous effect of the Genoese occupation of FamagustaY1 on the island as whole may have been responsible for the manifestation of Greek hostility toward the once flourishing Jewry of Nicosia. Referring evidently to the beginning of the 16th century, a local historian of a later generation states that many left this community and went to Famagusta to escape the disturbances suffered during Easter Week. In the

latter town the Jewish population rose temporarily to z,00022 ,

but within a few years all but a small

fraction emigrated. Assuming control of Cyprus in 1489, Venice invited

the population of its Greek possessions to settle in Famagusta under attractive conditions23. But half a century later the town contained no more than Externally Famagusta now 8,ooo inhabitantsY4. 105

looked like an offshoot of Venice, and its small Jewry lived under conditions resembling those in the ghetto

established by the Republic at home. One of the first governors had taken offense at the sight of Jews disregarding the procession from the St. Nicholas cathedral, bearing the sacred objects. Accordingly, just as had been done at Modon, the governor prescribed a penalty for Jews who failed to show the reverence due on such occasions21. Under this regime all wills had to be prepared by the official notary and were subject to administrative control. About the middle of the 16th century the terms of the testament of David Malti (i.e. of Malta) raised certain questions, which were referred to Joseph Caro at Safed. The testator had bequeathed 5o ducats to

his sister's son Emanuel, but the executor found it strange that the clause was written in the third person. The "elders" (senies ?) advised him that this was the regular style of non-Jewish notaries. More troublesome was the bequest of 5o ducats to the brother's son Nissim b. Shabbetai, despite the fact that he had died some years before the date of the will. Caro ruled that the surviving nephew, Samson, was entitled to the legacy. We may note that the anonymous author of the inquiry remarked that there was no local resident

competent to draft a legal document in Hebrew in proper formL4.

By the 16th century there was no trace left of the Romaniote Jews of Famagusta. In 1522 Moses Basola counted 12 families, all of Sicilian origin. In his opinion, they had nothing in their favor but their handsome synagogue, which had undoubtedly been built in a happier generation. Small as the group was, it was sadly lacking in harmony. The disregard of the ritual regulations regarding wine likewise pained this 1o6

observer. Basola also observed the Christians' abhor-

rence of the Jewish shopper's touch in the market, which was common in the entire area27. Forty years later (1563) Elijah of Pesaro counted 25 families, divided

into Levantines, Sicilians and Portuguese, each in conflict with the other. This visitor's host was a prosperous and esteemed rabbi and physician, Eliezer b. Elijah Ashkenazi, who had come from Egypt two years earlier. Engaged exclusively in usury, the community paid an annual tax of z6 ducats. Elijah pictures Famagusta as a thriving center, and one would not suspect from his account that the island had suffered grievously

from a series of natural disasters. He notes also the yellow hats and the two Jewish physicians, who (as in

Venice) were privileged to wear a black hat with a yellow strip (pezZetta). Elijah's detailed account of the local commerce almost deserves a place beside Pegolotti's Pratica della Mercatura7°.

Unlike the prosperous group at Famagusta, in the miserable town of Limassol the Jews are reported to have a formed a majority of the population in this period (i 5 65). If the dwellings were extremely shabby,

as Johann Helffrich informs us, food supplies were abundant29 :

"Limison ist ein armes Stattl[e]in, hat wenig Volcks allder, den mehrertheil Juden... Hat in diesem Stattlein gar schlechte and nidrige Gebaw, doch find man

Fisch, Fleisch, Wein, Brot, Oel and der gleichen Prouiandt, ein ziemliche Notturfft, and umb ein recht Gelt zu kauffen". The Republic attributed the loss of Cyprus to the

instigation of the Sultan's right-hand man, Joseph Nasi, the only known instance in our period in which the defeat of a state in the Levant was blamed on the Jews. Rumor, moreover, falsely credited a Famagusta 107

Jew with taking a hand in the gruesome disposition of the remains of that city's valiant commander, Marcantonio Bragadin. The Senate accordingly decreed the expulsion of the Jews from Venice (December 14, 1571)30. The Jewry of Famagusta, however, is not known to have profited from the conquest. Some 30 or 40 years later Jews were still living on the island, namely at Nicosia and Limassol31. i. See Iorga, N., France de C/i pre (Paris 1931); Mitrovic, C., Apart from the chroniclers cited below, Louis and Rene de Mas Latrie have published a great quantity of documentary material, which, however, contains no reference to the Jews. z. For a curious description of the synagogue service in Paphos, see Fra Niccolo da Poggibonsi, Libro d'Oltramare (1346-1350), ed. P. B. Bagagatti (Jerusalem 1945), p. 145 (ch. cc1.I); A Voyage Beyond the Seas, transl. T. Bellorini and E. Hoade (Jerusalem 1945), P 123 On Lirnassol, see below. Cipro nella storia medioevale del conunercio levantino (Trieste 1894).

Leontios Makhairas, Recital concerning the Sweet Land of Cyprus

3.

entitled `Chronicle', ed. with transl. and notes by R. M. Dawkins (Oxford 1932), vol. 1, 437, It, 169. On Attalia in the earlier period, Starr, op. cit., 186, 191, 219, 221. 4. Assises de Jerusalem, ed. A. A. Beugnot (Paris 1841-43), vol. I, 98,11, 171 f., 254; Greek version in Sathas, C. N., 11IECa:wvrrrI P PAEo0rj::rj (Venice 1877), vol. vi, 483-86, 493-

Mansi, J. D., Sacrorum conciliorum nova et anrplissinra collectio (Venice 1784), vol. xxv1, 328, 394. lorga, op. cit., p. 138, saw herein 5-

an allusion to the royal physician, but why "un Juif, tres dispose, du reste, a se faire baptiser"?

Francesco Amadi, Chronique, ed. R. de Mas Latrie (Collection

6.

des documents inedits stir l'histoire de France, vol. vuu, pt. 1) (Paris 1891),

p. 406.

On the career of del Conte, Mas Latrie, "Histoire des archeveques latins de file de Chypre", Archives de !'Orient latin, vol. 11 (1884) 255-61. 7.

At Corfu, 1406; Roth, Venice, p. 327. At Crete and Zante,

1518; Le Saige, Voyage, PP- 75, 82. 8.

Karacek, cited by Neumann, G. A., in Archives de !'Orient

latin, vol. ii, 364, n. 1849. Le Grand, L., "Relation du pelerinage a Jerusalem de Nicolas de Martoni, notaire italien (1394-1395)," Revue de 1'Orient Latin, vol. u1 (1895), 588. 1o. Amadi, p. 327; Fl.orio Bustron,"Chronique de l'ile de Chypre", ed. R. de Mas Latrie, in Coll. des doc.: Melanges historiques, vol. v (1886), 194.

On the relation of the besant to the ducat, Dawkins, op. cit., I08

n, 47; the levies were equivalent to two-thirds of the 148,000 besants assigned annually for the maintenance of the royal household; Makhairas, ed. Dawkins, pp. 52 f. ii. Amadi, p. 383; Bustron, p. 238. iz. Makhairas, 1, 403; see also i, 437 and 11, 469. Cf. Diomede Strambaldi, Chronique, ed. Mas Latrie (Coll. des doc., vu, pt. 2) (Paris 1893), PP. 172, 187-

Makhairas, Pp. 376 f., and the parallel passages : Amadi, p. 469; Strambaldi, p. 161; Bustron, p. 327 (gives roo,ooo as the 13.

quota of Famagusta Jewry). Cf. Iorga, op. cit., pp. 183 f.; cf. p. 76, which is apparently in need of correction. 14. Giomo, in Misc. di storia veneta, ser. 3, vol. 1, p. 351 (no. 468).

Francesco Balducci Pegolotti, La Pratica della Mercatura, ed. A. Evans (Cambridge, Mass., 1936), p. 8416. Desirnoni, C., "Actes passes a Famagouste de 1299 a 1301 par devant le notaire genois Lamberto de Sambuceto", Revue de 15.

!'Orient latin, vol. I (1893), 83 f., I15 f17. Mas Latrie, L. de, Histoire de file de Chypre sons le regne des

princes de la maison de Lusignan (Paris 1852-61), vol. u, 307I& Iorga, Notes et extraits, vol. 1, 79, 464. 19. 20.

Ibid., vol. u, z6.

Ibid., vol. 11, 220; 1, 93. At Tenedos (1382) one Venetian is

said to have fomented the fear that if the island were ceded to the Genoese, the Venetian colonists would be compelled to become Jews or leave/; Predelli, Libri Commemoriali, vol. In, 156. 21.

The once prosperous port soon became a costly burden to

the invader; Banescu, N., Le Declin de Famagouste (Bucharest 1946). 22.

Estienne de Lusignan(o), Description de toute /'isle de Cypre

(Paris 1580), fol. 76a. A reference to the Jews of Nicosia joining in the welcome extended to King Janus in 1427, in Makhairas, pp. 678 f.; also mentions the bridge of the local Jewish quarter,

pp. 602 £ Just prior to the occasion mentioned Nicosia had suffered a Mamluk occupation, and after the departure of the Egyptian troops the populace had attacked the burghers.

Mas Latrie, op. cit., vol. III, 459; on the administration of the colony, cf. Dudan, B., II Domino di Levante di VeneZia (Bolo23.

gna 1938), pp. 139-4924. Mas Latrie, op. cit., vol. III, 534. Nicosia, on the other hand, increased from 16,ooo to 21,ooo; Heyd, Histoire du commerce, 11, 42525. Lusignan, op. cit., fol. 76. 26. Abqat Rokel (Saloniki 1791), no. 75, fol. 46b-47a. 27. Text in Yaari, A., Mase' of Eres Yisrael (Tel Aviv

1946), In the vicinity of the town was the "Jews' Hill", shown p. 132.

on the plan reproduced in Enlart, C., L'Art gothique et la Renaissance en Chypre (Paris 1889), vol. u, pl. xxi. Enlart presents valuable surveys of the history of Famagusta and Nicosia. z8. Yaari, op. cit., 188-90. In previous editions the number of log

families is given as 125; Eisenstein, op. cit., pp. 166-71. While serving as rabbi at Famagusta Eliezer Ashkenazi consult his colleagues at Safed; Joseph Caro, had occasion to Responsa (Saloniki 1598), Yibum, no. 5, fol. 144b-I45b. 29. Text in Feyrabend, Reyssbuch, fol. 378a. 30. Roth, Venice, p. 88; Schiavi, in Nuova Antologia, vol. 494-96; Galante, A., Don Joseph Nassi (Istanbul 1913), p. 18. exxxi, 31.

Hiya Rofe (d. 16zo, Safed), Sefer Ma`aseh

Hj'a (Venice 1651) fol I2ob-I2ia (no. 8). It seems that the Jews did respond to Selim II's offer to settle 500 of them on the island;not Galante, Juifs d'Istanbul, vol. I, ii. Writing long after any Jew is known to have lived on the island, Archimandrite Kyprianos

voiced the fear of their resettlement; `I6looia f`povoXoytz' t?s vrjaou Kuapou (Venice 1788), P. 95. Addendum to p. Io8, no i.

The detailed History of Cyprus by G. F. Hill, (London 1948), was unfortunately not accessible. vols. II and III

110

XI

TAXATION he special Jewry-tax, is, of course, a consistent fea-

ture of medieval Europe. Although no historian

has as yet given us a comprehensive study of the subject, certain basic aspects are clear. Above all, in Latin Europe the community generally paid a designated sum in addition to the regular taxes. Where the size of the Jewish group was considerable, in comparison with the Christian population of a given town, or where the pursuit of usury resulted in an accumulation of wealth, the Jews' payment constituted a substantial source of revenue. Such a system, however, could scarcely have prevailed in the Byzantine Empire. Neither in numbers nor in wealth could the Jewries of

the Empire have served as a "sponge" for the state treasury.

In his searching discussion of the problem, Professor Franz Dolger offers a categorical solution, namely : Byzantine Jewry regularly paid a special tax; the Jewry-tax was a symbolic supplement to the regular

taxes, rather than a sizeable contribution (as in the West3). The former question is, nevertheless, still debatable : in certain instances the sources antedating the Fourth Crusade may well pertain to the payment

of the regular taxes by the Jews. As for Dolger's III

emphasis on the symbolic value of the Jewry-tax,

certain objections must be considered. In those situations in which we know definitely that a special tax was levied, two features seem fairly clear : i. the tax involved more than a nominal sum; z. the Jewry-tax served not as a supplement but in lieu of all other taxes. At the same time, the symbolism of this tax, the relegation of the obstinate minority group to an inferior status, remains indisputable. There is clear evidence that in certain localities the community paid a Jewry-tax : I. Chios, 1049: the emperor assigned the "headtax" (kephaletidn) of the 15 families to the newly built

monastery (Nea Mone); following the renewal in 1079 nothing further is recorded4. z. Strobilos, 115 3 : among the sources of income awarded by the emperor to the Hagia Sophia was the tax of the Jews of Strobilos, "wherever they may live"'-. One may take this phrase in the sense that the community had dispersed (so Dolger), which might have made it quite difficult for the institution at Constanti-

nople to collect its due. 3.

Constantinople, between Iz8z and 1319 : Andro-

nicus II established a quarter for the Jewry as his "possession", and fixed its tax obligation. The communication addressed to Venice, which provides this information, has survived in translation only : "nostri Iudei quedarn appropriata possessio sunt Imperii et ideodatus eis locus deputatus habitationi in quo habitan _s exercent proprias artes, reddentes Imperio illud quod ordinatum est eis"6. One should not infer that these were serfs of the royal chamber, as in the West, for their payments evidently went to the fisc rather than to the emperor's own treasury. 112

4. Thessalonica, prior to 1473: the annual tax of 1,000 hyperpera was retained under Venetian rule. 5. Durazzo, prior to 1392: the Jewry contributed

annually 16 brachia of velvet cloth, an obligation, retained when the town became a colony of Venice. 6. Zichna (Macedonia), 13 3 3 : until this year the Jewry paid zo hyperpera annually, which Andronicus III now assigned to the Ostrine monastery (near Serres). Under Serbian rule this grant was confirmed

by King Stephen Dusan in 13457

Constantine, a village in the Chalcidice (Macedonia), ca. 1340: the grant of the Jewry-tax to the monastery of Lykousada (near Phanarion in Thessaly) was confirmed by Stephen Uros in 7.

St.

1361 8.

The political changes in 14th-century Macedonia are reflected in the two immediately preceding charters. With the exception of the towns of Thessalonica and

Christoupolis (Kavalla), the province was held by Serbia from 1345 to 1371, when it was retaken by the Greeks. Twelve years later the Turks wrested the province from the Empire°. One might be led to believe that under the Palaeologoi the Jewry-tax became the rule, yet the charter of the town of Janina makes no such provision. This charter was originally granted by the governor of the West, Syrgiannes Palaeologos Philanthropenos, and shortly afterward (131 9) confirmed by Andronicus II. The document stipulates that the Jews are to enjoy "freedom" and must not be molested". In principle, it would seem, this Jewry was entitled to equal status, within the limits of certain time-honored disabilities,

but did this apply to taxation?; the question must stand unanswered. The evidence pertaining to the problem of the Jewry113

tax is scanty indeed, but it would be rash to conclude

that nothing more than a symbolic payment was involved. Nowhere is it indicated that those subject to the Jewry-tax paid the regular taxes in addition. It appears, on the other hand, quite likely that the special tax was sufficiently high to warrant its substitu-

tion for the regular taxes. At Constantinople the Jewish subjects of the emperor

were also required to render service in the form of manual labor (angaria), a duty which they shared with the Greeks.h1 Under Latin rule, we find a special form of angaria at Modon and Coron, applying to Jews of

both sexes; Christians, or at least converts from Judaism, were not subject to this particular obligation 12

In the Latin colonies we find evidence of policies bearing considerable similarity to the contemporary scene west of Greece. Although prosperous Jewish merchants and usurers were, on the whole, relatively less numerous in the ghettos of that area than in the West, the existence of such a class is reflected in the fiscal record of some of the Venetian colonies and of 14th-century Cyprus. In Crete the Republic raised the annual tax from 1,000 to 3,000 hyperpera within that century (in addition to special payments), a step which cannot be ascribed to the growth of the Jewish population in numbers or prosperity13. In Negroponte, on the other hand, the increase from 500 to 1,000 hyperpera, between 134o and 141o, apparently cor-

responded to the rise in the population. The additional imposts, however, were particularly burdensome; even on the basis of the higher tax rate of 1410, these imposts added up to a 25 percent supplementary

tax. Under the Venetians the Thessalonica community paid a tax equal to that of Negroponte. The 114

published documents relating to Modon and Coron make no mention of the Jewry-tax, and we are thus unable to learn what the Venetian policy was vis-a-vis

a Jewry consisting predominantly of low-income workers.

In Cyprus the Western policy came into full play during the brief administration of the papal legate. Within two or three years Raymond de Pins extracted 100,000 besants from the Jews, a sum equivalent to two-thirds of the annual allowance for the royal household. The fact that the chroniclers neglect to record

this legate's policy in regard to the taxation of the other classes is perhaps significant. Some decades later, when Peter II demanded a forced loan, under Genoese pressure, the share assigned to the Jews of Nicosia was 30 percent less than the ioo,ooo ducats demanded from the considerably more numerous Christian burghers; in Famagusta, the quota of the latter was 200,000, and the ratio of the Jews' share 15 per-cent. It may be that the distribution of the burden was computed on the basis of the annual taxation of the respective classes. Toward the end of Genoese rule the Jewry of Chios is reported to have paid its tax not to the local regime

but to the Porte, which also collected an annual tribute from the former. The circumstances which led to this arrangement may some day be explained by a document in the archives at Genoa. We have found two localities in which it is clear that the Jewry-tax of the Latin period was a heritage from the Byzantine rulers. This may seem to provide a

basis for inferring that in the other colonies as well this tax antedates the Latin conquest. Should not this inference, however, be weighed against the fact that the Latins introduced various Western devices, I15

particularly in relation to their Jewish subjects? The situation in Thessalonica and Durazzo does not rule

out the probability that the Latin Orient comprised localities in which the Jewry tax was unknown during

the period of Byzantine rule. i. See the brief summary by Baer, F., "Abgaben and Steuern", in Enc. Jud., vol. i (1928), 256-62; additional bibliography in Baron, The Jewish Community, vol. in, 1283 £

See Starr, op. cit., 11-17; cf. the critique of Alexander, P. J., in ByZantion, vol. XVII (1944-45), 396 f. On the situation in the Roman East prior to the 7th century, Tcherikower, V., The Jews 2.

in Egypt in the Hellenistic-Roman Age in the Light of the Papyri (Jerusalem 1945), ch. 3 (Hebrew, with English summary); Avi-Yonah, M., Bime Roma n-Bkantion (Jerusalem 1946), index, s.v., missim. 3.

Dolger, F., "Die Frage der Judensteuer in Byzanz", Viertel-

jahrschrift fur SoZial- said IVirtschaftsgeschichte, vol. xxvi (1933), 1-24;

cf. his rejoinder to the present writer's study, in Byzentinische Zeitscbrift, vol. XL (1940), 291 £,

Starr, op. cit., pp. 197-203Ibid., p.. 228. 56. Thomas, Diplomatarium, vol. 1, 142 £ Dolger correctly cites 4.

this text as evidence of a special tax, but one may doubt whether the group was Zwangiveise angesiedelt; see above, ch. n. 7. Miklosich and Miller, Acta et diplomata, vol. v, Io6, 113; cf. Soloviev, A., and Mosin, V., Grcke pove je srpsk.ikb vladara : Diplomata graeca region et imperatorum Serviae (Srpska Kraljevska Akademija, Zbornik Za istorjtt, jeZik i krjiZevnost srpskog naroda: odejeije 3, krjiga vii) (Belgrade 1936), p. 32 (no. II), p. 427. Cf. Dolger, F., Die Urkrtnden des Joharnres-Pr odromos-Klosters bei Serrai (Sittnngsberichte der Baye-

rischen Akad. d. VVissen., philos.-hilt. Abt., 1935, Heft 9) (Munich 1935), PP. 26 f. 8. 9.

Soloviev and Mosin, op. cit., p. 204 (no. xxvrll); cf. p. 518. See Lemerle, P., Philippes et la Macedoine orientale (Bibl. des

Ecoles fran9aises d'Athenes et de Rome, vol. 158) (Paris 1945), PP- 199 214-19 1o. Miklosich and Muller, op. cit., vol. V, 83. On Syrgiannes, see the study in two installments by Brinon, St., "A Propos d'un prostagma inedit d'Andronic III Paleologue", By. Zeit., vol. xxxvin (1938). For an analysis of the charter, see Amantos, K., in 'H7zECOWTCY.2 XPOVC%U, v01. V (1930), 205-207.

ii. Document dated 1423, cited above, ch. Ii.

Sathas, Documents, vol. I, 294 (1485) : "aliquis Iudeus vel Iudea non possit franchari ab aliqua angaria, nisi per assumptionem baptismatis". 13. See Starr, in PAAJR, vol. XIi, 76 £ This Jewry also had to contribute a considerable share of the war levies. 12.

I16

APPENDIX

An Anonymous Letter from Negroponte to the Jewish Community

of Rome, written about i-oo Library of the Collegio Rabbnzico, Livorno

e ykv

-yy,

-'us-

3Y

yGN l o;31 AIUJ y JGH

X_

,,,,!,, G/'!

y2r

s

'jir

ir"s 4

plp or)

. DZj=Q.'l

-

'],ex r

) j.PPW IXU +Hp',kileY' o-'

pp``

JP`U` off')' ti )7 A t m -41 - llD*1

j

hq'J

t' lair,

1 a ixaow -5 31k)-':J4 Jr'Lk )7t ,t ,,? Vi ola V of

,,i J r)^,

.

)''it3''+ XaH;t M7 'J. U) Hi V-1 DV

:,

'

f3

c . YyTJif

:

-1-14th

i niT71fU111p,Uki

f

)L wGS terh), o .

}

D,. ' -4 e 14 yN e'^,1)_; ..n"k ti K_ y,s.

-.

n)!J11. 771E

voi

rG ..

.tiJ.

ren

,," u'

'wori'C'-tnk lJ.Z3 J .'+..n '`+Jx a1` )+T ..1JC r ,hr t p .al . 2!K :. ,K y,): M jl;y!r 7y J3 N IY.7'JH t) .y `+ tL , { tZ.'w' + 4!' IL't0..:.^i, r}3'1 ,GN q,3. c KU' x cn{9H P)) 7 CSIY OT-) oc'4,""+'Kj LJs..r h' to,'+' ', i -'w: qt}b 'Th." )PO$.' NODS- r".N I{.. 'A n i]3} V"t. Q_J ' 5a'.ry'" o63l.' '1L.'C P `. ,

-

,

-

"

at,,lX t7°

H"+' c'NKrb' J') tai J. rva i Y("of's. a'hV _t7trtst3J r to"') `:7G{ -111r_K) N7 o+aY H J+) '7JaT +{{,It flJ s a'CY'! -'VIP ' c X Kt' -,,^.

3

L^fYH

' '3' 't"t]' q1

c-, ,nJ{Yns}r

C]

r

otf'

),13Gn

j" 'M '.1G

x??

- "t fV' 2''#

u?1L'1S Q

t,»

+N}ryr, l+

'dll + ) n N

I ,' l`p, iL-j' JT-I 'tmNo ta5?7 N3 ,rJ r, It a>3K " t-i'),,)L :f L y2 ,}4.'ylr+

7Lr t: ,y7,

,n.r yN L'7G!Py

q"'J/ajfl tifitX'J

:.R . jp )l '+ry iA3i ) Vt -. 64 'tl+V'

'K3

'

t1'Sl7 OJ

p)oKls

"7.1i o,JL i,L))51 YY ..

), Y.71.PL ,.XI'A.

"mh CTJV) m'.3W "'!fC. n/V , DIX, rp

,IM1 Mon QJ#

V,. )J 1G ? 'olf ,,,H y-,w -.4i) kJ JJf f (V UV 'it l y1T)1LKJl ),,Nl, s'P Tr * . ,-, fltH '+9y )ti1 t t'f fl 17PJ? .l-"3x ,H tcJa ss3F1+ >r 1:.+:r O n A"'i,y9h .W `s% Jrt' o vvw.'' .....t, r,r L y "' S' x p V)N ;Y tn %y G, )NM1+i r

r1

V }V}.b' 'r 0N' '3*a oK. /,His r a'Ha

r! [1="

,,f '((t =

e'vA) e.{w

Y "t3 a.7r'+H 2i'V" rk» -'n4 SAP T.. ;71ifj r - -.

91iSM". ti

o'

:

IMP^ur' ih) 72ty

y

S

,X v" TIr .,Ft' ; r u

o

1

d/4)l

.iy p'.

)rir ,kc. ^Nl

1.

'ma"}

t~HeH

lyjo$,

J1

9LX hhp "UV

fL11"rD'

. o4cyrk t) 41r Yr V ?J'' h7G Q,

Y}'L'HP)

1

I':

0

fy

fl41, Lit

- ^l sr jy 2r+3

1

p

NS

ty

LM *WI' =I VGK JL' ^17 4'l "M. Dill k"o '+ 9 LX BT/B'1 r

g9tj'1) 4^J

l q}jj1 .,. 4

/

a

^y I IIX

J

.

, ,7rr9y.

._

I

;i 7P1`3

0'L/M

'17 LI

ts4

j

1

r`G1"LS1 tT

1'v ^

11,X1}

lK e':1Y3, }N7+: )N 1.3PJr .71X G]J7h ' 9M'T+.Jyh X 0 r 'nyn'jy'. \ " t.3.n., )c 'r,4 7'81 ;r13rrjD;. N'9 ,1tyy)+`L7

)0 '(y

ELI( e,q°SA)

l+,w,

,

}}X

OLry wh

yN yj ,11

W{

}

1f

r

1

yt, 'r^

r'PifH ('W

i

y

y7

.

i

,hGl,

j-X 'G ,K ^1 GryhJ IG,,J '9)®,

®Xl

'3

r

.._

a

'w' r:

4JX1

1I)^7.

all "rl.7

J

9GS,

n7:]

INDEX Abraham b. Mattathias, 63-64. Abulafia, Abraham, 73. Acre, 103-104. Adrianople, 21. Albania, 81-83Albanians, 65, 8z. Algazi, Samuel, 23. Amadi, Francesco, 1o8 nn. 6, 1o; 1o9 nn. 11, 13. Amarillo, Moses, 61 n. 53 Anagnostes, Ioannes, 78. Anameres, 6o n. 44. Ancona, 105. Andronicus II, 27-31, 112, 113. Androusa, 59 n. 43 AJgaria, 32, 66, 114. Antoine de Fluvia, 85. Armenians, 18, 81, 102, 104. Aron de Missael, 74.

Artisans, Jewish, 28-31, 63. Assizes of Jerusalem, 103.

Asia Minor, 20, 56, io1. Athanasius, Patriarch, 27. Attalia, 1o1. d'Aubusson, Peter, 86, 87, 89,

91 n. 10. Avignon, 49, 9z n. 17. Baldwin of Flanders, 25. Barbaro Nicold, 33.

Barbazzo, David b. Elijah,

55.

Bare (near Smyrna), 6o n. 44.

Basola, Moses, io6, 107. Battista, John (convert), go. Baumgarten, Martin, 92 It z3. Bayazid II, 96.

Belegno, Filippo, 48, 49, 52. Benedict XI, 49. Benjamin of Tudela, 10, z8, 38, 76 n. I, 77, 95, 101. Bessarion, Cardinal, 47. Bonaiuti, Canon, 76 n. 7. Bonius, Rebelius, 40.

Bonsignore, Solomon, 74. Bradagin, Marcantonio, ioS. Breydenbach, Bernhard von,71 n. 4.

Brocquiere, Bertrandon de La, 26.

Buchon, Alexandre, 56. Bulgaria, 20, 21, 81. Bustron, Florio, 1o8 n. io; jog nn. 11, 13. Cabasilas, Constantine, 81.

Candia, x6, 6o n. 46; 65, 71 n. 8; 105.

Caoursin, Guillaume, 91 n. S. Caphara (family name), 73, 74, 76 n. 3. Capsali, Elijah, 92 n. 22; 100 n. 4. Carlier de Pinon, g1, 93

Caro, Joseph, io6, 110 n. 28. Catalans, 22 n. 2; 30, 37, 44, 46, 73-

119

Catasaniturn, 8z. Christoupolis, 113.

Doria, Andrea, 70, 75. Dupui, Merri, 91 n. 7.

Citizens of Venice, Jewish, 48, 59 n. 38; 104.

Egypt, 96, 102, 104, 107.

Clarentza, 73.

Cohen (family, Chalcis), Colon, Joseph, 54. Commerce, z8, 32, 40,

Eleazar b. Samuel of Verona, 5541,

22 n. 7. Eliezer b. Elijah Ashkenazi, 107, 110 n. 28. Elijah of Pesaro, 107. Emperors, Byzantine, 2o, 21, 23 n. 1o; 26-35, 40. Emphyteusis, 30.

44,

55, 63, 8z, 104-

Community, Jewish, 16, 17, 38, 49, 50, 53, 54, 66, 8z, 96, 98, io6. Comtino, Jacob (convert), 9o. Constantine IX, 95. Constantine XI, 32, 33 Constantinople, 15, 21, 25-35,

Ephraim b. Gershon of Verria, 6o n. 46. Epidemics, to, 37, 75, 89, 96. Epirus, 20, 52, 53, 59, 113.

52, 54, 55, 69, 90, 112, 114. Conte, Archbishop John del, 1oz. Converts, 21, z8, 57 n. 9, 66, 89, 90, 93 Corfu, 45, 73, 92 n. 24; 1o8 n. 7.

Euboea, 37-57Executioner, Jewish, 27, z8, 45,

58 n. 28, 65. Ezra of Rhodes, 92 n. 15.

Corinth, 5i. Coronelli, M. V. 6o n. 50.

Fabri, Felix, 65, 91 n. 7; 92n- 13. Famagusta, 69, 101, 104-107,115-

Cos, 89.

Ferro, Andrea, 41.

Cosdino, Samuel, 69. Costume, 65, 98,102,107. Crete, 16, 48, 6o It 46; 69, 8o,

Fresne-Canaye,

(Philippe

du),

72 nn. 19, 23. Fur workers, 28-31, 88.

88, 9o, 108 It 7, 114. Crispi (family, Chalcis), 55.

Gabriel von Rattenberg, 91. Galimidi (family name), 50-52, 57

Crusades, 9, 19, 21, 25, 95, lot. Crusius, Martin, ioo n. 14. Cuci (Gouty; family name), 57

Gennadios Scholarios, 34 n. 16;

n. S.

35 n 27. Genoa, z6, 31, 95-98

Dafni (?), Abraham, 87. David b. Lameris, 59 n 44 David of Durazzo, 8z.

Genoese z6, 37, 39, 42, 85, 90, 103-105, 115.

George of Ganing, 9z n.

Delmedigo (family name), 48, 57 n. 8; 6o It 46.

23;

1o9 n. zo. Georgillas, Emmanuel, 89, 9z n. 19.

Diplomatic relations, z6, 28-31, 32, 40, 85, 96. Divorce, 19, 55, 81. Dominicans, 98.

Ghettos, 25, 28, 30, 39, 40, 63-65, 81, 85, 98.

I20

Giustiniani family (Chios), 95, 99.

Kaffa, 27.

Gorhigos, io1. Grassetto da Lonigo, Francesco, 92 n. 24. Greek rebellions, 55, 75

Kalomiti (family name), 41, 4852 Karaites, 25, 26, io1. Karystos (Euboea), 38, 43, 46.

Kastoria, 2i, 25 n. 13.

Gypsies, 64.

Kermes, 41. Khomatianos, Demetrios, 21, Si. Kokalas, 27.

Harff, Arnold von, 64, al-Harizi, Judah, 16. Hassenstein, Johann von, 71 It 7. Helffrich, Johann, 70. Henry II (Cyprus), io3. Hiya Rofe, 11o n. 31. Hospitallers, Knights, 70, 85-90.

Kyprianos (writer), iio n.

31.

Labor, compulsory, 32, 66, 114. Lameris, 59. Landowners, Jewish, 21, 41, 50, 73, 7a. Lango, 89. Larissa, 55. Larmena or L'Armeni (Euboea),

Ibn Alashqar, Moses, 72 n. 21. Ibn Batuta, z8, 34 n. IS. Ibn Sasson, Abraham, 46. Ikriti, Shemariah b. Elijah, 60 n. 46. Inquisition, 98. Inscriptions, Hebrew, 56, 75.

59 n. 42. Law, Jewish, 17, 19, 48, S1, io6. Lazarus b. David, 8z.

Lengherand, (Georges), 64,

Isaac of Romania, 17. Isaiah b. Mali of Trani, 16-19, 81. Isidore, Cardinal, 35 n. 29.

n. 19. Leonessa (family name), Leoninus, 27. Lepanto, 74.

Israel b. Abraham, 21.

73,

92

74

Le Saige, Jacques, 65, 92, IoS n. 7. Levantine community, 107. Limassol, Io1, 105, 107, logLitigation, 52, 55, 74, 76 n. 7;

Italians, z6, 27, 30, 57, 73, 74, 82.

Jacob b. Elijah, 21, 23 n. to. Jacques de Bourbon, 93 n. 29. Janina, 11, 52, 53, 59, 113 Janus I (Cyprus), 109 n. zz. Jerusalem, 69.

96-98.

Lusignan dynasty, tot.

Jewesses, 19, 64, 73, 86, 88. Johanan b. Solomon, 61 n. 51. John Asen, 21. John VIII, 28.

Lusignan(o), Estienne, log nn.

John III Dukas Vatatzes,

Macalufo b. Raffael, 104.

20,

22, 25.

Lykousada (monastery), 113. Macedonia, 21, 77, 78, 113.

22, 95 Joseph Hakohen, 93 n. 29.

Kafari (family name), 73, 74, 76 n. 3.

Makarios (convert), 28. Makhairas, Leontios, 108, n- 3;

121

log nn. 12, 13, 22.

Malipiero, Domenico, 6o n.

47-

Malta, 5 5, 90.

Malti (family name), 55, io6. Mamluks, 104, 109 n. 22. Manuel (convert), z1. Manuel I, z8. Ivianuel II, z8. Mariano da Siena, 71 n. 8.

Pachymeres, Georgios, 34 n. 14. Papal intervention, 49, 52, 54, 87,91. Paphos, xo1. Parga, go. Pegolotti, Francesco Balducci, 104, 107.

Martoni, Nicolo de, 102. Medina, Samuel de, 96.

Pera, 25-27-

Persecution, 15, 20, 81, 82, 89, 95.

Mela, see Bare.

Meshullam b. Menahem of Volterra, 63, 87. Meshullam b. Mordecai, 74 Messianic hope, 25, z6. Michael VIII, 21. Military operations, 33, 44, 54, 74, 86, go.

Mizrabi, Elijah, 22 n. 2; 52. Morea, 15, 16, 51, 52, 55, 63-70, 73-75 Mosconi, Judah, 96. Moses b. Mattathias, 8z.

Muslims, 18, 27, 81, 102. Naples, Kingdom of, 21, 22, 58, 70, 8z.

Nasi, Joseph, 107. Nathan b. Menahem of Volterra,

Peter I (Cyprus), ioz, 104. Peter II (Cyprus), 103, 115 Philanthropenos, Alexios, 27. Philibert de Naillac, 85. Phrantzes, Georgios, 34 n. 16.

Physicians, 28, 48, 57, 66, 99, 102, 107.

Pietro of Casola, Canon, 64. Pirates, 70, 72 It 23; 90.

Pisans, 104. Pius, II, 47.

Pococke, Richard, 73 n.

15.

Population statistics, 25, 63, 75, 76 n. 15, 88, 90, 95, 100 n. 17; 105, io6, 107. Portuguese community, 107. Pouqueville, F.C.H.L., 76 n. 13. Poverty, Jewish, 53, 78, 82, 83. Psoma, Leo, 40, 46.

88.

Nicaea, Empire of, 20, 22, 6o

n. 44; 95

Niccolo da Poggibonsi, Fra, 108 n. 22. Nice, 89.

Nicolay, Nicolas de, 98. Nicosia, I01-105, 108, log n. 22; 115.

Nissim b. Sbabbetai, xo6.

Obadiah of Bertinoro, 88. Ochrida, 2.1, 96.

d'Oliveria, Aaron, xo5. Oreos (Euboea), 38, 43, 46. Ostrine monastery, x 13.

Quirini (family name), 46. Raffael of Palermo, 104. Ragusa, 61 n. 51; 82. Rak, Joseph, 92 n. 15. Ramadan (author), 88, 89.

Randolph, Bernard, 6o n.

50.

Raymond de Pins, 103, 115. Redemption of captives, 70, 75, I04-IO5.

Religious observance, Christian, 27, 45, 69, 99, io5. Rest-days, 27, 68.

Richard Lionheart, ioi. Rizzardo, Giacomo, 57 n. 4. azz

Rome, 49, 52.

Strobilos, zit.

Rosanes (family name), 57. Rural population, Jewish, 65, 74

Synagogues, 38, 39, 50, 75, 86, 87, 97, io6.

Safed, io6, Iio nn. z8,

31-

St. Constantine (Macedonia), 113. Salona, 51. Saloniko, Eliaqim, 56. Samarias (Shemariah) b. Lameris,

59 n. 44. Sambuceto, Lamberto de, io9 n. 16. Samson b. Shabbetai, io6. Sanitation, 64, 67. Scholars Jewish, zz, 6o n. 46; 87, 107.

Sephardim, 75, 91, 96,106, 107. Serbians, 8z, 113.

Serfs, Jewish, 46, 50. Shealtiel (family name), 56. Sicilian community, io6. Silk, 15, 33 It 1;4x, 64, 82, 83, 86. Simeon, Symon, 83. Simon, bishop of Thessalonica,

Syrgiannes Palaeologos Philanthropenos, 113. Syrians, 102.

Tanners, 28-31, 64, 66, 67, 88. Taxation, 28, 31, 32, 42-44, 66-68, 69, 77, 78, 82, 98, 103, 104, III-116. Tenedos, Io9 n. 2o.

Thebes, 15, 16, 51, 55. Theodore I Dukas Angelos, 20, 77, 81, Thessalonica, 2o, zi, 55, 77, 78, 113, 114. Thessaly, 73-75, 113.

Thevet, Andre, 99. Turks, 27, 33, 37, 44, 45, 54-56, 69, 74, 75, 78, 85, 86, 90, 96, 98,

115.

Uscoccbi (pirates), 72 n. 23.

Usury, 41, 65, 68, 74, 92 it 21;

78.

Sixtus IV, 87, 91.

98, 107.

Skoplje, 21. Slaves, Jewish, 70, 90. Smyrna, 56.

Social relations, 18, 39, 45, 47, 55, 74, 78, 88, 99, 105, 107. Solomon b. Abraham, 74. Solomon Cohen 61 n. 52.

113,

(Maharshak),

Spon, Jacob, 6o n. 5o; 76 n. 13.

Valona, 82. Venezia (family name), 78. Venice, z6, 28, 37-54, 63, 69, 70, 77, 78, 81-83, 90, 105,

Io8, 112. Verla (family name), 56, 57 n. 8. Verona, 77. Vrastiana, 21.

Stefanoniata, 18.

Stephen Dusan, 113. Stephen of Novgorod,

34 n 5

Stephen Uros, 113. Stobi, 21. Strambaldi, Diomede, Io9 nn. 12; 13.

Stro (Patras), 74.

Wealth, Jewish, 33, 49, 65, 114.

Wheler, G. 6o n. 5o; 76 n. 13. Wills, 48, Io6.

Zante, 70, io8 n. 7. Zenon (convert), z8. Zichna (Macedonia), 123

113-

PRINTED IN FRANCE

IMPRIMERIE UNION PARIS