Charles Reginald Haines.

Christianity and Islam in Spain (756-1031) online

. (page 7 of 15)
Online LibraryCharles Reginald HainesChristianity and Islam in Spain (756-1031) → online text (page 7 of 15)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

least if put into the mouth of the Christian party under Reccafredus.
It is extremely unlikely that Christian bishops and priests should have
had recourse to such treatment of their coreligionists: yet they had a
spiritual weapon ready to their hands, and they were not slow to use it.
They anathematised[3] those who aided and abetted the zealots; and
Eulogius himself seems to have narrowly escaped their sentence of

[1] _Ibid._, sec. 15 - "Ne ad martyrii surgerent palmam,
iuramentum extorsimus ... et maledictum ne maledictionibus
impeterent, evangelio et cruce educta, vi iurare improbiter

[2] _Ibid._, cp. Alvar, "Life of Eulog.," iv. sec. 12 - "Duris
tormentis agitati, commoti sunt."

[3] Eulog., "Mem. Sanct." i. sec. 28 - "Ne ceteri ad huiusmodi
palaestram discurrant schedulis anathematum per loca varia
damnari iubentur." Alvar, "Ind. Lum.," sec. 31 - "Plerosque
patres anathematizantes talia patientes."

[4] Eulog., "Mem. Sanct.," iii. c. iv. sec. 5.

This action against the zealots was in all probability taken, if not at
the instigation of the Moslem authorities, yet in close concert with
them. Eulogius[1] attributes all the evils which had befallen the
Church, such as the imprisonment of bishops, priests, abbots, and
deacons, to the wrath of the King; and Alvar distinctly states that the
King was urged, even bribed, to take measures against the Christians.[2]
It is not likely that the King required much persuading. Mohammed at
least seems to have been thoroughly frightened by the continued
agitation against Mohammedanism. He naturally suspected some political
plot at the bottom of it; a supposition which receives some countenance
from the various references in Eulogius[3] to the martyrs as "Soldiers
of God" bound to war against His Moslem enemies; and from the undoubted
fact that the Christians of Toledo did rise in favour of their
coreligionists at Cordova.[4] However that may be, the King in 852
certainly took counsel[5] with his ministers, how the agitation should
be met, and he seems to have assembled a sort of grand council[6] of
the Church, when the same question was discussed. Stronger measures were
in consequence taken, and a more rigorous imprisonment resorted to. But
Mohammed went farther than this. He deprived of their posts all
Christians, who held offices in the palace,[7] or in connection with the
Court, and withdrew from the Christian "cadet corps,"[8] the royal
bounty usually extended to them. He ordered the destruction of all
churches built since the conquest, and of all later additions to those
previously existing. He made a severe enactment against those who
reviled Mohammed.[9] He even had in mind to banish all Christians from
his dominions.[10] This intention, together with the order respecting
the churches, was not carried out, owing probably to the opportune
revolt at Toledo.[11]

[1] Ep. ad Wilies, sec. 10.

[2] Alvar, "Ind. Lum.," sec. 35.

[3] See Dozy, ii. 136.

[4] Conde, i. 249: Dozy, ii. 161, says on Eulogius' authority,
that he incited them to revolt under Sindila.

[5] Eulog., "Mem. Sanct.," ii. c. xiv.

[6] Robertson calls it a Conciliabulum.

[7] Eulog., "Mem. Sanct.," ii. ¬І 2.

[8] "Militares pueros." Eulog. "Mem. Sanct.," iii. c. i.

[9] Eulog. "Mem. Sanct.," ii. c. xiv - "Tunc iam procul dubio
enecandi nos difficultas fuit adempta, si quisquam vatis sui
temerarius exprobator ultro occurreret." This seems to mean
that Christians and Saracens were bound to give up to justice
any who reviled the Prophet; or else to kill him on the spot.

[10] Eulog., "Doc. Mart.," sec. 18 - "Moslemi ... omne regni
sui, sicuti cernitis, genus excludere moliuntur

[11] Eulog., "Mem. Sanct.," iii. c. iv.

In one of his works on this subject, Eulogius expresses a fear lest the
intervention of the martyrs should bring disaster on the Church in
Spain, just as the intervention of Moses in Egypt did much at first to
aggravate the hardships of the Israelites.[1] He ought not, therefore,
to have been surprised, when such a result actually did follow; nor
ought he to complain that now the Moslems would only let the Christians
observe their religion in such a way as they chose to dictate; and that
the Christians were subjected to all sorts of taxes and exactions.[2]

These combined measures of repression, taken by the King and the Bishop
of Seville, soon produced their effect. The extreme party were broken
up, some escaping to quieter regions, others hiding, and only venturing
abroad in disguise and at night - not, as Eulogius is careful to add,
from fear of death, but because the high prize of martyrdom is not
reserved for the unworthy many, but for the worthy few.[3]

[1] _Ibid._, ii. c. xvi.

[2] Eulog., "Doc. Mart.," sec. 18 - "_Nunc_ pro suo libito
tantummodo exercere nos sinentes Christianismum ... _nunc_
publicum imponentes censum, _nunc_ rebus nos abdicantes
detrimentis atterunt rerum."

[3] Eulog., "Mem. Sanct.," ii. sec. 14 - "Quia indigni sumus
martyrio, quod quibusdam et non omnibus datum est."

Some even apostatized,[1] while many of those who had applauded the
proceedings of the martyrs, now called them indiscreet, and blamed them
for indulging in a selfish desire to desert the suffering Church for an
early mansion in the skies.[2] Others, in order to retain posts under
Government, or to court favour with the King, dissembled their religion,
taking care not to pray, or make the sign of the cross in public.[3]
Eulogius himself was singled out at the meeting of the King's Council by
one of the royal secretaries, Gomez, son of Antonian, son of Julian,[4]
as the ringleader of the new seditious movement. This man was a very
worldly-minded Christian,[5] and was, no doubt, at this time, in fear of
losing his lucrative office at Court, which he had obtained by his
remarkable knowledge of Arabic. He did, in fact, lose his post with all
the other Christian officers of the Court, but regained it by becoming a
Moslem;[6] and such was the ardour of the new proselyte that he was
called "the dove of the mosque."[7]

The result of this council was, as we have seen, hostile to the party of
which Eulogius and Saul were the chiefs, but the former writer,
mentioning the actual decree that was passed, pretends that it was
merely a blind to deceive the king, and spoken figuratively; and he
acknowledges that such hypocrisy was unworthy of the prelates and
officers assembled.[8] Is it not more reasonable to suppose that
Eulogius and his supporters voted for it - as they seem to have
done - with a mental reservation, while their opponents honestly
considered such a step necessary?

[1] Eulog., "Mem. Sanct.," ii. c. xv. 1 - "Fidem praevaricantur,
abdicant religionem, Crucifixum detestantur."

[2] Eulog., "Mem. Sanct.," ii. c. ii. sec. 6. Also in his
letter to Alvar sending the "Mem. Sanct.," he says, very few
remained firm to their principles.

[3] Alvar, "Ind. Lum.," sec. 9 - "Cum palam coram ethnicis
orationem non faciunt, signo crucis oscitantes frontem non
muniunt ... Christianos contra fidei suae socios pro regis
gratia, pro vendibilibus muneribus et defensione gentilicia
praeliantes." Elsewhere he says: "Nullus invenitur qui iuxta
iussum Domini tonantis aetherii super montes Babiloniae,
caligosasque turres crucis fidei attollat vexillum, sacrificium
Deo offerens vespertinum."

[4] Eulog., "Mem. Sanct.," iii. c. iv. sec. 5: Alvar, "Ind.
Lum.," sec. 18. See above, p. 51.

[5] Ibn al Kuttiya - apud Dozy, ii. 137.

[6] Eulog., "Mem. Sanct.," iii. c. ii.

[7] Dozy, ii. 137.

[8] Eul., "Mem. Sanct.," ii. c. xv., sec. 3 - "Aliquid
commentaremur, quod ipsius tyranni ac populorum serperet
aures." The "praemissum pontificate decretum" he calls
"allegorice editum."



The death of Eulogius was a signal for the cessation of the dubious
martyrdoms which had for some years become so common, though the spirit,
which prompted the self-deluded victims, was by no means stifled either
in Spain or the adjoining countries.[1] Yet the measures taken to put
down the mania for death succeeded in preventing any fresh outbreak for
some time.

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

During the long reign of Abdurrahman III. (912-961) there were a few
isolated cases of martyrdom, which may as well be mentioned now. After
the great battle in the Vale of Rushes,[3] where Abdurrahman defeated
the kings of Navarre and Leon, one of the two fighting bishops, who were
taken prisoners on that occasion, gave, as a hostage for his own
release, a youth of fourteen, named Pelagius. The king, it is said,
smitten with his beauty, wished to work his abominable will upon the
boy, but his advances being rejected with disdain, the unhappy youth was
put to death with great barbarity, refusing to save his life by
apostasy.[4] A different version of the story is given by a Saxon nun of
Gaudersheim, named Hroswitha, who wrote a poem on the subject fifty
years later. She tells us that the king tried to kiss Pelagius, who
thereupon struck him in the face, and was in consequence put to death by
decapitation (June 26, 925).[5]

[1] See "Life of Argentea," secs. 3, 5.

[2] Dozy, ii. 287.

[3] Val du Junqueras, 920 A.D.

[4] Johannes Vasaeus ex Commentariis Resendi. Romey, iv. 257,
disbelieves this version of the story. Perhaps Al Makk., ii.
154, is referring to the same Pelagius when he mentions the
king's liking for a handsome Christian page.

[5] Sampiro, secs. 26-28.

In the death of Argentea (Ap. 28, 931) we have the last instance in
Spain of a Christian seeking martyrdom. She was the daughter of the
great rebel Omar ibn Hafsun,[1] and his wife Columba, and was born at
that chieftain's stronghold of Bobastro. Upon her mother's death Omar
wished her to take up her mother's duties in the palace, for Omar had
become a sort of king on his own domain. She declined, asking only for a
quiet retreat, where she might prepare her soul for martyrdom; and she
wrote to a devout Christian, whose wishes inclined him in the same
direction, suggesting that they should seek the crown of martyrdom
together.[2] On the destruction of Bobastro by Abdurrahman in 928, she
went to Cordova.[3] She there met with a Gaul named Vulfura, who had
been warned in a dream that in that city he should find a virgin, with
whom he was to suffer martyrdom. However, his object becoming known,
Vulfura is cast into prison by the governor of the city. Argentea goes
to visit him there, and is stopped by the guards, who, finding she is a
Christian, take her before the judge as a renegade, and she is
imprisoned with Vulfura. The alternative of Islam instead of death being
refused, they are both executed, but Argentea, as being an "insolens
rebellis," is first scourged with 1000 stripes, and her tongue cut out.
Her body was buried at the church of the three saints.

In the year 934[4] we hear of two hundred monks of Cardena being
massacred by the Berbers in Abdurrahman's army; and in some sense they
can be regarded as martyrs to their faith.

[1] Who on becoming a Christian, took the name of Samuel.
Florez, x. p. 564, ff.

[2] See "Life of Argentea," by an anonymous author.

[3] _Ibid._, sec. 4.

[4] Dozy, iii. 52. Mariana, viii. 6, gives 993, but says it may
have occurred in 893.

In 953 a martyr named Eugenia is said to have perished;[1] and thirty
years later, the last martyrs of whom we have any record under the Arab
rule. Dominicus Sarracinus, son of John, and his companions taken
prisoners at the capture of Simancas, were kept for two years and a-half
in prison.[2] They were then brought out and put to death, just when
Ramiro III., or his successor, had sent to ransom them.[3]

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

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

Under the former of these sovereigns the condition of the Christians,
until the persecution, which they themselves provoked, began, was very
tolerable, and the majority of the Christians were quite content with
their lot. They served in the army, both free men and slaves; they held
lucrative posts at Court, or in the houses of the Arab nobles, or as
government officials. But though the lay community was well off, the
clergy and stricter churchmen had something to complain of; for the
Church[5] could not be said to be free, though the worship was, since
the power of summoning councils had now passed to the Arab executive,
who, as we have seen, made even Moslems and Jews sit at these councils.
Sees were also put up to auction, and the scandalous spectacle was not
unknown, of atheists and heretics holding the titles, and drawing the
emoluments, of bishops.[6]

[1] Schott., iv. 246.

[2] Rohrbacher, xii. 192.

[3] Charter, apud Florez, xiv. 397.

[4] See above, p. 36, note 1. A letter also is mentioned of
John Servus Dei, Bishop of Toledo, to the Muzarabes with regard
to the late martyrdoms and apostasies, purporting to have been
written in 937.

[5] Dozy, ii. 47.

[6] Alvar, "Ep.," xiii. 3. Samson, "Apol.," ii. cc. ii.-iv.

As was to be expected, Arabic soon began to displace Latin throughout
the country, and even before the ninth century the Scriptures were
translated into the tongue of the conquerors [1] by Odoarius, Bishop of
Accita, and John of Seville. Hischem I. (788-796) forbade the use of any
language but Arabic, so that his Christian subjects had to use Arabic
Gospels;[2] and the Spaniards were soon not even permitted to write in
Latin.[3] Even if this statement be doubtful, we know that Latin came
gradually to be neglected and forgotten. Alvar utters an eloquent
protest against this: "Alas, the Christians are ignorant of their own
tongue, and Latins neglect their language, so that in all the College of
Christ[4] there is scarcely to be found one who can write an address of
welcome to his brother intelligibly in Latin, while numbers can be found
competent to mouth the flowery rhetoric of the Chaldeans."[5] In the
department of poetry - the peculiar boast of the Arabs - the Christians
seem even to have surpassed their masters; and to the rivalry of the two
nations in this art we may attribute the excellence and abundance of
native ballads of which Spain can boast.

We have seen how Eulogius did his best to check this neglect of Latin,
by introducing into Spain some of the masterpieces in that language; but
it is doubtful whether his efforts had much result. We can see from the
remains of the Spanish writers which we possess that the structure of
that language had considerably degenerated in Spain.[6]

[1] Murphy, "Hist. Mahom. Empire in Spain," p. 309.

[2] Yonge, p. 60.

[3] Conde, i. 239.

[4] "Omni Christi collegio."

[5] Alvar, "Ind. Lum.," sec. 35.

[6] See Elipandus and Alvar passim. Alcuin, on the other hand,
writes wonderfully good Latin.

Some sentences are so ungrammatical as to be scarcely intelligible.
Moreover, we find Samson[1] directly accusing Hostegesis, Bishop of
Malaga, of not being able to write Latin; and similarly Jonas of Orleans
(839) accusing Claudius, Bishop of Turin, who was himself a Spaniard, of
the same defect.

The neglect of Latin was accompanied by an increasing indifference to
the doctrinal basis of Christianity, educated Christians being led to
devote their time, which might have been more profitably spent on their
own Scriptures, to becoming acquainted with the Mohammedan religion, and
even to unravelling the intricacies of the controversial theology which
had grown up round, and overlaid, the original simplicity of the
Koran.[2] The great Fathers of the Church were laid aside unread, and
even the Prophets and Apostles, and the Gospel itself, found few to
study them. While the higher classes were indifferent to religion, the
lower were sunk in poverty[3] and ignorance.[4] The inevitable result of
this indifference, ignorance, and poverty, was a visible deterioration
in the character of Spanish Christianity, of which there are only too
many proofs.

[1] Samson, "Apol.," c. vii.

[2] Alvar, "Ind. Lum.," sec. 35 - "Ac dum illorum sacramenta
inquirimus, et philosophorum sectas scire non pro ipsorum
convincendis erroribus sed pro elegantia leporis et locutione
luculenter diserta. Quis rogo hodie solers in nostris fidelibus
laicis invenitur, qui Scripturis sanctis intentus volumina
quorumcunque Doctorum Latine conscripta respiciat? Quis
Evangelico, quis Prophetico, quis Apostolico ustus tenetur
amore? Nonne omnes iuvenes Christiani vultu decori, linguae
diserti, habitu gestuque conspicui, Gentilicia eruditione
praeclari, Arabico eloquio sublimati, volumina Chaldaeorum
avidissime tractunt?"

[3] Florez, xix. 383, Charter of 993; see also "Dozy," iii. 31;
and for the condition of Christians in the Free States, Buckle,
"Hist. of Civiliz.," i. 443.

[4] Dozy (l.l.).

We find the abbot Samson distinctly accusing Hostegesis, Bishop of
Malaga, of simony, asserting that he sold the priesthood to low and
unworthy people;[1] while Alvar charges Saul, Bishop of Cordova, with
obtaining his bishopric by bribery.[2] Other irregularities imputed to
Hostegesis were that he held his see from his twentieth year, contrary
to the canons of the church, and that he beat priests, in order to
extort money from them, till they died under his hands.

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

Changes, too, were made in doctrine and ritual, for which no authority
could be alleged, in contravention of established custom and the
teaching of the Church. So far was this carried that Samson was accused
by his opponents of being a heretic and an idolator because he permitted
the marriage of cousins; dissented from the view that God was ever
enclosed in the chambers of the Virgin's heart;[6] asserted the
omnipresence of God, even in idols and the Devil, and this in an actual,
not a metaphysical, sense;[7] and denied that God sat upon an exalted
throne above his creatures. From this it is clear that Hostegesis and
those who thought with him[8] were infected with the anthropomorphite

[1] Samson, "Apol.," Bk. ii., Pref. sec. 2.

[2] See "Letter to Saul," sec. 3 - "Poterant enim quovis
asserente canonice incohationis vestrae primordia comprobari,
si quadringenti solidi non fuissent palam eunuchis vel aliis
exsoluti." Dozy, ii. 140, adds that the money was guaranteed on
the episcopal revenues, but this is a conjecture.

[3] Samson, "Apol.," ii. Pref. sec 5; Dozy, ii. 268.

[4] Alvar ad Saulum, sec. 3 - "Sine testimonis, sine connibentia

[5] _Ibid._

[6] Samson, "Apol.," ii. Pref. sec. 7 and iii. - "Cubiculum
cordis Virginei." This appears to be a quotation from the
Gothic liturgy.

[7] "Per substantiam, non per subtilitatem." - _Ibid._

[8] Romanus and Sebastianus, Samson, Pref, sec. 6.

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

It is not surprising, therefore, that bishops and clergy were sometimes
deposed. Samson, indeed, underwent this disgrace at the hands of a
hostile faction under Hostegesis, on the ground of his pretended heresy;
and, similarly, Valentius,[5] Bishop of Cordova, was deprived of his see
because he was a supporter of Samson. But these instances reflect more
discredit on the deposers than on their victims. Instances of deposition
are not wanting, in the free states the North. Sisenandus, seventh
Bishop of Compostella (940), was deposed by King Sancho for dissolute
living, and malversation of Church moneys.[6] On the king's death he
recovered his see, driving out his successor. Pelayo, another bishop of
Compostella, suffered the same punishment.[7]

[1] The offering of one-third for the Church was refused to
Hostegesis as being sacrilegious; so he proceeded to extort it,
"suis codicibus institutis." - Samson "Apol.," ii. Pref. sec. 2.

[2] _Ibid._ The state of the Church in the North was not much
better. See Yonge, p. 86.

[3] Leovigild de habitu Clericorum. Dozy, ii. 110.

[4] Samson, Pref. ii. 4.

[5] Succeeded Saul in 861, and was deposed in 864.

[6] Mariana, viii. 5. He went over to the Moslems. Southey,
"Chronicle of the Cid," p. 228. Yonge, p. 86.

[7] Mariana (1.1.).

When the kings of Castile gradually drove back the Moors, and when
Alfonso took Toledo in 1085, his wife, Constance of Burgundy, and her
spiritual adviser, a monk named Bernard, were horrified at the laxity in
morals and doctrine of the Muzarabic Christians. Their addiction to
poetry and natural science was regarded with suspicious aversion, and
the pork-eating, circumcision, and, not least, the cleanly habits,[1]
contracted from an intercourse with Moslems, were looked upon as so many
marks of the beast. In 1209 the Crusaders, who had swarmed to the wars
in Spain, even wished to turn their pious arms against these poor
Muzarabes, so scandalised were they at the un-Romish rites. Yet we are
told that Alfonso the Great, when building and restoring churches in the
territory newly wrested from the Moors, set up again the ordinances of
the Goths, as formerly observed at Toledo.[2]

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

It is natural enough that the Moslems and the clergy of the Christian
Church should be hostile to one another, but it is surprising to
find - as we do find in some cases - the latter making common cause with
the Arabs in ill-treating their fellow-countrymen and coreligionists.

1 2 3 4 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Online LibraryCharles Reginald HainesChristianity and Islam in Spain (756-1031) → online text (page 7 of 15)