The Expulsion of the Jews from Spain [1 ed.] 9781909821002, 9781904113287

Citation preview

the expulsion of the jews f r o m s pa i n

THE LITTMAN LIBRARY OF JEWISH CIVILIZATION

Dedicated to the memory of Louis Thomas Sidney Lit tman who founded the Littman Library for the love of God and as an act of charity in memory of his father Joseph Aaron Lit tman

‘Get wisdom, get understanding: Forsake her not and she shall preserve thee’ prov.4 :5

The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization is a registered UK charity Registered charity no. 1000784

THE

EXPULSION OF THE JEWS FROM SPAIN N

H A I M B E I N A RT

Translated by

jeffrey m. green

Oxford . Portland, Oregon

The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization

The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization Chief Executive Officer: Ludo Craddock Managing Editor: Connie Webber PO Box 645, Oxford ox2 0uj uk www.littman.co.uk ——— Published in the United States and Canada by The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization c/o ISBS, 920 NE 58th Avenue, Suite 300 Portland, Oregon 97213-3786 Hebrew edition © The Magnes Press 1994, 1996 First published in English 2002 English edition first published in paperback 2005 English edition first published in electronic form 2014 English translation © The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization 2002 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library The Library of Congress catalogued the hardback edition as follows: Beinart, Haim. [Gerush Sefarad. English] The expulsion of the Jews from Spain p. cm.—(Littman library of Jewish civilization) ISBN 1–874774–41–2 Includes bibliographical references and indexes. 1. Jews—Spain—History—Expulsion, 1492. 2. Spain—Ethnic relations. 3. Sephardim—History. I. Title. II. Littman library of Jewish civilization (Series) DS135.S7 B41413 2001 946⬘.004924—dc21 2001038026 E-book ISBN 978–1–909821–00–2 Publishing co-ordinator: Janet Moth Copy-editing: Leofranc Holford-Strevens Proof-reading: Laurien Berkeley Indexing: Sarah Ereira Design by Pete Russell, Faringdon, Oxon. Typeset by Footnote Graphics, Warminster, Wilts.

Page blank in printed edition

Translator’s Preface It took me about three years of rather hard work to translate this book. Before sending each chapter from Jerusalem to the Littman Library of Jewish Civilization in Oxford, I would submit it to Professor Beinart for his comments on the translation and for help in transcribing the scores of place-names, personal names, official titles, and the like. Having incorporated Professor Beinart’s comments, I printed out the revised material and sent it to England. From then on, all communication with the Littman Library, including subsequent revisions and changes in response to the copy-editor’s comments, was done electronically. This process lasted some eighteen months, and in consequence the vast size of the project receded from my memory. So, when the page proofs arrived and I was asked to check them with Professor Beinart, we were both astonished to see we had done so much work. For me it was a matter of a few years. For him it had begun with decades spent combing the archives of Spain for documents relevant to the expulsion of the Jews in 1492. This book consists in large part of summaries of those documents, culled from masses of official papers concerning sundry other matters. These summaries are arranged by category, date, and locality to reveal what happened to the Jews during the months immediately following the promulgation of the Edict of Expulsion and to paint a picture of the place they occupied within Spanish society at the time of the expulsion. The difficulty of translating such a book should be evident, for in essence I was translating Hebrew paraphrases of late medieval Spanish documents, which in themselves were not always clear. In addition to palaeographical problems of deciphering documents that have become blurred and damaged with age, these documents pose many other difficulties to the historian. Most of them were written and preserved because of legal disputes involving matters such as unpaid debts and disputed claims for property sold or abandoned by the Jews. Many of the cases were complex and hotly contested, and their presentation is often distorted by the self-interest of those who wrote the documents. For the claimants were not trying to present the facts objectively; rather, they were trying to convince officials and magistrates of the merits of their case. If the facts were in dispute 500 years ago, how is the historian to make sense of them today? Only the incalculable store of knowledge that Professor Beinart acquired over a long and fruitful career devoted to the study of the Jews of Spain permitted him to place these documents in their context and to ferret out their meaning. In translating a work of this scale and complexity, it is essential to have one’s work examined by someone else. By the time one has read through the draft translation five or six times, one is convinced that everything in it is crystal clear; only a fresh eye notices the obscurities. The choice of the distinguished Oxford scholar Dr Leofranc HolfordStrevens to perform this task was extremely fortunate as he was quite selflessly willing to persevere in checking even the most obscure references in an effort to make the text more accurate. Quite often the tortuous path from Spanish to Hebrew and then from

viii

translator’s preface

Hebrew to English led to confusion regarding, for example, the titles of churchmen and nobility, and this was the sort of obscurity that Dr Holford-Strevens cleared up time and time again. Another sort of obscurity arose because of the deviousness of the fifteenthcentury litigants. In order to circumvent the prohibition against usury, Christian borrowers and Jewish lenders often agreed to guarantee loans with security in kind (grain, cloth, domestic animals, and the like), valued at fictitious prices. Then, when the time came to settle the debt, the borrower would often dispute the value of the pledge, as would the lender. Similar difficulties arose with the transfer of property from debtor to lender, from one relative to another, from one official to another, and so on, until one lost sight of who was who. I occasionally compounded the intrinsic difficulties of the cases by committing such errors as mistranslating a passive verb as an active one or vice versa. Fortunately, Dr Holford-Strevens strained to understand every one of the disputes appearing in these paraphrased documents and, when they did not make sense to him, he forced me to go back to the Hebrew (and to Professor Beinart) to check the details once more. Responding to his probing questions was a powerful lesson in intellectual and scholarly rigour. I am grateful for the inestimable improvement that he brought to this project, and I am also grateful to Connie Webber and Janet Moth, mainstays of the Littman Library of Jewish Civilization. Their commitment to producing as good an edition as possible of this book has been inspirational. Because of the additional editorial input, the English translation differs in some slight respects from the Hebrew original. Occasionally Professor Beinart presented material about various places in Hebrew alphabetical order, and I obviously had to rearrange that material to follow that of the roman alphabet. Also, some information that was presented in footnotes in the Hebrew edition has been moved to appendices, which makes for some discrepancy between the footnote numbering in the respective editions. In addition to the satisfaction attendant upon completing such a big project, it has also been a privilege for me to converse with Professor Beinart about the topics of his book and, incidentally, about his long and eventful life. Born in Russia during the death throes of the Tsarist empire, he spent his youth in Latvia and studied in a Hebrew Gymnasium in Riga. After serving in the Latvian army, he immigrated to Mandatary Palestine. He then studied under some of the impressive scholars who had joined the faculty of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem when it was founded. While witnessing and participating in the dramatic unfolding of Israeli history, he began what has proved to be a long and fruitful scholarly career. In addition to his dignity and erudition, what impressed me most from my meetings with Professor Beinart was his deep and abiding personal involvement with his subject, even after fifty years of investigating it, and even though the events he has documented here occurred more than 500 years ago. Only passionate interest could have motivated someone to spend so much time in the hot and dusty Spanish archives and then to work so long and so hard on the documents that came to light. It may be difficult for the reader to feel that passion beneath the mass of names, dates, disputes, and events that crowd this book, but it would be a serious error to lose sight of it. The Jews of Spain confronted painful choices in 1492. The documents that underlie this book do not directly reveal their state of mind, their dilemmas of faith, their fears, or

translator’s preface

ix

their uncertainties, though much can be inferred from their actions. The twentieth century saw expulsions of populations on a scale that dwarfs that of the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, and there is little reason to hope that the twenty-first century will be a more peaceful and gentle epoch. Let us hope that the story of undeserved suffering visited upon a peaceful and productive segment of a population—people whose ancestors had lived in what they had every reason to regard as their native land for many centuries and who were well assimilated in the economic and social life of the country— will arouse compassion not only for those who suffered five centuries ago, but also for those who are suffering today. Jerusalem March 2001

j.m.g.

Preface to the Hebrew Edition This book describes the last days of the ‘Spanish Exile of Jerusalem’ and the expulsion of the Jews from Spain. At bottom it tells the story of the sorrows of individuals and their fates, which, together, comprise the fate of an entire community. It describes what befell a people forced to forsake its life in a country where their ancestors had dwelt for many generations. Thus it also describes the end of an epoch. That community could not have known what was to befall it at the end of the fifteenth century, but when called upon to face the trial, unable to divine what fate had in store for them, its members accepted exile with faith in the Creator, who had put them to the test. Every individual who went into exile expressed the faith of the whole community. While each of the ten chapters of this book can stand alone, they complement each other, and, as a whole, they illustrate the events of those times. Each chapter treats a separate subject, such as the dwelling-places of the Jews of Spain, the time of the event discussed, and its outcome. I began by examining the attitude of the Crown, the united kingdoms of Castile and Aragon, towards the problem of the conversos and their presence alongside Jewish communities and the decision reached by the authorities to expel the Jews, who were seen as preventing the conversos from relinquishing the faith of their fathers. Thence derived the Edict of Expulsion, whose content and structure I analyse. As a result, Jewish public property and Jewish–Christian credit were liquidated down to the last maravedí. After these come chapters on the execution of the Edict of Expulsion and organization of the departure by land and sea; the smuggling out of property; return to Spain and conversion. To these I have added two chapters on particular familes: those of Abraham Senior and of Isaac Abravanel. Finally, to fill out the description I have presented some responses of individuals and of the exiles to their fate. From the present description we learn not only about the fate of individuals but also about their daily life (which was brought to an end) in their places of residence: the means of livelihood that had sustained them for generations were destroyed, and the individual’s involvement and the part he played in his non-Jewish surroundings ceased. This was a community that had earned its bread by cultivating the soil in various manners, that had supported itself almost entirely by its labour in the fields and in various crafts, and whose contribution to the monetary economy of the surrounding community had been so extensive that it is impossible to describe the life of the general population without taking note of the Jewish contribution to that life. The documents we have analysed provide information about many places where previously unknown Jewish communities, large and small, existed. Thus a far more extensive map of Jewish settlement is spread before us, helping us estimate the numbers of those who went into exile. On 31 March 1492 Ferdinand and Isabella, to whom Pope Alexander VI had granted the title of ‘Catholic Monarchs’, sealed the destruction of this community. The Edict of Expulsion, which was published on 1 May in Castile, set 31 July 1492 as the date of

preface to the hebrew edition

xi

departure, the Hebrew date of 7 Av 5252. On that date the life of Spanish Jewry was to cease. But on that date new pages of life were opened for that Jewry. The major part of this book is based on documents that have been preserved by the thousand in Spanish archives. Historians of Spain and its Jews began to examine these documents as early as the second half of the nineteenth century. The principal ones were assembled and published by my esteemed teacher, Professor Fritz (Yitzhak) Baer in his monumental work, Die Juden im christlichen Spanien, published in two volumes at the end of the 1920s and in the early 1930s. In addition, documents and studies have been published in professional journals in Spain, and particularly the bi-annual Sefarad, which is published by the Arias Montano Institute (today the Institute for the Study of Philology), within the Supreme Scientific Council of Spain. To these I have added more than a thousand documents concerning the expulsion from Spain and its consequences, which I discovered during the years of my work in the archives of Spain, and which I have transcribed and utilized here. I began this archival work in 1951, and readers will find references to it in the notes to this book, which is built on both known and previously unknown sources. The assembly of this information was essentially the construction of a mosaic, stone by stone, to display the picture of the last days of the Jews on Spanish soil. It is my pleasant duty to thank all those who stood by me during the long time that I devoted to the study of the Jews of Spain and their expulsion from the Iberian peninsula. I shall begin by thanking the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where I had the privilege of studying and teaching, beginning with support for my first trip to Spain more than forty years ago, and I remember with gratitude my teachers, Professors Yitzhak Baer and Ben-Zion Dinur, and my first teacher of Spanish, Professor Hiram Peri, and with them the Academic Secretary A. Y. Y. Poznanski, all of blessed memory. And I shall add the late Professor Francisco Cantera Burgos and Professor Frederico Pérez Castro, who greeted me with open arms upon my arrival in Spain. Along with them I remember with gratitude the late directors of the National Historical Archive in Madrid, Don Benito Fuentes Isla and Professor Luis Sánchez Belda, and Dr Pilar Léon Tello. From the Archivo General de Simancas (Valladolid), which opened its doors to me, I shall add the late Professor Ángel de la Plaza and Amalia Parieto and Concepción Álvarez Tirán; Dr Armando Reprisa and Ascención de la Plaza, Eloísa García de Watenberg, and Gloria Tejada, the secretary of the archive. I especially wish to acknowledge the help of the Registro del Sello, for the documents preserved there are a most important source for the long history of the Jews in Spain. I thank Lavinia Rodríguez, the director of the Archivo Histórico de la Región de Ávila, for the photograph of the Edict of Expulsion. I add profound thanks to the Kurzweill Foundation of New York and its late director, Dr M. Grünewald, who supported my project and allowed me to devote years of research to the documents of the expulsion. I also wish to remember Dr P. Grubel, the secretary and director of the Leo Baeck Institute in New York. I spent a year at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Princeton, and the conditions accorded to me there for my work were outstanding. Nor can I fail to mention my esteemed colleague and friend Professor A. Mirsky, with whom I discussed the basis and structure of this book. I am also grateful to Mathilda Lederman for word-processing the Hebrew version of this book and to Dr Rachel Shihor, who read the manuscript and verified the details,

xii

preface to the hebrew edition

examining and correcting the complex footnotes with exemplary attention. Thanks also to Mr Dan Benovici, the director of the Magnes Press, a man thoroughly familiar with the work of producing books, whose great experience and devotion assisted me with all that was necessary for the book. I have redoubled gratitude for the help of Dr Rachel Ibánez-Sperber in verifying and correcting the Spanish quotations with scholarly attention to detail. The indices to the Hebrew edition of the book were prepared faithfully by Mrs Daniella Ashur, whom I thank cordially. Finally, during the long years when I was labouring over the deciphering of documents, adapting them, copying them, and interpreting them for this book, I was supported by my wife Ruth and my children Yael, Yosef, Hagit, and Shlomo. My daughter Yael Kaplan worked lovingly on the layout of the Hebrew edition and its exceptionally fine design. Since the beginnings of this project, my wife and children have always supported me, and they saw it grow and take shape in its final stages and conclusion. Mr Javier Castaño assisted me in correcting the first edition, and I thank him sincerely. I conclude with a prayer of thanks to the Almighty for allowing me to relate the story of those heroic Jews who withstood extreme trials and retained their faith, when they took up the vessels of exile and followed Him who put them to that test. Jerusalem Sivan 5754

haim beinart

Contents List of Tables List of Illustrations Abbreviations 1. Introduction: Ferdinand and Isabella, King and Queen i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi.

The Situation of Spanish Jewry Forced Segregation The Inquisition Financing the Reconquista Propaganda against Jews and Conversos The Fall of Granada

2. The Edict of Expulsion i. ii. iii. iv. v.

Promulgation Analysis of the Structure Drafting The Views of the Catholic Monarchs Text and Translation of the Edict of Expulsion

3. The Fate of Jewish Communal Property

xvi xvi xvii 1 1 4 18 22 26 29 33 33 38 41 43 49 55

i. Land and Buildings ii. Loans iii. Synagogues, Houses of Study, and Ritual Baths The Kingdom of Castile The Kingdom of Aragon iv. Abattoirs and Baking Ovens The Kingdom of Castile The Kingdom of Aragon v. Cemeteries The Kingdom of Castile The Kingdom of Aragon

55 60 69 70 97 104 105 108 110 111 116

4. Jewish–Christian Credit and its Liquidation

118 118 125 139

i. The Kingdom of Castile Attempts to Settle Accounts before Departure Public Debts to Jews

contents

xiv

Private Debts of Christians to Jews Collection of Christians’ Debts to Jews after the Expulsion Debts of Jews to Christians and the Payment of these Debts ii. The Kingdom of Aragon

5. The Implementation of the Edict i. The Road to Implementation ii. Organizing the Departure: The Role of the Genoese iii. Implementation of the Edict in the Kingdom of Aragon Departure by Land Departure by Sea iv. Implementation of the Edict in the Kingdom of Castile Conversion instead of Exile or Prison Tribulations of Departure Exploitation on the Border: Ciudad Rodrigo The Passage from Castile into Portugal Departure by Sea v. Implementation of the Edict in Sardinia and Sicily vi. Navarre: Asylum and Expulsion vii. The Number of Jews Expelled

142 161 182 201 207 207 218 223 229 238 244 244 253 261 272 274 279 281 284

6. Smuggling

291

7. Return and Conversion

329 338 402

i. Return and Conversion among the Jews of Castile ii. Return and Conversion among the Jews of Aragon

8. The Senior Dynasty i. The Origins of the Family and its First Steps in Government ii. The Case of Juan de Talavera iii. Abraham Senior’s Public Service before Conversion iv. Abraham Senior’s Property v. Abraham Senior as Tax-Farmer and Tax-Collector vi. Abraham Senior as Treasurer of the Hermandad vii. Expulsion and Conversion viii. Fernán Núñez Coronel’s General Financial Activity ix. Rabbi Meir Melamed and his Sons x. Solomon Senior, the Sons of Abraham Senior, and Other Family Members

413 413 424 428 434 443 456 460 469 475 490

contents

xv

19. The House of Abravanel, 1483–1492

501

10. Contemporaries Describe the Expulsion

520

Appendix: Other Activities of Some Royal Officials

527

Bibliography

539

Index of People

553

Index of Places

580

General Index

587

List of Tables 5.1 6.1 7.1 9.1

Escorts of the deportee convoys from Aragon Persons appointed to investigate smuggling Crown assent to return of property and related claims Persons and places in debt to Don Isaac Abravanel

224 309 407 515

List of Illustrations Map xvi–xvii The Edict of Expulsion 46‒8 Genealogy of Abraham Senior 415 Genealogy of the Melameds 476 Letter from Abraham Senior to the condestable of Castile (facsimile) 500

List of Abbreviations ACA

Archivo de la Corona de Aragón, Barcelona

AGR

Archives Générales du Royaume, Brussels

AGS

Archivo General de Simancas, Valladolid

AHN

Archivo Histórico Nacional, Madrid

AHPT

Archivo Histórico de Protocolos de Torragona

AHPZ

Archivo Histórico de Protocolos de Zaragoza

AIEM

Anales del Instituto de Estudios Madrileños

BRAH

Boletín de la Real Academia de Historia

CoDoIn

Colección de Documentos Inéditos para la historia de España

CyS

Cartas y Sitios

ES

Estudios Segovianos

FIRC

Fontes Iudaeorum Regni Castellae

Inq.

Inquisición

JQR

Jewish Quarterly Review

Leg.

Legajo

mr(s)

maravedí(s)

NBAE

Nueva Biblioteca de Autores Españoles

RABM

Revista de Archivos, Bibliotecas y Museos

REJ

Revue des études juives

RGS

Registro General del Sello

Page blank in printed edition

1

Introduction: Ferdinand and Isabella, King and Queen i. the situation of spanish jewry he expulsion of the Jews of Spain after a millennium and a half of settlement in that country is connected to the names and domestic policies of Ferdinand and T Isabella. Their marriage in 1469 fulfilled the desire to unite the two branches of the Trastámara dynasty, which had been divided in the early fifteenth century: part of it continued to rule in Castile, and the other part went north to occupy the throne of Aragon. King Juan II of Castile (1406–54), a minor, whose mother, Queen Catherine of Lancaster, ruled in his name, inherited a kingdom with a difficult communal and social problem from both the Christian and Jewish point of view. It contained a marginal community of conversos who had been removed from the Jewish community by forced conversion but had not integrated into the general Spanish community. Martín of Aragon (1395–1410) died without heirs, and upon the advice and recommendation of Vincent Ferrer, Juan II’s uncle Ferdinand of Antequera was placed on that throne, reigning from 1412 to 1416. At that time a Jewish–Christian disputation took place in Tortosa (1413–14), dealing a heavy blow to the Jews of Spain. With the death of Enrique IV (1454–74), Ferdinand and Isabella began to reign in Castile, and upon the death of Juan II, king of Aragon in 1479, the monarchies of Castile and Aragon were, practically speaking, united. However, from the Jewish perspective, a new page was opened in the history of Castilian Jewry as early as 1474, when the first intimations are found of the calamity that was to befall all the Jews of Spain. One wonders whether, as early as then, Ferdinand and Isabella had a clear plan regarding the Jewish and Muslim minorities in their kingdom, and, if so, in what way that plan was expressed in its preliminary stages. Examination of their relation to the minorities will reveal how this programme was constructed from the start until its final expression: the conquest of Muslim Granada and the expulsion of the Jews from all of Spain. These two actions were the high point in the life of the newly united kingdom. To understand this culminating moment, we must evaluate the situation of Spanish Jewry, especially that of Castile, at the time of the unification effected by the marriage of Isabella and Ferdinand and its consequences for the Jews of the kingdom. It seems reasonable that after the period of chaos that beset Castile, especially during the reign of Enrique IV, the Jewish community could have hoped for tranquillity and ease with the establishment of a stable government. Let us recall that all Spanish Jewry had

2

introduction

undergone a grave crisis as a result of forced conversions during the persecutions of 1391. Jews were coerced into leaving Judaism, thus leaving families divided. Following those forced conversions came the Disputation of Tortosa, at which time famous former Jews who had become monks and priests engaged in anti-Jewish propaganda designed to liquidate the Jews of Spain. Their calculation was clear: within a few generations the forced converts would assimilate thoroughly, and those who had willingly left the Jewish fold would be absorbed into the surrounding Christian society. These apostates did not realize that many of the forced converts regarded their conversions as a temporary weakness and sought ways of rejoining their people and their origins. These reluctant Christians constituted the majority of those who had been coerced into conversion and driven into a spiritual crisis. At that time some of the forced converts sought to rejoin the Jewish people by emigrating to the East, to the Land of Israel, or by moving to remote communities in Spain in hopes of beginning a new life as Jews.1 We have evidence for this emigration throughout the entire fifteenth century, and it escaped the eyes neither of the surrounding Christian community nor of church and secular authorities. The demand to act against this reversion to Judaism began to be heard during the reign of Enrique IV, but, as we shall see below, it was to find strong expression in actions on the part of church and state during the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella. The historical consequences of these measures were to reverberate for centuries. The first efforts of the Jews of Castile to renew their power and status were made during the reign of King Juan II. Despite the shocks and suffering they had undergone, their situation was better than that of the Jews of Aragon. In Castile the initiatives of Rabbi Abraham Bienveniste of Soria were notable. He was the court rabbi (rab de la corte), that is to say the royally appointed head of the Jewish community in Castile for the purpose of taxation and as the highest judge of appeals in all internal matters; as such, he wielded great power and authority. Tradition has it that he used to attend the royal court dressed in black clothing, thus expressing his attitude towards the Jewish courtiers who sought to imitate the manners of the gentiles. He conceived the project of convening the veedores (supervisors) of Castilian Jewry, a constructive and far-reaching effort to renew Jewish communal life. This congress formulated regulations known as the Valladolid Regulations, after the city where the meeting was held; Valladolid and Toledo were the two main cities of the Castilian kingdom. The introduction to the Valladolid Regulations presents Rabbi Abraham Bienveniste’s estimation of Jewish communal life in the kingdom and also his programme for renewing it.2 In the view of Rabbi Abraham and those who attended the meeting, observance of 1 See Y. (⫽ F.) Baer, Toledot hayehudim bisefarad hanotserit, 2nd edn. (Tel Aviv, 1955), index; B. Dinur, ‘Emigration from Spain to the Land of Israel After the Persecutions of 1391’ (Heb.), Zion, 32 (1967), 161–72. 2 For the wording of these regulations, see F. Baer, Die Juden im christlichen Spanien, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1929–36) (⫽ JchS), ii. 280–98; an effort has been made to reconstruct them in Castilian: see Y. Moreno Koch, Las Taqqanot de Valladolid de 1432: De iure hispano-judaico: un estatuto comunal renovador (FIRC 5; Salamanca, 1987). The document is written in the Hebrew alphabet, partly in Hebrew, partly in Castilian, and it provides important evidence regarding the development of Judaeo-Castilian. For the contents of the document and its analysis, see Baer, Toledot hayehudim, 367.

ferdinand and isabella

3

the regulations would make it possible to renew and restore the Jewish community during the crisis it was undergoing. The first step was the organization of Jewish education based on the foundations accepted and practised in Judaism and the obligation of the local congregations to maintain teachers appropriate to the levels of learning, and this was to be done by creating suitable financial conditions. The reformers regarded education as the primary foundation for instilling the values of Judaism in a society threatened by disintegration. No less valued than education were other areas covered by the regulations, such as Jewish law and its institutions and the way in which the Jewish community was to combat the plague of informers that had spread within it. Another section of the regulations discussed the obligations imposed upon the community and its responsibility for payment of annual taxes to the Crown. Noteworthy also is the final section, dealing with Jewish costume and opposition to ornate clothing and jewellery, for this affected the way Jews appeared to non-Jews in daily life. That section of the regulations also expressed the obligation to avoid imitating gentile ways, and it is no coincidence that the government issued edicts in this matter more than once. Abraham Bienveniste and with him the heads of the Jewish communities of Castile hoped that these regulations, which are to be viewed as internal Jewish legislation, would enable the re-establishment of the devastated communities and restore communal life. It is doubtful, however, whether that hoped-for renewal took place. From the first half of the fifteenth century the Castilian Jewish communities were subject to the pressures of anti-Jewish and anti-converso propaganda, in combination, as though both groups were conspiring to bring down Christianity by infiltrating and destroying it from within, and as though the conversos were agents of the Jews in this effort. This took place during the last days of Juan II and the reign of Enrique IV.3 After the fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453, which the Jews viewed as a significant defeat for Christianity, Catholic intellectuals and priests in Castile claimed that an international plot existed, in which the Jews of Spain were involved, to eradicate Christianity and to deliver Spain to Islam. During the 1450s the idea of expelling the Jews from Spain was discussed publicly for the first time, following the example of England and France, where Jews were not permitted to live. The idea was expressed in writing by the Observantine monk Alonso de Espina, in his book Fortalitium Fidei.4 The Jews of Aragon lacked the means for self-renewal. The number of Jews there continued to decrease after the Black Death of 1348 and the persecutions that came in its wake. This Jewry was devastated by riots and forced conversions in 1391, by the Tortosa Disputation of 1413–14, and by the restrictions imposed upon it by Ferdinand of Antequera, who was influenced by the anti-pope Benedict XIII and Vincent Ferrer. Although Ferdinand’s successor, Alfonso el Magnánimo (1416–58), revoked some of the edicts, the Jews of Aragon were still unable to recover, and they were subject to accusations and acts of violence. The main community of Zaragoza lapsed into disorder, 3 H. Beinart, ‘The Great Conversion and the Converso Problem’, in id. (ed.), Moreshet sefarad: The Sephardi Legacy ( Jerusalem, 1992), i. 346–82. 4 Id., Anusim bedin ha’inkvisitsiyah ( Jerusalem, 1965), index and sources; see now Alisa Meyuhas Ginio, De bello Iudaeorum: Fray Alonso de Espina y su Fortalitium Fidei (FIRC 8; Salamanca, 1998).

4

introduction

and the Jewish community dwindled. Leadership fell into the hands of simple folk, as the poet Solomon Bonafed lamented: ‘the tailors are judges and the tanners are magistrates’.5 Barcelona was empty of Jews, as were other cities and towns. No leading personality arose within the Jewry of Aragon, and the conditions of its existence were difficult until the expulsion.6

ii. forced segregation Enrique IV died on 11 December 1474, and immediately after his death Isabella declared herself queen of Castile. Her husband Ferdinand acceded to the throne with her.7 Rabbi Jacob ibn Núñez then served as court rabbi; an important document of his is extant, regarding the division of the taxes of the kingdom among the Jewish communities of Castile.8 Rabbi Jacob most probably died in 1476. For a certain time Vidal Astori inherited his position as the rabbi of the communities of northern Castile (including Burgos), but Abraham Senior managed to have his appointment rescinded, and was himself appointed court rabbi by virtue of his connections with Queen Isabella. He was the last of the court rabbis of Castile9 and also the last Jew who served as the supreme tax-farmer for the kingdom. His fidelity to Isabella, whom he had known from the time of her exile to Segovia by order of her brother Enrique IV, was unshakeable, and she recognized that. His decision to convert in 1492 reflects the selfinterested character of his earlier actions. As noted, the Jewish community of Castile hoped that the accession of Isabella and her husband Ferdinand would bring them peace and security. However, as we shall see, the Catholic Monarchs had clear plans regarding the Jewish communities, which proved to be entirely different from the hopes that had been pinned upon them by the Jews. In 1475 they succeeded in putting down a rebellion of the nobility in support of Juana ‘la Beltraneja’, who claimed to be the daughter of Enrique IV. This rebellion was accompanied by the military invasion of northern Castile by Portugal, in an effort to defend the marriage of Afonso V to Juana. A Portuguese victory would have brought about union with Castile, but the success of the Castilian army frustrated that hope. After the victory, Ferdinand and Isabella turned to setting their kingdom in order.10 On 19 April 1475, the Council of the Santa Hermandad was renewed. This Baer, Toledot hayehudim, 336, 535 n. 5. The manner in which the Edict of Expulsion was enforced in that kingdom and its Jewry withstood it demonstrate the community’s inner power. See below, Ch. 5. 17 She was officially declared queen of Castile on 13 Sept. 1475. For a description of the situation at the time of her rise to the throne see T. de Azcona, Isabel la Católica (Madrid, 1964), pp. xiii–xxxix (with extensive bibliography); J. N. Hillgarth, The Spanish Kingdoms 1250–1516, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1976–8), ii: 1410– 1516: Castilian Hegemony, 351 ff. et passim. 18 See Baer, Toledot hayehudim, index; also F. Cantera Burgos, ‘Los repartimientos de rabí Jaco aben Nuñes’ (with C. Carrete Parrondo), Sefarad, 31 (1971), 213–47. He was preceded as court rabbi by Rabbi Shemaya Lobel of Ávila, who died before 1472. Jacob ibn Núñez was the physician of Enrique IV; he received that appointment because of his closeness to the Crown. 19 On his ways, see Ch. 8. 10 See H. Beinart, ‘The Expulsion from Spain: Causes and Results’ (Heb.), in Moreshet sefarad, ii. 11–40. Only in 1475 was agreement reached regarding the intitulation of royal documents (see Ch. 2). Both king 15 16

ferdinand and isabella

5

was an alliance among cities to defend public order, and it was to become one of the firmest foundations upon which the rule of Ferdinand and Isabella was built.11 Its regulations explicitly stated that a Jew should never serve as its treasurer. Notwithstanding, Abraham Senior was appointed to that post. Isabella imposed her authority upon the military orders of Castile, which had demonstrated great independence and controlled extensive lands in the kingdom, and she also succeeded in transferring the supreme command of the Order of Santiago to her husband Ferdinand, taking it from Alfonso de Cardenas.12 The Crown thus took another step towards concentrating power in its hands. Two meetings of the Cortes in Castile were of great importance for the existence of the Jewish community. The first was held in Madrigal, Isabella’s home town, in 1476; the second took place in Toledo in 1480. It seems, indeed, that questions concerning the Jews were raised mainly at the meetings of the Cortes of Castile, but no discussions of Jewish matters took place within the Catalonian–Aragonese–Valencian framework. The Cortes of Madrigal were convened only two years after the joint rise of Ferdinand and Isabella to the throne of Castile. Aragon was then out of the picture, for until 1479 Juan II (1458–79), Ferdinand’s father, ruled there.13 It should also be added that the population of Castile was far greater than that of Aragon.14 Hence the two meetings of the Cortes were of signal importance. In the Cortes of 1476 two important decisions were made regarding the Jews, and several cities were represented there along with the clergy and nobility.15 One decision was intended to restrict lending and queen usually signed royal decrees. On the agreement, see J. M. Batista i Roca, The Hispanic Kingdom and the Catholic Kings (New Cambridge Modern History, 1; Cambridge, 1957), 311–22. For a description of Isabella see L. Suárez Fernández, Los Trastámara y los Reyes Católicos (Madrid, 1985), 204 ff. See M. Lunenfeld, The Council of the Hermandad (Coral Gables, Fla., 1970), 25 ff.; Azcona, Isabel, 333 ff. In November 1477 Ferdinand restored him to command over the order. 13 On the meetings of the Cortes in 1476 and 1480, see Azcona, Isabel, 318, 324. On the place of Catalonia within the kingdom of Aragon see J. H. Elliott, The Revolt of the Catalans (Cambridge, 1963). 14 Towards the end of the 15th c. the population of Castile was about 8 m., of Aragon 1,350,000, of Portugal c.1.5 m., of Navarre 185,000. See J. Ruiz Almansa, ‘La población española’, Revista Internacional de Sociología, 3 (1943), 115–36; J. H. Elliott, Imperial Spain 1469–1716 (London, 1963), 13. Aragon was severely affected during the 14th c. by the Black Death, which continued until 1351; plague also broke out in 1362–3, 1371, 1396–7. See Elliott, Imperial Spain, 25. J. F. O’Callaghan, A History of Medieval Spain (Ithaca and London, 1975), 604–6, presents estimates of the general population of Spain. In 1482 there were between 7 m. and 8 m. inhabitants of Castile, and the vast majority of them were in Andalusia. Seville alone numbered 75,000 residents; Córdoba, 35,000; Murcia, 25,000; Toledo, Valladolid, Medina del Campo each had between 20,000 and 25,000 residents. In contrast to Castile, the number of residents of Catalonia declined between 1378 and 1497 from 350,000 to 270,000; the population of Barcelona declined from 38,000 to 20,000; the kingdom of Valencia had 75,000 residents in 1483. In 1496 there were 250,000 residents of Aragon, of whom 20,000 lived in Zaragoza. Towards the end of the 15th c. there were about 870,000 residents of Aragon. That is to say, the total population of Spain was between 9 m. and 10 m. O’Callaghan relies on Vicens Vives (he does not mention his source) and estimates that there were 150,000 Jews in Castile at the time of the expulsion, and that there were 30,000 Jews in Aragon. See also Suárez Fernández, Los Trastámara, 122. 15 The cities represented in the Cortes were León, Burgos, Valladolid, Toro, Salamanca, Soria, Segovia, Ávila, Guadalajara, Madrid, Cuenca, Toledo, Córdoba, Jaén, Seville. There were active communities in each of these cities, and some members of these communities extended credit to Christians. Each city sent two representatives. See Beinart, ‘The Expulsion from Spain’, for references. 11 12

6

introduction

money at interest, but in order to avoid adverse influence on credit it was agreed to follow the ruling of the Cortes of 1462, which had convened in Toledo. This permitted a Christian borrower to reach a credit agreement with a Jewish moneylender, on condition that there should be no hidden interest agreement, or, as the resolution stated, ‘fraude de usura’. That decision was important because it acknowledged that the country could not manage without Jewish credit. This state of affairs was to find expression in the reciprocal abrogation of debt at the time of the expulsion.16 The issue of lending money at interest did not in fact trouble the government itself, but in the Cortes it served as a means for responding to Christian public pressure, thus winning approval. Nobody had in mind the temporary or permanent abrogation of debts. The step of obliging Jews to wear a badge and prohibiting them from wearing certain clothing and colours was taken in response to demands of the church in the spirit of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215).17 Here it is notable that, as mentioned above in discussion of the regulations of Valladolid, the Jews were also interested in maintaining restrictions in dress and in maintaining modesty in Jewish life, so as not to arouse the envy of the Christian community. However, here, too, there were exceptions, such as those granted to the Abraham Senior family, who were exempted from wearing the badge. Jewish tax-collectors were also permitted to travel without the badge, to protect them from highway robbers. The government thus had favourites who were exempted from wearing the badge, and these created discrimination within the Jewish community, the majority of which did not enjoy such preferential treatment. But the fact that Tomás de Torquemada, in a special memorandum, asked Queen Isabella to impose the Jewish badge by decree (in addition to other requests he made of her), shows that this directive, which may be seen as royal law adopted by the Cortes as the legislative body, was not diligently enforced.18 Both of these decisions diverted demands See Ch. 4. On the Jewish badge, see H. Beinart, ‘“The Jewish Badge” in Spain and the Enforcement of the “Edict of the Mark” under the Catholic Monarchs’ (Heb.), in Bein yisrael veha’umot: Festschrift for Shmuel Ettinger ( Jerusalem, 1988), 29–41. 18 See H. Beinart, ‘The Memorandum of Tomás de Torquemada to Queen Isabella’ (Heb.), in Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress for Jewish Studies ( Jerusalem, 1976), ii. 3–26 ⫽ id., Pirkei sefarad ( Jerusalem, 1998), i. 207–38. The degree to which the sign concerned priests and clerics is shown by two instances of testimony in the trial of Diego Arias de Ávila of Segovia, the father of the Bishop of Segovia. See AHN, Inq. Leg. 143 No. 7, fo. 10v; Libro 2°, fo. 531, 16.3.1486. The passage was published by C. Carrete Parrondo, Proceso inquisitorial contra los Arias Dávila, segovianos: un entrentamiento social entre judíos y conversos (FIRC 3; Salamanca, 1986), 37–8, 52: ‘Anton Sanches, clerigo, cura de la Trenidad, testigo jurado etç., dixo contra algunas personas, e entre elles contra el contador Diego Arias, padre del obispo, lo siguiente: Otrosi dixo este testigo que oyo decir a vn frayle de San Antonio, que quando trujeron finado al maestre De la Espina de Madrid, que dixera este testigo que como abia fallecido aquel hombre ten presto estando tan bueno, y que el dicho frayle le respondiera que abia fecho dar con que muriese Diego Arias, contador, padre del obispo de Segobia, porque en el tienpo del rey don Henrique los judios andaban sin señal, y el dicho maestre, con vnos frayles de su Orden, procuraban que pues los judios andaban sin señal y su alteza asi lo queria, que los christianos traxesen cruzes, e porque el dicho maestro De la Espina e los otros frayles perseguian a los judios, sobre este caso el dicho Diego Arias los faborecia e le mando dar con que murio.’ See also paragraph 42, on p. 33, in the testimony of Sánchez de Lozoya as recorded in Libro 2°, fo. 446: ‘que todos que eran christianos trayan un Jesu en el bonete’. 16 17

ferdinand and isabella

7

and pressures that came from below—from the clergy and the cities—to areas which affected Jewish communal life only slightly.19 The Crown felt a pressing need to visit the cities of the kingdom and give expression to its dominion. It also directed its attention to Andalusia, waging a campaign that called for precise planning in every detail. When Ferdinand and Isabella, accompanied by a large retinue, arrived in Seville, a Dominican friar named Alonso de Hojeda stood before them and described the decline of faith in the city and district, where conversos were openly reverting to Judaism under the influence of the Jews.20 It is unlikely that either his appeal or the response of Ferdinand and Isabella was spontaneous. They agreed to ask the Pope to permit them to establish a Spanish National Inquisition, as Alonso de Espina had proposed in the past.21 The response of the Crown to this appeal constituted public recognition of the position regarding religion in the state taken by a militant group within the clergy. It was also clear affirmation that, in the view of the Crown, those undermining faith were conversos who had reverted to Judaism and their Jewish guides and advisers. One must not suppose that the Crown was surprised when, on this occasion, it heard about the situation of religion in the district and city of Seville. It cannot be known just who was present on that occasion, whether they were members of the royal retinue or some of the monks who had come with Alonso de Hojeda.22 An emissary was sent to Pope Sixtus IV in Rome without delay in order to receive permission from him to establish a national Inquisition of heresy, to be based in Seville with authority over all of Spain. Permission was granted on 1 November 1478, and Castile again accepted the dominion of the papacy.23 The Crown’s appeal was thus a very well calculated move to create an institution that from its foundation should oversee all of Spain. Castile demonstrated its zeal, revealing the intentions of the monarchy. By establishing a court to investigate heresy and resolve the question of the faith of the conversos who had reverted to Judaism, the Crown and churchmen, who initiated the act, believed they could solve the question of Jewish influence on the conversos. They assumed that, fearful of the law, they would dissociate themselves from their Jewish brethren and erase all memory of their Jewish past. With this act the Crown 19 In the Cortes of Madrigal supervision of the Hermandad was also renewed, and a central supervisory body was established, known as the Junta de la Hermandad. It was headed by the Bishop of Cartagena as a representative of the Crown. See J. M. Mariéjol, The Spain of Ferdinand and Isabella (New Brunswick, NJ, 1961), 19 ff. Henceforth the ‘societies’ were dependent upon the Crown and at its service rather than serving a local nobleman. The Hermandad thus represented the city and its interest. Afterwards this organization was consolidated; it played an important role in the war of Granada and the expulsion of the Jews from the kingdom of Aragon. On its part in the expulsion, see Ch. 5. Only in 1498 was it decided to disperse the council of the Hermandad, and the payment of salaries to its office-holders was suspended. The Hermandad then became a sort of local police force, without its former prestige. See also Elliott, Imperial Spain, 75. 20 Hojeda was the head of the Dominican monastery of St Paul in Seville. On the meeting, see Beinart, 21 Anusim, index. Ibid. 22 On the situation in Andalusia, see Hernando del Pulgar, Crónica de los Reyes Católicos, versión inédita por J. de Mata Carriazo, i (Madrid, 1943), 312 ff. 23 In the agreement with the Pope, Alfonso, Ferdinand’s illegimate son, was appointed Archbishop of Zaragoza. In December 1478 Sixtus rescinded the permission he had granted to Juana, the daughter of Enrique, to marry Afonso V, her uncle, the king of Portugal. See T. de Azcona, La elección y reforma del episcopado español en tiempo de los Reyes Católicos (Madrid, 1960), 47, 202, 290 ff.

8

introduction

sought to serve both religion and the state. Although the government regarded the establishment of the Inquisition as a means of maintaining religious purity within its dominion, the power and authority of that institution were not limited solely to the area of faith. In a state without political unity, the task of religion was to express unity, especially since there was no clear separation of religion from the state. On the contrary, mutual co-operation between religion and the state helped create national unity, which the recidivism of the conversos and the existence of the Jews themselves appeared to impede.24 The appointment on 27 September 1480 of two Inquisitors, Juan de San Martín and Miguel de Murillo, to serve in Seville was the first step in this direction. They began to consolidate the process, and the organization of the National Inquisitional Court in Spain was placed in their hands. However, many months passed from their appointment in 1480 until the commencement of activities on 1 January 1481. Among their first acts was to issue an order to the nobility, subjecting them to the authority of the Inquisition by forbidding them to grant protection to recidivist conversos who fled. If they assisted them, they would be condemned for aiding and abetting heresy.25 At the same time, the Crown commanded that Jews should be segregated from their converso brethren. On 27 December 1477, while Ferdinand and Isabella were in Seville, the corregidor and chief men of Soria were ordered to move those Jewish inhabitants who had their homes among the Christians to the Jewish quarter. The edict read: ‘they shall transfer to the Jewish quarter which was set aside for them, where they have [dwellings]’;26 if they had no separate residence, a place was to be set aside for them. After the edict was implemented, Jews were forbidden to live among the city’s Christians. The edict stated: ‘we shall render service to God, and our holy faith shall be exalted’.27 Clearly the implementation of such a decree depended upon the unhesitating and unquestioning responsiveness of the municipal leaders. The Crown was apparently doubtful about this, for a man of the royal house, Velasco de Castroverde, was appointed and ordered to leave for Soria and oversee the implementation of the edict. A order issued on 15 March 1480 reveals what took place in Soria.28 The alcaide of the citadel was interested in transferring the Jews to it, but the regidor and the municipal leadership objected, demanding that they be settled in a separate quarter.29 Judging by the area of the citadel, the community was not particularly large. But it is clear See Elliott, Imperial Spain, 97. See the introduction to Beinart, Anusim; also Suárez Fernández, Los Trastámara, 310 ff.; id., La expulsión de los judíos (Madrid, 1969), 241–64. 26 ‘Que pasan a la juderia e lugar señalado que para ello tienen’, L. Suárez Fernández, Documentos acerca de la expulsión de los judíos (Valladolid, 1964), 133–4. As it was customary to begin the new year on 25 December, the decree is dated 1478, though it was issued at the end of 1477. See RGS 1 No. 3340, fo. 583; also H. Beinart, ‘Jewish Dwellings in Spain during the Fifteenth Century and the Edict of Separation’ (Heb.), Zion, 51 (1986), 61–85 at 68 n. 1, and also references. 27 Beinart, ‘Jewish Dwellings’: ‘Creyendo ser asy conplidero al serviçio de Dios e haumentaçion de nuestra Santa Fe’ (p. 68 n. 1). 28 See RGS 2 No. 2852, fo. 118, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 171–2. The edict was drafted by Alonso del Mármol, with the assent of the council. 29 On that city, see Baer, Toledot hayehudim, 114. In the 13th c. the community contained fifty households, that is, close to 300 individuals. It is not likely that it grew much towards the end of the 15th c. 24 25

ferdinand and isabella

9

that the transfer had not been implemented by the time of that order, and the community itself addressed the Crown for a decision, fearing that fines and punishments would be imposed on it for not removing to the new neighbourhood. The Crown’s response was that the Jews should depart to their quarter without delay,30 a directive that was consistent with the decision of the Cortes of Toledo on 28 May 1480. This segregation was not apparently sufficient for the Crown but was a harbinger of things to come. On 26 August 1478, Ferdinand and Isabella ordered the segregation of housing in Cáceres as well.31 In blunt language, the edict states: ‘In the laws of our kingdom and according to the holy canons it is forbidden to the Jews and Moors to live among Christians, and they must have separate neighbourhoods and separate houses of prayer.’32 The Crown also ordered that the Jews should be permitted to buy lots and houses at reasonable prices to build synagogues in their new neighbourhoods (a similar order was also issued regarding the Muslims).33 The desire that the exchange of dwellings should take place without public disturbances was understandable, since the government had just freed itself from the disorder that had broken out as a result of the revolt of the nobility and the war against the supporters of Juana la Beltraneja and the Portuguese army.34 The edict speaks of ‘cessation of the unpleasantnesses that arise from [the Jews’] living among Christians’,35 though it clearly was intended to make life difficult for Jews who left their neighbourhoods and to raise a barrier between Jews and those Christians (that is, conversos) who continued living in the old Jewish quarter. A similar step was taken in Seville, as we learn from a charter issued by Queen Isabella on 8 December 1478, in which she extends her protection over those Jews who had gone to live in Corral de Jerez.36 At that time some people were victimizing the Jews, including caballeros who wished to take over Jewish houses. We find that this is the area from which the Jews of Seville were expelled when the Edict of Expulsion from Andalusia was promulgated in 1483.37 The effort to dispossess the Jews of Castile of their synagogues should probably also be viewed as an expression of the policy of segregation. The representative of the 30 See Baer, JchS ii. 346 ff; P. León Tello, ‘Legislación sobre los judíos en las Cortes de los antiguos reinos de León y Castilla’, Proceedings of the Fourth World Congress of Jewish Studies ( Jerusalem, 1968), ii. 48–60 at 56 ff. The alcaide was involved in additional suits connected to the Jewish dwellings in the citadel, which lasted until 21 Aug. 1484. See RGS 5 No. 1484, fo. 128, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 228–30; also RGS 14 No. 1590, fo. 40 from 16 June 1497. His name was Jorge de Beteta. 31 See RGS 2 No. 980, fo. 30, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 140–1. The edict was prepared by Juan Ruiz de Castro, the royal scribe, with the approbation of the court council. 32 ‘Por las leyes de nuestros reynos e santos canones esta proybido e vedado que los judios e moros non moren entre los christianos e que tengan sus juderias e morerias e casas de morada e de oraçion apartadas.’ 33 ‘Fasiendoles dar casas e solares para ello a presçios rasonables.’ 34 ‘Mandamos que syn escandalo nin mouimiento alguno apartedes e fagades apartar a todos los judios e moros que en esa dicha villa biuen e moran dentro los christianos e que moren e tengan sus juderias e morerias apartadas e en lugares donde antiguamente las solian e acostunbrauan thener.’ 35 ‘Por que los ynconvenientes que por morar fasta aqui entre los christianos se syguen cesan’. 36 See RGS 2 No. 1452, fo. 75, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 146–8. It was prepared by Juan Ruiz del Castro on the instructions of the council. 37 See H. Beinart, ‘La Inquisición española y la expulsión de los judíos de Andalucía’, in Y. Kaplan (ed.), Jews and Conversos: Studies in Society and the Inquisition ( Jerusalem, 1985), 103–4.

10

introduction

communities, Jacob Cachopo, argued against this effort, which took place in 1479, on 10 September 1484, on behalf of the community of Segovia, which had been dispossessed of a synagogue, houses of study, and its cemetery. The Crown had issued its prohibition on 9 March 1479, because it viewed the step taken by the cities as an independent municipal action of the sort it wished to prevent while taking its first steps towards consolidation of the central government.38 At the time of the meetings of the Cortes in Toledo in May 1480, the Crown could point to yet another step taken to segregate dwellings in Córdoba. On 19 March 1480 the city was ordered to implement the segregation.39 But we have been unable to clarify the details of this action, perhaps because it happened so soon before the convening of the Cortes in Toledo. We do not know the names of those who entered pleas nor how the matter of segregation in housing was presented to the Cortes that convened in Toledo in the spring of 1480. However, on 28 May 1480, the decision was reached to segregate Jews, Christians, and Moors.40 Paragraph 76 of the decisions of the Cortes determined and expressed the government policy on this issue. It states: Since from continued conversation and common life of Jews and Moors with Christians great damage and unpleasantness is caused, and the procuradores have asked us to issue an edict to correct this, we order and command all of the Jews and Moors of all the cities, towns, and places in our kingdoms, be they realengos (of the Crown) or behetrias (freeholdings), or of orders, abadengos (the areas of monasteries), that their quarters be separated from those of the Christians, and not be in common. And this we order to be executed within the next two years, starting from the day on which these laws are promulgated by our court. And so as to implement them it is our intention to appoint faithful men who will act for this purpose, in determining the lots, the houses, and the places in which they can dwell properly and engage in their professions in contact with the public; and if in these areas that are set aside for them the Jews have no synagogues and the Moors no mosques, we order the men who are to be appointed for that purpose to determine that in the areas to be decided upon, in the same number and in same size of the areas (previously occupied), that the Jews may build synagogues and the Moors, mosques, such as they had in the places that they left. And 38 See RGS 3 No. 3327, fo. 121. From a decree sent to the town of Olmedo in northern Castile on 19 Jan. 1480 we learn that the neighbourhood had been segregated there some fifty years earlier (around 1430) to prevent contact between Jews and Christians. The Jews had been transferred to dwellings in another part of the town, and in their possession remained one public street (‘vna calle publica’) near the church of San Pedro, by which they entered and left their neighbourhood to reach the public square (‘plaça publica’) for the needs of the congregation. In 1479 residents of the town began to persecute the Jews, and the council closed the public street, thus harming the Jewish community. The Crown responded to the plea of the Jews on the above date and ordered the corregidor, Juan de la Puente, or his successor, to investigate the appeal and act justly towards the community. There is no doubt that in 1479, and perhaps somewhat before then, there had been a movement in Olmedo to limit the Jewish quarter there. On Olmedo see RGS 2 No. 2309, fo. 192, published by Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 165. The order was drafted by Alonso del Mármol, with the approbation of the council. 39 See Baer, JchS ii. 346–7; also León Tello, ‘Legislación’, 57. 40 See Cortes IV, Ley 76, 149 ff.; F. Fita, ‘La Judería de Segovia: Documentos inédits’, BRAH 9 (1886), 270–93. On the Cortes, see León Tello, ‘Legislación’, 565; W. Piskorski, Las Cortes de Castilla (Barcelona, 1977).

ferdinand and isabella

11

henceforth they will not use the synagogues and mosques that they had hitherto. And the Jews and the Moors we permit to sell to anyone who wants them the synagogues and mosques that they left behind them, to destroy them, and to do as they wish with them, so as to build and establish them anew as they were heretofore, on lots and in places that will be set aside for them. And they will be able to do this without any interference and without being subject, because of this, to any punishment or fine. And we hereby order the men who are to be appointed for this to compel the house owners and property owners where the synagogues, mosques, and dwellings are to be built that they sell them to the aforementioned Jews and Moors at reasonable prices, which will be estimated by two assessors, one to be chosen by the party of the Christians involved in the matter and the second to be appointed by the party of the Jews for their needs and the Moors for their needs, who will be obligated by an oath that they will have sworn earlier, that they shall perform the estimate in good faith and without favouring anyone, and if they wish they may receive information from officials, so that they shall be able to assess properly what they are called upon to do. And if these two do not reach agreement between them, then that emissary or those emissaries will meet with those appointed by the parties and by an oath that they shall swear that they shall act in good faith and without favouritism and in estimating the value of the lots and houses. And that which the three determine will be implemented and that sum will be paid for them. And we order the Jewish communities and the Moorish sects that every one of them shall act scrupulously in this separation and give appropriate orders that within this period of two years they will implement the establishment of their houses as allotted to them separately and they will dwell and live in them. And henceforth they will not have dwellings among the Christians or anywhere else outside the area and places that will be allotted to them as Jewish and Moorish neighbourhoods, under penalty of punishment that any Jew of Jewess, Moor or Mooress, who henceforth will be found dwelling outside of those areas, will lose by that very act his property, that will be impounded for the benefit of our treasury, and he personally will be subject to our mercy, and any judge can seize his body according to his authority, in any place where he is found and will send him as a prisoner to our court, at (his own) expense so that we may do and order what is to be done with his property, as it shall appear to our mercy. And no obligation that is made to them has any value and they will not be responded to regarding anything one is obligated to respond to them, and no man may come into business contact with them. And we order the lords of the cities and their officials, and the towns and places in the regions under our sovereignty, the orders, the areas owned by monasteries and the monasteries that they shall immediately indicate and order to be indicated each of the places in their dominion, the places, houses, and lots for the synagogues and mosques and dwellings needed for them, so that in that period of time of two years the separation will be enforced, and the Jews and Moors will live separately, each in his own place, under the compulsion of punishment that these lords and officers will lose the monies due to them according to our registers and according to our privileges.

This resolution set the point of departure for the Crown and the Cortes in setting domestic policy towards the two minorities in the kingdom: the Jews and the Moors. The underlying principle was religious and social: the great damage caused to the Christians by these minorities. But it must be emphasized that claims against the Muslims were of minor public importance, even with respect to their numbers, compared to the Jews. The Jewish community, which had suffered greatly from mass conversions, meant far more to the Catholic majority than the Muslims, who were present

12

introduction

mainly in south-eastern Spain and the kingdom of Granada. Moreover, with this decision the Crown succeeded in uniting the will of the church, the representatives of the cities, and the nobility, making itself the agent of the entire Christian community. At the end of the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries, under the influence of Vincent Ferrer, the Jews had been given a short time to obey royal decrees, but now, in contrast, the two-year time limit for implementing the segregation was long. One should also note the appointment of visitadores, who were to be sent to the cities and villages of Castile to oversee the execution of the edict. The Crown was definitely aware that time was a decisive factor in implementing the measures because it wished to supervise the topographical and physical changes in the kingdom. The Crown would dictate the pace of action to the heads of towns and villages, who would have to determine the location of the new neighbourhoods according to local interests and in concert with the supervisors, who would be sent to hasten, organize, and oversee the entire enterprise. The Cortes, actually the Crown, would impose their will upon the local authorities, who might be inclined to be merciful to the Jews in one place or another. The assessors were to estimate the value of the houses left by the Jews and Moors, so that their residents would be able to leave their former dwellings and buy, rent, or build new ones in their stead; their task was crucial to the success of the project, and since one of them was to be a Jew, the local Jews could not claim there had been discrimination. The task of preparation imposed on the cities and towns, and also upon the Jews, was considerable. They had to determine the location and area of the new neighbourhoods. Where would the new neighbourhood be situated? What would be the layout of its streets, and where would its boundaries be? Where would the gates be built, and which Christian houses would abut Jewish homes? These issues had to be determined locally, but in agreement with representatives of the Crown. With respect to the segregation of dwellings, the Crown and the Cortes realized that the transfer to new neighbourhoods would entail the abandonment of Jewish communal property: synagogues, houses of study and prayer, ritual baths, Jewish poor houses, abattoirs, and Moorish institutions of the same kind. These would have to be sold or even razed.41 The other side of this coin was the need to find new lots, to arrange their purchase, and when land was purchased, to rebuild these institutions without disturbance, hindrance, fines, or other punishments for doing so. The decision of the Cortes stated that the owners of property and houses could be forced to sell them to Jews and Moors or to rent them at reasonable prices and rates. It is easy to grasp the depth of the shock this caused to Jewish communities. We are concerned here only with them and the problems that arose as a consequence of the implementation of the decision of the Cortes, for it was not the intention of the Crown to have this edict remain subject to the process of obedecer y no cumplir, obeyed and not implemented. In practice the local authorities were permitted to oppress the Jews and settle old scores with the community, while Christian citizens sided with the authorities, ready to profit from the new arrangements. In their desire for material advantage, Christian citizens became active partners and supervisors of the imple41 It is to be noted that in these cases Jewish cemeteries were not abandoned. For the size of communal property at the time of the expulsion, see Ch. 3.

ferdinand and isabella

13

mentation of the edict in all its severity. Hence they addressed the state authorities and complained about failure to implement the edict of segregation or about negligence in implementing it. The Jew who was driven from his dwelling paid in full for his new segregated residential quarters. In addition to the shock of separation, other blows fell upon the livelihood of the Jews, who had engaged in commerce and crafts in shops and workshops in the squares of the cities and towns. Here, too, the Jews were restricted by the prohibition against remaining outside their new residential quarter, for the edict sought to limit contacts between Jews and Christians. Not only did the value of an abandoned house in the old quarter often fail to equal the cost of a house in the new one, if the houses were exchanged, it often happened that the owners of houses in the new designated neighbourhood demanded more from the buyer than the property was worth, despite the arrangements for assessment prescribed by the Crown and the Cortes. In these cases the Jewish community bore responsibility for the exchange, and additional sums had to be raised to purchase the house or houses: if the new tenant did not have the necessary means, the community had to pay the difference. Thus the Jewish community became a partner in real-estate holdings, though it was doubtful whether its leaders had the means to benefit from its part of the property by collecting rent. For these purchases the Crown only permitted the communities to raise the sisa tax, which was levied on kosher meat and wine.42 Thus economic pressure was also exerted on Jewish life. Arrangement of all the exchanges was assigned to the municipalities and village councils and to the Jewish communities, with the responsibility of the latter being far greater, both in relation to communal needs and also in relation to the needs of individual Jews. In fact, the two-year time limit was not sufficient, and problems persisted year after year throughout the 1480s, a situation that was oppressive for the Jewish community, for after 1482 it was responsible for the payment of the tax to wage the war against Granada, as we shall see below. The question of dwellings in the new Jewish neighbourhoods found its ultimate ‘solution’ in the general expulsion of 1492. This segregation, although officially it appeared only to affect housing, dealt a severe blow to the Jewish community with respect to its actual existence. Many documents describe what happened during those years while the Jews were being placed in neighbourhoods segregated from their Christian neighbours and their converso brethren. In some places the separation was established relatively peacefully, without creating special problems. Perhaps we may assume that in those places the Jews already lived separately from Christians, and the authorities had no excuse for introducing further separation or to uproot the Jewish neighbourhood. However, it must also be pointed out that in some cities the Jewish community completely disappeared, as in Ciudad Real in the La Mancha region and in many villages around it.43 The claim that the Jews were exerting harmful influence upon the conversos there was not valid according to this edict. Those conversos who kept Jewish rites were to be dealt with by the Inquisition, which was established at that very time. Segregation of housing seems to have served as a pretence and instrument for interfering with Jewish 42 43

See Beinart, Trujillo, 13 ff. Some communities in Aragon had entirely ceased to exist, such as Barcelona and the Balearic Islands.

14

introduction

communal life, and this, as we shall see, was consistent with the path of the church and its desire to liquidate the Jewish community. Hence Pope Sixtus IV also issued a bull expressing support for the segregation of housing. Most probably this support was also an expression of approval for the steps taken on the Jewish question by the Spanish Crown. On 31 May 1484 the Pope forbade Jews and Moors to dwell together with Christians.44 Thus he gave the segregation ecumenical approval: the Pope joined together with the Spanish clergy and the Crown on the subject of the solution of the Jewish problem in Spain. This bull was promulgated at the height of the war against Granada, and it is also a sign of the understanding that the Crown had reached with the papacy and with the path of the Spanish National Inquisition.45 The severity of the Crown’s approach in solving the problem of the influence exerted by the Jews upon conversos found expression not only in the two-year time limit for effecting the segregation in housing, but also in the appointment of supervisors and the designation of those chosen for that task. We do not know whether these agents were appointed immediately after 28 May 1480, the day the decision was reached, or when the edict took effect. If the effective date of the appointment was the day when the supervisors reached the place where they were to act, term of the appointment probably expired in 1482. We do not know who these supervisors were in every city and town, but without doubt they were chosen not only because of their administrative ability but also their loyalty to the Crown and uncompromising obedience to orders. One may divine the nature of these agents by examining the men upon whom the Crown later imposed the implementation and supervision of the Edict of Expulsion in 1492. The first and foremost criterion for the appointment was unlimited loyalty to the Crown. The Crown insisted on the fidelity of the corregidores in the cities and the alcaides responsible for the citadels, upon whom was imposed the task of the expulsion from Castile, as it was also imposed upon the Inquisitors and judges of the Hermandad in the kingdom of Aragon.46 The men appointed to implement the edict of segregation were thus important to the Crown as the executors of the decision of the Cortes. These are the men about whom information has come down to us as a result of their activities, though doubtless there were other appointees: Rodrigo Álvarez Maldonado, who executed the segregation of housing in Ávila and 44 For the bull, see B. Llorca, Bulario Pontificio de la Inquisición Española (Miscellanea Historiae Pontificiae, 15; Rome, 1949), 106–8: ‘Sane, sicut non sine duplicata accepimus, in Hispaniarum regnis et presertim in provincia Vandaliae, iudaei et sarraceni insimul permixti cum christianis habitare et indistinctum a christianis habitum deferre.’ The Pope also included within the prohibition the ban against dressing like Christians: Christians were forbidden to work in Jewish homes; Christian nursemaids were forbidden to suckle Jewish and Muslim children; and all previously granted privileges that contracted the aforementioned were rescinded. It should be pointed out that this bull was promulgated in Seville on 30 Jan. 1491(!). See Llorca, Bulario, 108 n. 102, with the notarial confirmation of the decree. 45 In 1482 the Pope wished to retain the right of appeal from the verdicts of the Inquisition in the trials of conversos who reverted to Judaism. But the arrangement reached with the Spanish Crown stipulated that a judge ordinary (juez ordinario) should be appointed by the church as its representative and as one of the judges. See Beinart, Anusim, index. It should be noted that this representation was merely formal. 46 There was also deviance, and more than once these supervisors were suspected of taking bribes. See Ch. 5.

ferdinand and isabella

15

nearby Segovia;47 Juan de Zapata, who did so in Palencia:48 Nuño Orejón, who acted in Soria; Pedro de Barrionuevo, who acted in Alfaro, on the border of Navarre; Rodrigo de Orense, the head of the monastery of San Bartolomé de la Lupiana, of the Jeronimite Order, who acted in Guadalajara, near the monastery;49 Ruy López de Ayala, who acted in Carrión de los Condes; the official in charge of the kingdom of Jaén in Andalusia was Garci Fernández, a member of the Royal Council, who was responsible for executing the edict of segregation in the cities of Baeza, Ubeda, Andújar, and other Jewish concentrations in the kingdom of Andalusia;50 in Burguillos, near Toledo, the man in charge of segregation was Gutierre de Trejo; and the man active in Badajoz was apparently Diego López de Trujillo, who served as corregidor in Badajoz and as judge and commissioner on behalf of the Crown. In 1481 in Zaragoza the man who implemented the segregation was the monk Miguel Ferrer, who was so notorious for his cruelty that Ferdinand had to discharge him.51 Thus the kingdom of Aragon adopted the Castilian policy of segregation between Jews and the rest of the population. Elsewhere we have described the segregation of housing, or, in other words, the expulsion of the Jews from their homes, forcing them to move to neighbourhoods where the living conditions were difficult.52 The Crown undoubtedly received detailed reports concerning actions and events in every locality. For in each place the character of the implementation of the edict of segregation was unique with regard to the severity with which the edict was implemented and the boundaries set for the Jewish neighbourhood in concert with the local authorities. The transfer of the Jews of Ávila to the new neighbourhood in the district of the leather tanneries stands out in its severity, for this was regarded as the worst place to live in the city. Jewish dwellings that were not sold in time for the transfer became a severe burden upon the Jews of the city. In some cases they remained vacant for several years or Christians rented them. During the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, these houses became the property of the Christian residents.53 The blow dealt by Rodrigo Álvarez Maldonado’s men to the Jews of Segovia was no less severe, and this was the residence of Abraham Senior, who was close to Isabella and Ferdinand. The segregation in that city began towards the end of October 1481, for only on 29 October did Maldonado summon the heads of the Jewish community, Don Judah Saragossa and Rabbi Solomon Biton, both of whom 47 He was assisted in Ávila by Pero Sánchez de Frías. See P. León Tello, Los judíos de Ávila (Ávila, 1963), 73–4. 48 Ead., Los judíos de Palencia (Palencia, 1967), 25. 49 On the Judaizers in this order, see H. Beinart, ‘The Judaising Movement in the Order of San Jerónimo in Castile’, Scripta Hierosolymitana, 7 (1961), 167–92. This appointment was a test for the monastery and its order, for it had the reputation of being a centre of the Judaizing movement. 50 L. Coronas Tejada, Conversos and Inquisition in Jaén (Hispania Judaica, 7; Jerusalem, 1988), 20. 51 See Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 34. Ferdinand was satisfied with the prohibition against Christians eating together with Jews and serving them. One should also note the harsh attitude of the monks of San Bartolomé de la Lupiana towards the Jews of Guadalajara in segregating their dwellings. 52 See Beinart, ‘Jewish Dwellings’, 61–85. 53 This is what happened to the home of Urosol, the widow of Rabbi Solomon (Suleiman) Daça, and her son Cid Bueno. Their house was rented to a confraternity (Cofrades de San Antón). It was adjacent to that of Don Suleiman Donantes, which was transferred to Elena Arias; the house of Judah Agid was also transferred to a Christian. See León Tello, Ávila, 27–8.

16

introduction

belonged to the twelve-member community council, of which Abraham Senior was not a member.54 With them were Don David Tasarte,55 Don Haim Aben Abid, and Don Solomon (Suleiman) Lumbroso,56 in their capacity as being among the ‘good men’ of the community.57 The description of this meeting shows the official severity in implementing the edict of segregation: the certificate of appointment was read; the boundaries of the new Jewish neighbourhood were announced; and the event was recorded and described by a notary.58 This event proves with absolute certainty that prior action had been taken to determine the boundaries of the neighbourhood. Even the Jews who lived outside the city and its surroundings were ordered to move to the new Jewish neighbourhood before the deadline stipulated by the edict. But Jews were permitted to leave their neighbourhood with their wares and trade in mobile stalls in the city squares, markets, and its surroundings.59 This reference to the Jews’ means of livelihood in Segovia was unusual in comparison to the conditions of segregation imposed in other cities, where no mention was made of the problem, and the prohibition was clear. That was not the end of the proceedings. On the same occasion the representatives of the community declared their obedience to the edict as it was read before them, and that they were prepared to fulfil it in entirety. Christian residents of the town were also present at the meeting, and they were ordered to seal the gates of their houses.60 The entire event was given a full notarial record.61 See Fita, ‘La judería de Segovia’. The term is ‘de los dose diputados’. He was a stocking-maker (‘calcetero’). On 21 July 1492 the regidor of the city of Segovia was ordered to act against him for taking usurious interest from Pedro de la Cruz. See RGS 9 No. 2521, fo. 176; M. Asenjo González, Segovia: la ciudad y la tierra a fines del medievo (Segovia, 1986), 326 n. 198. He was supposed to leave at the time of the expulsion and arranged a transfer of the debt to Samuel Saragossa. He was also involved in the sale of mules to La Cruz’s brother. 56 On the members of this family, especially Abraham Lumbroso (or Lunbroso), many details are known to us regarding their lending money at interest. Some members of this family converted; others left with the expulsion and returned after converting. See Ch. 4. Yose Lumbroso served as the bookkeeper for Abraham Senior during the reign of Enrique IV. See Carrete Parrondo, Proceso inquisitorial, 38–9, no. 4. 57 On that occasion Francisco García de la Torre, the public notary of Segovia, was also present. The witnesses were Rodrigo de Peñalosa, the licenciado Antonio de Tapia, and Juan de Galarza, the notary’s apprentice (‘criado’). All were residents of Segovia. 58 On the boundaries of the neighbourhood, see Diego de Colmenares, Historia de la insigne ciudad de Segovia (repr. Segovia 1970), ii. 134. The description of the neighbourhood was very detailed. It bordered on the Corpus Christi church and the San Andrés gate. Jewish landlords were ordered to seal their houses (among them were David Tasarti, Shem Tob Lumbroso, Rabbi Solomon Biton, and Yose Castro the cobbler). Similarly several Christian landlords received the same order. The master plan of the neighbourhood designated streets, gates, and arches and called for the construction of walls to separate the homes of Christians from those of Jews. The walls were to be sealed, with no windows, openings, holes, or wickets that would allow contact between Jewish and Christian neighbours. All of this was to be done within two years. Further, fines were stipulated for anyone who violated the edict, and the money was to be used to maintain the Roman aqueduct of the city. See A. Gómez de Somorrostro y Martín, El acueducto y otras antigüedades de Segovia (Segovia, 1861), 204; also Fita, ‘La judería de Segovia’, 280. Abraham Senior owned houses in Segovia and Ávila; we do not know what happened to them. See Ch. 8. 59 See Fita, ‘La judería de Segovia’, 282: ‘con sus tiendas portátiles’. 60 These were Gonzalo López de Cuéllar, regidor in Segovia, and his wife Catalina Álvarez; Diego the silversmith (‘platero’) and his wife Isabel. In comparison to the Jewish landlords, only isolated Christians were affected. 61 Witnesses to the notarial certificate were: Alfonso Chamorro, a resident of Salamanca, Juan de Zamora, the assistant of Rodrigo Álvarez Maldonado. Since the latter was the regidor in Salamanca, it seems likely 54 55

ferdinand and isabella

17

However, the destitution of the Jewish community did not end. In 1484 an effort was made to deprive the community of its synagogues, houses of prayer, and its cemetery.62 The expropriators claimed that they had bulls and instructions from the Pope permitting them to seize the property. We learn this from the appeal made by Isaac Atia, the procurador (representative) of the community of Segovia, who based his appeal on a court order obtained in 1479 by Isaac Cachopo, a Jew from Segovia and the representative of the communities of Castile. The complaint states that the Jews feared the expropriation of community property. The Crown saw that these citizens had gone too far and ordered the Príncipe or Crown Prince, the cities authorities, and the nobility, to obey the court order obtained by Isaac Cachopo on 9 March 1479.63 The list of those to whom that court order is addressed shows that similar events had taken place elsewhere. At the time the way in which the edict was to be implemented was discussed in great detail.64 In particular the cruel imposition of the segregation in Guadalajara has been noted. There two monks of San Bartolomé de la Lupiana, Juan de Trujillo and Diego Manrique, took part.65 Although, throughout the kingdom, Jews had now been transferred to separate residential districts in their native cities, the Crown’s goal of eliminating the perceived Jewish threat to Catholicism had not been attained. Great tasks still lay before it: establishment of the Inquisition and preparations for the military campaign against Granada and the purification of Spanish soil from the last bastion of Muslim rule on the Iberian peninsula. Meanwhile, the transfer of population continued almost until the end of 1491. The purely local problems involved were ultimately susceptible of solution, depending upon their urgency, even though the Christian population suffered from severe sanitary problems as a result of the change in dwelling. The Crown took a general overview of the question of housing Jews and Muslims in separate neighbourhoods; its main concern was to prevent unnecessary tension within the populace and results undesirable to the central regime. Hence the Crown was strict with the local authorities and with the supervising commissioners who oversaw the segregation and served as the eyes of the central government everywhere. They worked hand in hand with the local clergy and with the Hermandad. Another weak point of Castilian Jewry lay in the lack of national leadership, though that the two were attendants who had come with him to carry out the task of segregation. It is known that their salary was also paid. The corregidor of Segovia was also present, Ruy González de Puebla, and two other witnesses on behalf of the notary. 62 As early as 1460 the synagogue was situated directly across from the San Andrés Gate on the Calle Real. At the end of the 15th c. the place was called ‘Cuesta de los Hoyos’. 63 In the wording of the edict, ‘nin dedes logar a los robar nin tomar cosa alguna de la suyo’, RGS 3 No. 3327 of 10 Sept. 1484. The edict was given on condition that the monastery of Santa Clara in Segovia should not be harmed, for it apparently possessed property in the area. 64 See above, n. 26. 65 F. Cantera Burgos and C. Carrete Parrondo, ‘Las juderías medievales en la provincia de Guadalajara’, Sefarad, 34 (1974), 55 ff. The segregation instituted there also had echoes in the trials of the Inquisition. See the trial of Juana García, the wife of the bachiller Alonso de Medina, Leg. 150 No. 8 (291), fo. 28r–v. Part of her declaration was published by Baer, JchS ii. 516 ff. Her trial was held in 1490–1. The situation improved somewhat in 1487 with the dismissal of Rodrigo de Orense, who was apparently of converso origin, as head of the monastery and the appointment of Gonzalo de Toro in his place.

18

introduction

Abraham Senior did respond vigorously to the issue of segregation. As a result, every single community was forced to marshal its own resources to carry out the tasks imposed upon it by the segregation of housing. There were even towns such as Corral de Almaguer, near Ocaña, where the Jews, acting on their own initiative, returned to their former residences and workshops to support themselves. However, the Christian residents, seeing the government’s leanings, appointed commissioners of their own to impose segregation of housing and lodged a complaint against the Jews with the Crown. Naturally when the Crown received that information it responded to the detriment of the Jewish community, which suffered yet another blow.

iii. the inquisition While Jewish and Christian housing was being segregated in the cities, the Inquisition began to spread over the entire state.66 The Inquisition was well organized and aroused religious tension from Jewish involvement in the state and what was described as their negative influence on the conversos. The active spirit behind that institution was Tomás de Torquemada. On 2 February 1482, though he was among the last on a list of candidates presented to the Pope for confirmation as Inquisitors, he was appointed to that post. We do not know what he did to promote himself, but on 17 November 1482 he was appointed as the head of the Concejo de la Suprema y General Inquisición, known as the Suprema.67 As the guiding spirit of the institution, he laid its foundations and charted its course.68 In prosecuting the conversos the Inquisition managed to prove that the Jews were guiding conversos back to the Jewish way of life and directing them to revert openly to Judaism. In its courts the Inquisition coerced Jews into testifying against conversos who kept the Jewish commandments, although Jews who encouraged conversos to observe them were not themselves subject to its jurisdiction. The Inquisition never had the right to try Jews, and it accepted their testimony under a Jewish form of oath.69 On 10 December 1484 Ferdinand ordered the royal officials in Aragon to compel Jews who knew of conversos who kept the commandments, under threat of excommunication by their rabbis, to testify before the tribunals of the Inquisition.70 Although the directive referred to Aragon, it also applied in Castile.71 The network of courts established was extremely well planned.72 See Beinart, Anusim, index, for details on opposition to her action. See Azcona, Isabel, 408. Torquemada’s secretary was Juan de Revenga. On 2 July 1492 he was appointed to the canonry of Granada. See RGS 9 No. 2394, fo. 37. 68 H. Beinart, ‘Los Reyes Católicos y sus pragmáticas sobre oficios públicos y reales’, Estudios Mirandeses, 8 (1988), 37–55. 69 With the exception of a case of conversion to Judaism performed in Huesca and the La Guardia trial. See below and also Baer, Toledot hayehudim, index. He deals with this in detail. 70 H. Beinart, ‘Jewish Witnesses for the Prosecution of the Spanish Inquisition’, in Essays in Honour of Ben 71 Beinart, i (Cape Town, 1978), 37–46. See Baer, JchS ii. 911. 72 By 1490 twenty courts had been established. See H. Beinart, Atlas of Medieval Jewish History ( Jerusalem, 1992), 78 (Map 101). The order of their establishment is: Seville, 1481; Córdoba, 1482; Ciudad Real, 1483– 5; Jaén, 1483; Zaragoza, 1484; Belalcázar, Toledo, Teruel, Guadalupe, 1485; Almodóvar del Campo, 1486; Cuenca, Sigüenza, the Balearic Islands, Valladolid, 1488; Palencia, Huesca, 1489; Ávila, Segovia, Lérida, 1491. In 1482 the courts of the Papal Inquisition (Valencia) were included within the National Inquisition. 66 67

ferdinand and isabella

19

The Spanish National Inquisition, which began its work in Seville, became the leading institution for solving the problem of both the Jews and the conversos. Many opinions have been expressed about its activities and goals, and we need not reiterate them.73 It was a state institution headed by churchmen who determined its goals and the way they were to be achieved. Those active in it were Dominican monks, who saw themselves as the guardians of faith, according to the prevailing medieval interpretation of the purpose of the order. The institution investigated conversos who had not severed themselves from their Jewish past, and who refrained from assimilating into the surrounding Christian society. The Inquisition succeeded in making the entire Christian population into its eyes, ears, and spies, for they shared its goals. Fidelity to religion was the supreme criterion. However, the need to establish an institution of this kind and to mobilize the society in its support actually constituted recognition of failure in the forced conversion of an entire people. The church and the government attributed this failure to the Jews who remained faithful to their God. Their very existence as Jews brought the conversos to regret their adherence to Christianity in a moment of weakness and their separation from the Jewish people. The many Inquisition files that have come down to us cover merely a fraction of the people investigated by the Inquisition. They testify to the desire of the conversos and their descendants, even after generations of living as Christians, to return to their people and their Jewish past. As distinct from those converts who sought to assimilate into Christian society and to lose the memory of their Jewish past, these believing Jews sought no benefit from the Christianity that had been imposed upon them. In their loyalty to the Law of Moses, old and young, simple folk and intellectuals, women and men—all were equal.74 The existence of the Inquisition over hundreds of years and its unrelenting effort to excise the conversos who had returned to Judaism are prime proof of the failure of the entire system in its war against Judaism. Neither the church nor the secular government was prepared to acknowledge the failure of the conversion imposed on the Jews from the end of the fourteenth century on. The establishment of the Inquisition after Ferdinand and Isabella assumed the throne of Castile was thus part of the royal plan for solving the problem of faith in the state. Earlier Alonso de Espina had preached on the need to establish a National Inquisition.75 Tomás de Torquemada is to be seen as his follower and faithful disciple. It seems likely that in his contacts with Isabella, while she was in exile in Segovia as commanded by her brother Enrique, Torquemada succeeded in making her aware of the conversos’ loyalty to their Jewish past and to the need of a national solution to the problem of their faith and their place in Christian society. In her betrothed, Ferdinand, Torquemada found a man who shared the vision of the unity of Spain, and the two became allies in a religious and national ideology. This policy probably began to take shape after the couple’s marriage in 1469, continuing with their accession to the throne in 1474. As noted, their voyage to Seville in 1477 was part of a campaign to establish order and tranquillity in the kingdom and meant to be proof of their rule. 73 74 75

Beinart, Anusim, index; id., ‘The Great Conversion’. For a description of the commandments, see Beinart, Anusim, index. For a detailed discussion see ibid.

20

introduction

Thus their appeal to the Pope to authorize the establishment of a National Inquisition should be viewed as an integral part of their political solution of the problems of the kingdom. At first they stood at the sidelines in the public controversy aroused by Hernando del Pulgar in the early 1480s, when he asked the heads of the Castilian church to reconsider the method of investigating heresy adopted by the Inquisition in Seville.76 The government ultimately reached a decision in this controversy and accepted the extremists’ approach to solving the problem of the Judaizing conversos. Hernando del Pulgar was discharged from office as the queen’s secretary and instead he was appointed as the royal chronicler.77 His discharge is to be seen as a harbinger of coming events. Henceforth the Inquisition became an instrument of government, in the words of Ramón Carande, ‘the Inquisition—a single one in the kingdoms of the two crowns—is, in domestic policy, irrefutable testimony of unity and centralization’.78 The Edict of Expulsion of the Jews from Andalusia was promulgated on 1 January 1483, signed and sealed by the ‘Inquisitional fathers of Seville and the Diocese of Córdoba’. The dioceses of Jaén and Cádiz joined the edict, which indeed included all the cities, towns, villages, and settlements in Andalusia. Within a month the Jews of Andalusia were required to depart and disperse among the other regions of the state. This Edict of Expulsion is not extant, but the expulsion from Andalusia is mentioned in the general Edict of Expulsion signed on 31 March 1492. The penalty for violating the Edict of Expulsion from Andalusia was death, and there is no doubt that it was issued with the approval of the Crown.79 The time limit of only one month affected both the exiles themselves and the Christian population in various places, raising problems of reciprocal settlement of debts, sale of the property and possessions of the exiles, and the like. Indeed we have found that after the Jews of Andalusia went into exile, they appealed to the Crown for permission to return to their previous places of residence in order to settle problems of property.80 For example, Jacob Cachopo, the representative of the Jewish community of Castile, appealed to the Crown and asked permission for the exiles to return to their former homes in order to liquidate their property and sell it at reasonable prices. The Crown assigned the handling of these appeals to Luis Sánchez, a member of the Royal Council.81 In issuing the Edict of Expulsion, the Inquisition exceeded its authority in the task of excising the Judaizing tendencies of the conversos. Thus we must see the edict as clear recognition on the part of the Inquisition and the Crown, which permitted promulgation of the Edict of Expulsion, that the Jews were, in their opinion, the evil root of Judaizing among the 76 F. Cantera Burgos, ‘Fernando del Pulgar y los conversos’, Sefarad, 4 (1944), 295–348; trans. as ‘Fernando del Pulgar and the Conversos’, in R. Highfield (ed.), Spain in the 15th Century, 1369–1516 (London, 1972). 77 H. del Pulgar, Crónica de los Reyos Católicos, edición y estudio por Juan de Mata Carríazo (Madrid, 1943); id., Claros varones de Castilla, edición facsímil de 24 abril 1500 (Barcelona, 1970), 5–7. 78 ‘La Inquisición—una sobre los reinos de las dos coronas—es, en la política interior, el testimonio indiscutible de unidad y centralismo’, R. Carande, ‘La economía y la expansión de España bajo el gobierno de los Reyes Católicos’, BRAH 130 (1952), 213–56 at 230. 79 Pulgar links the edict to the king and queen: ‘ordenaron el Rey y la Reyna que ningun Judío, so pena de muerte, morasen en aquella tierra’, Crónica, i. 337. 80 On the expulsion from Andalusia, see Beinart, ‘La Inquisición española’. 81 See Baer, JchS ii. 357–9; Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 238–40.

ferdinand and isabella

21

conversos. Therefore action had to be taken against them. The Crown confirmed this with the expulsion of the Jews from all of Spain, nine years after their expulsion from Andalusia. The Crown’s approval of the expulsion from Andalusia is not only absolute testimony to local efforts to solve the problem of the Jews and the conversos, but also an indication that the Crown was considering the means and conditions under which the entire state could expel the Jews. Regarding the Inquisition, it demanded the expulsion from Andalusia as a means of separating the conversos from their Jewish brethren and distancing them from the cause of their Judaizing, while they continued to try conversos who performed the commandments of Judaism as heretics against the Catholic faith. These steps must be seen together, in addition to the sanctions taken against the local nobility, who, it seems, sought to support the exiles and the conversos. However, another factor must be linked to the expulsion of the Jews from Andalusia.82 The Inquisitors ordered the expulsion in Seville on 1 January 1483, about a year after the beginning of the war to conquer the kingdom of Granada and free the soil of Spain from the last bastion of Islam. For many years anti-Jewish propaganda had been circulating, condemning the Jews for their supposed role in delivering Spain to the Muslim conqueror in 711. Conversos were suspected of having the same potential. In 1474–6 a group of conversos asked permission to settle in Gibraltar, after sustaining injuries in riots against them. The Crown denied them permission to purchase property and settle there,83 since the conversos were an untrustworthy element, and it was to be suspected that they might once again deliver that important stronghold to the Muslim enemy. Moreover, the stages in the conquest of Granada and the removal of the Jews immediately after the conquest of each area, as we shall see below, show that it was a matter of high policy to remove the Jews from the entire south. The expulsion of the Jews from Granada immediately after the conquest, when it became part of Spain, is decisive testimony to this. Nevertheless, the expulsion from Andalusia, which was implemented with the knowledge of the Crown, did not necessarily justify similar local and municipal action elsewhere. For example, in January 1486 the council of Valmaseda in the Basque country ordered the expulsion of the Jews, but the Crown did not approve.84 On 1 March 1486, Pedro Fernández de Velasco, the condestable of Castile, with the approval of the Crown, forbade that expulsion. The inhabitants of the town and its council did not obey his order, and in April the Jews were expelled from there and forced to remain without shelter in the fields around the town. Some of them went to the neighbouring village, Villasana de Mena, and complained. The Crown responded to their complaint with an order issued on 12 May 1486, summoning the town council to appear before the Royal Council. Four days later, on 16 May, Abraham Senior, 82 We do not know the number of exiles from Andalusia. Pulgar, Crónica, estimates that 4,000 households were exiled, that is, approximately 20,000 individuals. Isaac ibn Faraj believes there were only 5,000 people. See A. Marx, Studies in Jewish History and Booklore (New York, 1944), 100. 83 D. Lamelas, La compra de Gibraltar por los conversos (1474–6) (Madrid, 1976). 84 H. Beinart, ‘The Expulsion of the Jews of Valmaseda’ (Heb.), Zion, 46 (1981), 39–51. As early as 1483 the council of Valmaseda prohibited the marriage of any Jewish man or woman resident in the town with any non-resident Jewish man or woman. Nor were Jews from elsewhere to be brought to settle in the town. Thus they sought to limit the number of Jewish inhabitants.

22

introduction

the court rabbi, addressed the aforementioned condestable of Castile, asking him to intervene on behalf of the Jews, seeing that the town was in Castile, and he had forbidden their expulsion. Abraham Senior’s letter also expresses pain regarding what was being done in Andalusia, according to him, by the Inquisition. The lives of the Jews of Andalusia had been destroyed, and he was apprehensive lest the same thing should happen to the Jews of Valmaseda as well. We do not know whether he wrote the letter in response to a request from the exiles from Valmaseda or whether, in his capacity as the court rabbi, he felt impelled to do so by his sense of responsibility towards the Jewry of Castile. On 20 February 1487 a member of the Royal Council, Gonzalo López de Chinchila, was ordered to deal with the problems of the property of several Jewish exiles from the town. Meanwhile, however, they had reached a settlement with the town council regarding their property. On 4 December 1488, the Crown announced to the council of Valmaseda that the Jews were permitted to return, but the council could appeal against that decision. Nevertheless, the Jews of the town received a writ of protection, stating that their property must suffer no injury, and the council was ordered to proclaim this in public. The foregoing information is presented merely to demonstrate the difference between the Edict of Expulsion from Andalusia, which was issued with the Crown’s tacit approval, and an act taken by a local council without the Crown’s approval. It is no coincidence that Queen Isabella stated that the Jews belonged to the Crown, and it alone was authorized to determine relations towards them. When the Jews of Teruel in Aragon were given three months to leave the place, and when Torquemada ordered the Jews of Zaragoza and Albarracín to leave within three months, Ferdinand himself (as king of Aragon) obtained permission of the Inquisitor for a six-month postponement.85 The agreement and the postponement are puzzling: why did the king see fit to ask Torquemada for a postponement? The apparent conclusion is that, although it had been decided even then to expel the Jews from the entire kingdom, the task of conquering Granada took precedence. The Jews would not be expelled until the time was ripe.

iv. financing the

R E C O N Q U I S TA

As noted, the expulsion from Andalusia took place almost a year after the declaration of war against Granada. On 28 February 1482 Spain began to fulfil the obligation made to Sixtus IV upon Ferdinand and Isabella’s accession to the throne, when the Pope recognized them as a married couple and the rulers of Spain.86 The war effort was diffi85 See Baer, JchS i. 912–13; id., Toledot hayehudim, 440, on the arrangement between them reached on 12 May 1486. 86 Regarding the relation of the church to the war in Granada see J. Goñi Gaztambide, ‘La Santa Sede y la reconquista del reino de Granada’, Hispania, 4 (1951), 43–80. Upon the request of Ferdinand and Isabella on 13 November 1479 the Pope issued the first bull regarding the war. Even then it was recognized that it would be long and very expensive. The importance of the agreement of the church and its help, along with concern on the part of the church that war with Turkey should be declared, was connected with preventing any Muslim aid from reaching Granada. The burden of the war and its expenses fell entirely upon the shoulders of Spain, and mainly on Castile. On the Jews’ part in bearing this expense, see below.

ferdinand and isabella

23

cult not only because of the manpower needed for it and the battles that were waged before the Christian state took over the major cities of the kingdom of Granada: Ronda, Almería, Málaga, Baza, Guadix, many provincial towns, and the city of Granada itself. At that time relations between Castile and Portugal were also undergoing a crisis, in addition to the war of 1474–5. Castile had been involved in the effort to depose João II of Avis in favour of the Duke of Bragança, who died on 30 May 1483. The failure of this rebellion affected the Jews, for it led to the flight to Castile of Don Isaac Abravanel and his family: Abravanel was accused of supporting the House of Bragança. In partnership with his son-in-law Joseph Abravanel he became a tax-farmer in Ciudad Real, Guadalupe, Talavera de la Reina, and Palencia. He was also Abraham Senior’s partner in leasing property and was especially active in the financial interests of the Cardinal of Spain, Pedro González de Mendoza. This activity lasted until the departure of the Abravanel family in the expulsion of 1492.87 The financial demands made upon the communities of Castile for the war effort were beyond their means. A special impost, the castellanos tax, was imposed on them, and Abraham Senior was responsible for collecting it.88 This heavy tax was collected in addition to the direct annual tax paid by the Jews of the state, known as cabeça de pecho, the servicio (service tax), and the medio servicio (half-service tax).89 Abraham Senior assessed the amount of the tax that the communities had to pay, and he certainly did not act mercifully.90 Opinion is divided as to the sum contributed by the 87 B. Netanyahu, Don Isaac Abravanel, Statesman and Philosopher (Philadelphia, 1962), 3–32, reviewed by F. Cantera Burgos, Sefarad, 30 (1970), 53–9; id., ‘Don Ishaq Braunel: algunas precisiones biográficas sobre una estancia en Castilla’, in Salo Baron Jubilee Volume ( Jerusalem, 1974), i. 237–50. 88 This was the tax paid in gold coins called castellanos, each worth 485 mrs. See Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 65–72; M. A. Ladero Quesada, España en 1492 (Madrid, 1984), 237–50. On financing the war, see Azcona, Isabel, 527 ff. A unique reference to the castellanos tax is found in Geniza fragments published by Y. Tishby, Meshih.iyut bedor gerushei sefarad veportugal ( Jerusalem, 1985), 116: ‘and also because the communities gave him 18,000 castellanos every year for the war against Ishmael, and “when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished” [Daniel 12: 7]’. 89 It should be noted that Ferdinand asked the Pope to impose a tax of 10 per cent on the income of the church for the war, but the Pope was in no hurry to declare it. The negotiations with the Pope for the purpose of the war were managed by Hernando de Talavera, who from 1475 on was Ferdinand’s father confessor; along with Pedro Martínez de Préxamo, he served as the prior of the monastery of St Jerome in Valladolid, which was called Nuestra Señora del Prado. The plan was that in conjunction with the attack on Granada the Pope would also see that war was declared on the Turks. The Pope would impose a tax on the property of the church in Castile, Aragon, and Sicily, and a 10 per cent tax for one year. A third of the income would be devoted to the war against the Turks. See Goñi Gaztambide, ‘La Santa Sede’, 45. Agreement was officially reached on 3 July 1482. See Azcona, Isabel, 527 ff., 537 ff. Hernando de Talavera served as Isabella’s father confessor in 1485–93, meaning that he was close to her at the time of the expulsion. From 1493 until his death in 1507 he was the first Archbishop of Granada. The fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453 is also relevant. In its aftermath a religious awakening occurred, including the call for a crusade against the Turks, which continued for years. Enrique IV also waged several campaigns against Granada in response to the call for a crusade. Alonso de Espina preached a sermon of religious revival in Palencia on the bulls promulgated by Pope Calixtus III on 20 and 22 April 1455, and on 14 April 1456. Enrique’s campaign against Granada did not change its political situation at all. See E. Benito Ruano, ‘Granada y Constantinopla’, Hispania, 20 (1960), 267–314. 90 In addition one must also mention the indirect taxes that the Jewish community was required to pay, such as the alcabala tax and those on meat and wine.

24

introduction

Jewish communities to the campaign of reconquest; this is a complex issue.91 The Royal Treasury also received ransom money paid by the Jews of the kingdom of Granada in the cities captured during the war. On 22 May 1485 Ronda fell to the Christian conquerors, and a handful of Jews were captured as prisoners of war. It was explicitly stated that ‘no Jew shall remain in the city longer than thirty days, and none shall be permitted to dwell in it, except (Gabriel) Israel (or Israel Gabriel), our translator from Arabic’.92 The burden of ransom was placed on the captives themselves. On 4 September 1487 Málaga surrendered, and all its inhabitants were taken prisoner. The ransom imposed on the Jews was 20 m. mrs. Approximately half of that was covered by the assets of the prisoners, who were taken to a prison camp in Carmona. Ferdinand and Isabella agreed that the prisoners could send emissaries, accompanied by Jews who could speak Castilian (indicating that the Jews of Málaga did not know that language), who would help them as translators in collecting the remaining ransom money. Abraham Senior and Meir Melamed served as guarantors of that sum. We do not know how the sum was collected, for only in early June 1489 was the ransom paid in full. In a special document, called an horro, Queen Isabella permitted those who wished to do so to settle in Castile or to leave Spain and move to the Muslim countries in North Africa. Here we must point out that this ransom money constituted an increased financial burden on the Jewish communities, who were considerably impoverished in any event.93 The Crown found it necessary to continue obtaining loans from Jews. Loans were imposed on the Jewish communities as early as 1483. In that year the community of Ávila was required to lend 130,000 mrs to the Crown, and Segovia had to lend 150,000 mrs. Lists of lenders do not appear in the Crown accounts. Therefore Ladera Quesada surmised that the Crown did not turn to other Jewish communities for 91 According to Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 65–72, the sum came to 50 m. mrs; see also id., Los Trastámara, 315. This is also the opinion of Azcona, Isabel, 631, whereas the total expenses for the war were around 800 m. mrs, according to Hillgarth, The Spanish Kingdoms, ii. 38. See also Ladero Quesada, España en 1492, 172. The Hermandad and the church also participated in raising this sum. Innocent VIII (1484– 92) ceded one third of papal revenues to Ferdinand and Isabella, to be spent on war against the Muslims. 92 J. Carriazo, ‘Asiento de las cosas de Ronda: Conquista y repartimiento de la ciudad por los Reyes Católicos (1485–91)’, Miscelánea de Estudios Árabes y Hebreos, 3 (1954), 14–39. The siege of Ronda began on 8 May 1485 and the city was captured on 21 or 22 May 1485. See Carriazo, ‘Asiento’, 27: ‘Para que no pueda estar judio en la çibdad. Asy mismo es nuestra merçed e voluntad que en la dicha çibdad de Ronda no pueda bivir ni morar judio, ni estar en ella de tres dias arriba, eçebto Ysrael, nuestro trujaman de arabe.’ This refers to the translator Gabriel Israel, who stayed for several days in Llerena and received personal privileges for his services. He was engaged in tax-farming and apparently, rather than leave Spain during the expulsion, he converted. We do not know the fate of the Jews of Baza and Guadix, which were conquered in 1489. See Azcona, Isabel, 521. On Gabriel Israel see Baer, JchS ii. 398. On the siege of Baza see M. A. Ladero Quesada, Milicia y economía en la guerra de Granada: El cerco de Baza (Valladolid, 1964). Luis de Santángel and Francisco Pinelo (see Ch. 5) raised 3,320,267.5 mrs from the sum imposed on the Jews of Málaga to pay for their ransom. There is no doubt that the Crown was interested in the rapid collection of the ransom money. See below on the conquest of Málaga, and also M. A. Ladero Quesada, Granada después de la conquista (Granada, 1989), 245. 93 See below for the fate of the Jews of Granada after the conquest.

ferdinand and isabella

25

loans.94 However, in addition to loans from the Jewish communities, Jewish individuals also lent considerable sums to the Crown,95 and Don Isaac Abravanel might have been one of these. Other Jewish communities were required to pay for the soldiers who were conscripted for the war. Thus the community of Soria was required to supply two spears (that is, spear-bearing soldiers) to the Hermandad, which sent soldiers to the front. Towards the end of the Jewish settlement in Spain, the Crown ordered that a sum of 1 m. mrs should be returned to the Jewish community of Soria,96 which was not alone in financing soldiers for the war. This system was applied in 1483, 1484, and 1485. In 1486 the Jews of Segovia were required to supply two and a half spears, while the Moors were required to supply only half a spear. For the rest of the spears, who were five in number, the heads of the city were permitted to impose the sisa tax on wine and also a tax on every sack of wool, to be paid by the seller, not the buyer.97 In 1486 the Jewish community of Ávila did not hesitate to protest against the heads of the Hermandad and those who allocated taxes and duties for forcing them to participate in payment for the conscription of soldiers. The heads of the community argued that 1 castellano from each household was sufficient, and if they continued to 94 M. A. Ladero Quesada, ‘Un préstamo de los judíos de Segovia y Ávila para la guerra de Granada en el año 1483’, Sefarad, 35 (1975), 151–7. His source is AGS, Contaduría Mayor de Cuentas, Leg. 45. Ladero Quesada compared these sums to the taxes that the Jewish communities paid in 1474 in the allocation of taxes by Rabbi Jacob ibn Núñez. Ávila paid 12,000 mrs then, and Segovia paid 11,000 mrs. In that year the communities in the diocese of Ávila were assessed 26,750 mrs, and those in Segovia only 8,050 mrs. On the basis of this comparison one cannot understand the reason for the low assessment of the communities of the diocese of Segovia except by the fact that they were few. In 1483 the Christian city of Ávila lent the sum of 195,000 mrs, and that of Segovia lent 787,000 mrs. Before the expulsion, according to León Tello, Ávila, 30–1, 3,000 Jews lived in Ávila. The community of Moors was also large. The numerical weight of Segovia was less. 95 In Segovia, Don Abraham Amarash, 14,000 mrs; Abraham Lumbroso, a textile merchant, 28,000 mrs; Don Jacob Galhon or Galfon, 23,000 mrs. See Chs. 5 and 7 regarding them. In Ávila Maestre Samuel Çerulla lent the sum of 28,000 mrs; Don Moses Tamo or Tamannio, 40,000 mrs. This family was one of the wealthiest in the city, and this list is incomplete. See Ladero Quesada, ‘Un préstamo’. Samuel Abulafia, who collected and lent money to assist in the war, received a letter of appreciation from the Crown. See Baer, JchS ii. 390–1. 96 F. Cantera Burgos, ‘Juderías medievales de la provincia de Soria’, in Homenaje a Fray Justo Pérez de Urbel, OSB, 2 vols. (Silos, 1976), i. 479 ff.; cf. Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 210–12. The order to supply spears dates from 4 Nov. 1483. The city was also permitted to levy a tax on woollen cloth (‘lanas’) sold by the Jews and to use that money to pay the Hermandad. The Jewish community objected and appealed to the Crown, arguing that only a few Jews and fewer Christians made a living from cloth, and it would be better to impose a tax on commodities ‘que judíos e comun e pecheros oviesen de conprar e vender e non en las dichas lanas que solamente las vendian dies o dose judios de la dicha aljama e çinco o seis christianos’. Cantera Burgos is right to see one of those merchants as Benvenist de Calahorra, on whom see Ch. 7. An order was prepared by Alonso de Mármol, with the authorization of the council. Cf. Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 206–8. Issued on 22 July 1482, it stated that the community of Segovia should not be included in taxation for the conscription of infantry and the supply of flour for the war. Volunteers from France, England, Ireland, Poland, and especially from Switzerland participated in the war against Granada; see Goñi Gaztambide, ‘La Santa Sede’, 48. However, the entire burden fell upon the soldiers recruited in Andalusia and Castile; see J. Vigón, El ejército de los Reyos Católicos (Madrid, 1968), 143, who estimates that there were only about 300 foreign volunteers. 97 See RGS 4 No. 2551, fo. 162 from March 1486; prepared by Diego de Santander, the secretary of the Crown, as authorized by the council.

26

introduction

demand money from them, the Jews of the city would leave and move to regions under the control of the nobility, the señoríos. The Crown acceded to the community’s demand and ordered that additional taxes should not be levied upon the Jews for the purpose of conscripting soldiers.98 On 28 April 1486 the Crown again received the petition of the Jewish communities in Briviesca, Medina de Pomar, and Cerezo against the ‘tax for conscripting soldiers’, which was collected from them in addition to the tax of the Hermandad, and forbade the collection of additional imposts for conscripting soldiers.99 While the war against the Muslims in Granada continued, the issue of solving the Jewish problem was relegated to the sidelines, though it seems likely, as indicated above, that the Crown had already reached a decision on the matter. In any event, propaganda against Jews, and with it propaganda against conversos, continued, turning public opinion against them.

v. propaganda against jews and

CONVERSOS

Hate propaganda against the Jews and conversos, which had found vehement expression as early as the mid-fifteenth century, became more intense in the time of Ferdinand and Isabella. In 1488 two documents were published of which manuscripts survive, written by the same hand.100 One of them deals with the Talmud and Jewish law, and with the way the commandments are observed by the conversos; it presents the conclusions that the Inquisition must reach regarding them. In the introduction to this pamphlet Fernando de Santo Domingo, an Inquisitor from Segovia, addresses Torquemada, whom he knew well, since he later served as the judge in the La Guardia trial (1490–1). He begins with the words of the prophet Jeremiah (1: 10) to define Torquemada’s mission: ‘See I appoint you this day over nations and kingdoms: to uproot and pull down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant.’101 This dedication implies that Torquemada’s mission was holy: to uproot the plague of Judaizing from among the conversos, and at the same time to rebuild the Christian kingdom and society. In his introduction the author of the pamphlet relates that Antonio de Ávila and his friend the priest were assigned to write it.102 There is no doubt that the authors of the pamphlet were well versed in Jewish law and the meaning of the commandments. They demanded only that the Jews be punished for their damaging influence on the conversos and encouraged the collection of evidence from Jews against conversos who kept the commandments. They seem to have been the first to point out that conversos expressed their intention of keeping the commandments inwardly when 198 See RGS 4 No. 2768, fo. 120 of 24 Apr. 1486; prepared by Alonso del Mármol as authorized by the council. This document was not published in León Tello, Ávila. 199 This order is signed by the condestable of Castile, Pedro Fernández de Velazco, the Count de Haro. RGS 4 No. 2789, fo. 106. This count addressed Abraham Senior regarding the expulsion of the Jews of 100 On this subject, see Baer, Toledot hayehudim, index. Valmaseda. 101 In their day Gregory VII (1073–85) and Innocent III (1198–1216) took this mission upon themselves. 102 See Baer, Toledot hayehudim, index. In his opinion Antonio de Ávila is to be identified with the man who served as an agent provocateur in the La Guardia case and disguised himself as a rabbi when he came to visit him.

ferdinand and isabella

27

they were unable to do so actively. This approach came to be adopted systematically among the conversos. The fourth chapter of the pamphlet discusses the animosity towards non-Jews found in the Talmud.103 The intention of the authors of this hate literature is absolutely clear: to justify the measures taken against the conversos. The second booklet was given a unique title: Libro llamado el Alboraique,104 named after Muhammad’s famous horse. This was the epithet applied to the conversos of Llerena in Extremadura.105 In it the anonymous author describes the sympathy between the Jews and the conversos. If a Jew who converted is not a mesumad (apostate), he enjoys the special favour and honour accorded to anuzes (forced converts). Apostates, however, were not spoken to. In the author’s view, all evil characteristics, such as cunning and hypocrisy, were applicable to the conversos as they were to that legendary horse upon which Muhammad supposedly rode to Jerusalem. He also presented the pejorative terms used by the Jews for the Christian saints, which need not be mentioned here. In addition to these pamphlets, a play was apparently presented publicly, depicting the trial by Jews of a dog that had bitten them.106 The Jews are ridiculed for their fear of the dog, and, in contrast, the dog is praised and acclaimed for its healthy ability to distinguish between Christian and Jew. It makes no difference whether this play was presented in Salamanca or elsewhere. Its general message is that Jews are mocked and derided because of the community’s lawsuit against the dog. They demand that the judge should deliver the dog to them for punishment, and Jewish witnesses appear at the trial: the elder of the community, Moses Garson, Abraham ben Aaron, maestre Isaac the stocking-maker, and a confeso (forced convert). The judge succumbs to the threats of the Jews and agrees to the demands of the plaintiffs, but he rules that the dog must be tied to the synagogue, so that the victory of the plaintiffs should be visible. However, the dog continues in its mischief, and other witnesses appear before the judge and demand that it should be publicly executed and burnt. This demand is voiced in the name of the community (‘aljama y caal’). The dog, beloved of the Christians, manages to flee and hide in the village. There, too, it goes out and identifies Jews. Even when they are dressed in a Christian cloak, it recognizes them with its sense of smell. In the end the dog dies a natural death and a splendid monument is erected on its tomb.107 Even from its grave it continues to frighten Jews, and it becomes a symbol of the watchman protecting Christian doctrine from open and secret Jews. Perhaps the dog should be identified with the Dominicans, who viewed themselves as the guardians of Christianity and the church. In this play the authors sought to arouse public opinion against both Jews and conversos, treated as a single entity. See Baer, Toledot hayehudim, 447. This was published as an appendix to N. López Martínez, Los judaizantes castellanos y la Inquisición en el tiempo de Isabel la Católica (Burgos, 1954), 391 ff. 105 The epithet was applied to traitors. An Inquisitionary tribunal was established in Llerena for the entire district in 1509. 106 ‘Este es el pleyto de los judios con el perro de Alua y de la burla que les hizo, nueuamente trobada por el bachiller Trasmiera, residente en Salamanca, que hizo a ruego e pedimiento de un señor.’ For a facsimile see RABM 30/47 (1926), 409–16. 107 For additional details see Beinart, ‘The Great Conversion’. 103 104

28

introduction

The connection between them could not be severed, and only a faithful dog, with his sound senses, is capable of discovering the lie and subterfuge in their life. Thus they justified the measures that had been taken against the conversos. Now only the Jews remained, and action must be taken to save both state and society from them. These pamphlets and the play, which was apparently put on in the city square, were insufficient to whip up public opinion to the frenzy needed by those who sought to apply severe measures against the Jews. The Inquisition found an opportunity to serve as the moving spirit in a blood libel in which Jews were associated with conversos. An itinerant converso cobbler was arrested, after a search of his belongings in the inn where he was staying purportedly revealed a stolen Host. He became the main protagonist in the affair, along with several Jews who supposedly murdered a Christian boy in La Guardia, near Toledo. They were accused of removing the boy’s heart and using it for witchcraft designed to bring ruin down upon Christianity. The boy’s body was never found, and an aura of sanctity surrounded him, which persists to this very day. This conspiracy was launched in 1490, apparently from above. With various manipulations, in which Inquisitors from Ávila took part, under the direct supervision of Tomás de Torquemada, they sought to prove that a plot had been hatched against Christianity by Jews and conversos, even hinting that Abraham Senior had information about the deed.108 However, at this point the Crown felt that the conspirators had gone too far, and mention of Senior disappeared from the show trial that was held in Ávila, the place where Torquemada was engaged in building a Dominican monastery. All those tried in the incident were burnt at the stake on 16 November 1491.109 A Jewish– converso plot against the Christian state, the Inquisition, the Christian faith, and the residents of the kingdom was thus publicly exposed. At that very moment Tomás de Torquemada presented a memorandum to the queen, an important and well-considered step on his part, to make her aware of a problem that would soon arise in the kingdom. The memorandum revolves around several religious and political questions, which its author urges Isabella to treat.110 The author of the memorandum saw it as her duty to institute general reforms. For example, he claimed that unworthy men had occupied the posts as regidores (who were appointed by the Crown) in the cities and had also been appointed as bishops and heads of military orders—as though proper government were Torquemada’s chief concern. For our purposes two sections touching upon the Jews are important. One concerned the occupation of public offices entailing jurisdiction over Christians, with emphasis on taxfarming—imposing and collecting the taxes of the kingdom. The second dealt with the implementation of segregation in housing between Jews and Christians, the wearing of a special sign by Jews, and the prohibition of Jews and Moors from wearing silk clothes, coloured clothing, or rich and gilded cloth, in accordance with the obligation for every person to be dressed as befitted his or her social rank and station. The proFor details see references in Baer, Toledot hayehudim, index. According to Hillgarth, The Spanish Kingdoms, ii. 445 ff., the entire trial was influenced by Alonso de Espina’s Fortalitium Fidei. On the phenomenon of ‘the boy from La Guardia’, see W. A. Christian, Local Religion in Sixteenth Century Spain (Princeton, 1981), 93–4. 110 The memorandum is in AGS, Diversos de Castilla, Leg. 1 No. 78. See Beinart, ‘The Memorandum’, 3–23. It is entitled: ‘Las cosas que por agora estan ocurriendo que Vuestra Altesa deue remediar por cartas’. 108 109

ferdinand and isabella

29

visions of the second section (housing segregation and dress restrictions) reiterated decisions made by the Cortes (the Jewish badge in 1476 in Madrigal; segregation in 1480 in Toledo). In Torquemada’s opinion the government should be enforcing these decisions and had failed to do so. He also realized that local separation could not solve the problem of separating Jews from conversos. The clause in the memorandum dealing with the occupation of office and the farming and collection of taxes must be seen as far more than a simple appeal. Clearly farmers and collectors of taxes were responsible for the regular flow of revenue into the government’s coffers, permitting the proper financial management of the royal house.111 Since tax collection was in Jewish hands, it was urgent to ensure that the cash flow should not cease with their expulsion, and that the state should not undergo a grave financial crisis. While some conversos were engaged in tax-farming, and the Jewish tax-farmers had Christian partners, nevertheless the kingdom must not be dependent on Jewish tax-farmers. The list of tax-farmers in Castile shows to what degree the organization of the annual tax and indirect taxes was dependent on Jewish tax-farmers, though there were also delays in payment.112 The two chief tax-farmers active in Castile under Ferdinand and Isabella were Abraham Senior and his son-in-law Meir Melamed. Jewish auxiliary tax-farmers were connected with them (among them Don Isaac Abravanel and his son-in-law Joseph Abravanel). Torquemada’s memorandum referred not only to the taxes of the kingdom, but also to the farming of the income of the nobility, the church, military orders, the mesta, and indirect taxes that were in the hands of Jewish tax-farmers. He thus argued that if the Crown did not give attention to this matter, a grave financial crisis was liable to take place in the state. Nor should it be forgotten that at that time the war in Granada was at its height. Torquemada’s memorandum to the queen should be seen in conjunction with a pragmática (royal decree) that had the authority of a decision of the Cortes, without the need of convening them. On 10 December 1491, in Real de la Vega, less than a month after their triumphal entry into Granada, the monarchs issued an order with 146 clauses to arrange the farming of direct and indirect taxes.113 Three of these clauses (38, 44, and 56) concerned Jewish tax-farmers in mixed Jewish and Moorish settlements and in Jewish settlements. Only a few men were permitted to farm and collect taxes. This connection between the royal order regarding the farming of taxes and the Torquemada memorandum shows us that the date of the memorandum must be set no earlier than 1490. The closeness in time of the royal order to the Edict of Expulsion also indicates its urgency.

vi. the fall of granada Signature of the treaty of surrender of the kingdom of Granada on 25 November 1491 put an end to Muslim rule on the Iberian peninsula. On 2 January 1492 Ferdinand See A. de la Torre, La casa de Isabel la Católica (Madrid, 1954). See Baer, JchS ii. 346–8, 387–8, 399–400, 402; M. A. Ladero Quesada, El siglo XV en Castilla (Barcelona, 1982), 143–67. 113 ‘Leyes de quaderno de las alcaualas que hizieron los señores Reyes Católicos en año 1491, de la que se auia de guardar en los arrendamientos dellos’, AGS, Diversos de Castilla, Leg. 4, fo. 112. See also Baer, Toledot hayehudim, 462; id., JchS ii. 399. 111 112

30

introduction

and Isabella entered Granada in a glorious procession, and remained there until May of that year. They wished to receive Granada free of Jews, as was agreed in the treaty of surrender of Boabdil, the last Muslim ruler of Granada. The treaty states explicitly that the Jews of Granada must leave within a month. Conversos who had fled from Christian Spain and reverted to Judaism in Granada were also permitted to leave within that month,114 and the Inquisition was not given the right to try them for their return to their origins. Clearly the victorious monarchs wished to end the presence of Jews in Granada as expeditiously as possible.115 Below we shall note the details of that expulsion. The comparison between the treaties of surrender of Almería and Granada indicates the precise planning, not only of the surrender but also of subsequent measures. The first question to be asked is the number of Jews involved. There were 110 Jewish households in Granada.116 Hence the details of the end of the Jewish settlement in Granada deserve attention. On 23 May 1492, when the general edict expelling all the 114 For the treaty see CoDoIn viii (Madrid, 1846), 421–36 (repr. Vaduz, 1964). Paragraph 38 states: ‘Item, es asentado e concordado que los judios naturales de la dicha çibdad de Granada e del Albaiçin, e sus arrabales, e de las otras dichas tierras que entraren en este partido e asiento, goçen deste mismo asiente e capitulaçion; e que los judios que antes eran cristianos, que tengan termino de un mes para pasar allende.’ The treaty contains forty-seven paragraphs: the Jews are mentioned in paragraphs 13 and 38. It should be noted that in the original treaty there were no paragraph numbers. They were added by the archivist, Manuel García González (CoDoIn viii. 421). In paragraph 7, which refers to the Muslim population, it is stated what may be removed from the kingdom. Thus the Jews received the same permission (see CoDoIn viii. 426). 115 Moreover, paragraph 13 states that no Jew shall serve as a tax-farmer or tax-collector, nor shall he have any jurisdiction over Muslims. It is noteworthy that this paragraph is very similar to earlier treaties of surrender. See, for example, those of Tudela, Toledo, and Tortosa; see too Baer, Toledot hayehudim, index. The treaty of surrender of Granada should be compared to that of Almería, which was conquered in 1490 (the paragraphs are not numbered). See also CoDoIn xi (Madrid, 1847), 477–8: ‘Item que non pueda ningund judio nin tornadizo tener ninguna jurisdiccion sobre ellos. Item que mandamos asegurar e aseguramos a todos los judios de Almeria, que viven en la dicha cibdad e en todas los otras cibdades e villas lugares del dicho reino de Granada, y que gocen lo mismo que los dichos moros mudejares, seyendo los dichos judios naturales del dicho reino. Item que si alguno o algunos fueren tornados moros en los tiempos pasados, que non sean apremiados a se tornar cristianos contra justicia salvo si non fuere por su voluntad; e que los cristianos que se han tornado judios, que tengan termino de un año de se tornar cristianos o de se pasar allende.’ Here the deadline for returning to Christianity is one year, or else the former Christian must leave for North Africa. The short time regarding Granada is understandable––the end of its conquest. Below, the treaty of surrender states that anyone who wishes to go there (allende, meaning North Africa), can do so with his property without any hindrance. Morever, those departing may sell their property to whomever they please; they may leave attorneys to tend to their property in Almería, who will collect the revenue of their property and the rent for them. Those leaving within a year would have ships available to them. The treaty was drafted by Fernando de Zafra, the faithful secretary of the monarchs who was later to act in Granada. 116 Regarding that Muslim area it should be pointed out that in Vélez in Málaga during the year of the conquest, 1487, there were fifty Jewish residents and another fifty widows. To them must be added 450 Jews who were taken prisoner in Málaga itself when it was captured that year. See above regarding the fate of the prisoners of Málaga. Ladero Quesada estimates the total Jewish population of Muslim Granada (the state) at half a per cent of the entire population, which was approximately 300,000. It must be remembered that during the ten years of war between Castile and Granada, Jews emigrated to North Africa. See Ladero Quesada, Granada después de la conquista, 245. He based his estimate on documents found in AGS, Escribanía Mayor de Rentas, Leg. 33 (ant. 51). See also Baer, JchS ii. 43 (no. 382).

ferdinand and isabella

31

Jews of Spain had been promulgated but not yet implemented, Ferdinand and Isabella entertained a request in favour of Ysaque (Isaac) Perdoniel117 from the last ruler of Granada, Boabdil: and whereas King Muley Boabdil besought and craved a boon of us that we should order that Ysaque Perdonel, Jewish resident of the city of Granada, should be granted permission to depart our realms as well by sea as by land with his wife, children, stepchildren, servants, and members of his household, with all their possessions, jewels, gold, silver, cash, coined money, and all other things, even if they were forbidden (to be removed from the kingdom) . . .118

Permission was granted,119 and they left by the ports of Málaga and Almería, which are near Granada. There a Genoese carraca owned by Francesco Cattaneo of Genoa awaited them. The travel documents were prepared by the notary Jerónimo Frevant. They boarded the ship in June in Málaga, and the ship reached Almería on 29 June 1492. Thirty-eight Jews left for exile with them, and the property they took with them was worth 30,101 reales, upon which a 10 per cent tax of 10,861 mrs was paid.120 The royal secretary Fernando de Zafra oversaw the expulsion from Granada, and the lessons learnt from it were to apply to the ultimate solution whose time had come. 117 M. A. Ladero Quesada, ‘Dos temas de la Granada Nazarí’, Cuadernos de historia, 3 (1969), 321–45. See especially 343, and cf. id., Granada después de la conquista, 256–8. He lists the exiles and the types of merchandise they took with them and mentions several members of the Perdoniel family: Judah, Aaron, Jacob Perdoniel, residents of Almería; relatives of Perdoniel in Granada. Judah Perdoniel was the son-in-law of Isaac Perdoniel of Granada. Both served as translators for Boabdil and were trusted by him. The list is found in AGS, Escribanía Mayor de Rentas, Leg. 33. 118 ‘Y porque el rey Muley Baavdili nos suplico e pidio por merçed que a Ysaque Perdonel, vesino de la çibdad de Granada, le mandasemos dar liçençia para que con su muger e hijos e entenados, criados e familiares de su casa, con todos sus bienes muebles, joyas, oro, plata, dinero, moneda amonedada e otros qualesquier cosas, aunque fuesen vedadas, se pudiesen yr fuera de nustros reynos, asy por mar como por tierra . . .’. See Ladero Quesada, Granada después de la conquista, 253. This decree was drafted by Juan de Coloma (the man who drafted the Edict of Expulsion of the Jews of Spain) and signed in Granada. See also Baer, JchS ii. 413. 119 The value of the property they were permitted to take out came to about ‘500 Castilian doblas and no more’. This sum did not include the jewels that they were said to have taken with them; they were also permitted to take all the Moorish decorations worked in gold and silver, as permitted to the Moors who left the kingdom. 120 In comparison to them, the exiles from Almería took with them 3,176 pounds of silk of the merchant e mercadant type, valued at 26 reales per pound; 355 pounds of silk of the Cadarzo type, valued at 6 reales per pound. Some of the exiles also took with them esparto threads whose value was much lower (one arroba was worth 15 reales). Some of those leaving Granada probably also reached agreements for smuggling out goods with the Muslims and Genoese. In Granada the team responsible for supervising the departure was made up of Francisco de Alcaraz, responsible for property (‘repartidor’), and Juan Alfonso Serrano, the prosecutor for Jewish property; in Almería the responsible official was Fernando de Cárdenas, the commander of the citadel; Manuel de Cárdenas was responsible for the property. See Ladero Quesada, Granada después de la conquista, 252. The amount of revenue to the Crown from the duty on the silk paid by those departing via Almería came to 159,334 mrs; the 10 per cent tax collected on the property of the exiles came to 457,921 mrs (ibid. 256–8). In addition a duty in Nazarí coin was collected on every quintal (41.55 kg.) of merchandise removed from the kingdom. In Málaga 9 mrs were paid for every pound of merchandise to the commissioners in charge of the expulsion. Divided according to cities of origin the exiles numbered: ten Jews from Alpujarra; one from Toledo ( Judah Toledano); four from Baza; one from Lorca (Abraham

32

introduction

Iñigo López Mendoza and the Count of Tendilla, who had won recognition in the war against Granada and in its conquest, and Hernando de Talavera, the queen’s father confessor, all provided Zafra with advice and active assistance.121 On 31 March 1492 Ferdinand and Isabella signed the Edict of Expulsion. The soil of Spain had been purified of Muslim rule; the issue of the loyalty of the conversos had found a solution in the establishment of a special institution: the Inquisition. Christian Spain inscribed on its banner: ‘Unum ovile et unus pastor’, ‘One flock and one shepherd’, and with it Castile set forth in victory as the leader within the newly unified kingdom.122 Malmalique); two from Guadix; thirteen from Almería; sixteen from Granada. The city of origin of the rest of the exiles is not mentioned. A total of seventy-seven men are listed, who were probably heads of households. All these departed from Almería; thirty-nine men also departed via Málaga (ibid.). M. Benayahu, ‘The Commentaries of Rabbi Joseph ben Meir Garson’ (Heb.), Michael, 7 (1982), 126, states that among the exiles from Granada was also Rabbi Joseph Hamon, the physician of the Muslim ruler (Boabdil); Rabbi Joseph was the father of Rabbi Moses Hamon, who was active in the court of the sultan. In Benayahu’s opinion, he reached Istanbul in 1492 or 1493. He was born in 1450. His eulogy was given by Rabbi Joseph Garson (in Benayahu, ‘Commentaries’, 191–6). Similarly Rabbi Joseph of Granada (born in Granada in 1492, lived in Damascus, and died in 1508) left from Granada. He was also eulogized by Rabbi Joseph Garson (in Benayahu, ‘Commentaries’, 164–5). Although these two names are not mentioned in the list of exiles published by Ladero Quesada, this is not proof that they did not leave Granada and join the exiles who departed from Málaga or Almería. See A. C. Hess, The Forgotten Frontier (Chicago, 1978), 134. See Elliott, Imperial Spain, 116. The various preparations have been summarized in I. González Gallego, ‘Algunos datos sobre los últimos años de las aljamas leonesas’, Archivos Leoneses, 21/42 (1967), 375–407. See there the opinions of M. Menéndez Pelayo, J. Amador de los Reyes, America Castro, and C. Sánchez Albornoz; see also the response of Baer to the remarks of Sánchez Albornoz in Y. Baer, A History of the Jews in Christian Spain (Philadelphia, 1966), ii. 444 ff.; also in León Tello, Toledo, i. 345–57. 121 122

2

The Edict of Expulsion i. promulgation n 31 march 1492 Ferdinand and Isabella signed the Edict of Expulsion, whose text is given at the end of this chapter with an English translation. We do not know O how the copies sent to the cities, towns, and settlements of Castile were prepared, nor how the edict was promulgated, or whether it was promulgated at the same time everywhere it was sent. With absolute certainty it was proclaimed in Castile on 1 May 1492,1 but at Zaragoza in Aragon two days earlier, on 29 April,2 an announcement was made in public to the procurators of the kingdom of Aragon of the Crown’s decision to expel the Jews within three months and forty days.3 The forty additional days were not 1 Confirmation of the promulgation of the edict in Castile on 1 May 1492 is found in the document sent to the community of Burgos on 5 May 1492, prepared by Juan Sancho de Seínos as sanctioned by the Crown and the council consisting of Alonso de Quintanilla and the licenciado Gonzalo: ‘por algunas rasones que nos movieron mandamos pregonar publicamente por estos nuestros reygnos que todos los judios y judias vesinos e abitantes en ellos saliesen de los nuestros reygnos dentro de tres meses que se cuentan desde el primero dia deste mes de mayo’, RGS 9 No. 1464, fo. 513. A similar confirmation, dated 23 May 1492, is found in the edicts sent respectively to Juan de Luzón, the corregidor of Carrión and Sahagún, referring to the community of Cea (RGS 9 No. 1852, fo. 342), and to the corregidor of Medina del Campo and the judges of the town on 25 May 1492 (RGS 9 No. 1890, fo. 529). Cf. also the documents from 25 May 1492 sent to the bachiller Pero Pérez de Vicuña, the corregidor of Santo Domingo de la Calzada (RGS 9 No. 1889, fo. 527), and to Dr Antonio García de Villalpando, the provisor of the diocese of Osma, according to the request of the community of Calatañazor (RGS 9 No. 1892, fo. 327). In Barcelona the edict was promulgated on 1 May 1492 (ACA, Real Cancillería, Reg. No. 3569, fos. 130v– 131v). Regarding the printed edict see F. Fita, ‘Edicto de los Reyes Católicos (31 marzo 1492) desterrando de sus Estados a todos los judíos’, BRAH 11 (1887), 512 ff. at 527–8; Amador de los Ríos, Historia política, 1003–5; H. C. Lea, A History of the Inquisition in Spain (New York, 1906), 569–71; Baer, JchS ii. 378, 407–8; M. Serrano y Sanz, Orígenes de la dominación española en América (Madrid, 1918), p. ccccxcii, Apéndice, doc. xli, who raises the question (p. lvi) of the promulgation of the Edict of Expulsion in all the cities of Spain. In his opinion, the edict could have been taken to every corner of the kingdom by royal messengers within eight days. See also Alonso de Santa Cruz, Crónica de los Reyes Católicos, ed. Juan de Mata Carriazo (Seville, 1951), 54–9; León Tello, Ávila, 91–5; Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 391–5. For a Hebrew report of the edict, see Rabbi Isaac Abravanel, ‘Introduction’ to the Book of Kings (Heb.) ( Jerusalem, 1955), 421–2, and cf. the ‘Introduction’ (Heb.) to Me’ayenei hayeshu’a, fo. 3a; Rabbi Abraham ibn Zakut, Sefer hayuh.asin hashalem, ed. Z. Filipowski (London, 1857), 227; R. Isaac Caro, Toledot yitsh.ak (Constantinople, 5278 [1518]), title-page verso. Cf. Eliahu Capsali, Seder eliyahu zuta, ed. A. Shmuelevitz, S. Simonson, and M. Benayahu ( Jerusalem, 1976), 206 ff. Ch. H. Ben-Sasson, ‘The Generation of the Exiles from Spain on Itself’ (Heb.), Zion, 26 (1961), 23–64 at 57 n. 177. 2 This was not only Low Sunday (Quasimodo), i.e. the Sunday after Easter, but St Peter Martyr’s day, commemorating a Dominican Inquisitor murdered by heretics in 1252. 3 ‘Domingo a xxviiii de abril del anyo 1492 dia de Sant Pedro Martir, fiziemos profesion a procuradores, voce publica, de la sentencia real del exilio de todos los judios de Spanya dentro de tres meses y xxxx dias

34

the edict of expulsion

observed in Castile, nor were they officially observed in Aragon, and the provision apparently referred to the time needed to board the ships in which the exiles departed (see Ch. 5).4 Before publication, the Edict of Expulsion was kept from the eyes of public officials to prevent it from being divulged prematurely.5 The Crown undoubtedly regarded it as very important to entrust the task of preparing the edict to the correct royal secretary, and his absolute loyalty had to be assured, so that he could be counted upon to keep the edict secret. The secretaries closest to the Crown were Juan de Coloma, Fernán Álvarez de Toledo, and Juan de la Parra.6 Juan de Coloma was chosen to prepare the Edict of Expulsion, which does not imply that the other two secretaries were in any way suspected of disloyalty to Ferdinand and Isabella, for it cannot be known whether his was an arbitrary appointment or a sign of special closeness. He had accompanied Ferdinand and Isabella in Santa Fe during the conquest of Granada. He came from Borja in Aragon, and it could be that his Aragonese origins were decisive in his choice. He was from a family with no means who had risen by his own talents and come to serve as the loyal secretary of King Juan II of Aragon from 1462 on. His identification with that king was so complete, and his service to him was so unconditional, that Juan II even gave him power of attorney to sign royal documents drafted by the king’s command in his name.7 Ferdinand inherited with the Crown the loyalty of his father’s scribes. In any event, the preparation of a detailed edict demanded great skill of the kind possessed by this secretary. Not only that, there was a clear connection between the Inquisitor-General, Tomás de Torquemada, and the institution of the Inquisition and the Edict of Expulsion. On 20 March 1492 Torquemada wrote a letter from Santa Fe to the bishop of Gerona concerning the expulsion. This letter is powerful evidence of the degree to which Torquemada was involved in the secret of the expulsion and the preparation of the edict by Juan de Coloma. In his letter is also found the special intitulation of Torquemas’, Archivo Metropolitano de la Seo, Libro de Actos fechos por el capítulo 148–500, fo. 66v. This text was published by M. A. Motis Dolader, La expulsión de los judíos de Zaragoza (Zaragoza, 1985), 20–1. I am grateful to Dr A. Blasco for examining this document in the cathedral archive and retranscribing it; it goes on to describe the Jews’ sufferings: ‘Destierro de los judios. Publicose a 29 de abril del año 1492, dia de Sant Pedro martir, fiziemos proixsion [sic] a preycadores do se publica [o publico] la sentencia real del exilio de todos los judios d’Espanya dentro de tres meses y xxxx dias mas. Et luego se proceyo a inventariacion de los bienes dellos y payuaron [pagaron] a los sinsalistas [? ⫽ censalistas] y los deudos dellos el resto los dieron. Fueron muchos a Navarra; hotros el rio ayuso a Tortosa; muchos murieron y se afixiaron de calor en el camino; hotros se batearon [Aragonse for ‘were baptized’].’ 4 On proclamation of the edict in Aragon see M. A. Motis Dolader, The Expulsion of the Jews from Calatayud 1492–1500: Documents and Regesta ( Jerusalem, 1990), 150. 5 On the legends connected with the proclamation of the Edict of Expulsion and the negotiations to prevent it, see Ch. 5. 6 See the many notes in the chapters of the book and the indices regarding the number of documents and edicts drafted by these secretaries. 7 See A. Rumeu de Armas, Nueva luz sobre las capitulaciones de Santa Fe de 1492 (Madrid, 1985), 28–32. Juan II became blind towards the end of his life because of cataracts. The signature on the document reads ‘Por mandado del rey, mossen Juan Coloma’. After the death of Juan II, rumours prevented de Coloma from serving in Ferdinand’s administration, but he quickly overcame them and assumed office. For an evaluation of his work, and additional biographical information, see ibid. 30–1.

the edict of expulsion

35

mada, who in addition to being the Inquisitor-General was also listed as the father confessor of the king and queen. This letter, which was also sent with the authorization of the Crown to the viceroy of Aragon, Ferdinand’s illegitimate son Enrique, and to all the vicars-general, officials, and ecclesiastical judges of the diocese of Gerona and the representatives (‘portantveus’) of the governor-general of Catalonia, shows how great was Torquemada’s part in conceiving and executing the idea of expulsion.8 This letter has great additional importance because of its description of the causes of the expulsion. It contains the accusation against the Jews found in the Edict of Expulsion, claiming that they taught and guided the conversos in observing the commandments of the Mosaic law by giving them prayer-books (simply designated as ‘books’ in the letter) from which they also learnt the prayers, the gatherings on fast days, and other similar commandments and common usages with the Jews. In his report to the king and queen, Torquemada also mentioned ‘the explanation [that the Jews] give [the New Christians], that their religion is a joke [burla]’,9 and the damage that this practice (so he claimed) caused to the New Christians.10 In the letter Torquemada repeatedly emphasized that the last date of departure was to be 31 July 1492, adding that it was forbidden for the Jews to remain in Gerona and in the towns of the diocese after that, and those remaining would be judged according to law, that is, condemned to death. In a special addition Torquemada stated that they would be put to trial within nine days, whereas the Edict of Expulsion for Castile determines that the 8 The letter is preserved in the Royal Archive of Aragon in Barcelona (ACA, Real Patrimonio, Apéndice General, v. 88, fos. 9–13). It was published in R. Conde y Delgado de Molina, La expulsión de los judíos de la Corona de Aragón (Zaragoza, 1991), 197: ‘Muy illustre señor don Enrique, infante de Aragon e visorey en el Principado de Cathalunya por el rey nuestro señor. Yo fray Thomas de Torquemada, del orden de Predicadores, prior del monasterio de Santa Cruz de Segovia, confessor y del Consejo del rey y de la reyna, nuestros señores, y Inquisidor General de la Heretica Pravidad en todos sus reynos y señorios dado y deputado por la Santa Sede Apostolica, notifico y fago saber a vuestra Illustre señoria e al muy reuerendo señor obispo de Gerona y a sus vicarios generales y offiçiales y a los otros juezes ecclesiasticos, e al portantveus de governador general del dicho Principado, y al baylle, vaguer, consejeros, jurados, paezes, alguaziles y a todos qualesquier escuderos hombres buenos de la dicha çibdad e obispado de Gerona y de las otras villas y lugares dell, y a todos y qualquiera personas particulares assi ecclesiasticas como seglares de qualquiera stado e condicion que sean.’ The letter was drafted by Johanes de Revenga, Torquemada’s faithful secretary. The following supplementary remark is of great importance: ‘E como quier que sus altezas como catholicos principes acordaron de proveher cerca dello, ovieron por bien que yo proviesa mi oficio en form seguient . . . Por ende, con voluntat y consentimiento de sus altezas acorde de dar y doy esta mi carta.’ See Conde, Aragón, 198. Special instruction in the form of a letter, which was sent from Granada on 31 March 1492, to Huesca, signed by the king, orders the defence of those being sent into exile and extension of the protection of the Crown over them. See R. del Arco, ‘De Historia aragonesa: La judería de Huesca’, Revista de Historia y de Genealogía Española, 1 (1912), 461–71. Again I thank Dr A. Blasco for a photocopy of this document. 9 Documents similar in content and language are also found in the files of the Inquisition. See Beinart, Anusim, index. 10 ‘Acorde de lo notificar y aser saber al rey y a la reyna nuestros señores’, Conde, Aragón, 198. Elsewhere (ibid. 10–11 n. 11) Conde compares this detail with the Edict of Expulsion sent to Castile (and with the copy, see below) found in the Archive of Barcelona. There is almost absolute similarity between the letter and the text of the edict of Castile, but in the copy sent to Barcelona certain details were omitted regarding the joint meetings of Jews and conversos; the teaching of the commandments, and the giving of prayerbooks, gatherings on fast days, and the reading of religious books.

36

the edict of expulsion

executions should be performed without summons or proclamation.11 In the letter Torquemada directs the bishop and everyone connected with the expulsion how to act towards those who remained behind and did not go into exile for any reason.12 Conde correctly noted the difficulty regarding Torquemada’s judicial authority over the Jews, for their bodies and property belonged to the Crown, and it alone had judicial authority over them. Ferdinand expressed this judicial authority in directives for implementing the expulsion, when he ordered the registration of Jewish property and its sale to cover the debts of the Crown.13 A copy of the Edict of Expulsion found in the royal archive of Aragon in Barcelona is important for determining the place of the Edict of Expulsion in Castile. As noted above, without doubt Torquemada’s letter to the viceroy Enrique and to the Bishop of Gerona was a primary source for the final Edict of Expulsion. The question remains as to what was the connection between this letter and the copy of the Edict of Expulsion for Castile found in Barcelona, of which (as noted above) a copy was sent to Ávila14 and another copy was sent to Burgos.15 The Barcelona copy contains an addition discussing loans at interest as another cause for the expulsion of the Jews from Spain; this subject was omitted from the version for Castile. Conde suggests that it must also have been present there, but in our opinion the question of interest was a marginal issue among the reasons for the expulsion, which is why it was omitted.16 Furthermore, the manner in which royal edicts were prepared made it necessary to produce a draft, which is universally agreed to have been produced by Juan de Coloma 11 See above in the Edict of Expulsion. Included in Torquemada’s letter, which reads: ‘dentro de otros nueve dias primeros seguientes despues de passado el dicho termino que asi assigno, los quales vos do por tres canonicas moniçiones y termino perentorio, dandovos tres dias por cada termino y dilaçion, non partiçipeys ni comuniqueys en publico ni en oculto con los dichos judios e judias o con alguno dellos ni los recepteys ni recebays en vuestras lugares e cases ni favourescays ni deys ni fagays dar mantenimientos nin viands algunas para su sustantacion ni tracteys con ellos en comprar, vender e trocar o cambiar o fazer otras qualesquier cosas, e los aparteys de vuestro comercio e participacion e todas las cosas’, Conde, Aragón, 198. Although Ferdinand forbade postponement of the exile, nevertheless respite might have granted in the case of isolated individuals who were delayed on the journey for various reasons. On 2 August 1492 Jews went through Gerona on their way out of the country, and the veguer wanted to arrest them. They produced a document which announced a delay in departure of nine days in the city of Figueras. Juan de Coloma was consulted and gave advice not to arrest them. This implies that he was nearby, but it should be emphasized that these were isolated individuals. See Conde, Aragón, 13. See also Ch. 5. 12 On 14 May 1492 Ferdinand wrote to the viceroy of Aragon and to the commissioners appointed to enforce the expulsion in Zaragoza that he did not intend to extend the deadline set for the expulsion of the Jews. That letter was drafted in Santa Fe by Juan de Coloma. See Conde, Aragón, 67–8. This instruction was directed also to Calatayud and Sardinia (ibid. 12–13 and also documents nos. 14, 68, 69, 76, 85). 13 14 See Ch. 5. See Section V below. 15 The copy sent to Burgos is in the Simancas archive: AGS, Patrimonio Real; see n. 7 above. I thank Sa Gloria Tejada, secretary of the archive, for providing a photocopy of this document. I recently discovered a copy of the edict sent to Toledo in the deliberations of a civil trial in the royal chancellery of Valladolid: Sección de Pleitos Civiles, F. Alonso, Fenecidos C.540–7 (19), fos. 6–10 (Rollo Amusco–Naxera). Comparison of the copies suggests the differences, which are not significant, derive from scribal errors. I thank Prof. F. Brünner for obtaining a photocopy of the document from the archive. 16 The text of the decree found in Barcelona was published with a Hebrew translation by M. Orfali, and M. A. Motis Dolader, ‘Examination of the Texts of the General Edict of Expulsion from Spain and its Study’ (Heb.), Pe’amim, 46–7 (1991), 148–68. On Jewish credit see Ch. 4.

the edict of expulsion

37

and based on the letter that Torquemada sent to the viceroy Enrique and the Bishop of Gerona. The draft was doubtless presented to Ferdinand and Isabella and most probably read to them. Hence it is difficult to assume, with Orfali and Motis Doladar, that there existed a separate version for Aragon.17 If we accepted this assumption, there would also have to be a separate version for the kingdoms of Valencia and of Murcia, and so on. These would have to have been prepared according to the particular needs of these kingdoms. Comparison of the two versions shows that the Barcelona edict was almost certainly drafted by Juan de Coloma as well, even though it mentions only Ferdinand. The single signature on the edict rather than the signatures of both the king and queen is a problem in itself. One thing that is certain is that Torquemada’s letter was the primary source of the Edict of Expulsion. The working methods of the royal chancellery in its wanderings also influenced the manner in which the edict was prepared.18 How was the edict to be proclaimed? Specific instructions were given regarding this:19 First, upon their arrival in the said city they shall call and summon the justice, the judge of the Hermandad, the jurados, and the council of the said city, and all of them being assembled must swear to keep secret everything contained below that shall have been notified and said by the commissioner and the notary. After the aforementioned, they shall give the edict or edicts that they take from your highness to that person or those people to whom they are addressed, and they shall give them as a public notarial act. This being done, the letter and edict of our lord the king shall be presented, and also the decree or letter-patent that they hear shall be sent by the fathers of the Inquisition to the justice and the judge of the Hermandad and all those to whom the edict is addressed, requiring them by a notarial act, that they shall do and pursue and fulfil the things and provisions according to the course, form, and tenor of them, under the penalties contained in them.

It is further stated: Afterwards the edicts shall be proclaimed publicly in the presence of the justice, the judge of the hermandad, the public couriers [corredores publicos] of the city, and a herald or heralds of the city, and thus assembled they shall cause one of the couriers to read the edict in every public place where this is customary in the city.20

Evidence exists in a certificate issued on 8 January 1493 in Zaragoza that the Edict of 17 The question of how this version of the draft came to the Royal Archive of Aragon in Barcelona (ACA, Real Cancillería Reg. 3569, fos. 129v–131r) remains unsolved. Perhaps Juan de Coloma, as an Aragonese, sent the document for preservation in the archive in Barcelona. On him see also J. Martínez Millán, La hacienda de la Inquisición (1478–1800) (Madrid, 1984), 12. 18 On the chancellery and its work, see M.a de la Soterraña and Martín Postigo, La cancillería castellana de los Reyes Católicos (Valladolid, 1959). On the version sent to Sardinia and Sicily see below, n. 25, and Ch. 5. 19 The instructions are found in the Notarial Archives in Zaragoza: AHPZ, Papeles sueltos 1492, No. 460. They are published in Motis Dolader, Zaragoza, 22–4. 20 ‘Primo, que en llegando a la dicha çiudat, fagan clamar y juntar a los justiçia, juez de la Hermandat, jurados y consello de la dicha çiudat, a los quales juntos que sean, ante todas cosas les tomaran juramento de tener en secreto de la cosas infrascriptas et que por los dichos comisario y notario les sean notificadas y dichas. Item, apres de lo susodicho, daran la carta o cartas misivas que lievan a su alteza ad aquella persona o personas a quien van dirigidas, las quales daran en acto publico de notario. Item, fecho esto, presentaran la letra patente de hedicto del rey, nuestro senyor. Et no res menos, la provision, siquiere patente que

38

the edict of expulsion

Expulsion was promulgated in Daroca, Calatayud, Tarazona, Borja, and in the towns of Mallén, Magallón, Ejea, and Tauste—all in Aragon. This records that the commissioners for the expulsion paid Jaime Monclús, the corregidor of Zaragoza, the sum of 100 sueldos for publicly proclaiming the Edict of Expulsion in the aforementioned places.21 It was also he who proclaimed the edict in Zaragoza. This order makes it clear that the Inquisition was involved in preparing the edict in its smallest details. The preparations for promulgating the edict were made with full and serious attention with relation to this royal task. However, one wonders whether Abraham Senior, the treasurer of the Hermandad, who had been appointed to that position as the queen’s confidant, was informed as to the manner in which the edict was to be proclaimed. The edict left no room for doubt that it would be implemented, for it was constructed with forethought, after thorough examination of the act and anticipation of its consequences.22

ii. analysis of the structure The Edict of Expulsion followed the conventions common to royal edicts. The examples of the document which have come down to us are copies of the final draft prepared by the notary from which the official version was transcribed and sent to its destination. The copy of the edict preserved today in the city archive of Ávila is a final draft signed by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella: ‘I the king; I the queen’.23 The notary who prepared the edict was Juan de Coloma, who is found in the retinue of the kings at the time of the conquest of Granada.24 The copies that have come down to us are uniform in structure. Certain omissions and corrections are discernible in them, resulting either from scribal error or from intentional omission. Cabezudo Astrain has pointed out errors of detail in the Zaragoza copies, which were made in lieban de los reverendos padres inquisidores a los dichos justiçia, juez de Hermandat, et personas a quien van dirigidas, requeriendoles en publico de notario, fagan e persigan e cunplan las cosas en las dichas provisiones y edicto contenidas iuxta el serie, forma y tenor de aquellas, so las penas en aquellas contenidas . . . Yran juntament con los dichos justiçia, juez de Hermandat et con los corredores publicos de la dicha çiudat et tronpeta o tronpetas de aquella, et asi juntos aran pregonar publicamente a huno de los dichos corredores el dicho edicto por los lugares publicos acostunbrados de la dicha çiudat.’ 21 Jaime Monclús was paid 16 sueldos for reading the edict, quite a handsome sum. A fee was also paid to the trumpeters and a drummer. In Zaragoza a monk was present at the reading of the edict, which he published in the cathedral. See AHPZ, Jayme Malo 1493, fos. 2r–3v: ‘Dos trompetas y hun atalalero para publicar el dicho edicto por los lugares acostumbrados en la dicha çiudat, e de un frayre que los publicara 22 en Seu’. Cf. Motis Dolader, Zaragoza, 23. See Ch. 5: Huete, and nn. 23, 24. 23 ‘Yo el rey; Yo la reyna’. According to their prenuptial agreement, the king and queen signed in a manner indicating their equal royal status. 24 On him see Azcona, Isabel, 328. He was one of a group of notaries and secretaries who accompanied the Crown on its voyages. That group also included Fernán Álvarez de Toledo, Gaspar de Grizio, and Fernando de Zafra, who were from Castile. Juan Ruiz de Calcena and Juan de Coloma were from Aragon. On Juan de Coloma see Martínez Millán, Hacienda, 12; Rumeu de Armas, Nueva luz, 28–32. Fernán Álvarez de Toledo was of converso origin. Many edicts issued directly by the Crown, without mention of the Royal Council, were prepared by him. He was present at the baptism of Abraham Senior in Guadalupe; see Ch. 8. Juan de Coloma was active as late as 17 Sept. 1497. See León Tello, Toledo, i. 621. See also Rumeu de Armas, Nueva luz, 33 ff.

the edict of expulsion

39

later years, after the expulsion. He has also listed the additions made to them.25 These were introduced after the fact to explain the intentions behind the actions committed against the exiles and their property. It is commonly agreed that the composition of the Edict of Expulsion is to be viewed as the work of an expert in official style who succeeded in describing both the conditions leading to the expulsion and also the causes that motivated the Crown to act as it did. Nor is there any doubt that the final formulation underwent several preparatory drafts, as we shall see below. When a herald read the Edict of Expulsion out loud in public, he doubtless listed all Ferdinand and Isabella’s royal titles in the prologue or intitulation, including the areas of their dominion and the regions under their sovereignty, where they ruled ‘by grace of God’. Nevertheless it would have been sufficient for Juan de Coloma, when drafting the edict, to list only the names of Don Fernando and Doña Isabel, as was commonly done when writing drafts.26 25 J. Cabezudo Astráin, ‘La expulsión de los judíos de Ejea de los Caballeros’, Sefarad, 30 (1970), 349– 63, esp. 350. There he lists the addenda: a supplementary forty days after the deadline for departure and expulsion, during which the Crown took the exiles and their property under its protection: ‘durante ese tiempo y quarenta dias mas despues que sean salidos, tomamos a ellos y los bienes dellos so nuestro amparo e defendimiento’. This period is in addition to the July deadline, ‘durante el dicho tiempo fasta el dicho dia fin de dicho mes de julio’. In the Edict of Expulsion they were permitted to ‘vender, trocar e enajenar sus bienes’. In the copy they are permitted to pay their debts with what remains in their possession after the sale: ‘y lo que restare, les sea devuelto y restituido y se lo puedan libremente llevar segun la forma en la nuestra provision contenida’, i.e. in the passage where mention is made of the prohibition against removing gold, silver, coined money, and other forbidden items, ‘except for items of merchandise that are not forbidden or commerce in bills of exchange’. The corrected edict has instead: ‘salvo mercaderias que no sean vedadas e encubiertas’, that is to say, ‘items of merchandise that are not forbidden or in secret’, which perhaps refers to smuggling. Torquemada’s personal directive is added at the end, stating that at the conclusion of the departure period, that is, the last day of the month of July, another nine days were added, on condition that ‘you shall not converse or make public or secret contact with those Jews and Jewesses, not with any one of them, and you shall not receive them in your houses, and you shall not be kind to them, and you shall not permit their maintenance and not [give] them commodities for their nourishment and not engage in negotiations with them on matters of purchase and sale’ (‘no platiqueis ni communiqueis en publico ni en oculto con los dichos judios y judias, ni con alguno dellos, ni los reçibais en vuestros hogares, ni favorezcais, ni fagais dar mantenimiento, ni viandas algunas para su sustentaçion ni contrateis con ellos en trocar ni vender’). Perhaps this refers to those who were caught on the way out of the state. In the edict sent to the governor of Sardinia, messir Juan Dosay, the Crown ordered the payment of debts owed by the Jews to the Crown, to monasteries, to churches, and to other public and private institutions and bodies; the emblem of the kingdom was to be placed on Jewish houses as proof that they were Crown property. The governor was to make an inventory of moveable goods, including silver, gold, coins, precious stones, silk, brocade, wool and linen cloth, and jewellery. Against this inventory he was to place the claims laid by institutions such as monasteries and confraternities (‘cofradías’), seminaries (‘collegios’), benefices, and the like, and every claim Christians had against Jews. He was to prepare this within fifteen days, and, within a month after that, to settle all debts owed to Christian creditors by Jews. They were to be permitted to remove what remained from the kingdom. The Jews were also permitted to hire Christian attorneys (‘procuradores’). Dosay’s authority was complete, and no royal official could prevent him from executing these provisions. This edict, which was also drafted by Juan de Coloma and issued in Granada on 31 Mar. 1492, with its detailed instructions on its execution and the collection of Jewish debts to the Crown, to institutions, and to private individuals, is a direct extension of the general instructions for executing the expulsion in Aragon; it is signed only by Ferdinand. See M. Perani, ‘Appunti’, Italia, 5 (1985), 137–8; and above, n. 3. I am grateful to Professor R. Bonfil for clarifying certain questions for me with Dr Perani. 26 The full titles of Ferdinand and Isabella at the time of the expulsion were as follows: ‘Don Fernando e doña Isabel, por la graçia de Dios rey e reyna de Castilla de Leon de Aragón de Granada de Toledo de

40

the edict of expulsion

Regarding the addressees of the Edict of Expulsion, not a single person was omitted who might have any bearing whatsoever on the implementation of the edict, according to the fixed hierarchy of the kingdom. The protocol ended with the Jewish addressees, men and women of every social class. The very long central part of the text, the arenga, describes all the means hitherto employed by the Crown to rectify the religious and social situation that obtained in the kingdom and the relations between Jews and Christians. It is concerned with the Jews who were forcibly converted, beginning at the time of the persecutions of 1391, but who had neither assimilated nor integrated within the surrounding Christian society.27 The arenga comprises the historical account blaming the Jewish community for the conditions that necessitated the Edict of Expulsion. That is to say, the Crown saw no way of saving the Christian religion and community other than removing the cause of the harm, the Jews, even if certain good and decent people in the kingdom would suffer.28 The edict went beyond general statements and detailed what acts the Jews were accused of and how this had been publicly revealed by the Inquisition, which also collected evidence from Jews.29 The notary responsible for the draft described the guilt of the Jews and their responsibility for the punishment of expulsion, also stating that the Crown had reached its conclusion after consultation with churchmen, the great men of the kingdom, and men of ‘wisdom and conscience’ within the Royal Council. This conclusion was that there was but one course of action: expulsion of those guilty for creating the situation.30 After this determination, the dispositive part began; that is to say, a statement of the decision and the conclusions that derived from it. The decision was that ‘all Jews and Jewesses of whatever age they may be who live and dwell and are in our said realms and dominions, as well the native-born among them as those not native-born who in any manner and for any reason have come and are in them, that by the end of the next month of July that comes in the present year [1492] they shall leave all our said realms and dominions’.31 A double sanction was attached to this part of the edict: those who did not obey it and did not accompany the exiles would be executed, and their propValençia de Galliçia de Mallorcas de Sevilla de Çerdeña de Córdoba de Corçega de Murçia de Jahén de los Algarbes de Gibraltar de las Islas de Canarias, conde e condesa de Barçelona e señores de Viscaya e de Molina, duques de Atenas y de Neopatria, condes de Rosyllon e de Çerdanya, marqueses de Oristan e de Goçano’. The Intitulation appears in full in the edict sent to the governor of Sardinia, Messire Juan Dosay. See Perani, ‘Appunti’, 38. 27 Arenga is a diplomatic term; this portion of an edict was accompanied by a narratio, which in royal documents was usually separated from it. 28 ‘Es rason quel tal colegio e uniuersidad sean disoluidos e anichilados e los menores por los mayores e los unos por los otros pugnidos.’ 29 See Beinart, Anusim, index; on the testimony of the Jews see id., ‘Jewish Witnesses’. 30 The edict reads: ‘Por ende nos con el consejo y paresçer de algunos prelados e grandes e caualleros de nuestros reynos e de otras personas de çiençia e conçiençia de nuestro consejo aviendo avido sobre ello mucha deliberaçion’. 31 On the date of departure from Castile Bernáldez wrote in his chronicle: ‘E començaron de salir de Castilla los primeros en la postrera semana del mes de jullio, año del nasçimiento del nuestro salvador Jesuchristo de mil e cuatroçientos e noventa e dos años’; Memorias del reinado de los Reyos Católicos, ed. M. Gómez Moreno and J. de Mata Carriazo (Madrid, 1962). 256. However, we must suppose that some people left earlier and did not wait until the last day. See Ch. 5.

the edict of expulsion

41

erty would be confiscated; this punishment would be imposed on them for the very fact of disobedience, and it would be imposed without warning or judicial sentence. An additional severe sanction was directed at Christian (and Moorish) inhabitants who gave shelter to the exiles and so prevented them from leaving the kingdom. This referred to those noblemen who owned large estates and acted within them with total independence. Because it was publicly proclaimed, no one could claim ignorance. The foregoing would appear to be sufficient for the edict, but the Crown still had to express its intention regarding its own interests. Hence it had to extend protection and shelter to the exiles on their way to their destination, up to the borders of the country until their embarkation, and it also had to determine how much the exiles were permitted to take with them.32 Therefore it was also important to the Crown to have the expulsion take place without riots against the exiles, both while they were still in their homes and also on the way to the points of departure. Here the Crown was prudent, for it knew from experience that anti-Jewish riots could get out of hand and extend beyond harming the Jews. It was no coincidence that the corregidores in Castile and the Inquisitors and the Santa Hermandad in Aragon were co-opted to supervise the expulsion33—that is, the entire government apparatus and with it the voluntary establishment for preserving order in the kingdom, the Santa Hermandad, which was an instrument of the government,34 all in conjunction with the all-powerful body in the kingdom: the Inquisition.

iii. drafting The text of the Edict of Expulsion raises several questions. First, did similar edicts precede the general Edict of Expulsion, from which the Crown could have learnt how to formulate the final version, that signed on 31 March 1492 in Santa Fe? Two previous documents appear to be related to the edict. First, there was the decision of the Cortes of Toledo in 1480, requiring the Jews to leave their residential quarters and move to new neighbourhoods, which the cities were obliged to allot them. They were given two years for this,35 and special commissioners were sent to oversee implementation. The structure of this edict was different from that of the royal pragmáticas, which were decrees issued by the Crown with or without consulting the royal council: 32 See Ch. 5. The Crown forbade the removal of gold, silver, coined money, jewellery, as mentioned in the Edict of Expulsion. In addition, without itemizing them in the edict, the Crown forbade the removal of many other things from the kingdom, including grain, horses and cattle, gunpowder. The exiles did take with them cloth of various kinds, silk, and books; see Ch. 6. However, as early as 1488 the monarchs had limited the amount of money that a traveller leaving Castile could take with him. In 1491 they reissued the decree with regard to various items of merchandise bartered in return for goods sold by foreign merchants. See M. A. Ladero Quesada, Población, economía y sociedad en el reino de Granada (Madrid, 1982), 42. In 1495 a step was taken to prevent the smuggling of capital out of the kingdom, ordering that payments to the merchants of the state who lived abroad should be made at the time of fairs by bankers in Medina del Campo. In 1499 foreign merchants were forbidden to have monetary accounts (‘cambio’) in Castile. This clearly brings out the importance of the Genoese who were active in Spain. 33 34 See Chs. 3 and 5. On the Hermandad, see Lunenfeld, Hermandad. 35 This edict also included the Moors. See Beinart, ‘Jewish Dwellings in Spain’, 61–85. Also see the Introduction above.

42

the edict of expulsion

it was passed by the Cortes according to the will of the estates of the kingdom of Castile, which were convened by royal invitation. Although this decision applied to dwelling-places within the kingdom, they were similar to edicts of expulsion from entire areas, ordaining the removal of all the Jewish residents; they were also important as a test of the means to be adopted for the final expulsion. An absolute solution to the Jewish problem was signalled, as we maintain below, by the fact that the capture of the kingdom of Granada was accompanied by the removal of the Jews from the conquered cities and the expulsion of the Jews from the city of Granada when it was conquered.36 For the purpose of drafting the Edict of Expulsion, use could have been made of the edict issued on 1 January 1482, expelling the Jews of Andalusia.37 That edict had been proclaimed with the sanction of the Inquisitorial Court of Seville and was drafted by the Inquisitors serving there. Without doubt Torquemada, the Inquisitor-General, also approved. The Jews expelled from all Andalusia were given a deadline of one month to leave that region and disperse throughout Castile. This edict also claimed that relations between conversos and Jews and the bad influence of the latter upon the former were the reason for the expulsion. Those who drafted that edict saw the expulsion as service to God and the Crown: service to one was consistent with service to the other. The expulsion was to be perpetual; any Jew returning to Andalusia was to be executed, and his property confiscated. That edict set no limit to what it was permitted to remove from the kingdom, since the exiles were to disperse throughout Castile, although we lack detailed information on where the exiles went and how they dispersed. There is no doubt that this edict provided the Crown with operative guidance for the general expulsion that Ferdinand and Isabella appear to have planned. True, the Crown opposed efforts to drive out the Jews when a local authority acted on its own initiative; thus it opposed expulsion of the Jews of Valmaseda in 1486,38 ordering the heads of the city to readmit them. However, the local authorities reached a compromise with the Jews, who did not return. Regarding the expulsion of the Jews of Zaragoza and Albarracín, proclaimed with the consent of the Inquisition and authorized by Ferdinand on 12 May 1486, Ferdinand recommended postponing the expulsion for six months.39 Without doubt this postponement was agreed with Torquemada, who was certainly aware of the Crown’s thoughts on this matter. Although the edict expelling Jews from Andalusia has not been found, the reference in the general Edict of Expulsion to the expulsion from Andalusia and the failure of that effort to solve the problem presented by the Jews in Spain is, as Yitshak Baer pointed out, convincing testimony that there was a connection between the edicts.40 By contrast, the entire part of the Edict of Expulsion discussing the influence of the Jews on the conversos was omitted from the edict expelling the Jews of Portugal, 37 See Ch. 5. Beinart, ‘La Inquisición Española’, 103–23. Id., ‘The Expulsion of the Jews of Valmaseda’, 39–51. 39 Ferdinand recommended the postponement on 22 July 1486. The Jews of Teruel, who were also about to be driven out, received a postponement of three months. See Baer, JchS i. 912–13, and below, Ch. 5. 40 Baer, Toledot, 410–11. On the part played by Torquemada in drafting the Edict of Expulsion, in spirit if not in specific wording, see ibid. 516. 36 38

the edict of expulsion

43

which was issued under the influence of the Spanish Crown, as a condition for the marriage of King Manuel of Portugal (1495–1521) to Isabella, the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella and the heiress to their throne. Manuel signed the edict on 5 December 1496 in the town of Muga in northern Portugal, near the border with Galicia.41 It emphasizes the harm and damage that the Jews bring to the kingdom, causing many Christians to leave their faith,42 and recites that Manuel also consulted the council and letrados; however, he had learnt a lesson from the experience of the expulsion from Spain and gave the Jews more time to leave, until October 1497.43 The Portuguese edict stipulates the same sanctions as the Spanish for those who remained and refrained from leaving, and for those who offered them shelter. In Portugal, too, the exiles were for ever forbidden to return and resettle.44

iv. the views of the catholic monarchs Is it conceivable that Ferdinand and Isabella entertained any regrets regarding the expulsion after ordering it or after the edict was carried out? It is doubtful whether any such sentiments can be found in documents or in anything written by intimates of the monarchs. Nor is there any doubt that the king and queen agreed on the matter. Isabella expressed her opinion on the establishment of the Inquisition and the actions it took to expunge the Judaizing tendencies of the conversos; we may assume that her outlook also applied to the expulsion of the Jews from her kingdom. Her motives regarding the Inquisition also applied to the expulsion of the Jews.45 While Ferdinand’s opinion regarding the solution to the problem of the Judaizing conversos was consistent with Isabella’s, his pragmatic approach to the solution of political problems might have been expected to bring about second thoughts. On this matter letters that he sent to two noblemen have come down to us, one to the Count of Aranda, the other to the Count of Ribadeo.46 These were not isolated examples. Letters were sent to all the nobility, the lords of domains (señoríos), the leaders of the 41 It seems he remained to negotiate with the Spanish Crown and certainly to arrange the marriage of Isabella, daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella. Regarding the edict see Amador de los Ríos, Historia, 1009–10. 42 ‘Mais ainda a muytos crista¯os fase apartar da verdadeira carreira, que he a santa fee catholica.’ 43 In March 1497 he changed his mind and ordered the exiles to concentrate in Lisbon for their departure, where he had them baptized by force. Thus the Spanish exiles in Portugal joined their brethren, the Jews of Portugal, and together they became the conversos of Portugal. 44 The edict also arranged how to resolve the question of mutual debts; this, too, was a lesson learnt from the experience of the expulsion from Spain. 45 See Beinart, Anusim, and the sources cited there for her views. She stated: ‘I have brought about the destruction of cities which I emptied of their inhabitants, and I have laid waste whole regions. All this I did solely out of love of God and His Holy Mother. . . . Anyone who claims that I did this out of love of gain is a liar.’ She wrote this to her representatives in Rome who acted in the matter of the trial of Diego Arias Dávila, the father of the Bishop of Segovia, who was accused of heresy. 46 The letters were published respectively by León Tello, ‘Documento de Fernando el Católico sobre la expulsión de los judíos en el señorío del Conde de Aranda’, Homenaje a Federico Navarro: Miscelánea de estudios dedicados a su memoria (Madrid, 1973), 237–48, from AHN, Diversos, Serie diplomática (cf. ead., Toledo, i. 536), and A. de la Torre, Documentos sobre relaciones internacionales de los Reyes Católicos (Barcelona, 1962), iv. 31, from ACA, Real Cancillería Reg. 3569, fo. 132.

44

the edict of expulsion

clergy, and the heads of the military orders. Doubtless this was done in order to coordinate the expulsion with them, so that it should also apply to lands in their control. The two letters in question were drafted and written by Juan de Coloma, and both were sent in the name of Ferdinand alone on 31 March 1492 from Santa Fe, the very same day and place where the Edict of Expulsion was signed. As was customary regarding the implementation of the Edict of Expulsion, they, too, were required to maintain secrecy until the Crown decided to make it public.47 Ferdinand fully accepted the Inquisition’s approach to the question of the expulsion of the Jews, and his letters to the nobility, the clergy, and the heads of the military orders must be seen together with the Edict of Expulsion as a single entity, a decision which was not to be challenged, for relevant issues had been taken into consideration and resolved in a manner acceptable to him. These two letters merit examination:48 From the Letter to the Count of Aranda Once the Holy Office of the Inquisition had seen the perdition of Christians because of communication and converse with Jews it ordered that the Jews be expelled from all our kingdoms and the regions of our dominion, for unless this was done, the heresy and apostasy that were discovered could not be extirpated, and we were convinced that we must give our consent and favour. From the Letter to the Count of Ribadeo Seeing the evils and damages that follow from the connections between the Jews of our kingdoms and the Christians, as this was clarified by the Inquisition which was and is active in our kingdoms, we have ordered that all the Jews must leave all the cities, towns, and dwellingplaces in Andalusia, in our belief that thus the Jews in other parts will be punished, and in order that there be no damage to these Christians. And as it was transmitted to us, both by the Inquisition and other sources, the punishments that we have ordered to be given will be of no avail unless the Jews are expelled from all our kingdoms, so as to prevent all the evils and damages that were caused and are caused to Christians by participation and converse with the said Jews, because they, in the places where they have remained, do not cease soliciting and corrupting Christians, who first made them fall into their errors, and then they were led back to our holy Catholic faith. See above on the manner of promulgation. The letter to the Count de Aranda: ‘Viendo el sancto officio de la Inquisicion la perdicion de algunos christianos por la comunicacion y participacion de los judios ha proueydo en todos los reynos y señorios nuestros, que los judios sean expelidos por remedio, sin el qual la heregia y apostasia que en ellos se ha fallado, no se podia extirpar, y nos ha persuadido que para ello les diesemos nuestro fauor e consentimiento.’ The letter to the Count de Ribadeo: ‘Visto los males y daños que se han seguido de la communicaçion de los judios de nuestros reynos con les christianos, como ha parecido por la ynquisicion que se ha fecho y faze en estos nuestros reynos, hauemos mandado salir todos los judios de todas la çibdades e villas e logares de Andaluzia ceryendo que de aquello se castigarian los judios de las otras partes, para non dañar a los dichos christianos. Y porque, segun somos informados, asy de los inquisidores como de las otras partes, toda la puniçion y castigo y remedia que hauemos mandado dar non aprouecha cosa alguna sino se echan los judios de todos nuestros reynos, para euitar los males e daños que se han seguido e siguen a los christianos de la participaçion e conversaçion de los dichos judios, porque ellos, en los lugares que han quedado, non dexan de procurar de peruertir a los christianos, que primero fizieron caher en sus errores y se reduxieroon a nuestra santa fee catholica.’ 47 48

the edict of expulsion

45

They were written in different styles by the same secretary, Juan de Coloma. The one sent to the Count of Aranda is more personal in tone. The king declares that ‘even though no small damage results to us’ (‘como quier que dello se nos sigua no pequenyo danyo’) from the expulsion, nevertheless he sets greater store by the salvation of his natural-born Christian subjects’ souls (‘la salut de las animas de los christianos subditos y naturales nuestros’). He asks the count to proclaim the expulsion of the Jews from Aranda and Epila, areas within his dominion, the former in Castile, the latter in Aragon, and thus to assist in enforcing the expulsion.49 The threat of sanctions is also couched in more courteous style.50 In contrast, the letter to the Count of Ribadeo is more assertive, and regarding sanctions states that there is no place for acting contrary to what has been ordered (‘e a lo contrario no daremos logar por manera alguna’). The count was also ordered to make certain that the edict was proclaimed in public, and that the Jews were expelled from the kingdom. Examination of the text and structure of the Edict of Expulsion, its contents and form, in conjunction with these letters, shows to what extent clergymen contributed anti-Jewish argumentation, employing the Spanish National Inquisition, at the head of which stood Tomás de Torquemada, the intimate of the monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella. We must also allow for the influence of personalities such as Hernando de Talavera. He, too, was their father confessor and was appointed to serve as the Archbishop of Granada after its conquest.51 He certainly was informed about the expulsion. Moreover, the text of the edict shows that the causes for the expulsion of the Jews cannot be isolated from the problem of the conversos in Spain, which the Crown tried to solve by establishing the Inquisition for investigating heresy. From the day it was founded and began to act in Andalusia in 1481, it was a principal agent not only in solving the issue of the faith of the conversos and their loyalty to the past of their nation, but also in demanding the removal of the Jews from Spain. According to the Inquisition, the Jews and the Jews alone caused the conversos to remain loyal to their nation and their faith in the Law of Moses. The Inquisition had the idea of placing the onus of the expulsion on the Jews of Spain themselves, as if it were the punishment they merited for their deeds. Forced conversion and religious coercion by Christians were not to blame. Ferdinand and Isabella only executed the idea, and their hands were ostensibly ‘clean of all guilt’.52 49 ‘Dando fauor y ayuda a los executores y comisarios que para execucion de la dicha expulsion hauemos asignado’, León Tello, ‘Documento’, 237–48. The organization for the expulsion emerges clearly. Perhaps the fact that the Count of Aranda, Lope Jiménes de Urrea, ruled a dominion that straddled the border between Castile and Aragon is relevant to the text of the letter addressed to him. 50 ‘Se euitar desseays las penas en el dicho edicto contenidas y los procedimientos a los del dicho sancto officio de la Inquisicion en tal convenia fazer.’ That is, if he does not obey, he will be tried as a defender of heretics (‘fautor hereticorum’). The edict added that he must act with honesty and purity (‘con rectitud e limpieza’) with respect to the property of the Jews, because of the king’s faith in the count. León Tello, ‘Documento . . . sobre la expulsión de los judíos en el señorío del Conde de Aranda’, 237–48. 51 He served as archbishop 1492–1507 (he was born in 1426). On him see Azcona, Isabel, 243, 250; M. A. Ladero Quesada, Granada después de la conquista, 27 ff.; O. González Hernández, ‘Fray Hernando de Talavera: Un aspecto nuevo de su personalidad’, Hispania Sacra, 12 (1960), 252. He was a relative of Hernando de Oropesa, the head of the Jeronimite Order. 52 See Baer, JchS, index; Beinart, Anusim, index.

the expulsion order

the edict of expulsion

47

48

the edict of expulsion

the edict of expulsion

49

v. text and translation of the edict of expulsion 53

on Fernando e donna Ysabel . . . al prinçipe don Juan nuestro muy caro y muy amado hijo e a los ynfantes, prelados, duques, marqueses, condes, maestres de las hordenes, priores, ricos omes, comendadores, alcaydes de los castillos y casas fuertes de los nuestros reynos e sennorios, e a los conçejos, regidores, alcaides, alguasiles, merinos, caualleros, escuderos, ofiçales, e omes buenos de la muy noble e leal cibdad de Auyla e de las otras çibdades e villas e lugares de su obispado, e de los otros arçobispados e obispados e dioçesis de los dichos nuestros reynos e sennorios, e a las aljamas de los judios de la dicha cibdad de Auila e de todas las dichas çibdades e villas e lugares de su obispado e de todas la otras çibdades e villas e lugares de los dichos nuestros reynos e sennorios e a todos los judios e personas syngulares dellos asy varones como mugeres de cualquier hedad que sean e a todas las otras personas de qualquier ley, estado, dignidad, preeminençia, condiçion que sean, a quien lo de yuso en esta nuestra carta contenydo atanne o atanner puede en qualquier manera, salud e gracia. Bien sabedes o deuedes saber que porque nos fuemos ynformados que en nuestros reynos auia algunos malos christionos que judaysauan e apostotuan de nuestra santa fe catolica, de lo qual era mucha cabsa la communicaçion de los judios con los christianos; en las cortes que hesimos en la cibdad de Toledo el anno pasado de mill e quatroçientos e ochenta annos, mandamos apartar a los dichos judios en todas las cibdades, villas e lugares de los nuestros reynos e sennorios e dalles

D

53

on Fernando and Doña Isabel . . . to the Prince don Juan, our very dear and much beloved son, and the Infantes, prelates, dukes, marquesses, counts, masters of the orders, priors, ricoshombres, commanders, alcaides of the castles and citadels of our realms and dominions, and to the councillors, governors, alcaldes, alguaciles, merinos, caballeros, escuderos, officials, and good men of the very noble and loyal city of Ávila and the other cities and boroughs and places of its bishopric, and of the other archbishoprics and bishoprics and dioceses of the said realms and dominions, and to the synagogues of the Jews of the said city of Ávila and of all the said cities and boroughs and places in its bishopric and of all the other cities and boroughs and places in our said realms and dominions and to all the Jews and individual persons among them, as well men as women, of whatever age they may be, and to all the other persons of whatever religion, estate, dignity, pre-eminence, condition they may be, to whom that contained below in this our edict pertains or may pertain in any manner, greetings and grace. You know well, or ought to know, that because we were informed that in our realms there were some bad Christians who Judaized and apostatized from our holy Catholic faith, whereof the chief cause was the communication between the Christians and the Jews; in the Cortes which we convened in the city of Toledo in the past year of one thousand four hundred and eighty years, we ordained that the said Jews should be set apart in all the cities, boroughs, and places of our realms and

D

Cited and translated from León Tello, Ávila, 91–6. A facsimile appears on pp. 46‒8.

50

the edict of expulsion

juderias e lugares apartados done biuyesen, esperando que con su apartamiento se remediaria, e otrosy ouymos procurado e dado horden como se hiziese ynquisiçion en los dichos nuestros reynos e sennorios, la qual commo sabeys, ha mas de dose annos que se ha fecho e fase, e por ella se han fallado muchos culpantes segund es notorio e segund somos ynformados de los ynquisidores e de otras muchas personas religiosas e ecylesiasticas e seglares, consta e paresçe el grand danno que a los christianos se ha seguido y sigue de la partiçipaçion, conversaçion, communicaçion que han tenido e tienen con los judios, los quales se prueua que procuran sienpre por quantas vias e maneras pueden de subuertir e substraer de nuestra santa fe catolica a los fieles christianos e los apartar della e atraer e pervertir a su dannada creençia e opinion instruyendolos en las çerimonias e observançias de su ley, hasiendo ayuntamientos donde les leen e ensennan lo que han de creer e guardar segun su ley, procurando de çircunçidar a ellos e a sus fijos, dandoles libros por donde rezasen sus oraçiones e declarandoles los ayunos que han de ayunar e juntadose con ellos a leer e ensennarles las estorias de su ley, notyficandoles les pascuas antes que vengan, avisandoles de lo que en ellas han de guardar e haser, dandoles e leuandoles de su casa el pan çençenno e carnes muertas con çerimonias, ynstruyendoles de las cosas de que se han de apartar, asy en los comeres como en las otras cosas por observançia de su ley, e persuadiendoles en quanto pueden a que tengan e guarden la ley de Muysen e hasiendoles entender que non ay otra ley ni verdad, saluo aquella, lo qual consta por muchos dichos e confisiones asy de los mismos judios commo de los que fueron peruertidos y

dominions and to give them Jewish quarters and separate places where they might dwell, hoping that with this separation [the matter] would be corrected, and in addition we took care and gave an order whereby inquiries should be made in our said realms and dominions, which, as you know, has been done for more than twelve years and is being done, and by it many offenders have been revealed, as it is known and as we are informed, by the Inquisitors and many other religious persons, both churchmen and laity. Thereby is established and made manifest the great damage to the Christians which has resulted and results from the participation, conversation, communication which they have held and do hold with the Jews, of whom it is proved that they always attempt by whatever ways and means they can to subvert and detract faithful Christians from our holy Catholic faith and separate them from it and attract and pervert them to their cursed belief and opinion, instructing them in the ceremonies and observances of their law, convening assemblies where they read to them and teach them what they must believe and observe according to their law, taking care to circumcise them and their sons, giving them books from which they can recite their prayers and declaring the fasts which they have to fast and joining with them to read and teach them the stories of their law, notifying them of the Passover before its date, informing them about what they must observe and do, giving them and removing from their houses the unleavened bread and the meat that has been slaughtered according to their rite, teaching them about what they must avoid in foods and other things to observe in their religion, and in persuading them as best they can to keep and observe the Law of Moses, and in giving them to understand that there is no other religion or truth save that, and this is

the edict of expulsion engannados por ellos, lo qual ha redundado en gran danno detrimento e obprobio de nuestra santa fe catolica. Y commo quiera que de mucha parte desto fuemmos ynformados antes de agora por muchos y conesçemos quel remedio verdadero de todos estos dannos e ynconvinientes estaua en apartar del todo la comunicaçion de los dichos judios con los christianos e echarlos de todos nuestros reynos, quisimonos contentar con mandarlos salir de todos la çibdades e villas e lugares de Andaluzia, donde paresçia que auian fecho mayor danno creyendo que quello bastaria para que los de las otras cibdades e villas e lugares de los nuestros reynos e sennorios çesasen de hazer e cometer lo susodicho; y porque somos ynformados que aquello ni las justiçias que se han fecho en elgunos de los dichos judios que se han hallado muy culpantes en los dichos crimines e delitos contra nuestra santa fe catolica, no basta para entero remedio para obuiar e remediar commo cese tan grand adprobio y ofensa de la fe y religion christiana porque cada dya se halla y paresçe que los dichos judios creçen en continuar su malo e dannado proposito a donde biuen conversan, y porque no aya lugar de mas ofender a nuestra santa fe, asy en los que hasta aqui Dios ha querido guardar commo en los que cayeron, se enmendaron e reduzieron a la santa madre yglesia, lo qual segund la flaqueza de nuestra humanidad e abstuçia e subgestyon diabolica que contino nos guerrea, ligeramente podria acaesçer sy la cabsa prinçipal desto no se quita, que es echar los dichos judios de nuestros reynos, porque cuando algund graue e detestable crimen es cometydo por algunos de algund colegio e vniversidad, es rason quel tal colegio e vniversidad sean disoluidos e anichilados e los

51

proved by the many declarations and confessions both of the Jews themselves and also of those who were corrupted and deceived by them. And all of this has brought great damage and injury to our holy Catholic faith. And although most of this was known to us even before, and we knew that the true remedy for all this harm and damage was to separate the said Jews from all communication with the Christians and to expel them from our kingdom, it was our wish to be content with ordering them to leave all the cities, boroughs, and places in Andalusia, where it appeared that they had caused the most damage, in the belief that this would be sufficient for those in the other cities, boroughs, and places in our realms and dominions to cease doing and committing the above. And whereas we are informed that neither that nor the punishments that have been given to some of those said Jews, who were discovered to be great offenders in these sins and transgressions against our holy Catholic faith, are sufficient as an entire remedy, to prevent and ensure the cessation of so great a dishonour and offence against the Christian faith and religion, because every day it is discovered and made manifest that the said Jews continue ever more active in their evil and harmful purpose in every place where they dwell and have dealings, and so that there may be no place for further offence against our holy faith, both in those whom until now God has chosen to preserve, and in those who have stumbled, fallen into sin, and removed themselves from Holy Mother Church, which because of the weakness of our human character and the diabolical cunning and subterfuge which constantly makes war against us, could easily happen unless the principal reason for it is not removed, which is to expel the said Jews from our kingdoms, for when a crime is committed by someone in

52

the edict of expulsion

menores por los mayores e los vnos por los otros pugnidos. Et que aquellos que pervierten el bien e honesto bevir de la cibdades e villas e por contagio pueden dannar a los otros sean espelidos de los pueblos e aun por otras mas leues cabsas que sean en danno de la republica, quanto mas por el mayor de los crimines e mas peligroso e contagioso commo lo es este. Por ende nos con el consejo y paresçer de algunos prelados e grandes e caualleros de nuestros reynos e de otras personas de çiençia e conçiençia de nuestro consejo aviendo avido sobre ello mucha deliberaçion, acordamos de mandar salir todos los dichos judios e judias de nuestros reynos e que jamas tornen ni bueluan a ellos ni a algunos dellos. Y sobre ello mandamos dar esta nuestra carta por la qual mandamos a todos los judios e judias de qualquier hedad que sean que biuen e moran e estan en los dichos nuestros reynos e sennorios, asy los naturales dellos commo los non naturales que en qualquier manera e por qualquier cabsa ayan venido e estan en ellos, que fasta en fin del mes de jullio primero que viene deste presente anno, salgan de todos los dichos nuestros reynos e sennorios con sus fijos e fijas e criados e criadas e familiares judios, asy grandes commo pequennos de qualquier hedad que sean e non sean osados de tornar a ellos ni estar en ellos ni en parte alguna dellos, de biuienda ni de paso ni en otra manera alguna so pena que sy lo non fisyeren e cunplieren asy, e fueren hallados estar en los dichos nuestros reynos e sennorios o venir a ellos en qualquier manera, yncurren en pena de muerte e confiscaçion de todos sus bienes para la nuestra camara e fisco, en las quales penas yncurran por ese mismo fecho e derecho syn otro proçeso sentençia ni declaraçion. E mandamos e

some society or corporation it is right that such society or corporation should be dissolved and eliminated, and that the few should be punished because of the many and the ones because of the others. And that those who corrupt the good and honest life of the cities and boroughs by their contagion may harm others be driven out of the settlements, even for other lesser causes that are harmful to the state, the more so for the greatest of crimes and the most dangerous of infections, as this is. Hence we, with the counsel and in the regard of certain prelates and grandees and caballeros of our realms and other persons of wisdom and conscience in our council, having considered the matter with much deliberation, are agreed in ordering that all the said Jews and Jewesses of our realms shall leave and never return nor come back to them or to any of them. And upon this we order that this our edict be given by which we order all Jews and Jewesses of whatever age they may be who live and dwell and are in our said realms and dominions, as well the native-born among them as those not native-born who in any manner and for any reason have come and are in them, that by the end of the next month of July that comes in the present year they shall leave all our said realms and dominions with their sons and daughters and servants and maidservants and Jewish followers, as well the great as the small, of whatever age they may be, and that they do not dare to return to them or to be in them or in any part of them, whether dwelling or in transit or in any other manner, under the penalty that if they do not do so and comply, and are found to be in our said realms and dominions or to come to them in any manner, they incur the punishment of death and the confiscation of all their property to our exchequer and treasury, and these penalties are incurred by that

the edict of expulsion defendemos que ningunas ni algunas personas de los dichos nuestros reynos de qualquier estado, condiçion dignidad que sean, non sean osados de reçebir reçebtar ni acojer ni defender ni tener publica ni secretamente judio ni judia, pasado el dicho termino de fin de jullio en adelante para syenpre jamas en sus tierras ni en sus casas ni en otra parte alguna de los dichos nuestros reynos e sennorios so pena de perdimiento de todos sus bienes, vasallos e fortalesas e otros heredamientos. E otrosy, de perder qualesquier merçedes que de nos tengan, para la nuestra camera e fisco. E porque los dichos judios e judias puedan durante el dicho tienpo fasta en fin del dicho mes de jullio mejor disponer de sy e de sus bienes e hasienda, por la presente los tomamos e reçebimos so nuestro seguro e anparo e defendimiento real, e los aseguramos a ellos o a sus bienes para que durante el dicho tienpo fasta el dicho dia fin del dicho mes de jullio, puedan andar e estar seguros e puedan entrar e vender e trocar e enagenar todos sus bienes muebles e rayses, e disponer dellos libremente a su voluntad e que durante el dicho tyenpo no les sea fecho mal di danno ni desaguisado alguno en sus personas ni en sus bienes contra justicia, so las penas en que cahen e yncurren los que quebrantan nuestro seguro real. E asy mismo damos liçençia e facultad a los dichos judios e judias que puedan sacar fuera de todos los dichos nuestros reynos e sennorios, sus bienes e hasienda por mar e tierra con tant que non saquen oro ni plata ni moneda amonedada ni las otras cosas vedadas por las leyes de nuestros reynos saluo en mercaderias, e que non sean cosas vedadas, o en canbios. E otrosy, mandamos a todos los conçejos, justiçias, regidores, caualleros, escuderos, ofiçales e omes buenos de la dicha çibdad de Auyla o de las otras çibdades e villas e

53

same fact and law with no other trial nor sentence nor declaration. And we command and prohibit that any or all persons in our said realms, of whatsoever estate, condition, dignity they may be, dare to receive, shelter, or assist or keep publicly or secretly a Jew or Jewess, after the said date of the coming end of July and hereinafter in their lands or houses or in any other part of our said realms and dominions on pain of loss of all their possessions, vassals, and citadels and other hereditaments. And moreover, to lose any favours which they may have from us, for the benefit of our exchequer and treasury. And so that the said Jews and Jewesses during the said time until the end of the said month of July may better dispose of themselves and of their possessions and effects, for the present we take them and place them under our security and royal protection and defence, and we assure them, to them and to their possessions, so that during the time until the said day at the end of the said month of July, they may go and be safe and may enter and sell and trade and transfer all their property moveable and immoveable, and dispose thereof in accordance with their wish, and that during the said time no one may do them evil or damage nor injustice to their persons nor to their possessions against justice, under the penalty to which are subject those who trespass against our royal security. Moreover we give permission and facility to the said Jews and Jewesses that they may remove from all our said realms and dominions, their property and effects by sea and land as long as they do not remove gold nor silver nor coined money nor the other things prohibited in the laws of our realms save for items of merchandise that are not forbidden or commerce in bills of exchange. And in addition, we order all the councillors, justices, governors, caballeros, escuderos, officials, and good men of the

54

the edict of expulsion

lugares de los nuestros reynos e sennorios e a todos nuestros vasallos, subditos naturales que guarden e cunplan e fagan guardar e cunplir esta nuestra carta e todo lo en ella contenydo, e den e fagan dar todo el fauor e ayuda que para ello fuere menester, so pena de nuestra merçed e de confiscaçion de todos sus bienes e ofiçios para la nuestra camara e fisco. E porque esto pueda venir a notiçia de todos e ninguno pueda pretender ynorançia, mandamos que esta nuestra carta sea apregonada por las plaças e lugares acostunbrados desa dicha çibdad e de las principales çibdades e villas e lugares de su obispado, por pregon e ante escriuano publico. E los vnos ni los otros no fagades ni fagan ende al por alguna (manera), so pena de la nuestra merçed e priuaçion de los ofiçios e confiscaçion de los bienes, a cada vno de los que lo contrario fisyeren. E demas mandamos al ome que les esta nuestra carta mostrare, que los enplase que parescan ante nos en la nuestra corte doquier que nos seamos, del dia que los enplasar, fasta quinse dias primeros syguientes so la dicha pena so la qual mandamos a qualquier escriuano publico que para esto fuere llamado, que de ende al que se la mostrare, testimonio sygnado con su sygno porque nos sepamos commo se cunple nuestro mandado. Dada en la nuestra çibdad de Granada, a XXXI dias del mes de março anno del nasçimiento de nuestro Sennor Ihesuchristo de mill e cuatroçientos e nouenta e dos annos. Yo el rey. —— Yo la reyna. —— Yo Johan de Coloma secretario del rey e de la reyna nuestros sennores la fize screuir por su mandado. —— Registrada, Alaua. —— Almaçan, chançeller.

said city of Ávila or of the other cities and boroughs and places in our realms and dominions and to all our vassals, being natural subjects, that they observe and fulfil, and cause to be observed and fulfilled, this our edict and all things therein contained, and give and cause to be given all aid and support that shall be needful therefor, on pain of loss of our favour and the confiscation of all their property and offices to our exchequer and treasury. And so that this may come to the attention of everyone, and that no one may claim ignorance, we ordain that this our edict be cried aloud in the squares and customary places of the said city and the principal cities and boroughs and places of its bishopric, by proclamation and before the public notary. And let neither the ones nor the others henceforth do otherwise in any manner, on pain of loss of our favour and deprivation of their offices and the confiscation of their property for each one of those who shall act contrary thereto. And moreover we order that the man who shall show whom this our edict shall summon them to appear before our court wherever we may be, within the fifteen days next following the day that he shall summon them, on the said pain of punishment according to which we order every notary public who may be called for this purpose to give thereupon to the man who shall show it to him, an attestation sealed with his seal, so that we may know how our edict is enforced. Given in our city of Granada, the thirty-first day of the month of March in the year of the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ of one thousand four hundred and ninety-two years. I the king. —— I the queen. ——. I Juan de Coloma, secretary of the king and queen, our lords, caused it to be written by their command. —— Registered, Álava. —— Almazán, chancellor.

3

The Fate of Jewish Communal Property i. land and buildings he first question to address is what Jewish communal property was: how it should be defined, how it was acquired, and in what ways it was developed. For T before building synagogues and houses of study on land either purchased by themselves or granted them by various rulers, before communal institutions arose, and before it was determined what area could be used as a cemetery, the Jews had to establish a community and acquire the ability to create and maintain these institutions. At the origin of all these activities were the privileges or fueros they received from the Crown or the local nobility, either clerical or lay. We shall not find clear evidence regarding every fuero granted in every city, although the fueros are to be regarded as the primary basis of relations between the residents and rulers. Nor do all the privileges clearly specify the land grants for the construction of synagogues and the location of cemeteries; occasionally they speak of quarters in a city or of its citadel.1 Evidence regarding the Crown’s approach to the land upon which the Jews dwelt in their neighbourhoods can be found in a relatively late document.2 This was a response to the saddlers of the town of Medina del Campo, issued on 6 November 1495. The saddlers had been evicted from their workshops and homes in the San Francisco quarter and transferred to dwellings in part of the former Jewish quarter.3 Anyone building a house was required to make an annual payment of half a silver real to the mayordomo of the municipality. Fernán Pérez de Meneses, the judge and receiver of Jewish property in the area of Salamanca and the abadía of Medina del Campo, quarrelled with the saddlers, claiming that the land on which the former Jewish neighbourhood stood was Crown land, so payment was due to the Crown. The saddlers were represented by the town council and its leaders, for it was clear to all that the issue concerned not just those craftsmen but rather the interests of the entire municipality. In its decision the royal council stated the Crown’s policy that land formerly occupied 1 See Baer, JchS, index; F. Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas españolas (Madrid, 1955); F. Cantera Burgos and J. M.a Millás Vallicrosa, Inscripciones hebraicas de España (Madrid, 1956), passim; and more recently J. L. Lacave Riaño, ‘Material Remains’, in Moreshet sefarad, i. 452–73. The present chapter deals with the fate of communal property as it emerges from the extant documents that discuss this property. For a description of the evidence, see above all Lacave’s studies in the biannual Sefarad, as well as his recent, general book, Juderías y sinagogas españolas (Madrid, 1992). 2 See RGS 12 No. 3943, fo. 112; issued at Burgos with the consent of the Royal Council; the writ was prepared by Bartolomé Ruiz de Castañeda, escríbano de cámara. 3 ‘De la primera puerta de la juderia que solia ser fasta el postigo de en medio arrimado a la çerca de la dicha villa’, RGS 12 No. 3943, fo. 112.

56

the fate of jewish communal property

by Jewish residences should be transferred to the city and town councils for their benefit.4 This pragmatic line guided the Crown and the chief government administrators, both central and local, with respect to Jewish property, land, and buildings. It is important to examine the fate of Jewish communal property during the stages of the liquidation of the communities and to note how they coped with the complex problems involved with ownership of buildings and land and the physical contents of their places of worship during the last days of their existence on Spanish soil. The deadline for departure into exile was extremely tight, and the heads of the communities did not always succeed in the task imposed on them. Not every locality had a worthy Jewish leadership, capable of struggling for the rights of the Jewish community and of giving clear answers to those who asked what they should do. Moreover, some community leaders decided not to go into exile and divested themselves of communal responsibility. The communities had to confront the central government, the Crown, local government, the lay nobility, and also the church, including every level of the clergy. In addition to all these, there were local men of influence and power, who sought to profit from the conditions that emerged after the publication of the Edict of Expulsion and its enforcement. This applies not only to communal property but also to private property in all its forms.5 The scope of this subject obliges us to discuss the fate of communal property from the day of the publication of the Edict of Expulsion until the departure into exile and the years immediately following.6 Doubtless the first problems arose regarding communal property as soon as the Edict of Expulsion was promulgated in May 1492 (and at the end of April in Zaragoza). The ordinance forbidding the sale of communal property by the Jews certainly was directed at the heads of the Jewish community and was issued on 25 June 1492 in Guadalupe. The date and the place where the ordinance was issued are noteworthy: ten days after Abraham Senior, his son-in-law Meir Melamed, and their family were baptized as Christians in that city.7 This ordinance was general, and the list of its addressees is important: Members of the royal council, the oidores of the audiencia, the alcaldes and the other judges of the court and of the royal chancellery; members of the municipal councils, the corregidores, the alcaldes, the alguaciles, and the other judges there, the regidores, the caballeros, the 4 ‘Quedasen dexados e como para los conçejos donde fuesen no enbargante qualquier merçed que dellos ouiesemos fecho e fisiesemos e caso que el dicho suelo donde estan fechas las dichas casas sy algund derecho touiesen los dichos judios deuen quedar en pro commun de la dicha villa’, RGS 12 No. 3943, fo. 112. 5 On the fate of private property, see Ch. 7. An example of the nobility taking over Jewish property is found in the grant presented by the Catholic Monarchs to Bernaldino Fernández de Velasco, Duke of Frías and Count of Haro, the condestable of Castile, and to his wife from the property of the Jews who had lived on their lands in the towns and on the solariego lands that belonged to them. This grant, made on 20 May 1496, included all the real property and moveable goods of the Jews. The Crown also permitted them to collect debts owed them by the Jews, as recorded in promissory notes. However, the collection of debts between Christians and Jews was left by the Crown in the hands of the royal prosecuting judges. See RGS 13 No. 803, fo. 6. This is based on the original edict issued on 20 May 1492 in Almazán, prepared by the Crown secretary Fernán Álvarez de Toledo. See AHN, Osuna, Leg. 874–9. 6 For Jewish communal property in Spain until 1492 see the literature cited in n. 1 above. 7 The decree is in the municipal archive of Toledo. It was published by León Tello, Toledo, i. 541–3; see also ibid. 357 and the decree issued on 5 July 1492 to the community of Salamanca.

the fate of jewish communal property

57

clerks, and the good men of the cities, the towns, and the places of settlement. And all those before whom the decree is presented or a copy signed by a public notary.

After a short preamble it recites the causes of the expulsion: ‘because of just reasons that have moved us to render service to God and to ourselves and to the general good in our kingdoms, to our subjects and to our natives’,8 they ordered the expulsion of the Jews, who ‘in order to leave sell their synagogues and cemeteries and the annuities and property and houses and other communal property in their possession, and which belong to the communities and are not in private ownership’.9 However, they are not permitted to do so, because ‘those synagogues have already been destined for the service of God, and like them, the cemeteries, because they are religious places’.10 Here was a premeditated act: the synagogues were to be converted into churches! The fate of the cemeteries was different from that of the synagogues: they were ‘property subject to the laws of the kingdom and to its rights, and for the uses for which it is intended’.11 In other words, communal leaders had not the right, on their own initiative, to change the purpose for which the synagogues had been erected, and this also applied to cemeteries and other Jewish communal property. Therefore it was ordered that until the Crown should deliberate and decide, those who had been so commanded should not give permission or consent for those Jews or any of them to sell the synagogues and cemeteries, and the annuities, and the communal property, and no one might purchase them.12 Any Christian who had meanwhile contrived to buy property from the Jews would have his money refunded.13 Support for the prohibition on selling Jewish communal property can be found in another decree issued to the mayor of the city of Badajoz, the municipal council, the corregidor, the judges, the alguacil, the regidores, the caballeros, the clerks, and the notables—every functionary of the city—regarding synagogues and Jewish cemeteries. The decree reiterated the prohibition on the Jews’ selling their communal property to the residents of the city or to others.14 Though issued later, there is no doubt that it represents the situation that emerged immediately after the publication of the Edict of Expulsion. In it the queen ordered in clear language: 8 ‘Bien sabeys como nos por justas cabsas que a ello nos movieron, cumplideras al serviçio de Dios e nuestro bien e prouecho e comun de nuestros reynos e de nuestros subditos e naturales dellos’, ibid. i. 541–3. 9 ‘Para se yr venden la dichas synogas e onsarios e çensos e posesyones, e casas e otras cosas comunes que tyenen e son de las aljamas e non de personas particulares’, ibid. 10 ‘Las dichas synogas aver seydo ya diputados para el seruiçio de Dios e los dichos honsarios para ser lugares religiosos’, ibid. i. 541–3. 11 ‘Diz que non estan en bienes de personas algunas e las dichas posesiones de la aljamas, por estar obligados a nuestros derechos e algunos vsos que enellos estan sytuados’, ibid. We shall see below what the cemeteries were to be used for. 12 ‘Fasta que por no sea visto e determinao lo suso dicho, non dexeys inconsyntays a los dichos judios nin algunos dellos non vendan las dichas synagogas e honsarios e çensos e casas e posesiones comunes, nin que personas algunas se las conpren’, ibid. 13 The herald was to recite the decree in public. The sanction for disobedience was the loss of royal favour and the fine of 10,000 mrs to the treasury. An appeal against the decree could be lodged within fifteen days by appearing before the Crown. The decree was drafted by the secretary to the monarchs, Fernán Álvarez de Toledo, on their instruction. He was known to be faithful to the Crown and of converso descent. 14 See RGS 10 No. 10, fo. 60, of 4 Jan. 1493.

58

the fate of jewish communal property

That when according to my edict the Jews who lived in my kingdoms departed, I ordered that those Jews might not sell the synagogues and cemeteries that they owned, and that these were to serve the needs of the cities, the towns, and the localities where they lived, in order to make them into churches or hospitals and other institutions for the service of God and the benefit and honour of the cities, towns, and localities.15

The queen’s words go far beyond the conversion of synagogues into churches for communal needs. They include the establishment of hospitals and other charitable institutions, which, according to the views of those times, must also be seen as religious institutions. Although the queen took credit for this decision, there is no doubt that it was approved by both monarchs. The decree does not state whether the cities, towns, and localities had to purchase this communal property, or whether (since private sale and consequently acquisition were forbidden) it was granted to the local religious authorities as Crown property, to be turned into churches or monasteries, in the case of synagogues, or to other institutions, in the case of other communal property. The foregoing issues will be addressed in detail with respect to individual communities from which we possess documents, for despite the decree certain communities did manage to sell communal property to purchasers able to buy it. Although the property was supposed to be transmitted to new owners upon the liquidation of the community, it cannot be known whether it was in the possession of the new owners even before then. In this respect one cannot generalize: each locality had its own conditions, and the Jewish community and its leaders had a different set of relations with the local Christian leadership or with those prepared to take the risk of acquiring the property once it was divested of its religious and communal content. One must also distinguish, for example, between the main building of the synagogue and auxiliary buildings used as houses of study or yeshivas, ritual baths, shelters for wayfarers, and the like. Some of these, too, were purchased, while others were abandoned. Though we discuss only the places of Jewish settlement for which we possess documents, it must be emphasized that when each community was liquidated, its communal property was liquidated with it, even though we do not always possess documentary proof. The specific written descriptions that we do possess suffice to demonstrate the situation in general.16 Another form of communal or public property was annuities established by Jews 15 ‘Que al tienpo que mi mandado salieron de mis reynos los judios que en ellos ayan, mande que los dichos judios no pudiesen vender las sinagogas nin los honsarios que tenian, e mande que fuesen para las dichas çibdades e villas e lugares donde biuiesen para haser yglesias o espitales e otras cosas para seruiçio de nuestro Señor e bien e honrra de las dichas çibdades e villas e lugares’, RGS 10 No. 10, fo. 60. According to one source, dated 1414, the synagogue was in the citadel. A document dated 24 Mar. 1473 states: ‘que el cabildo vendio unas casas a Jacob Dondon y a Mira su mujer, linde con casas de maestre Isac, y de la otra parte la sinagoga de los judios’; see J. L. Lacave, ‘Sinagogas y juderías extremeñas’, Sefarad, 40 (1980), 215–34. In his opinion, the community lived in the Calle Brocense and the Calle de San Lorenzo, more particularly the latter; these streets gave their names to two synagogues. 16 To this day ruins of synagogues and other Jewish communal property come to light in Spain, as, for example, in the remote northern village of Tui; see E. Iglesias Almeida, ‘Los judíos de Tui’, Sefarad, 47 (1987), 73–9. We discuss these towns in alphabetical order, according to their respective kingdoms: Castile–León, Aragon–Valencia, and Catalonia. See separate references to the abattoirs, ritual baths, communal ovens, and cemeteries below.

the fate of jewish communal property

59

for various charitable purposes. These, too, were forbidden to be sold. In October 1494 Rodrigo del Mercado, the judge responsible for Jewish property in the archdiocese of Toledo, was ordered to register these assets.17 Given the situation in Spain, these consisted not only of land but also of dwellings owned by the community. In Toledo in 1495 conversos who had returned to the city as well as Old Christians who had moved in after the expulsion lived in houses belonging to thirty families who had gone into exile. León Tello has calculated the value of the annual income from these holdings at 19,604 mrs. The community in that city also owned the house of study (Midrás de las Vegas), land where 20 fanegas of grain grew, and also a vineyard. Doubtless other communities were similar to Toledo in this respect.18 A late document, dated 13 April 1495, describes a similar state of affairs in the small community of Villelcho or Villincho (today Belinchón).19 When the Jews of the town went into exile, the community owned not only the synagogue but also ‘dwellings, olive-groves, and vineyards, monuments and tiles and other income from grain, wine, oil, and poultry, lands, hereditaments, and other assets’.20 Most probably this inventory of assets would apply to many communities, large, medium, and small, and all of these fall under the rubric of communal property21 in and around a town. The document under discussion states that all this property now belongs to the Crown, because of smuggling, since the members of the community who went into exile had smuggled out items which it was forbidden to remove from the kingdom.22 The Crown decided to grant the aforementioned property in perpetuity to Juan Ortiz de Valderrama, one of the king’s personal bodyguards or continos (now spelt continuos), because of the many services he had rendered the monarchy.23 This grant was made in full so that he and his heirs could enjoy all the income derived from the property, being permitted to sell, donate, give away, exchange, and treat this communal and private property as fully their own.24 He even received the right, by virtue of his service to 17 See León Tello, Toledo, i. 362–4; the document is published ibid. 616–20. Del Mercado was known for his great activity after the expulsion; his full title was ‘juez de los bienes e debdas que dexaron los judios en el arzobispado de Toledo’. He was also active in Guadalajara: see e.g. RGS 12 No. 1131, fo. 335, and the index to the present book. 18 See, for example, RGS 11 No. 3861, fo. 322, a court order dated 18 Nov. 1494, addressed to Rodrigo del Mercado for taking property from Juana García, the wife of Juan García Burujón, a resident of Toledo. They and one Miguel de la Peña had bought it unencumbered from the community at the price of 4,375 mrs. With the agreement of the Royal Council, the Crown acceded to the claim and returned the property to them, even though Rodrigo del Mercado had already sold it to another buyer as Crown property, like other Jewish communal property which passed into the possession of the Crown after the expulsion. 19 RGS 12 No. 1828, fo. 5; drafted by Fernán Álvarez de Toledo, the Crown secretary. 20 ‘Tenian e poseyan çiertas casas e synogas e casas de morada e oliuares e viñas e piedras de onsario e ladrillos e çiertos tributos e maravedis e pan e vino e aseyte e gallinas e tierras e eredamientos e otros bienes rayzes’, RGS 12 No. 1828, fo. 5. 21 ‘Tenian e poseyan en comun como aljama’, RGS 12 No. 1828, fo. 5. 22 On goods not to be removed see Ch. 2. 23 ‘Las dichas casas e synogas e confraderias e casas de morada e oliuares e viñas e piedras de honsario e ladrillos e çensos e tributos e maravedis e pan e vino e azeyte e gallinas e tierras e heredamientos e todos otros e qualesquier bienes rayzes que la dicha aljama de la dicha villa tenia e poseya en comun como aljama’, RGS 12 No. 1828, fo. 5. 24 The council, judges, regidores, caballeros, escuderos, clerks, notables, and everyone who is required to pay the duty on grain, wine, flocks, olive oil, and the like. They must pay to the aforementioned receiver of

60

the fate of jewish communal property

the Crown, to the income from the assets of the Jews of Talavera de la Reina who had gone into exile.25

ii. loans Jewish communal property and income from the Jewish community and its property were connected to a system of loans known as juro. Under this system, the residents, the city leaders, and the nearby monasteries, as well as various individuals—nobles and wealthy men—lent money to the Crown, which in return undertook to make them an annual payment. There were actually two systems of loans: the juro for a limited time, and the juro de por vida. The former seems to have been a contract to provide income for a certain period; the latter was a lifetime annuity. Before the expulsion, the Crown had incurred considerable debts, and it was forced to pledge the Jewish taxes, both direct and indirect, to pay the juro annuities. These taxes included an annual levy, the service tax, and the half-service tax, as well as income from the duties imposed on kosher meat and wine. Once the Jews were expelled, there was no one to pay these moneys and guarantee the pledges. Many appeals were made to the Crown to cover the debts and furnish payments to the lenders. The Crown sought to solve this problem by using abandoned Jewish property. However, after the expulsion, most Jewish communal property was granted to the church, select nobility, and the cities, and the Crown could use only the remnant. A number of documents shed light on this state of affairs. According to these, demands to settle the Crown debts were not made prior to 1493; the Crown’s responses are discussed below in chronological order.26 The monastery of Nuestra Señora del Parral in Zaragoza had a juro of 5,000 mrs, against which, on 27 January 1493, the monastery was granted the synagogue building, which was worth 100,000 mrs. The Crown also ordered the tombstones to be included, if the value of the building was insufficient to redeem the loan. However, it viewed the settlement as an act of generosity towards the monastery for the sake of the faith.27 The convent of San Antonio el Real in Segovia possessed a ‘merçed de juro de heredad’ totalling 8,000 mrs, in return for which it received an annual payment from the Jewish slaughterhouse. This payment ceased, of course, after the expulsion of the Jews, and the nuns sank into dire poverty and misery. They therefore asked the Crown revenue the income that they derived from the property, as they had done when the Jewish community existed. A Jewish resident named Ysaque Zadique who went into exile is known to have sold his property at a low price. He still owed money to Fernán Sánchez, the tax-collector for the maestre of Santiago, in the sum of 5,000 mrs. Pedro de Valencia, a guarantor of this loan, addressed the Crown and received a response on 16 Feb. 1495, stating that Rodrigo del Mercado was to receive Fernán Sánchez and Pedro de Valencia to clarify the situation. See RGS 12 No. 681, fo. 497. See also RGS 11 No. 4027, fo. 289, of 27 Nov. 1494 regarding guarantors for the debts of the Jews in Belinchón. 25 See RGS 12 No. 1827, fo. 4, dated 13 Apr. 1495; drafted by Fernán Álvarez de Toledo, the secretary to the Crown. 26 On this arrangement, see A. MacKay, ‘Hacienda y sociedad en la historia de España’, in Instituto de Historia de Simancas, Estado, hacienda y sociedad en la historia de España (Valladolid, 1989), 63 ff. 27 See RGS 10 No. 196, fo. 17. See also below on the paragraph dealing with the communal property of Jewish Segovia.

the fate of jewish communal property

61

to grant them an annual annuity in compensation for the loss occasioned to them by the expulsion. The Crown ordered the corregidor, Día Sánchez de Quesada, to ascertain what Jewish communal property remained in Segovia so that resources could be allotted to the convent in compensation for its losses.28 The decree was issued on 3 May 1492.29 Gonzalo del Río, the regidor of Segovia and royal contino, possessed a lien on Jewish taxes in the sum of 6,000 mrs.30 He had received income from the annual tax, the service tax, and the half-service tax, all of which he lost with the expulsion. To restore this income to him, the Crown ordered the corregidor to arrange the sale of Jewish communal property to pay all the debts and obligations previously covered by the Jewish taxes.31 Purchasers of this property, which was to be sold at public auction, would own it in perpetuity.32 Lázaro Gómez de Sevilla, another contino, was left a mayorazgo by his father in the form of an annuity of 5,200 mrs from the tax on Jewish meat and wine (‘carne e vino judiego’) in Zamora. Having lost this income with the expulsion of the Jews—a severe financial setback—he asked the Crown for suitable compensation. The corregidor of Zamora, the licenciado Pedro de Maluenda, was ordered to ascertain what Jewish communal property remained in Zamora and in whose hands the moneys collected from it were. These funds were to be transferred to Gómez de Sevilla and to anyone else to whom income was due from the farming of taxes on Jewish meat and wine and from the taxes themselves, as well as anyone with an outstanding loan guaranteed by a lien. The grant was to be for life, and the grantees were to use it as they wished. If they purchased property with the proceeds, they might dispose of it freely, like any other property-owner.33 Fernán Núñez de Madrid and his wife had possessed liens totalling 2,000 mrs on A full report on him was transmitted to the Crown, signed by a notary. Alonso del Mármol prepared the decree with the approbation of the council; see RGS 10 No. 1137, fo. 88. Día Sánchez de Quesada was a confidant of the Catholic Monarchs. On him cf. M. Lunenfeld, Keepers of the City (Cambridge, 1978), index. He was active from the first consolidation of their joint rule. On his career and also also that of Ponce de Cabrera, a judge and administrator of Jewish property, there is the edict of 12 Dec. 1493. Upon their appointment, these men (like others appointed to these positions in the expulsion) had to deposit guarantees for the period of their presence and residence in Segovia. They did not, and the Crown, in accordance with the law passed by the Cortes of Toledo in 1480, required them to do so within fifty days of the day of their appointment and within thirty days of their arrival in their place of activity. See RGS 10 No. 3204, fo. 144. The decree was drafted by Francisco de Cisenros with the approbation of the council. 30 There was apparently another man of this name, of converso origin, who was judged by the Inquisition. The court confiscated his property. On 27 Sept. 1492, Fernán Núñez Coronel obtained a court order transferring the property of Gonzalo del Río to his ownership (RGS 9 No. 3087, fo. 111). He was the treasurer of the Hermandad of the province of Segovia. 31 See Lunenfeld, Keepers, 218. The expenses of the corregidor were to be covered by the sale itself. On 5 June 1492 the Dominican monastery was granted the Jewish cemetery, which was close to it, according to the notes of Fuencisla García Casar, to whom I am grateful for communicating them to me. 32 Every complaint registered regarding ownership of this property was judged only by the Crown court. The edict was prepared by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the Crown. 33 The purchasers were not to be deprived of what they had bought. This decree was drafted with the approbation of the Crown by Juan de la Parra and issued on 20 Apr. 1494 (RGS 11 No. 1367, fo. 18). 28 29

62

the fate of jewish communal property

the fixed taxes on the Jews resident in Huete. They benefited from these liens while they lived and could bequeath them to their heirs, but after the expulsion this income was lost. The heirs therefore petitioned the Crown to be compensated from the property abandoned by the Jews of Madrid. The Crown ordered the corregidor and the resident magistrate to ascertain on which properties left by the Jews in Huete there had been liens, and on which taxes, and what were the ‘rentas o maravedís de por vida’. Once this information had been gathered, the corregidor or the resident justice was to hold a public auction of all the communal property formerly belonging to the Jews in Huete and within its boundaries; these bienes comunes would be transferred to private hands, and the money raised divided among the holders of liens according to what they were owed. As a result of this private appeal, an arrangement was to be made for all the local lien-holders.34 Various documents testify to the action taken to cover the obligations to lenders in Guadalajara; they inform us about the living conditions of that important community. On 26 June 1493 the Crown granted the revenue it had collected from the communal property and indirect taxes of the Jewish community of Guadalajara to Juan de Labastida for his services as a veedor or supervisor of the church. The property included moveable goods and real estate—everything remaining from the cemetery, buildings, and the vineyards that had belonged to the Jewish community—and the taxes were those that had been collected from kosher meat, wine, and olive oil. The document does not specify the amount of income received from this property, but it does state that thenceforth those moneys were granted in perpetuity to Labastida, who had received the right to benefit from them.35 However, in practice it was difficult to execute this grant or to find a way of doing so, because of pressure from the local community. In 1486 Sancho González de la Plazuela bought an annuity from the Jewish community of Guadalupe for the sum of 3,236 mrs.36 This arrangement was accomplished amicably and was apparently a loan or the lease of property, from which González expected to enjoy an annual income.37 He was supposed to receive what was due him 34 This decree was drafted with the approbation of the Crown by Fernán Álvarez de Toledo and issued on 30 Apr. 1494 (RGS 11 No. 1560, fo. 8). 35 See RGS 10 No. 1689, fo. 37. This decree was drafted with the approbation of the Crown by Fernán Álvarez de Toledo. The property and income are described as ‘serviçio, medio serviçio e cabeça de pecho’; the tax on Jewish meat and wine, and also ‘todas las dichas casas e synogas e cofradias, e casas de morada e olibares e viñas e piedras de onsario e ladrillos e çensos e tributos e maravedis e pan e vyno e açeyte e tierras e heredamientos e todos los otros a qualquier bienes rayzes que la dicha aljama de la dicha çibdad tenia e poseya de comun como aljama’. This ownership was in force at the time when the Jews were about to leave for exile. The penalties against those who violated the order were loss of royal favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. 36 ‘IIIVCXXXVI de çenso perpeto por çierta quantia de maravedis’. See RGS 11 No. 4148, fo. 266. On 16 Mar. 1493, the Crown responded and ordered the corregidor of Madrid, Cristóbal de Toro, in accordance with an order issued on 26 Feb., to allow him to collect the debts left owing to the Jews, upon production of the promissory notes given them by their Christian debtors. See RGS 10 No. 672, fo. 75, drafted by Juan de la Parra; see also Ch. 4. 37 Disobedience was to be punished by loss of royal favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. The name of the man who drafted the edict is missing. Based on the handwriting it was probably the protonotary and secretary of the Crown, Felipe Clemente, as ordered by the Royal Council.

the fate of jewish communal property

63

from Jewish property after the Jews were expelled, but the Count of Coruña, Bernaldino Suárez de Mendoza, represented by his criado Juan de Cabeña, obtained an order from the Crown on 5 June 1492 that he should be compensated from Jewish property for a lien it had granted him on the funds of the Jewish community. The count argued that if, indeed, Jewish communal property had been mortgaged to La Plazuela, the mortgage was now due to himself, because Jewish communal property had passed to the Crown, which was now responsible for the payment of mortgages, and he, the count, had the right to be paid first. When La Plazuela objected, the count obtained a royal order which, in his adversary’s opinion, was based on a fraudulent claim. La Plazuela argued that since he had bought the annuity from the community long before the Edict of Expulsion was announced, the royal order obtained by the count and the order for its execution issued by the judges of Guadalajara were invalid. The property that had been seized and sold at public auction was his, for the order regarding Jewish communal property only applied to property remaining after the expulsion. Therefore he asked for an order rescinding the decision of the judges of Guadalajara regarding property they had seized. Here the imperious ways of the count are clearly evident. He worked hand in glove with the judges of Guadalajara, where his power and influence were predominant. The Crown responded to the plaintiff on 2 December 1494 and ordered the judges of Guadalajara to convene the parties once again to hear their claims.38 The count possessed a fixed annuity of 22,000 mrs, granted to him in perpetuity from the alcabala paid by the Jews of Guadalajara. This income ceased after the Jews were expelled. Accordingly his representatives petitioned the Crown on his behalf that he should be given suitable compensation, or else that the funds he had deposited with the government should be returned to him. In documents dated 8 November and 15 December 1494, it is stated that the amount of the juro was 22,500 mrs. In the earlier decree the municipal magistrates are ordered to ascertain what communal property the Jews had abandoned in the city and its environs and what was the other income of the community; these assets were to be sold at public auction, and an effort should thus be made to repay the debt to the count. However, the latter decree suggests that this was not done, for the council ordered the bachiller Cisneros to go to Guadalajara in the company of a notary and conduct an investigation to determine what Jewish communal property there had been and who now held it. He was to require the possessors to prove their right to the property. A public sale was then to be held of property that was not owned with Crown permission. The income from that sale would cover the debts of the juros in general.39 On 8 March 1495, the Crown ordered Rodrigo del Mercado to ascertain whether indeed there was any truth (‘sy asy es’) in the count’s claims that he had enjoyed inSee Baer, JchS ii. 432 ff.; Cantera Burgos and Carrete Parrondo, Sefarad, 34 (1974), 432–4. See RGS 11 No. 4358, fo. 368; RGS 11 No. 3708, fo. 6. The first decree was drafted by Juan de la Parra, and the second by Alonso del Mármol, both on the orders of the councillors. Cisneros was given eight days to conduct the investigation. His salary was set at 230 mrs a day; the notary who accompanied him received 70 mrs a day. This sum was to be paid by those who presented their claims before him regarding Jewish communal property. 38 39

64

the fate of jewish communal property

come from the abattoirs of the Jews of Guadalajara to the amount he had named. The count must produce the document granting him income from the abattoirs before Del Mercado,40 who, in turn, must ascertain which communal real estate the Jews had abandoned there, and which censos (ground rents) they had held when they went into exile. Only after this inquiry could he sell the property and the annuities to the highest bidder at public auction. The first to be paid from the revenue were to be those who had made loans to the government guaranteed by the annual taxes paid by the Jews— the service tax and the half-service tax. The count was to be compensated from the remainder (‘de lo restante’). For every 1,000 mrs of the annuity he had lost, he was to be paid 12,000 mrs, coming to a total of 264,000 mrs. The annual payments that he had not collected in 1492, 1493, and 1494 were also to be made good from the sale of communal property, cancelling the Crown’s debt. After cancellation of the debt the corregidor was to take the writ of privilege from the count and transmit it to the contadores mayores to be destroyed.41 This decree indicates that the Crown assumed that Jewish communal property remained in Guadalajara. The decree also records the response of the residents of Guadalajara, who, in turn, obtained a royal decree on 3 April 1495.42 They argued that they had purchased the houses of the Jews ‘por justos tytulos’ when the latter went into exile.43 Lope de Torres and Gonzalo de Covarrubias appealed to the Crown in the residents’ name. As we have seen, the count and others had obtained an order requiring Del Mercado to sell former Jewish property the income on which was subject to liens, and other property besides, in order to compensate the count for his loss of income from Jewish abattoirs and wine, and other revenue from the Jews. Del Mercado had executed the order to sell the property, but the residents of Guadalajara argued that the seizure and sale of this property had no legal validity. They claimed that they were the legal owners and purchasers of the property, from whom it had been seized, and that they had not been invited to testify or notified when the orders of sale were issued, as was required by law. Thus, according to the residents of Guadalajara, the execution of the decrees was improper and based on false information, and damage (‘perjuisio’) had been caused to them. When they bought the property from the Jews, ‘carta e sobrecarta’ had been issued, attesting that it had been conveyed to them publicly. Hence the purchase agreements were still valid according to law, and the property might not be seized from them without their being invited to testify and voice their claims, nor without a judicial decision as demanded by law. The orders issued for the public sale of their property should never have been issued, because they were prejudicial to one party, those who had purchased the Jews’ property in good faith and lawful title (‘con buena fe e justo tytulo’). These arguments were backed up by the appropriate legal actions. 40 See RGS 12 No. 1131, fo. 335; it was prepared by Fernán Álvarez de Toledo with the approbation of the king and queen. 41 Rodrigo del Mercado was given full authority, including covering the expense of executing his order. 42 See RGS 12 No. 1612, fo. 75; it was prepared by Cristóbal de Vitoria with the approbation of the Royal Council. 43 The purchasers were Antonio de Sotomayor; Hernán Beltrán de Guzmán; Luis Pérez del Castillo; Diego Porcel; Alonso de Tárrega; Fernándo de Ávila; Fernando de Toledo, barber; Gonzalo de Aranda; Antonio de Calderón; Hernando de Orozco; ‘Mençia, mujer que fue de Luys de Hermosa’, RGS 12 No. 1612, fo. 75.

the fate of jewish communal property

65

Regarding tax revenues that had been mortgaged to the count and other notables, ‘of which it was said that they are of the alcabalas on the Jewish abattoirs, these were not situated within the community of the said Jews nor on their communal property; therefore these taxes were not an imposition or charge imposed on the Jews in general, but the alcabala tax was paid by the owner of the abattoir as it would be paid by any other trader’.44 That is to say, this tax was merely an indirect impost not connected to the annual tax on the Jews. Hence there was no basis for linking that tax to the Jewish community or to goods and property in the city that the Jews or their community had sold. In the light of all these claims the plaintiffs requested a court order rescinding Del Mercado’s decision and affirming their ownership of the communal property that they had purchased from the Jews.45 It appears that the houses they bought were indeed communal property, very likely buildings that the community had been forced to purchase in the early 1480s, at the time of the segregation in housing, which had been implemented with great severity in Guadalajara, and the Jewish residents had therefore paid monthly rent or an annual fee to the community. The plaintiffs were prepared to reach an accommodation with the count and pay his judicial expenses. The Crown ruled in their favour and ordered Del Mercado to desist from all legal action to deprive them of the property they had bought from the Jews. He had to accede to their claims, to restore their ownership of the property, and to invite others who held obligations guaranteed by the property to join with those who had already entered a claim in the matter. This group of documents shows clearly that attempts were made to seize Jewish communal property, that confusion reigned in the state regarding ownership of Jewish property, and that the Crown sought to use Jewish property to pay its debts.46 The amount of Jewish communal property in Toledo is mentioned in a decree of 14 October 1494 given to Rodrigo del Mercado.47 It mentions lots in the old citadel and elsewhere, the Jewish abattoir and butcher’s shops, and dwellings which were rented to the Jews of the community.48 These houses were sold to various residents. Pilar León Tello has calculated that the houses that were sold were worth 23,154 mrs. Among the owners of this property were thirty Jews who went into exile; their holdings were valued at 19,604 mrs. Listed with the other property are a house that stood adjacent to the new synagogue and one that was the ‘House of Study of the community in the Alcaná [Market Street]’.49 44 ‘que ay dis que devian en las alcaualas de las carneçerias de los judios non estauan nin fueron fundados en las aljama de los dichos judios nin en los bienes communes della, porque non heran ynpusiçon nin cargo sobre los dichos judios, e que solamente hera pagar el alcauala el carniçero como la pagaua otro qualquier vendedor’, RGS 12 No. 1612, fo. 75. 45 ‘amparar e defender en la dicha su posesyon de los dichos bienes comunes que asy ouieron de los dichos judios’, ibid. 46 On the granting of the ‘synoga mayor’ of Guadalajara to Labastida for the sum of 6,500 mrs from the service and half-service taxes to the Crown (RGS 12 No. 1231, fo. 14, of 13 Mar. 1495), see below, 47 Sect. III. See Baer, JchS ii. 429 ff. 48 See León Tello, Toledo, i. 362 ff., 530 ff., 610, 616. 49 ‘Yten unas casas que fueron midras de la dicha aljama en el alcana que se llama Midras de la Vegas’, Baer, JchS ii. 430. See below, Sects. III and V.

66

the fate of jewish communal property

However, a different picture emerges from another document dated 21 November 1494. According to it Juan Vázquez de Aillón, the regidor of the municipal council, bought a considerable quantity of communal property from the Jews, including seven places of business, an abattoir, part of a courtyard, an entry, and property for the sum of 80,000 mrs against alcabala obligations.50 The legal basis of his purchase was the privilege granted by the Crown to sell Jewish property and the order permitting purchasers to acquire this property. Meanwhile, on 6 July 1492, the Crown had issued an order freezing all sales, and the Jewish community was ordered to refund the purchase price. Aillón was requested to collect the money from Jews who had not yet left the kingdom and who owned mortgaged properties; he had apparently taken possession of the property. Meanwhile Del Mercado arrived in Toledo and took up his position as the magistrate responsible for the property of Jews formerly resident in the archdiocese of Toledo who had gone into exile. Without much clarification, he seized the property and proclaimed that it would be sold at public auction.51 As a result of Aillón’s appeal, the council ordered Del Mercado to freeze the sale for sixty days and to transmit the details of the transaction to the council for discussion and instructions as to how to act. On 21 December 1494 Del Mercado or, alternatively, the corregidor was ordered to conduct a survey of all the holders of juros de por vida to which were assigned revenues from the service and half-service taxes imposed on the Jewish community, and to sell all Jewish communal property to the highest bidder. The sum received was to cover the Crown’s debts to holders of juros de por vida (apparently their status was different from those who held limited juros) whose income had been lost once the Jews went into exile. He was given full authority. This order was given in response to an appeal by the royal contino Fernán Suárez, who held juros de por vida totalling 25,000 mrs.52 The Crown took an additional step affecting Jewish communal property by granting the community’s censos from real property to Rodrigo de Mansilla, the Crown butler (‘repostero de camas’), in view of his past, present, and future services. The scope of this property is extraordinary, including not only residences but also a dyeworks, an inn 50 ‘Siete casas tiendas e una carnesçeria e parte de corral e entrada e vn suelo por ochenta mil forros de Alcauala’, RGS 11 No. 3920, fo. 184. 51 On him see Lunenfeld, Keepers, 43–7. In 1480–3 he served as the corregidor of Madrid. He was regarded as loyal to Ferdinand and Isabella. In 1494–5 he was involved in the matter of Jewish property. Regarding his activities as corregidor of Madrid in 1495 see RGS 12 No. 1274, fo. 135, dated 14 Mar. 1495. Cf. also Cantera Burgos and Carrete Parrondo, ‘Juderías medievales’, 58, regarding 1494. In his capacity as corregidor he determined the disposition of all Jewish property in the entire archdiocese. On his activities, see the following documents: RGS 11 No. 1664, fo. 453, 2 May 1494; RGS 11 No. 1665, fo. 454, 2 May 1494; RGS 11 No. 2961, fo. 353, 28 Sept. 1494; RGS 11 No. 3008, fo. 20, s.d. s.l. ix. 1494; RGS 11 No. 3334, fo. 195, 17 Oct. 1494; RGS 11 No. 3335, fo. 555, 17 Oct. 1494; RGS 11 No. 3063, fo. 97, 3 Oct. 1494; RGS 11 No. 3861, fo. 322, 18 Nov. 1494; RGS 11 No. 3920, fo. 184, 21 Oct. 1494; RGS 11 No. 4102, fo. 433, 30 Nov. 1494. For 1495: RGS 12 No. 681, fo. 49, 16 Feb. 1495; RGS 12 No. 1131, fo. 335, 8 Mar. 1495; RGS 12 No. 1612, fo. 75, 3 Apr. 1495; RGS 12 No. 1274, fo. 135, 6 May 1495. He carried out the Crown’s instructions very faithfully, disposing of all Jewish communal property within his sphere of competence. 52 Another arrangement for payment was to determine a renta (annuity). See RGS 11 No. 4482, fo. 7.

the fate of jewish communal property

67

(‘mesón’), building land, a hospital,53 and 20 fanegas of arable land near the cemetery of Toledo. Among the owners of the residences were twenty-three Jews, who had apparently gone into exile, and five non-Jews, some of whom might have been conversos or their descendants.54 The value of the properties granted came to 22,584 mrs. Mansilla was to own it in perpetuity, and deal with it as he wished, either to sell it or to transfer it by deed to clergymen, monasteries, caballeros, and men of stature in the state and city—on condition that they were not outside the borders of the kingdom of Spain and the dominions of the Crown there. To transfer the property to someone abroad, he would need the permission of the Crown. Doubtless the fate of the taxes paid by the Jewish community was consistently determined in this way. I turn now to the fate of Jewish communal property in towns and settlements near Toledo, where it was also liquidated, either by sale or by conveyance.55 The dean and another cleric in the cathedral church of San Salvador in Ávila possessed an endowment in perpetuity granted during the reign of Enrique II. Their annuity totalled 3,000 mrs, paid from the martiniega tax,56 in return for buildings taken from the church for the purpose of building a plaza in a district of Ávila. The priests took upon themselves the obligation to pray for the soul of King Alfonso XI, the father of King Enrique, and for the health of Doña Juana, Enrique’s wife, and for the Crown Prince, Don Juan, as detailed in the privilege granted to them. After Enrique’s death in 1379, this arrangement was confirmed by the new king, Juan I, and 53 See above regarding the seven places of business seized by Juan Vázquez de Aillón. The list in the archives indicates that in addition to those seven buildings, he also appropriated the hospital (‘siete pares de casas y un espital’). See RGS 12 No. 2090, fo. 5, issued on 8 May 1495. 54 Below is the annual censo, as listed in the archival document: ‘1. Abraham Hayete––1000 mrs de çenso; 2. Mose Prado––300 mrs de çenso; 3. Jaco Abençebar––400 mrs de çenso; 4. Mose Cohen––30 mrs de çenso; 5. Yuçe Algazi––60 mrs de çenso; 6. Yuçe Aserrate––900 mrs de çenso; 7. Daui Abensba––279 mrs de çenso; 8. Abrahem Almaxel––800 mrs de çenso; 9. Rabi Mose Avenbueno––225 mrs de çenso; 10. Ysaque Arantel––600 mrs de çenso; 11. Yuça Pilo––330 mrs de çenso; 12. Abraham Chapel––210 mrs de çenso; 13. Jaco Abengato––250 mrs de çenso; 14. Rufyn, tinitorero––1200 mrs de çenso; 15. Symuel Abenxuxen y su subrino––130 mrs de çenso; 16. Abengato; 17. Benito de la Torre––70 mrs de çenso; 18. Pedro de Alcantar Gutierre, aposentador––30 mrs de çenso; 19. (a lot) (meson)––150 mrs de çenso; 20. Levi Abensaba ––160 mrs de çenso; 21. Yuce Abenhumay (and his heirs)––200 mrs de çenso; 22. Alonso Gutierrez––140 mrs de çenso; 23. Ysaque Abenxuxen (a house); 24. Yuçe Alfandary (a house)––4,380 mrs de çenso; 25. Fernand Gomez, Botycaris––6,800 mrs de çenso; 26. Juçen Ayllon (seven houses and the hospital and shelter), the sum is missing; 27. twenty fanegas of arable land near the Jewish cemetery; 28. Symuel Abenxuxen y su subrino mrs (in the neighbourhood of San Tome)––3,100 mrs de çenso.’ This came to a total annual income of 22,584 mrs. The notary who drew up the account listed the sum as 19,604 mrs, and perhaps he made an error. Clearly it was necessary to list the houses in Aillón’s possession and the value of the arable land. The man who drafted the order was the royal secretary and regarded as a loyal subject. As noted, he was of converso origin. 55 See e.g. Elena Romero, ‘Algunas propiedades judías en el pago toledano de Algondrinejo’, Sefarad, 33 (1973), 357–66. On p. 358 she presents a documented dated 30 Apr. 1492 relating to the termination of leases held by Haym Esrillo, the son of Solomon Esrillo, and his departure for exile. She also presents details regarding the brothers Judah and Ephraim Abençadoque, who went into exile. Perhaps it should be inferred that there was also Jewish communal property there. 56 This tax was first imposed by King Alfonso II on houses containing ovens; all citizens were required to pay this tax, collected throughout the year without any connection to St Martin’s day (11 Nov.). See R. Carande, Siete estudios de historia de España (Barcelona, 1971), 66. On the transfer of property in Ávila, see also León Tello, Ávila, 158 ff.

68

the fate of jewish communal property

by his great-grandfather, who was still living; the prayers in memory of Don Enrique were thereafter transferred to the monastery of Santa Clara in Tordesillas. As a result of this step, the priests lost the income they had received from the annual tax of the Jews (‘cabeça de pecho’), and they therefore asked the Crown to arrange a payment for them to compensate for their loss. The Crown acceded to their demand and on 6 December 1494 ordered Lope de Vera to arrange the perpetual annual payment of this sum to the church of San Salvador.57 If the sum could not be raised, he was to sell the remaining communal property, previously assessed at 45,000 mrs, but now at 15,000 mrs. The Crown made an additional grant to the church of 9,000 mrs from Jewish moveable property left in Ávila. On 20 December 1494 the corregidor of Valladolid, Alonso Ramírez de Villaescusa, was ordered to respond to the appeal of Inés Álvarez, the wife of the oidor Dr García de Castro.58 Her husband had received an annual income of 3,000 mrs from the taxes on the Jews. When they were sent into permanent exile (‘destierro perpetuo’), he lost that income. Thereupon she asked the Crown to have that sum paid from the communal property of the Jews or from any other alternative source for every year since the expulsion of the Jews. Because the Crown responded favourably to this appeal, Alonso Ramírez was ordered to ascertain which property and income remained from the Jews who been sent into exile from Valladolid and which property had not been pledged to pay other debts there. If Jewish communal property remained and had not yet been sold to cover other debts, the sum was to be paid to the oidor’s wife. If communal property was not available, the corregidor was to allocate 36,000 mrs from revenue derived from the sale of Jewish communal property, and make annual cash payments to her at the rate of 12 per cent for every 1,000 mrs. Thus she would receive the sum of 9,000 mrs in compensation for her loss during the three years following the expulsion of the Jews (1492–4), or else some of the remaining Jewish communal property.59 On 19 January 1495 the Crown made a grant to the bachiller Antonio de Castro. In 1478 he had inherited an annuity of 1,200 mrs from his mother.60 When the Jews were expelled, he lost this income, because it was paid from the annual Jewish tax. Here, too, the corregidor was ordered to cover the debt by selling the Jewish communal property the taxes on which had gone to pay that annuity. As usual, the Crown promised freedom of purchase and protection to anyone who bought that property. 57 Lope de Vera was the magistrate responsible for the property of Jews who had gone into exile (RGS 11 No. 4216, fo. 6). The edict was drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the Royal Council. 58 On 2 May 1493 Alonso Ramírez de Villaescusa was ordered to receive 63,000 mrs from Fernán Núñez Coronel, formerly Abraham Senior. This sum had been confiscated from Diego López de San Miguel, a resident of Oporto in Portugal, who had stolen it from Núñez Coronel’s men (RGS No. 128, fo. 311). 59 ‘Paguedes en dineros contados de lo que ouieredes resçebido por que fueron vendidos . . . a razon de XII V del millar que por XXX VI V mil que fue tasado por los del nuestro consejo que justamente valian los dichos maravedis de juro. E mas le dad IX V maravedis dineros o en bienes communes por lo que ha perdido los tres años pasados’, RGS 11 No. 4433, fo. 8. The decree was prepared by Juan de la Parra as ordered by the Royal Council. 60 Her name was Mari Álvarez de Castro. See RGS 12 No. 211, fo. 263. The decree was drafted by Juan de la Para with the approbation of the consejo de justicia and the Crown.

the fate of jewish communal property

69

On 22 February 1495 Doña Inés de la Serna, the wife of Gutierre Pantoja, a resident of Bonilla de la Sierra, managed to obtain an order from the Crown requiring the corregidor of Ávila to ascertain which Jewish communal property remained in her village, which was near Ávila, so as to cover the juros de por vida to which taxes paid by the Jews had been pledged. He was instructed to sell property to the highest bidder and to transfer that property to the purchasers. These were to own the property in perpetuity and would be permitted to do with it whatever they wished. The size of this rural community is unknown, as is the composition of its communal property, but there most have been some, and there must also have been some income from the tax on kosher meat and wine.61 In conclusion: close examination of these arrangements shows that the Crown attempted to discharge debts using Jewish property, especially communal property. The list of those who had made loans to the Crown, guaranteed by income from taxes on the Jews, is interesting. It includes church organizations that sought to obtain a fixed annual income by this means; the nobility (who most probably purchased far more obligations of this kind than church institutions); and in general people of moderate means. After the expulsion of the Jews, the holders of these obligations were apparently doubtful as to whether they would be honoured at all; hence there were no appeals to the Crown immediately after the Jews went into exile. Although revenue from both direct and indirect taxes on the Jews had obviously been lost to the Crown, in its generosity it granted Jewish communal property to churches, monasteries, and municipal councils. It also made grants to noblemen whose favour it was interested in gaining and whom it had to recompense for services rendered and other benefits. Claims for payment of debts guaranteed by taxes formerly paid by the Jews could be met only with what remained of Jewish communal property. If any of those loans had been made by Jews, it goes without saying that they were utterly lost after the expulsion, in addition to the other losses suffered by the Jews when they were exiled.

iii. synagogues, houses of study, and ritual baths The violent persecutions of 1491 also affected synagogues and other communal institutions, both of the communities that were destroyed and of those which survived. To make things worse, these persecutions were followed by the Disputation of Tortosa and the actions of Vincent Ferrer, the anti-pope Benedict XIII, assisted by conversos who destroyed synagogues and other community institutions.62 Thus throughout the fifteenth century in Spain Jewish communal institutions struggled for survival. Their struggle was made more difficult by the edict requiring segregation in housing, 61 Both the king and queen signed the decree, which was drafted by Juan de la Parra (RGS 12 No. 802, fo. 150). 62 Thus on 7 Aug. 1415 the synagogue in Calatayud was turned into a church at the request of the converso Don Yose ibn Cabra (after conversion called Martín de la Cabra). See Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas, 189 and also 196 on the synagogue in Cisneros (in the province of Palencia), which on 10 Apr. 1415 became a church after the local Jews converted. The synagogue in Barbastro became a church on 27 Apr. 1415 after the community converted (Baer, JchS i. 825). These are not isolated cases.

70

the fate of jewish communal property

passed by the Cortes of Toledo in 1480 and implemented with great severity during the following decade, which dealt a further blow to these institutions.63 Although that edict permitted the construction of new synagogues (as well as ritual baths and yeshivas), it is doubtful whether the communities possessed the means or had time to build and establish these institutions before the promulgation of the Edict of Expulsion, which put an end to the entire Jewish community of Spain. In some places there might have been temporary houses of prayer which did not survive, which may explain why our knowledge about synagogues is quite scanty. I do not intend to discuss the physical remains of synagogues here. Rather, I shall treat documentary references to synagogues and communal institutions from the time of the expulsion itself, for they provide evidence of the annihilation of the Jewish community.64 Because of the complex geography of Spain, I shall discuss these localities in alphabetical order in each separate kingdom: first Castile-León, then the kingdom of Aragon. These documents convey the haste with which these institutions were liquidated, which was one way to put an end to any memory of Spanish Jewry and to erase any remainder of centuries of Jewish life in that country. The Crown wished to convert the synagogues to churches or to donate them to monasteries. Church institutions were also the first to benefit from the other Jewish communal property, including tombstones, building blocks, and roof tiles. However, other individuals and institutions exerted pressure on the Crown, too, and it soon was forced to cede abandoned Jewish buildings to municipal councils, noblemen, and notables to whom the Crown was obliged to provide benefits and support. The story of these buildings is the final chapter in the life of the Jewish community of Spain.

The Kingdom of Castile Agreda A declaration of 27 January 1493 to the local council, its judges, regidores, escuderos, clerks, and ‘good men’ reports that the municipality had bought the synagogue from the Jewish community in order to use it as a meeting-room. The property had not been transferred to the ownership of the council, because the revenue from the annual tax on the Jews, from the servicio and medio servicio tax, and from the impost on the abattoir was no longer available to be paid to the local churches and monasteries. The Crown acceded to the request of the municipal council to use the building as its meeting-room; however, the municipality was to bear the expense of renovating the structure.65 See Beinart, ‘Jewish Dwellings in Spain’, 61–85. These were discussed in Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas, and additional valuable information was supplied in Lacave Riaño, Juderías y sinagogas españolas. I have organized this chapter alphabetically by place-name. Naturally the list of places presented here will be shorter than that discussed by Cantera Burgos, who presents a full discussion of the remains of buildings. For the full extent of the synagogues in Spain see Cantera Burgos and Lacave Riaño. On the Basque country, see F. Cantera Burgos, ‘Las juderías medievales en el País Vasco’, Sefarad, 31 (1971), 265–327. 65 See RGS 10 No. 197, fo. 15. The statement was drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the Royal Council. See also Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas, 154–7; id., ‘Juderías medievales de la provincia de Soria’, 450. 63 64

the fate of jewish communal property

71

Alcaraz Information about the sale of the synagogue in this town to a Muslim is found in an appeal by Diego de Alcaraz, whose name had been Yose while he was a Jew. He had not sold his house, which was adjacent to the synagogue, but returned to Alcaraz after his father-in-law discovered that the municipality had given the house to a weaver. The Crown responded to his appeal and ordered the judges of Uclés to adjudicate it after hearing both parties.66

Alfaro Until recently we possessed no information about the synagogue in this town, situated in the far north-east of the province of La Rioja, near the border of Navarre. A document dated 26 June 1539 provides information about the synagogue. According to this document, the Emperor Charles V ratified the privilege given by the council of Alfaro to Fernando Lucero, who was the emperor’s portero de cadena (chain-bearer), to build a house on a lot that had once belonged to the synagogue. By then the synagogue had been completely destroyed, and the only remnant of it was the plot of land itself. At the time of the expulsion, the synagogue and the cemetery had been granted to the municipal council, so that the synagogue might be preserved and used by the municipality. Given the large dimensions of the lot (63–70 m. in width by 70–84 m. in length), the entire area was probably not occupied by the synagogue, but other buildings stood there as well.67

Aranda de Duero There were two synagogues in this city. One was bought by the regidor, a resident of Aranda de Duero named Iñigo de Barahona, from the Jewish community for use as a dwelling. He depended upon the permission given by the Crown to purchase Jewish property and the protection afforded both to the sellers and to the purchasers of that property. Nevertheless, ‘with the intention of injuring him more than out of zeal for the service of God, to which they pretend’,68 according to the opinion of the provisor of Osma, several residents had come and made a riot and commotion (‘alboroto y escandalo’), turning the house into a church and placing a crucifix in it. In his petition to the Crown, Barahona pointed out that there were already two churches near the house he had bought, and another church that had been a synagogue.69 He asked the Crown to order the house to be restored to him, or compensation in lieu, and also that those who had caused the commotion should be punished. Thus he argued for public peace and civil order. This argument apparently convinced the Crown to order a local 66 See RGS 12 No. 333, fo. 408; the order was issued on 28 Jan. 1495 (the year is erroneously indicated as 1494). It was prepared by Luis del Castillo with the approbation of the members of the council. Nothing is said of the value of Yose’s house, nor that of the synagogue. It is said that his house was ‘acolada a la synoga de la dicha villa’. 67 L. López Pita and E. Cantera Montenegro, ‘Algunas notas sobre la sinagoga de Alfaro’, Sefarad, 47 (1987), 139–48. 68 ‘Con entençion e proposito de lo danificar mas que con zelo de serviçio de Dios que symularon’, RGS 9 No. 1944, fo. 45, 29 May 1492. Hence the sale was transacted during the first month after the promulgation of the Edict of Expulsion. 69 ‘E otra yglesia que ovo sydo synoga e que era vien escusada’, RGS 9 No. 1944, fo. 45.

72

the fate of jewish communal property

investigation by the magistrates of the town, who were to adjudicate the dispute after hearing testimony from the parties involved. This seizure of property had a sequel. On 6 March 1493 the Crown ordered Francisco del Fresno, the corregidor of Aranda,70 to conduct a further investigation of the complaint. The brethren (‘hermanos e confrades’) of the Sociedad de Santa Ana in Aranda addressed the Crown and the Royal Council, claiming that when the expulsion of the Jews had been ordered, the community (‘el aljama’) had sold the synagogue for the sum of 95,000 mrs. The purchaser, Iñigo de Barahona, had not paid that sum to the community. He claimed that he had given the community guarantees (‘seguridad’) to pay it, apparently before they went into exile. Hence some clerics, acting out of religious zeal, held prayers in the synagogue, under the authority given them by the provisor of Osma. These prayers soon became a regular practice. Barahona argued that the synagogue had a small annexe, which was supported by the wall, thus attaching it to the church. Therefore the archpriest of the town ordered the gate of the church to be closed; it was to that that he objected. According to the society, Barahona had not paid a penny for the property of which he claimed ownership. Hence they asked the Crown to ratify the existing situation, so that they could continue praying in the place as they had done hitherto. This plea was discussed by the Crown Council, and the corregidor was ordered to summon the parties and hear their arguments. He was also ordered to ascertain whether Iñigo de Barahona had indeed purchased the synagogue, what price he had paid for it, to whom he had paid it, what was the current value of the building, what damage had been caused by what he had done to St Anne’s church, and what had impelled the provisor to act as he had done in permitting prayers to be held in the place. That is to say, a thorough inquiry was to be conducted to ascertain all the facts, and the results were to be communicated to the council.71 Neither side apparently convinced the Crown and the council. Although the Crown usually decided in favour of ecclesiastical institutions in disputes of this kind, here one senses that it sought to block steps that had been taken independently by institutions and individuals. The fate of the second synagogue is not known. Perhaps it was donated to the local church.

Ávila Documentary evidence indicates that at the time of the segregation of housing, which was implemented with the full severity of the law in Ávila,72 ownership of part of the area occupied by the synagogue was transferred.73 About 1482 Fernán Sánchez Pareja, On him see Lunenfeld, Keepers, 95 and index. His full name was Francisco González de Fresno. See RGS 10 No. 562, fo. 357; see also I. Cadiñandos Bardeci, ‘Judíos y moros en Aranda de Duero y sus contornos’, Sefarad, 50 (1990), 60, 304–7. 72 See Beinart, ‘Jewish Dwellings in Spain’. 73 On the synagogues of Ávila, see Baer, JchS ii. 104–5; Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas, 168–9. A great deal of material has been assembled by León Tello, Ávila, 28, 101, 105–6. Information on the synagogue in Andrín Street is found in testimony at a lawsuit against Diego Arias Dávila. Catalina González, the wife of Pedro González, a weaver, a resident of Ávila, stated in evidence that Diego Arias Dávila had given her a Torah scroll for the synagogue during the 1450s. We do not know the fate of that synagogue; it might have 70 71

the fate of jewish communal property

73

one of the notaries of the city, purchased a piece of land that had been part of the synagogue courtyard.74 Most probably this transaction took place soon after the segregation of housing. When the Jews went into exile, he suspected that certain parties would try to seize the property he had bought and confiscate it by force and against his will. He appealed to the Crown for a writ of protection; the Crown responded by ordering the corregidor of Ávila, or his substitute,75 to look into the matter. If the petition proved to be well founded, and the property was not subject to any outstanding lawsuit, and no legal decision had been issued regarding it, the corregidor was to make certain that the plaintiff should not be troubled, and that the property should not be taken from him.76 A document from 1486 refers to the new synagogue that had apparently been erected after the segregation. Isaque Bechacho, one of the wardens of the congregation, complained to the Crown about certain work that had been done by Moses Camaño to Bechacho’s detriment and to the detriment of other Jews, and about damage that had been done to the synagogue.77 In the opinion of Pilar León Tello this might refer to the synagogue built near the Malaventura Gate, which was sold at public auction along with the second synagogue to the Canon Francisco de Ávila.78 At this sale the purchaser bought the entire building, including the roof tiles, wooden beams, stones, and so on. The sale was announced on 22 November 1493.79 On that day the purchase of the synagogue by Francisco de Ávila was also announced.80 On 26 December 1495 the Crown granted the plot of land upon which the synagogue stood to the Convent of the Incarnation in Ávila. The land was on Lomo Street, near the convent. This grant was made upon the request of Doña Catalina de Águila, the Mother Superior of the convent, who had appealed to the Crown.81 As early as September 1494 Pero Sánchez de Farias, the corregidor of Ávila, had designated a certain synagogue (‘cierta sinagoga’) of the Jews of the city for the convent. Therefore he sought to prevent construction on the land next to the convent, which was for noblewomen (‘fijas dalgo), all of whom were worthy and poor, and their building was too small for them. The Crown authorized transfer of the land to the convent.82 been eliminated at the time of the segregation. See León Tello, Ávila, index, s.v. ‘Caldandrín’. See also Carrete Parrondo, Proceso inquisitorial, 120. On the Jewish settlement in Ávila see also E. Ballesteros, ‘El cementerio judío de Ávila’, BRAH 28 (1896), 353 ff. RGS 9 No. 2890, fo. 1. His title was ‘Escriuano de numero e escriuano de los fechos del conçejo’. This was the licenciado Álvaro de Santesteban. See Lunenfeld, Keepers, 198. 76 Issued on 5 Sept. 1492. If anyone had a claim upon the land, he was to advance it to the judicial authorities along with the owners. 77 See Baer, JchS ii. 423. 78 León Tello, Ávila, 28, 161, no. 493; see also ead., ‘La judería de Ávila durante el reinado de los Reyes Católicos’, Sefarad, 23 (1963), 36–53 at 45. 79 Ead., Ávila, 103, 106. The clergy received 6,000 mrs from Lope de Vera and another 10,000, which de Vera collected from the sale of the synagogue to Canon Francisco de Ávila. On 4 Nov. 1497 a board of the clergy received the sum of 19,839 mrs from Jewish property, which Lope de Vera paid to them. 80 81 Ibid. 101, no. 458. Ibid. 101 no. 458, citing AHN, Clero, Libro 815, fo. 59. 82 León Tello, Ávila, 106–7. The documents were published in Ballesteros, Estudio histórico, 411–12, Apéndice VIII. 74 75

74

the fate of jewish communal property

Béjar Information about the physical dismantling of the synagogue in Béjar (near Salamanca) sheds light on events that occurred soon after the Jews’ departure. The clerical and municipal institutions were apparently in no hurry to determine the fate of the synagogue, and a young man was found taking the wooden beams. Similarly, 300 tiles were taken from the roof, indicating that the building had been dismantled. The synagogue contained nineteen or twenty lamps of various sizes, large and small, and the value of the silver crowns for the Torah scrolls exceeded 30,000 mrs. These were sold by Rabbi Hayn Garçon to the receiver of property for the king.83 A similar fate befell ‘two mantles for the Torah that were made of brocade cloth, that the Jews gave to Diego de Cáceres to pay [a man named] Portillo and were taken by the alcalde Ambrosio de la Peña’.84 This document provides painful evidence about the fate of Jewish religious structures and their contents.85

Bembibre Our knowledge of the synagogue in this village of León precedes the expulsion by two years. In 1490 a suit was filed against the local Jews for establishing a synagogue contrary to the prohibition then in force.86 When its construction was completed, Christians, headed by the village priest, Diego González, broke into the synagogue and threw the Torah scroll to the ground. They also desecrated other religious articles. A crucifix and icon were placed in the synagogue. The town judge intervened and restored the synagogue to the Jews. On 19 May 1490 Iñigo Manrique, a High Court judge and member of the Royal Council, ruled that the synagogue was to become a church, because the priest had sanctified it by his actions. At the same time he obligated the priest Diego González to build another synagogue for the local Jews within six months, on a lot that the town was to grant the community.87 It seems probable that this refers to a synagogue that might have been built in the new residential quarter of the town’s Jews. Its fate at the time of the expulsion is unknown.

Buitrago The list made on 20 July 1492 shows that there were two synagogues in Buitrago.88 One of them was in the town itself, and the other was in a suburb.89 The town synagogue 83 See C. Carrete Parrondo, Provincia de Salamanca (FIRC 1; Salamanca, 1981), 48–9. The testimony dates from 1493. The reference is to AHN, Osuna, Leg. 266 No. 74. 84 ‘Que sabe que la plata que tenian las Toras podian valer mas de treinta mil maravedis, e que el oyo dezir que la vendia Raby Hayn Garçon al reçebtor del rey’, AHN, Osuna, Leg. 266 No. 74. 85 ‘Que sabe que tenía dos vestymentos la Tora, de brocado, que sabe que los judíos dieron a Diego de Caçeres para pagar a Portillo, y que sabe que ge las tomo el alcalde Ambrosio de la Peña’, AHN, Osuna, Leg. 266 No. 74. 86 See also below regarding the fate of the synagogue of Salamanca. 87 J. Rodríguez Fernández, Las juderías de la provincia de León (León, 1976; hereafter Provincia de León), 100 ff.; F. Cantera Burgos, ‘Juderías medievales de la provincia de León’, Archivos Leoneses, 28/55–6 (1974), 85–155 at 99. See also R. Álvarez de la Braña, ‘La sinagoga de Bembibre y los judíos de León’, BRAH 32 (1899), 106–10; M. Kayserling, ‘Les Juifs dans le royaume de León’, REJ 37 (1889), 137 ff.; F. Fita, ‘Monumentos hebreos’, BRAH 50 (1907), 81–96 at 96; Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas, 177–9. 88 The order was drafted by Fernando de Cisneros, and it does not include sanctions for failure to obey it. 89 Now Buitrago del Lozoya, in the province of Madrid; see F. Cantera Burgos and C. Carrete Parrondo, ‘La judería de Buitrago’, Sefarad, 32 (1972), 17 ff. This article, based on documents found in the National Historical Archive in Madrid, presents the value of Jewish property in great detail.

the fate of jewish communal property

75

had an adjacent courtyard, in which the abattoir was situated as well as the homes of Rabbi Isaac Ganton and Rabbi Samuel. The value of the suburban synagogue and its adjacent courtyard came to 700 mrs. The town synagogue also contained a house of study and yeshiva.90 That synagogue was sold for the sum of 20,000 in current coin, i.e. blancas, each worth half a maravedí; so the price was 10,000 mrs. The courtyard and the buildings, from the abyss to heaven (‘desde el abismo fasta el çielo’), were sold with the synagogue. The seller was the third duke of the House of Infantado, Don Diego Hurtado de Mendoza.91

Cáceres There were two synagogues in Cáceres. One of them, according to the tradition, was on the present site of the Hermitage of the Holy Spirit outside the city, but it cannot be known what the source of that tradition is.92 However, in a neighbourhood within the city, according to the excavations of Dr María del Mar Lisano Bertolucci, there is no doubt that the synagogue was located in the neighbourhood known as San Antonio de la Quebrada. Hence Lacave assumed that ownership of the synagogue was transferred in order to establish the ermita in the former Jewish quarter of the city.93 A relatively late document provides important evidence regarding the fate of the synagogue in the Jewish quarter, which the Jews were forced to leave at the time of the segregation in 1480–2. On 6 October 1494 the appeal to the Crown of Diego de Mingolla, a resident of Cáceres, was answered. For a fixed annual rent, he had leased dwellings to the Jewish community after the Jews had been forced to leave their residential quarter, and the Jewish community had ceded the synagogue to him. During the expulsion San Pedro, the investigating magistrate for Jewish property, arrived in the city and confiscated both the houses and the synagogue. Diego de Mingolla appealed for justice to the Crown and the council, and the confiscation was rescinded. The Crown ordered the sale of property, including the synagogue, so that Diego de Mingolla could benefit from the sale, and the payment due to him would be covered. Any balance remaining after the sale was to be transferred to the receiver of Crown property.94

Calahorra On 7 August 1492 the synagogue was granted to the clergy of Calahorra, who were permitted to convert it into a church. The local judges and alcaldes were ordered to transfer this property to the new owners. The Crown added the beams and boards of the synagogue to the grant, indicating that the synagogue was mainly constructed of wood.95 See Baer, JchS ii. 420 and also Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas, 181. See A. H. Freimann, Seder kidushin venisuin (Heb.) (Jerusalem, 1965), 82. A Jewish shelter (ospital de judíos) is also mentioned in 1492. See Cantera Burgos and Carrete Parrondo, ‘La judería de Buitrago’ and Ch. 5 below. 92 93 See Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas, 183–5. See J. L. Lacave, Sefarad, 40 (1980), 105 ff. 94 See RGS 11 No. 3105, fo. 310; Cristóbal de Vitoria prepared the document with the approbation of the council. 95 See Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas, 185–8; id., ‘La judería de Calahorra (Logroño)’, Sefarad, 15 (1955), 353–72; 16 (1956), 73–112, esp. 110; Baer, JchS ii. 402; E. Cantera Montenegro, ‘Los judíos en la historiografía riojana’, Cuadernos de Investigación Histórica, 10 (1983), 72; id., Las juderías de la diócesis de Calahorra en la baja Edad Media (Logroño, 1986), 520. 90 91

76

the fate of jewish communal property

Ciudad Rodrigo In this border town, through which the exiles from Castile passed into Portugal, the synagogue was granted to the Confraternity of the Passion of the town, for the purposes of housing the poor and sick and to bury those of them who died, among the other acts of mercy that the members of this society performed. A church was to be attached to the synagogue, and for that purpose the society also received the land in the courtyard of the synagogue. The building was to be called Hospital of the Passion. This order of donation was signed as early as 27 May 1492. It was prepared by the loyal secretary of the monarchs, Fernán Álvarez de Toledo, and it took effect at the end of July 1492.96 From that day, the members of the society were permitted to enter the synagogue and seize the building and its courtyards.97 The grant made to the members of the Jewish community is noteworthy, in that they retained ownership of the synagogue almost until their departure.

Guadalajara The community of Guadalajara was distinguished by four synagogues, which were included in the communal property, and charitable organizations were associated with them. Important documents describing the fate of these religious institutions are extant. 1. The Great Synagogue (La Sinoga Mayor). Adjacent to it were four other buildings, creating a single unit.98 A report submitted by Rodrigo del Mercado on 5 June 1499 mentions a bill of sale attesting that the community and the Malbish Arumim (‘Clothe the Naked’) society had sold the synagogue on 24 May 1492 for the relatively low price of 2,500 mrs. Most probably this refers to land owned by Malbish Arumim in the new neighbourhood.99 Hence transfer of the property took place during the first month following the promulgation of the Edict of Expulsion. From a document dated 11 September 1492 we learn that the synagogue was granted to the church of Santa María de la Fuente de Guadalajara, which, as a parish church, converted the building to a hospital.100 There was, however, competition for use of the synagogue. Previously the monks of the monastery of San Antolín had seized the synagogue and named it after SS Peter 196 Evidence of Don Suleiman Barchillón in 1491 (given before the Inquisition, 3 Aug.), who served as the mayordomo of the synagogue. In that year he was living in Agreda; for a short time he lived in Atienza. See C. Carrete Parrondo, El Tribunal de la Inquisición en el obispado de Soria 1486–1502 (FIRC 2; Salamanca, 1985), 57–8 and cf. 30, on the gift of oil for the lamps and the lamp that was donated to the synagogue; he states that there was also a hospital and shelter for the Jews in the citadel (p. 27). 197 ‘Despues de pasado el termino del mes de julio primero que viene’, and see n. 102. 198 ‘Quatro pares de casas que estan juntas e al derredor e espaldas de las casas que se disen de Sant Pedro e Sant Pablo, que antes solian per sinoga mayor de los judios’. 199 See Baer, JchS ii. 80; Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas, 225–7; Cantera Burgos and Carrete Parrondo, Sefarad, 34 (1974), 458–61. 100 See Cantera Burgos and Carrete Parrondo, Sefarad, 34 (1974), 59 and also 380 ff. ‘Carta de venta que el aljama e confradia que se dezia de vestir pobres de la dicha çibdad fizieron e otorgaron de unas casas que la dicha confradia tenia por bienes que son a barrio nuevo, que han por linderos de la una parte casas que fueron de Abraham Pinto e de la otra parte casas que fueron de Abraham Coche e la calle publica, la cual dicha renta pareçe que la otorgaron en 24 de mayo de 92 años por 3,500 maravedis’.

the fate of jewish communal property

77

and Paul. This monastery, which belonged to the order of Santa María de la Merced, was outside the city walls. ‘The comendador, prior, brethren, and convent’ sought to introduce beds and various equipment into the building, so it could be used as a hospital; they were designated to serve as patrons of the hospital. The request to convert the synagogue into a hospital and shelter was submitted by the veedor, Juan de Labastida, who was well known for his service and loyalty to the Crown.101 The patrons could choose those who were to serve there permanently as they saw fit, so that the king and queen could visit the hospital when they wished. The heads of the order and its monks were ordered not to interfere with the clergy, and the friars of San Antolín were forbidden to enter the place, under penalty of losing royal favour. The magistrates and leaders of the city were ordered to defend the clergy against those monks, who were not to be granted any lien on the property or to receive any rights to it.102 Another detail about the synagogue buildings is found in a document dated 17 June 1492, according to which the community sold ‘a small house that served as a gate and two rooms in which the Jews prayed, contiguous with the great synagogue’,103 to the Cardinal of Spain and to Luis del Castillo, who acted on his behalf.104 2. The Synagogue of the Toledanos. Its name indicates the origins of its founders. Two documents close together in time, written soon after the departure of the exiles, provide information about the efforts to seize the building.105 101 ‘Para que la fagan vn ospital que se llame de Santa Maria, que en el se ayan a acojer los probres’, RGS 9 No. 2938, fo. 29. The order was issued in Zaragoza and prepared by Juan de la Parra. Cf. Cantera Burgos and Carrete Parrondo, Sefarad, 34 (1974), 60–1. The document says that all the Jews who converted to Christianity were attached to that parish: ‘E que los judios que alli bibieron en toda la dicha perrocha desinaban a la dicha yglesia’, RGS 9 No. 2938, fo. 29. 102 Juan de Labastida is connected to several other activities on behalf of the church in Guadalajara. In June (the exact date is missing) 1493 the Crown granted him the tombstones of the Jewish cemetery; the area of the cemetery became a common pastureland (RGS 10 No. 1740, fo. 28). On 31 Oct. the Crown ordered Bernaldino de Lerma, the magistrate in charge of Jewish property, to take some of the property that Labastida had received and sell it so as to pay the convent and nuns of San Bernardo, which was outside the walls, the sum of 45,000 mrs (RGS 11 No. 3562, fo. 4). On 2 Jan. 1495 he held the office of regidor in that city. Along with a group of residents he addressed the Crown about attempts to confiscate the private property they had bought from the Jews at the time they went into exile. The residents’ names are: Diego Hurtado or Furtado (as a Jew he was named Ysaque Varquete); Fernando de Toledo, a silversmith; Sancho Fernández de Carrión; Antonio de Buendía, jurado. The Crown ordered the bachiller Fernando de Cisneros to investigate the complaint and to rescind the confiscation orders and the seizure executed by the alcaldes of Guadalajara of the property that had been purchased at the time of the expulsion (RGS 12 No. 12, fo. 3). On 13 Mar. 1495 the Crown granted it the sum of 6,500 mrs for a guaranteed loan from the revenues from the sale of the synagogue and the land left by the Jews there (see RGS 12 No. 1231, fo. 14). See also above, nn. 98–9. 103 ‘Unas casas pequeñas que an vn portal e dos camaras en que façian oraçiones los dichos judios, que han por linderos la sinoga mayor.’ Violators of the order would be subject to a fine of 10,000 mrs in addition to loss of the Crown’s favour. 104 For whom see above, n. 43. Huda Cresçiente served as mayordomo in the Great Synagogue in 1450. The conversa Mencía Rodríguez, wife of Álvaro Rodríguez Caballero, donated oil for its lamps. See AHN, Inq. Toledo, Leg. 181 No. 4. 105 RGS 9 No. 2927, fo. 28, No. 2938, fo. 29, dated respectively 10 and 11 Sept. 1492; both were drafted by Juan de la Parra. Cf. the document of 16 Apr. 1492 (RGS 10 No. 954, fo. 238). See also Cantera Burgos and Carrete Parrondo, Sefarad, 34 (1974), 60–1.

78

the fate of jewish communal property

The abbot and the monks of the monastery of San Antolín, which, as mentioned, was outside the city walls and belonged to the order of Santa María de la Merced, addressed the Crown and asked to receive the synagogue of the Toledanos, which had been abandoned by the Jews of the city. They wished to use the building as an infirmary and rest home for the aged monks. Before this appeal was made, the monastery had housed ageing and sick monks in various places in the city.106 The Crown quickly responded to this appeal and granted the synagogue to the monastery, along with any other building that was needed for the purpose of establishing a hospital and rest home for its friars. Hereafter the synagogue was to belong to the commander, the prior, the monks, and the monastery of San Antolín. They would be permitted to establish a hospital there as they wished, and the other buildings would serve ‘to shelter and house religious and the sick’.107 The decree forbade the sale, transfer, or exchange of the building and the synagogue at any future time, and it was to serve in perpetuity as the monastery hospital. The leaders of the city of Guadalajara were requested to transfer the synagogue to the ownership of the monastery, and they were forbidden to prevent the monastery from receiving this property. The decree is clear in all its details, both regarding the responsibility of the heads of the city and also regarding the recipients of the property. The commander, the abbot of the monastery, and the monks of San Antolín again addressed the Crown, complaining that Antonio de Mendoza had taken more than a third of the synagogue and attached it to neighbouring houses, causing them grave damage. The Crown ordered Antonio de Mendoza to return the land that he had seized to the monastery. If Mendoza had any reason not to obey the order, within six days he must appear and present his claims before the licenciado Cristóbal de Toro,108 the corregidor of Madrid, who would adjudicate the dispute. 3. The Synagogue de los Matutes. This building was also known as the old synagogue and was in the San Gil neighbourhood. Information regarding the fate of this synagogue is lacking. 4. The Synagogue known as ‘Midras’ (La Sinoga que se dise Midras). Information is lacking regarding the fate of this synagogue and house of study. It might have been situated in the location of the yeshiva of Guadalajara. The desire to seize as much as possible and take possession of Jewish property is clearly evident in the conflict between the ecclesiastical organizations. Each sought to 106 ‘A las mesones e otras casas de la dicha çibdad fasta ser conbalesçidos’. See above, the document dated 10 Sept. According to the Inquisition file against Manuel, a tanner, Jacob Suriano, lived in the synagogue in 1492: AHN, Toledo, Leg. 154 No. 26. 107 ‘Para el vso e aposentamiento de los religiosos e enfermos’, AHN, Toledo, Leg. 154 No. 26. 108 He purchased Yose Siriano’s in the San Gil quarter from him for 110,000 mrs. Mendoza’s house abutted Soriano’s house on one side, and on the other side it abutted the Piedad church. On the two other sides were city streets. Mendoza claimed that Yose Soriano had smuggled out gold, silver, coins, and other forbidden items, and because of that act, Yose Soriano’s property belonged to the Crown. Therefore Antonio de Mendoza asked to have the house granted to him. The Crown acceded to his request and added another 40,000 mrs from the property and other debts of Yose Soriano, which were owed to him by Christians. This entire grant was in recompense for Mendoza’s past and future services to the Crown. See RGS 11 No. 2234, fo. 8, from 5 July 1494.

the fate of jewish communal property

79

serve its own community.109 The purpose of the Crown is also clear with regard to preserving public order, ensuring that the Crown would determine what was done with the Jewish property that remained ownerless.110 As late as 1499 Rodrigo del Mercado was given the task of conducting an investigation and reporting to the Crown about the property of the Jews of Guadalajara remaining in the city.111

Huete Unique testimony regarding the synagogue in that town is found in the plea filed by Álvaro Núñez de Mendoza, who was called Isaac Cohen while a Jew. He claimed that he had built the synagogue at his own expense and in recognition of his religious duty as a Jew.112 The synagogue and certain other buildings (apparently residential property) which he had held in the local citadel against debts owed to him by various lessees,113 were seized and sold, even though they had been transferred to his possession to cover fees owed to him.114 He was imprisoned because of his Judaism, so he asserted, but also because of his debts; at that time the synagogue and several buildings were sold by Juan Osorio, the alcaide of the citadel and the corregidor. The Crown and the council responded to his plea on 14 April 1495 and ordered the corregidor to convene the parties and to decide in the matter of Álvaro Núñez de Mendoza’s plea in such a way that there should be no further cause for an address to the Crown.115 109 See Baer, Toledot, 520 n. 85, and Baer, JchS ii. 435. Cf. Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas, 225–7; Cantera Burgos and Carrete Parrondo, Sefarad, 34 (1974), 59. 110 On the seizure of synagogues at the time of segregation, see above, n. 2. See also H. Beinart, ‘The Judaising Movement in the Order of San Jerónimo in Castile’, Scripta Hierosolymitana, 7 (1961), 167–92; see also Baer, JchS ii. 403. 111 See Baer, JchS ii. 432 ff.; Cantera Burgos and Carrete Parrondo, Sefarad, 34 (1974) 380 ff.; the report also lists the items of property from 1492. On 15 Dec. 1495 the council, under orders of the Crown, had the bachiller Cisneros conduct a survey and list the synagogues of Guadalajara and the other Jewish property. He was ordered to go in the company of a notary and to register the communal property in general and to present a detailed report to the council. This action was taken following the appeal of Bernaldino Suárez de Mendoza, who held a juro in the amount of 22,500 mrs, against which were mortgaged revenues from taxes on the butchers. This was the second order issued on this subject. The first dates from 8 June 1495. See RGS 12 No. 2709, fo. 6. The second order, as noted, dates from 15 Dec. 1495 (RGS 12 No. 4358, fo. 368). Cf. RGS 13 No. 1131, fo. 335 from 8 Mar. 1496. 112 ‘A su costa e mision’; see RGS 12 No. 1875, fo. 419, dated 14 Apr. 1495. It was drafted by Bartolomé Ruiz de la Costa with the approbation of the Royal Council. 113 ‘Que al tienpo que los judios salieron del castillo de la dicha çibdad el tenia el dicho castillo y çiertas casas a su partimonio como por donaçiones e por debdas que le devian çiertos arrendadores e quedan obligados a el’, RGS 12 No. 1875, fo. 419. 114 ‘La posesion de las tasas y synoga para en pago de las ventas que le deuien’, ibid. 115 In partnership with Pedro de Cuenca, a resident of Huete, Isaac Cohen farmed the customs duties in Ponferrada. They remained with a debt to the Count of Lemos of 4 m. mrs. The guardian of the daughters of the count, the licenciado de Sahagún, obtained a court order to arrest Cohen (RGS 10 No. 764, fo. 184, dated 23 Mar. 1493). Despite the agreement and appeal of Tomás de Torquemada to release him so that he could be exiled, the licenciado obtained an order to prolong his arrest (RGS 10 No. 1924, fo. 133, dated 15 July 1493). He apparently did not go into exile but remained in his native city, where he was now called Álvar Núñez de Mendoza. Paloma, the daughter of his brother, David Cohen, sold half of the property for the price of 24,000 mrs, which was less than its value. He therefore appealed and asked to repossess it. It appears that she and her father did not return to Spain from Portugal. In Nov. 1494 (the day is missing)

80

the fate of jewish communal property

Labastida A long lawsuit was waged over the synagogue building between Juan Martínez de Ulibarri or Urivarri, who had bought the building, and the local council of the town, in the province of Álava. On 9 June 1492 the town council of Vitoria announced to the purchaser of the building that the act of purchase was invalid, in the light of the Crown decree that forbade the purchase of these buildings by private individuals. The church of Santa María la Mayor in Vitoria also claimed the synagogue. Not until February 1495 did the Crown finally decide that the building would remain in the purchaser’s possession.116

Laguardia The Jews had two synagogues in this northern town in the province of Álava, one known as the Old Synagogue, the other as the New. The main church of the town, St Mary’s, which was in poor repair, laid claim to one of the synagogues and an adjoining house. Gonzalo Fernández, a resident of the town, petitioned the Crown in his capacity as procurador of the church. He asked that the Crown grant the synagogue and the adjoining house to the municipality. The intention was to sell the buildings and to use the income to renovate the church. The Crown acceded to the request and permitted the sale of the synagogue and the adjoining house for residential purposes. The buildings could also be destroyed so as to make use of the beams and wood, or of money derived from their sale, for the needs of the church. The church gained full title and could do with the property as it wished.117

León One would expect this important community in the kingdom of León to have had more than one synagogue; the name sinagoga mayor (Great Synagogue) indicates as much, and the supposition is confirmed by evidence from 1488 regarding the transfer of the synagogue to the Sociedad de Santa Ana at the edge of the city (‘arrabal’). The society also received a garden area adjoining the synagogue and several buildings that had belonged to the church of Santa María and some land that belonged to Gonzalo Valdesero.118 This might have been the site of the famous yeshiva of León. The fate of the Great Synagogue is known from an order issued by the Catholic Monarchs on 14 September 1495.119 On that day the Crown granted the sinagoga the Crown responded and ordered the corregidor and the municipal justice to deliberate and decide about this request (RGS 11 No. 4119, fo. 408). On this town, see also C. Carrete Parrondo, ‘Los clérigos judaizantes de Huete’, Anuario de Estudios Medievales, 12 (1982), 412 ff. and above, at n. 34. 116 See Cantera Montenegro, ‘Las juderías alavesas en la Baja Edad Media’, in La formación de Alava: 650 aniversario del Pacto de Arriaga (1331–1982) (Vitoria, 1985), 119–20, 132; also id., Las juderías de la diócesis de Calahorra, 244. See the description of the synagogue of Vitoria, s.v. 117 The alcaldes and the other magistrates were to convey those buildings to the ownership of the church. The sanction for non-compliance was the loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. An appeal against the order had to be lodged within fifteen days. The decree was drafted by Juan de la Parra and delivered on 17 May 1493 (RGS 10 No. 1291, fo. 16). See also Cantera Montenegro, ‘Las juderías alavesas’, 120. 118 See Cantera Burgos, ‘Juderías medievales de la provincia de León’, 127–9; see also Ch. 5. 119 See RGS 12 No. 3451, fo. 269, drawn up in Tarazona; the draftsman’s name is missing. Based on the handwriting, it was probably Juan de la Parra. Published in Rodríguez Fernández, Provincia de León, 428 ff.

the fate of jewish communal property

81

mayor, ‘including all the entrances and exits, the courtyards, and the rights and appurtenances’, to the monastery of San Isidoro in the city of León.120 This grant was made so that the monks should continue to pray for the souls of departed kings and their kindred buried in that city, and in due course should pray for the souls of the Catholic Monarchs. In addition, it was based upon the request of Juan de León, the protonotary of the church in Toledo and the abbot of the aforementioned monastery. The Crown permitted the heads of the monastery to sell the synagogue, exchange it, transfer it, give it as a gift, and the like, to other parties, as they saw fit. However, this permission was subject to the condition that they must first pay all the life annuities (‘juro de por vida’) related to loans contracted by the city against the annual tax: the servicio and medio servicio taxes.121

Maqueda Maqueda was an important Jewish centre in the fifteenth century. Between 1422 and 1430 Rabbi Moses Arragel lived there and translated the Bible into Spanish, with a commentary, at the request of the head of the order of Calatrava, Don Luis de Guzmán. However, before that, on 27 April 1415, the anti-pope Benedict XIII responded to the request of Fernando de Zaragoza, a converted Jew from Toledo, who had asked that, after the Great Synagogue was closed, the vineyards, fields, and olive-trees that had belonged to it should be granted to him. He claimed he needed this property in order to support himself and his family after his conversion to Christianity, since he had lost his livelihood as the rabbi (‘Rav’) of the community, from which he had enjoyed an income of 30 golden florins. In his appeal to Benedict, he reported that the Jews, concerned about the fate of certain ritual objects, had hidden them to avoid their confiscation. Benedict accepted his demand and ordered that the synagogue be transferred to the converso’s ownership.122 Nevertheless, the community appears to have recovered. A special order from the Crown was addressed to Luis de Sepúlveda, instructing him to discuss with Gabriel de Tapia, Gómez de Robles, and other courtiers how to proceed with regard to the synagogues of Maqueda until the Crown should issue final orders regarding their disposition.123

Miranda de Ebro During the second month after the promulgation of the Edict of Expulsion, perhaps on 26 May 1492, the comendador Juan Alonso de la Mota, the merino Fernando de 120 ‘Con todas sus entradas e salidas, corrales e derechos e pertenençias para que sean del dicho monasterio e abadia del e de aquel e aquellos que del dicho monasterio ovieren tytulo o cabsa o razon’, RGS 12 No. 3451, fo. 269. 121 The penalty for disobedience was loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs; but there was the possibility of filing a counterclaim within fifteen days. 122 Regarding a unique list of the Jews of Maqueda who converted, see C. Carrete Parrondo, ‘La conversión de la comunidad hebrea de Maqueda en el siglo XV’, Sefarad, 32 (1972), 141–7. It is evident that some of them went into exile in Portugal, crossed to Fez, and returned home after converting. See Ch. 5 below and also H. Beinart, Zion, 56 (1991), 239–53. 123 Luis de Sepúlveda was a contino in the royal court. On 26 July 1491 he was ordered to rule on the claim of Rabbi Meir Melamed against Gómez Guillén of Madrid regarding failure to fulfil an obligation to pay taxes collected for the Hermandad. See RGS 8 No. 1968, fo. 104; AGS, Diversos de Castilla, Leg. 8, fo. 127, issued between May and June 1492; Baer, JchS ii. 412; León Tello, Toledo, i. 549–606.

82

the fate of jewish communal property

Covarrubias, Alonso de Cartagena, and Pero de Villegas met to discuss the measure, and also the city’s monetary claims against the Jews of Pancorvo and Miranda de Ebro for taxes owed. They agreed among themselves to request the alcalde to place a lien upon the Jews’ property in the sum of 1,200 mrs. If the Jews planned to sell their property, they would have to appear before those men.124 Information had reached the heads of the municipality that the Jews intended to sell the synagogue and the cemetery, and they were forbidden to do so.125 The alcalde accepted their position and issued an order subject to a fine of 10,000 mrs. In Cantera’s opinion, this prohibition prompted the Jews of Pancorvo and most probably also the Jews of Miranda de Ebro to complain to the authorities of Burgos that the local officials were not permitting them to sell their property. This was in violation of the provisions of the Edict of Expulsion, which permitted the Jews to sell their possessions. They requested that Christians be allowed to purchase their property, and the authorities of Burgos responded, granting them permission to sell it, although this apparently referred only to private property. On 12 June 1492 the Crown saw the need to respond to an appeal of the council, judge, the regidores, caballeros, escuderos, the officials, and the notables of the town of Miranda de Ebro and to grant the synagogue to the town, which needed a councilhouse (‘casa de ayuntamiento’). Lacking an appropriate building, they had to meet in ‘public places that are not appropriate to the service of the Crown and to the good of the town’.126 After the Jews’ departure the council, upon its own authority, met in the synagogue, finding it suitable for that purpose. The council wished to carry out certain repairs, and in order to make it worthy of serving as a meeting-chamber (‘casa de concejo’) the Jews’ tombstones were also needed. The Crown’s response was that, because no revenues remained from ‘the direct taxes of the Jews and the indirect taxes and the other revenues of the community’,127 it was willing to grant to the city the remaining property that had belonged to the Jews, but not the revenue formerly received from taxes. If the building had not already been granted to any person or legal entity, the Crown granted it to the city in full, with no possibility of rescission, for the purpose of establishing a council-chamber there; the tombstones were granted for the repair of the building, and they were to be used for no other purpose.128 See Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas, 246–51. ‘Que por quanto a su notiçia es venido que la ginoga de los judios e el osario lo benden, e la dicha xinoga fue dotada para casas de oraçion, que pida e mande a los judios non la vender, porque la dicha xinoga se faga eglesia donde nuestro Señor sea servido, e tambien mande que el honsario de los judios non se venda, por quanto al dicho onsario es nesçesario para los propryos de la lumbraria y la ginoga, lo qual pide en nonbre de la dicha çibdad en la mejor manera e forma que podia e devia’, RGS 12 No. 3451, fo. 269; T. López Mata, ‘Morería y judería’, BRAH 129 (1951), 384. According to him, the Jews of the town sold the synagogue and the cemetery at public auction. Documents in the municipal archives indicate that the monarchs granted the synagogue to the town on 2 May 1493, so that it could be converted into a meeting chamber (Archivo Municipal de Miranda, Libro Índice). 126 ‘En lugares publicos e non convenibles a nuestro serviçio ni al bien de la dicha villa’, RGS 10 No. 1550, fo. 32. See Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas, 248–9; also id., ‘La judería de Miranda de Ebro (1350–1492)’, Sefarad, 2 (1942), 339. 127 ‘Cabeça de pecho e vino judiego e otras rentas a nos perteneçientes en la dicha aljama no estauan maravedis’, RGS 10 No. 1550, fo. 32. 128 The order was drafted by Juan de la Parra. The sanctions were loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. Fifteen days were allowed for appealing against the order by appearing before the Crown wherever it should be. 124 125

the fate of jewish communal property

83

On 14 July 1493 the procurador appeared before the regidores of the town and presented the Crown’s order to them, requesting them to obey it and to transfer ownership of the synagogue to them, the synagogue being near the city gate (‘çerca de la puerta de la villa’). The regidores obeyed the order and commanded Juan López de Pinedo to receive ownership of the synagogue in the name of the council, ‘to serve as a chamber for the council for its meetings and not for any other purpose, kissing hands and feet of the king and queen in deep gratitude for the grace done them’.129 This order was presented to Juan López de Pinedo, the procurador of the town. The tombstones were said to be in the possession of the Count of Salinas, Diego Gómez Sarmiento; it was determined that he was to be reimbursed for their value as assessed. On 7 September 1493 the Crown reiterated the contents of the order of 12 June 1493, commanding Pero González de Miranda, the alcalde of the town, and all its magistrates to implement it. According to this second order, it appears that certain residents prevented the removal of tombstones for repairing the walls of the town.130 In consequence, it was necessary to petition the Crown again for an order that no one should obstruct the reuse of the tombstones, since the property belonged to the Crown. The Crown acceded.131 This, however, was not the end of the business concerning the synagogues of Miranda de Ebro and Pancorvo. On 23 December 1496 the monarchs granted the synagogues and everything belonging to them in these two towns to Fernando de Ángulo, the abbot of Vivanco, and to Pedro Ascona, both of whom were monteros de guardia, as recompense for their activity in the past and in recognition of their service to the Crown. The town council was ordered not to deny them ownership of the synagogues, and they were permitted to do as they wished with this property.132 Nevertheless it seems that this transfer of property never took place, and in 1530 a legal dispute about the former synagogue between Burgos and Miranda was adjudicated, as attested by Diego López de Herrán, the former regidor of Miranda.133 In the opinion of Francisco Cantera the building was erected on only part of the area of the synagogue, near the town walls.

Oña The synagogue at Oña, built in 1405, was delivered to the local monastery. In 1498 the building was transferred to Juan de Cereceda, and afterwards to Toribio de Bocos, for 129 ‘Para camara del dicho conçejo para fazer sus ayuntamientos e no para otro serviçio, besando como besavan al rey e reyna nuestros señores sus reales pies e manos por la merçed que les avian fecho’. See Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas, 250; id., ‘La judería de Miranda de Ebro’, 369 ff. 130 ‘E de çerca de la dicha villa [que] tenia neçesidad’; see RGS 10 No. 2417, fo. 9, drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the Royal Council. See also Cantera Montenegro, Las juderías de la diócesis de Calahorra, 622 ff. 131 The sanctions stipulated were again loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs, with the possibility of appealing against the decree within fifteen days of its promulgation. 132 RGS 13 No. 2702, fo. 4, drafted by order of the king and queen by their secretary Juan de Coloma. The sanctions against those who prevented the transfer of the property were loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. 133 Then 80 years old, he testified that Ortega de Medinilla had built a house on the location of the synagogue. See Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas, 250 ff.

84

the fate of jewish communal property

annual payment of the sum of 190 mrs.134 The building was one of those belonging to the monastery in Calle de la Masa.135

Palencia A document indicates that the Jewish community of Palencia complained to the Crown against the heads of the city, because the herald had proclaimed in its name that no person might dare buy the synagogue, another house adjacent to it which apparently had served the community as a place for prayer, and the courtyard of the synagogue.136 The community based its complaint on the Edict of Expulsion, which permitted Jews to sell their property, both real estate and moveable goods, within the three months given them to organize their departure from the kingdom. In their argument the Jews of Palencia claimed that they intended to use the revenue from the sale of their property to help the poor in their departure.137 This mention of assistance to the poor is unique, but indicates the moral obligation of the community to help its weaker members, even though monetary assistance could have been interpreted as an attempt to smuggle funds abroad. The community probably wished to help by covering debts to Christians; the argument should not be viewed as a pretext advanced to assuage the Crown. The city leaders planned to seize the synagogue, the adjoining house, and the courtyard for the city’s benefit, without giving the Jewish community anything in return. Another claim raised by the heads of the Jewish community was that the prohibition imposed by the city leaders contradicted the order of the Cortes of Toledo of 1480, which permitted the Jews to sell their synagogues and the Moors to sell their mosques when they were ordered to leave their neighbourhoods.138 The Jewish community therefore asked the Crown to enable it to sell this property without impediment by the city leaders, and also that the proclamation forbidding the purchase of this property be revoked. It also asked ‘to benefit from what belonged to it’,139 and that the city authorities not place obstacles in the way of liquidating their property. In response, on 23 May 1492 the Crown with the assent of the Royal Council issued an order to the city leaders, magistrates, and regidores that within three days of the order’s becoming known to the city council at its meeting,140 they must send a procurador authorized by them to appear before the Crown in Valladolid. He must explain to the Royal Council what reasons had motivated the city council to issue its prohibition against the Jews’ selling their property. In this manner the Royal Council could examine the claim made by the Jews and direct the city leaders as to how to act. We do not know the outcome of this decision, though the attitude of the Crown is See Baer, JchS ii. 253 ff. I. Cadiñandos Bardeci, ‘La judería de Oña y su sinagoga’, Sefarad, 45 (1985), 64–7. 136 ‘Otra casa e corral que tienen junto con ella para servidumbre della en que suelen orar los judios’, RGS 9 No. 1851, fo. 528, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 411–12. See also León Tello, Palencia, 152 (no. 251), who publishes only the petition. 137 ‘Para reparar a los pobres para con que fuesen por complir nuestro mandamiento’, RGS 9 No. 1851, 138 fo. 528. See Beinart, ‘Jewish Dwellings in Spain’. 139 ‘Aprouecharse de lo suyo’, RGS 9 No. 1851, fo. 528. 140 Or else it was sufficient if it was brought to the attention of two regidores and one alcalde, RGS 9 No. 1851, fo. 528. 134 135

the fate of jewish communal property

85

clear: it did not permit a local council to act on its own and to issue prohibitions, especially regarding Jewish communal property in which the Crown had an interest. In any event, the Jewish community of Palencia did not sell its synagogue; the sale of Jewish communal property, which was solely under Crown authority, was forbidden. From an order issued in December 1492,141 we learn that the leaders of the city of Palencia asked for the grant of the synagogue left behind by the Jews, since it ‘was situated in a convenient place to establish a public municipal institution’.142 The city intended to found a hospital and shelter for the poor, having no institution of that kind. In consequence, ‘to show service to our Lord God’ and for the benefit of the city, the synagogue ‘is granted with its entrances and exits and everything belonging to it’.143 A later echo of the fate of the synagogue is found in a document dated 25 July 1495.144 The regidores of Palencia had established an abattoir in the Calle de Santa Fe, in an abandoned building that had previously served as a synagogue. The noxious odours and the remains of the slaughtered animals caused severe harm to the residents; when the regidores did not respond to their request to remove the abattoir, the residents, claiming that they would have no alternative but to leave their dwellings, sought an order from the Crown forbidding the establishment of an abattoir there. The Crown ordered the corregidor of Palencia to summon the representatives of the city leaders and a representative of the residents, Don Pedro Perespina, to hear their arguments and adjudicate the matter so that the residents should have no further cause to address petitions to the Crown.145 We do not know what was decided, nor whether this was a temporary synagogue used by the Jews of the city after they were forced to leave their neighbourhood, or the permanent building of the synagogue, not converted after all into a hospital but a municipal abattoir. Most probably the actions of the city leadership regarding Jewish communal property are connected to the sale of a lot in the Jewish neighbourhood in 1493 for the sum of 8,000 mrs, though it was far more valuable. Martín de Pernía lodged a complaint against the regidores with the corregidor for having acted improperly in 1493 and not selling the lot to the highest bidder at public auction. The Crown instructed the corregidor, Antón Martínez de Aguilera, to examine the complaint and summon the parties to present their claims to him. The order was issued on 13 March 1495, but we do not know the outcome.146 141 The precise date is missing. Its reference number is RGS 9 No. 3610, fo. 209. See León Tello, Palencia, 90, where the order is published. 142 ‘En lugar conveniente para haser cosa publica que fuese de la çibdad’, RGS 9 No. 3610, fo. 209. 143 ‘Por servicio de Dios nuestro Señor e por haser bien e merçed a la dicha çibdad acatando que es bien e pro comun . . . hasemos merçed de la dicha synoga con todas sus entradas e salidas e con todas sus ponençias’, RGS 9 No. 3610, fo. 209. 144 RGS 12 No. 2903, fo. 94; prepared by Cristóbal de Vitoria with the approbation of the Crown Council. 145 A fine of 20,000 mrs would be imposed on those who violated the order, payable to the Royal Treasury. The size of the fine attests to the gravity of the matter. The order was drafted by Sancho de Ceinos, a notary of the king and queen, with the approbation of Gonzalo González de Illescas and Dr Francisco Núñez, the abbot of Husillos, members of the Royal Council. Regarding the synagogue, see also Baer, JchS ii. 425; Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas, 257. 146 RGS 12 No. 1245, fo. 513; prepared by Luis del Castillo with the approbation of the council. The corregidor was the bachiller Antón Martínez de Aguilera; see Lunenfeld, Keepers, 212; Beinart, ‘Jewish Dwellings in Spain’.

86

the fate of jewish communal property

Pastrana The Jewish community of Pastrana owed money for wood and stones to the local monastery of Santa María. When the Jews were ordered to go into exile the community made an arrangement with the guardián and the friars. In settlement of their debt, they gave them the synagogue, including its courtyards and the land belonging to it.147 Thus the synagogue passed into the possession of the monastery, and the guardián even returned a certain sum to the Jewish community. The administrators of the monastery addressed the Crown and asked permission to build a church in place of it, which would be included within the monastery. They intended to sell the building, but the buyers were hesitant, lest the Crown claim the building for itself. On 30 July 1493 the Crown responded to the request of the monastery and permitted the sale of the property, the courtyards, and the land belonging to it to any third party, without impediment. The Crown permitted any transaction, including sale, exchange, or transfer and the like, so that the monastery could use the revenue for the property to purchase stones and wood, and the church could be built. Nevertheless the permission was granted only on condition that the property was free of any lien or annuity owned by certain people of Pastrana; those holding a lien were accorded first priority.148

Plasencia A document from 11 January 1493 discloses the granting of the synagogue of Plasencia to the local clergy. The priests were accustomed to holding prayers for the souls of the Catholic Monarchs’ ancestors and for King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella themselves. So that they could continue to do so and add prayers for the Crown Prince and the infantes, and, after their deaths, for the souls of the monarchs, the Crown accepted their demand and granted them the synagogue as a gift that had belonged to the monarchs.149 The Crown also ordered the corregidor, the alcaldes, and the other magistrates of Plasencia to transfer ownership of the synagogue to the clergy, on condition that they had not been pre-empted by the delivery of the synagogue to some other institution. If it was unclaimed, it was to serve no one other than the clergy and the church.150 A later source from the seventeenth century reports that the synagogue was called the church of Santa Isabel, in honour of Queen Isabella. In 1521 the houses neighbouring the synagogue were burned down, and the church went up in flames with them.151 147 ‘En pago de lo que les era a cargo la sinoga que tenian en la dicha villa, corrales e pertenençias.’ See RGS 10 No. 2019, fo. 7; the order was drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the Crown Council. 148 Any doubt that might arise would be brought before the secular judge of the Crown (‘nuestro juez seglar’) and not before any other kind of judge. On the order and its content see also Cantera Burgos and Carrete Parrondo, Sefarad, 34 (1974), 378–9. 149 ‘Como de cosa a nos pertenesçiente’. See RGS 10 No. 60, fo. 18. 150 ‘La dicha casa no puede ser ni sea para otros casos saluo para faser en ello vuestro cabildo e ayuntamiento’, RGS 10 No. 60, fo. 18. It was prepared by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the Royal Council. 151 Fray Alonso Fernández, Historia y anales de la ciudad y obispado de Plasencia (Madrid, 1627), 1555; Fita, ‘Monumentos hebreos’, 93–6; see also Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas, 266–7.

the fate of jewish communal property

87

Puente del Arzobispo When Pedro Sánchez de Valdemoro appealed for the Crown to grant him the synagogue, it appears that he was requesting ratification of a grant previously made to him by Pedro González de Mendoza, Archbishop of Toledo and Bishop of Sigüenza, who, being close to the royal house and to the Crown, had received many grants of Jewish property remaining after the expulsion. In turn, the petitioner had received from him not only the synagogue but also buildings and courtyards and a pasture with additional property that had belonged to the synagogue;152 he wished to be certain that the grant of the Cardinal of Spain was indeed valid. In fact, on 9 May 1495 the Crown ratified the grant in return for certain services that the petitioner had rendered. He was permitted to sell the property, exchange it, donate it, and the like, as he wished; the grant was in perpetuity, to him and his heirs after him. However, the Crown stipulated that if any obligations were owed arising out the taxes on the Jews, these must be paid from the value of the synagogue and the other property, because ‘this is the communal property of the Jews’.153 The Crown ordered the council, judges, regidores, officials, and notables of Puente del Arzobispo to ensure that the property was indeed transferred to Pedro Sánchez, and that no one deprived him of it. The city council had probably taken possession of the property, even though the archbishop was considered its owner and had granted it to Valdemoro.154

Sahagún The synagogue of this town was granted to the Confraternity of the Most Holy Trinity (Cofradía de la Santísima Trinidad) on 17 February 1494. Other buildings and land adjoining the synagogue were also granted to the confraternity, which intended to found in its place a church dedicated to St Catherine, and to establish next to it a parish house and a shelter for the poor, for wayfarers, and for pilgrims.155 The grant was made in perpetuity.

Salamanca On 25 June 1492 Diego de Medrano, a resident of Salamanca, brought to public attention the Crown’s prohibition against selling Jewish communal property, including the synagogues, which were supposed to become churches, and the cemeteries, which were intended to cover guaranteed loans.156 On 5 July 1492 orders were published in 152 ‘La xinoga de la villa franca de la Puente del Arçobispo e con el prado e casas e corrales e con todas las otras cosas que son annexos a la dicha xinoga’. See RGS 12 No. 2123, fo. 6, drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the Crown. 153 ‘Bienes communes de la aljama’. 154 The sanctions for non-compliance were loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs to the treasury, with the usual right of appeal within fifteen days. 155 RGS 11 No. 448, fo. 131, drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the Crown. See Rodríguez Fernández, Provincia de León, 222–64 and the documents there, 425–6; Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 399–400; Cantera Burgos, ‘Juderías medievales de la provincia de León’, 140–6. 156 See Carrete Parrondo, Provincia de Salamanca, 133–4. The order was issued in Guadalupe. For an extensive estimation of the synagogues before the expulsion, see ibid. 57–61.

88

the fate of jewish communal property

Salamanca forbidding the sale of synagogues, cemeteries, revenue-producing property, buildings, and other Jewish communal property.157 On 25 July 1492 the Crown’s order was given transferring the synagogue to the clergy, and on 30 July Miguel Fernández de Mancilla, a priest with a benefice in Arapiles and chaplain of the city cathedral, appeared before the city leaders in his capacity as procurador and head of the clergy. He presented the Crown’s order granting the synagogue to the church and its leaders;158 the building was thereupon transferred by the alguacil of the city, Gil Calderón, to Diego de Medrano and the aforementioned Miguel Fernández on behalf of the church. After the transfer, they walked through the church, opening and closing the outer doors, turned the key in the padlock, and announced that they had received ownership of the synagogue.159 We do not know to what extent the building was used for the needs of the church. In any event, part of it was sold to Benito de Castro for the sum of 4,000 mrs on 17 March 1507.160 Judging by the sum paid, one may assume that the part that was sold was small or that the value of the entire building was not great.

Segovia There were quite a few synagogues in Segovia;161 in addition, Abraham Senior maintained in his home a house of prayer which was attended regularly both by conversos and by Old Christians.162 Many documents attest to the donation of a lamp for the synagogue by converso women;163 there was no lack of contributions for the silk curtain of the holy ark and mantles and ornaments for the Torah scrolls.164 This synagogue ceased to function after Senior and his family converted to Christianity. The Great Synagogue had been transferred to a convent incorporating the church 157 It was published in the presence of Juan Pérez and Diego de Tobar, the alcaldes, in the name of Honorato Hurtado de Mendoza, the corregidor and chief magistrate. See Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas, 276–7. 158 See Carrete Parrondo, Provincia de Salamanca, 133–4. 159 ‘Y ansi metidos se pasearon por ella y abrieron y çerraron las puertas de por fuera con su candado y llave y dijeron que ansi tomaban posesion de la . . . sinoga’, ibid.; cf. Carrera Burgos, Sinagogas, 271–82. 160 Ibid. 282. We learn of the seizure of the four synagogues that belonged to the community of Salamanca from documents dated 22 Aug. 1496, though we do not know what kind of buildings they were, since the documents deal with four residents of the city: Pedro Palomeque, the bachiller Diego de Villañega, the bachiller Robrada, and the cobbler Pedro Sánchez (or Fernández, as appears once in the document). These buildings might have been held in trust by the community and used as dwelling-houses. Diego de Romane, the Crown prosecutor, claimed the property for the benefit of the treasury. The plea was transferred to be adjudicated by Fernán Pérez de Meneses, the corregidor of Salamanca, who was to collect evidence and pass on his information to the prosecutor, who would present it to the judges of the Royal Council (RGS 13 No. 1482, fo. 104). Palomeque, Villañega, and Robrada were involved in the refusal to pay debts owed to Christians for which the promissory notes had been transferred to Christian creditors. See RGS 14 No. 137, fo. 141 (28 Jan. 1496), and below, Ch. 4. 161 For a detailed discussion of the synagogues of Segovia, see Y. Moreno Koch, ‘La venta de sinagogas en Segovia al tiempo de la expulsión’, Sefarad, 46 (1986), 345–51. 162 See Carrete Parrondo, Proceso inquisitorial, 23, 35. 163 Among the contributors was the wife of Diego Arias Dávila, Elvira González, the mother of Bishop Juan Arias Dávila. Diego Arias’s second wife, Beatriz de Heredia, acted in the same manner. See ibid. 19, 22. Diego Arias Dávila also was among those attending. He was known to have a melodious voice and was 164 Carrete Parrondo, Proceso inquisitorial, 107. accustomed to joining the prayers.

the fate of jewish communal property

89

of Corpus Christi, apparently as early as the persecutions of 1412.165 The other synagogues were eliminated at the time of the expulsion and afterwards. The monks of Santa María del Parral in Segovia owned two salt-pits in the mines of Atienza. The pits were taken from them, and in return the Crown obligated itself to a bond (juro) of 30,000 mrs, guaranteed by a lien upon the alcabala taxes of the Jewish abattoirs in the city. The expulsion of the Jews caused the monks a loss of 5,000 mrs per annum. The Crown’s response emphasizes its devotion to ‘Nuestra Señora Santa María del Parral’; the corregidor of Segovia was ordered to take two experts with him to appraise the Great Synagogue (‘sinoga mayor’). If the building was valued at 100,000 mrs or more, it was to be granted to the monastery; if it was worth less, the tombstones of the cemetery, which had been converted into common pasture land, were to be added to the package. This order was to be executed without delay, but the appraisers were first to swear that they would evaluate the synagogue building honestly. No lien was placed on the property that was to be transferred to the monastery, which would be free to do what it wished with the building: to sell, trade, transfer, donate it, and the like. The edict was to be recorded in the register of privileges and mortgages.166 On 30 April 1492 the Crown reminded Día Sánchez de Quesada, the corregidor of Segovia, of its act of charity to the aforementioned monastery (which was outside the city walls), the donation of the sum of 100,000 mrs from the Great Synagogue. If the value of the building should be reduced, he must supplement the sum of the grant from other Jewish communal property. The alcaide of Segovia objected to this transfer, claiming that he had bought the building from the Jews of the city.167 The monastery therefore needed a supplementary court order (sobrecarta) in order to receive the property. Quesada was ordered to execute the Crown’s order without delay and without heeding the opposition of the alcaide.168 There appears to be a contradiction between turning the Great Synagogue into the church of Corpus Christi in 1412 and granting it to the aforementioned monastery for its needs in 1492. The resolution of this contradiction is possible if one assumes that the synagogue had been restored to the community later in the fifteenth century, during the reign of Juan II or Enrique IV. It is difficult to imagine that the Jewish community would have had the power to build a new Great Synagogue in place of the one that had been appropriated in 1412 and turned into a church, in the wake of a purported miracle. 165 J. M.a Castellarnau, ‘La sinagoga mayor de Segovia’, BRAH 35 (1899), 319–30. Colmenares recounts the miracle that occurred regarding a Host that was supposedly defiled in the synagogue, causing it to be changed into a church. See Diego de Colmenares, Historia de la insigne ciudad de Segovia, i. 558. See also Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas, 285–90. 166 A claim regarding the property would be lodged only before the Crown judges. The edict was drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the Crown Council and the Crown on 27 Jan. 1497 (RGS 10 No. 196, fo. 17). The edict was addressed to the corregidor, Día Sánchez de Quesada. 167 ‘Diz que el alcayde de la fortaleza desa dicha çibdad non les ha consentido tomar la dicha posesyon, diziendo averla conprada de los dichos judios’, RGS 10 No. 1102, fo. 240. 168 The penalty stipulated was loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs to the treasury. The order was drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the council and the Crown.

90

the fate of jewish communal property

One of the synagogues, which served twenty or thirty worshippers, was bought by Antonio del Portillo, a resident of Segovia,169 in accordance with the edict concerning the purchase of Jewish property. The building had previously served a society that customarily met there to celebrate the Jewish holidays.170 After purchasing the building, Antonio del Portillo moved into it. But the building was seized by the municipal council as Jewish communal property, causing serious damage to the purchaser.171 Del Portillo argued that the building had not belonged to the community,172 but was an ordinary house that the members of the society had bought for their own needs.173 Hence he asked the Crown to rescind the seizure of the property by the municipal council. Since the municipal council intended to install a school in the building, and since the Crown had no report that anyone else had rights to it,174 the council was ordered to buy the building from Del Portillo at the same price he had paid for it, if indeed it still intended to set up a school there. The council was also required to add the amount that he had paid to renovate the building, and was to comply with this ruling within sixty days. A document from 12 September 1492 records the appeal of the alcaide, Diego del Castillo, to the Crown, claiming that, before the Jews had gone into exile, he had bought from them three synagogues, a ritual bath, an abattoir, and the area of the cemetery for the sum of 150,000 mrs. He had paid the leaders of the Jewish community the sum of 27,000 mrs, but meanwhile the Crown had granted two of the synagogues and the cemetery to the monastery of Santa María del Parral (apparently in addition to the previous grant), and another synagogue had been granted to the city for the establishment of a school. Del Castillo asked only that his money be refunded.175 The Crown probably responded to his appeal.

Sigüenza The synagogue was in a street whose name has remained unchanged to this day: Calle de la Xinoga or Sinagoga.176 Cardinal Pedro González de Mendoza, Archbishop of Toledo and Bishop of Sigüenza, owned considerable property in the region, and on 12 May 1494, shortly before his death, he granted the synagogue to his nephew, Pedro Laso de la Vega. A document dated 11 July reports that Pedro Laso did not permit its 169 Antonio del Portillo dealt in lending money to the Jews. He invested the sum of 50,000 mrs with Isaac Galfon, who went into exile and was unable to return the money. Instead he left the promissory note of Christians who owed him money. The Crown placed a lien on those debts, and Portillo sought the removal of that lien and permission to collect the money. See RGS 9 No. 3419, fo. 26. See also Ch. 4 n. 227. 170 ‘A sus plaseres en los dias de sus fiestas’; RGS 9 No. 3512, fo. 122, dated 7 Dec. 1492, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the Crown Council. 171 ‘Era del aljama e sujeta a la synoga e la auian dexado por vender e por ser bienes de la communidad que nos pertenesçen’, RGS 9 No. 3512, fo. 122. 172 ‘Non era del aljama nin de la comunidad sujeta a la synoga nin çensada a ella’, RGS 9 No. 3512, fo. 122. 173 ‘Los dichos judios avian conprado’, RGS 9 No. 3512, fo. 122. 174 It is likely that the council had appealed to the Crown for the transfer of the property. The head of the monastery had a claim on the building and also on one of the community’s baking-ovens. 175 See AGS, Libro de Cédulas, Leg. 1, fo. 137 No. 411; Asenjo González, Segovia, 324 n. 189. 176 Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas, 304–8; also Cantera Burgos and Carrete Parrondo, Sefarad, 33 (1973), 297 ff. regarding efforts to identify the synagogue.

the fate of jewish communal property

91

sale. Apparently he needed reconfirmation of his ownership of the building, and petitioned the Crown for an order ratifying the cardinal’s grant, so that he could own the property with total assurance even after the latter’s death. Pedro Laso possessed the bill of donation, which he presented to the Crown.177 On 3 April 1494 the Crown acceded to this request and ordered, if there should be need, that the magistrates of the city must convey to him, with a certain formality, ownership of this and other Jewish communal property. This was, however, to be conditional on payment of the Crown’s obligations to individuals, churches, and monasteries from taxes on the Jews.178 Only afterwards was Pedro Laso permitted to use the property as he wished.179 Pedro Laso apparently intended to sell the building, and the local clergy objected. A document dated 15 September 1496 mentions the payment of 10 castellanos (4,850 mrs), part of the overall sum that he was obliged to pay, which was 25,000 mrs.180 On 19 September 1496 the building was conveyed to a court of the Inquisition to be used as lodging for Inquisitors. On 24 April 1497 the clergy were ordered to examine the building to ascertain how it could be sold part by part, which was decided upon four days later. Most probably, however, the sale never took place, for on 25 September 1497 a commission was set up to re-examine the possibility, and the order was repeated on 13 August 1498. The synagogue was sold on 19 December 1498 for the price of 20,000 mrs.181

Soria Until the expulsion there were two synagogues in Soria. One, in the citadel, was called the Sinagoga del Castillo, and the other was called the Old Synagogue. The latter was probably within the city.182 The synagogue in the citadel was also called the Sinoga de Don Yuçaf Byenveniste.

Toledo The persecutions of 1391 and the tribulations of the fifteenth century left few synagogues in Toledo. Apart from that built by Samuel Halevi in the 1350s and the Old Synagogue in the former Jewish quarter, which was converted into the church of Santa María la Blanca by Vincent Ferrer in 1411, we know little about the fate of the other synagogues and houses of study.183 After the expulsion, particular problems regarding the synagogues arose there, as explained above, because of the loss of income from 177 This document is published in A. Millares Carlo, Paleografía española (Barcelona, 1921), pl. LXXIV. See also Baer, JchS ii. 408; Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas, 200–1. 178 ‘Que primeramente sean pagados de los dichos bienes communes e synoga todos maravedis que estavan sonados e qualesquier personas e iglesias e monasterios en el seruiçio (e) cabeça de pecho de los judios de la dicha aljama’. See RGS 12 No. 1608, fo. 7, drafted by Fernán Álvarez de Toledo with the approbation of the king and queen. 179 The penalty stipulated was loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 20,000 mrs payable to the treasury. An appeal against the edict had to be lodged within fifteen days from the date of its promulgation before 180 See Cantera Burgos and Carrete Parrondo, Sefarad, 33 (1973), 299. the Crown in its seat. 181 Ibid. 300; and pp. 300–1 for the fate of the building from the 17th c. on. 182 See Carrete Parrondo, El Tribunal, 25, 30. 183 See Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas, 33 ff. León Tello, Toledo, i. 359, 609–10, has re-examined the problem of the Toledan synagogues.

92

the fate of jewish communal property

loans guaranteed by revenue from taxes on the Jews. Thus it happened that Fernando Davalos, Alonso Davalos, and Fernando Suárez, residents of Toledo, appealed to the Crown regarding the loss of their income after the expulsion; the Crown, in order to requite them for their past service and of the service they would provide in the future, granted them the Old Synagogue and all that had belonged to it,184 for sale at a public auction to be arranged by Pedro del Castillo, a member of the Royal Council and the corregidor of Toledo. The revenue was to be paid to the three aforementioned plaintiffs and to anyone in possession of a loan guaranteed by the annual tax, the servicio and medio servicio taxes, and income from the Jewish abattoir. The corregidor was to pay each man the money due him for his guaranteed loan.185 However, no buyer was found for the synagogue, which passed into the possession of the three plaintiffs. On 7 January 1497 they let the building for rent (‘censo’) to the merchant Diego de Villarreal and his wife Elvira López for 5,000 mrs and five hens, to be paid annually. During the first three years Diego de Villarreal laid out 30,000 mrs to refurbish and extend the building. The Crown agreed to deduct this sum from the rent. Over a period of seven years the owners were paid 22,500 mrs. Regarding the synagogue of Samuel Halevi, which was called El Tránsito after its conversion into a church, on 7 July 1494 Cardinal Pedro González de Mendoza asked the cathedral of Toledo for details regarding the transfer of the synagogue to the military order of Calatrava in exchange for the church of Santa Fe, which had been granted away for a nunnery.186 He reported that in August 1492 the priest of the church of Santo Tomás, which was near the synagogue, had asked that the building be given to him. The order of Calatrava opposed this and argued that the synagogue was in its area of jurisdiction.187 The cardinal refrained from responding to the claim of the priest of Santo Tomás, but asked whether the church of Santa Fe belonged to the order of Calatrava and when it had been transferred to the nuns. We do not know the answer given by the chapter. The evidence indicates that the order’s ownership of this splendid synagogue was undisturbed and endured for centuries. In any event, an order of the Crown dated 14 October 1494 to Rodrigo del Mercado states that the Crown’s ownership of Jewish property remained valid.188 The document apparently refers primarily to private Jewish property left behind, as well as the abattoir and dwellings that were owned by the community. The list includes a house next to a new synagogue, but we cannot tell whether this refers to the one built by Samuel Halevi or to another one that was built later.189

Toro An edict dated 29 May 1492 provides information about the synagogue of Toro. By official order, the administrator of Jewish property, the bachiller Alonso Telles, pre184 León Tello suggests that this synagogue is identical with that called Amaliquim in Toledo, i. 359. On Fernando Suárez see below, Ch. 4. 185 He was ordered to do so on 22 Mar. 1494. 186 RGS 11 No. 924, fo. 6, drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the Crown. 187 AHN, Clero, Leg. 7216 No. 2; see León Tello, Toledo, i. 357 ff. 188 ‘Por estar la dicha synagoga dentro de sus limites’, AHN, Clero, Leg. 7216 No. 2. 189 See Baer, JchS ii. 430.

the fate of jewish communal property

93

vented the sale of the synagogue lamp and also land that had belonged to the community.190 Despite the order issued by the Crown on that date, placing Alonso Téllez in charge of solving the problem of the mutual debts between Jews and Christians residing in and near the town, we do not know the fate of the lamp and the other communal property.

Torrijos Between May and July 1492 the Catholic Monarchs ordered that the second synagogue of the community of Torrijos should be converted into a mosque for the Moors, ‘since a new mosque should not be built for them, and because the Moors must move and live in the houses of the Jews; in the Moorish quarter there shall live other people’, namely Christians.191

Trujillo Important information about the synagogue of Trujillo, traces of which have recently been discovered, may be gleaned from internal conflicts that arose out of the expulsion.192 On 9 August 1492 Álvaro de Porras, the corregidor of Trujillo, was instructed to conduct an investigation regarding the request of the residents and the local council of Trujillo that an additional church be erected on the site of the synagogue, since the church of San Martín was insufficient for the needs of the public. Previously the Crown had granted the synagogue to the convent of Santa María de la Encarnación. The plaintiffs argued that ‘the neighbourhoods where the Jews lived are becoming filled with Christian residents’,193 and the new residents had nowhere to worship. Moreover, the nuns of the convent did not need the building, because they had three or four other convents, which were sufficient for the city. The corregidor who was ordered to investigate the subject was required to communicate his findings to the Crown, which would determine the fate of the synagogue. On 25 November 1492 the Crown granted the synagogue to the convent of Santa Isabel.194 The prior of the convent of Santa María de la Encarnación, a member of the Dominican order, had reported that nuns of Santa Isabel, who lived dispersed in several buildings and lacked a common dwelling as required by the rule of the order, 190 ‘Asy la lampara de la synagoga como sytios de la juderia’; it was drafted by Fernando de Cisneros with the approbation of the council. See AGS, Diversos de Castilla, Leg. 8, fo. 99. 191 ‘Porque no se aya de faser mesquita de nuevo para ellos, pues esta fecha, porque los moros se han de pasar a bevir a las casas de los judios, y en la moreria biviran otros vezinos y atributaran las casas’, AGS, Diversos de Castilla, Leg. 8, fo. 127; see Baer, JchS ii. 412. By decree Luis de Sepúlveda was charged with investigating the situation along with Gabriel de Tafia and Gómez de Robles. On the fate of the synagogues cf. also Maqueda, above. 192 Beinart, Trujillo. For a precise identification of the place, see Lacave, ‘Sinagogas y juderías extremeñas’, 3–7. 193 ‘Que a cabsa de la yda de los judios desa dicha çibdad se han poblado e de cada dia poblan en aquellas calles e barrios, donde los dichos judios biuian, de christianos’; see Beinart, Trujillo, 241–2. The order was drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the Royal Council. 194 See RGS 9 No. 3409, fo. 19; Beinart, Trujillo, 248–9. The order was drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the Royal Council.

94

the fate of jewish communal property

had seized the synagogue and settled in it with the permission of the prior of the monastery of Santa Cruz (that is, Torquemada); he asked for it to be granted to them. The Crown acceded to his request, but on condition that prayers were offered for the monarchs, the Crown Prince, and their other children, and that after their death prayers should be recited for their souls. The grant was plenary and included other property,195 so that the synagogue could serve as a church and a dwelling for the nuns, as it already was, for ever.196 Therefore the Crown attached the remaining property that had belonged to the synagogue to be joined to the aforesaid convent, to provide for the needs of the priory and the nuns of the said monastery ‘who are or shall be henceforth’.197 The corregidor and the local magistrates were to transfer the building and all that belonged to it to the convent, if not directly then to the hands of the monk Francisco de Toro, the representative of the convent, who was also the head of the convent of Santa María de la Encarnación, so that he could convey the property to the convent of Santa Isabel. Apparently this transfer did not settle all the problems. On 12 January 1494 the Crown wrote to the resident magistrate of Trujillo (and to everyone to whom the decree should be shown), after informing him of the favour that the Crown had shown to the convent of Santa María, according to the request of the prior Francisco de Toro, granting the synagogue and everything that belonged to it to the convent, in order to house the nuns of Santa Isabel. Symuel Barselay, the mayordomo of the synagogue, had taken real estate and moveable property from the synagogue when he went into exile.198 However, since Barselay had left behind debts owed him by Christians, the Crown authorized the collection of those debts for the benefit of the aforementioned convent, for renovations and repairs.199 It is not known how many years the synagogue served as a convent, but physical remains that have been discovered shed light on its history.200

Tui It does not appear that there was a separate Jewish neighbourhood in Tui, which is in the north, near Portugal. The presence of Jews is mentioned there for the first time in the first half of the fifteenth century. The community evidently had a synagogue and a cemetery. The synagogue stood in the Rúa da Oliveira near the wall, which dates ‘Hazemos merçed general e limosna del dicho monesterio que asy en casa de synoga de los judios de la dicha çibdad de Trujillo, con todas las casa e bienes e otras cosas, muebles e rayses a elle perteneçientes’. 196 ‘Para que la dicha synoga sea yglesia e casa e monesterio de las dichas monjas como agora lo es a para syempre jamas’. 197 ‘E los otros vienes, muebles e rayzes que eran de la dicha synoga de los judios, sean anexos al dicho monesterio para el proveyenimiento e sustentamiento de la dicha prioria e monjas e convento, del dicho monesterio que agora son o fueron de aqui adelante’, RGS 9 No. 3409, fo. 19. 198 On him see Beinart, Trujillo, 269–72. The documents are from August (the day is not indicated) and 7 Sept. 1495. 199 ‘En la lauor e reparo de los dichos monesterios por mano del dicho prior’, RGS 11 No. 13, fo. 7. The penalty for non-compliance was loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. The order was drafted 200 by Fernán Álvarez de Toledo with the approbation of the monarchs. See n. 192 above. 195

the fate of jewish communal property

95

from the reign of Fernando II of León (1157–88). After the expulsion the property of the Jewish community was given to the bishop and priests of the cathedral.201

Turégano The synagogue in this town north of Segovia was granted to St James’s church. To it were added little houses (‘casyllas’) and tombstones. The clergy were permitted to do with the property as they wished. The local magistrates were ordered to transfer the property to the church. Those who claimed they had a lien on it were to address the Crown. The cemetery became common grazing-land for the town.202

Vitoria Two documents provide details about the fate of the synagogue of Vitoria.203 On 6 June 1492 notice was served to Juan Martínez, who had purchased the synagogue building in the city: it was forbidden for any citizen to purchase Jewish property, for ‘in all the kingdom this property is not sold, and we do not permit it to be sold; if no one has bought yet, let no one buy, and if someone has bought, let him not pay the price he has promised to pay, and if it has been paid, let him ask for the return of his money . . . The synagogue shall remain like the other synagogues. If it is done otherwise, the property shall be like an object that cannot be bought or sold.’ On 30 June 1492, more than a year after this prohibition and the freezing of purchases, the Crown acceded to the request of Juan de Marquina, who addressed it in the name of the church of Santa María la Mayor in Vitoria.204 According to his request, construction had been proceeding in the church for six years. Because of their poverty and lack of rental income to supplement the contributions from worshippers, and because of the expense of the work, the church needed a great deal of money. Therefore Marquina asked the Crown to grant the synagogue building, the lot, and the tombstones to the church.205 The Crown was willing to respond to this request, but because it now had no revenue from the taxes formerly paid by the Jews and the alcabala tax on Jewish wine, it sought to derive revenue for the needs of the church from Jewish communal property. If the property had not been granted to any legal corporations (‘algunas universidades’), the Crown granted the synagogue, the adjacent land, and the monuments of the cemetery to the plaintiffs in full, with no possibility of cancellation, and in perpetuity.206 The local magistrates were to convey this property to the possession of the 201 See E. Iglesias Almeida, ‘Los judíos de Tui’, Sefarad, 47 (1987), 73–9. Recently an area was discovered which apparently served as a cemetery. It lies along the road from Tui to Baiona, also in Galicia, Iglesias, ‘Los judíos’, 75. 202 See RGS 11 No. 3837, fo. 9, dated 15 Sept. 1494. It was drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the Crown. 203 See Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas, 338–49. See also id., ‘Las juderías medievales en el País Vasco’, listing twenty Jewish communities in that region; it stands to reason that there were synagogues in some if not most of them. Among the places mentioned are Labastida, Laguardia, Salinas de Añana, Salinillas, Salvatierra de Álava, and Santa Cruz de Campeza. 204 See Cantera Montenegro, ‘Las juderías alavesas’; id., Las juderías de la diócesis de Calahorra, 186 ff. 205 ‘Merçed de la dicha sinoga e de un solar que esta junto con ella e de las piedras del osario’, RGS 10 No. 1728, fo. 33. 206 See RGS 10 No. 1728, fo. 33; Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas, 341 ff. The order was drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the Crown Council.

96

the fate of jewish communal property

church and to make certain that no one should act against that grant. The cemetery was to become common pasture land for the city of Vitoria, and if at some time a problem should arise, or there should be some doubt, claims should be brought before the secular judges of the Crown and not before ecclesiastical judges.207 On 16 September 1493 the heads of the city determined to obtain the synagogue for municipal needs and so as to convey the building to Pedro Díaz de Uriondo, who had arrived in the city with the intention of establishing a school.208 On 10 January 1495 the Crown ordered the alcalde of Vitoria to pay the sum of 1,000 mrs, formerly guaranteed by a lien held by the city against Jewish taxes. This was payment that the Jewish community had been required to make annually to maintain the city walls. On 5 February the Crown ordered the same alcalde to hold a public auction of Jewish tombstones and of the bricks of the synagogue, and with the revenue to pay the city the aforementioned obligation.209 If the revenue was insufficient, Juan Martínez was to pay the sum of 15,000 mrs to the city, and his ownership of the synagogue would be acknowledged, as he had previously purchased it.210

Zamora The fate of the Great Synagogue of this community was sealed at the request of the municipal authorities, with general agreement. On 6 August 1492 the Crown granted the building to the city so that a church could be dedicated to St Sebastian.211 The decision of the Crown was rendered because of its great veneration for that saint and in view of the many favours done for the Crown by those addressing it in the name of the city.212 They were required to carry out their intentions within a year of the order’s issue. The date of the order indicates that the appeal was made very soon after the expulsion of the Jews. This order was ratified on 22 August 1493.213 On that date the Crown granted the 207 The grant will come from taxes formerly paid: ‘serbiçio, medio serbiçio e cabeça e vyno judiego’, RGS 10 No. 1728, fo. 33. Anyone appealing to clerical judges would be regarded as having lost the appeal by the very fact of making it. The sanctions listed are loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs; appeal against the order may be made within fifteen days of its issue. 208 See Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas, 341. 209 From the decree of 5 Feb. (RGS 12 No. 453, fo. 571) we learn that the idea of covering the expenses of maintaining the walls was initiated by Juan Martínez de Ulibarri himself. The Crown, after confirming ownership of the synagogue, also ordered him to cover the difference with the sum remaining after sale of the lot, the tombstones, and the bricks, for the purpose of covering the cost of maintaining the walls, the annual payment for which had been 1,000 mrs. In addition to the synagogues and the cemetery, three houses were sold to private individuals. The order was prepared by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council. The sanction for non-compliance was loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. 210 See below on the fate of the cemetery. 211 See RGS 9 No. 2657, fo. 3. It was drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the Crown Council. On this, see M. F. Ladero Quesada, ‘Apuntes para la historia de los judíos y los conversos de Zamora en la Edad Media (siglos XIII–XV)’, Sefarad, 48 (1988), 29–57 at 36–7. 212 ‘Por faser bien e merçed a vos el dicho conçejo, justiçia, regidores, cavalleros, escuderos, ofiçiales, e omes buenos de la dicha çibdad de Çamora a cuenta de los muchos e buenos çerviçios que nos avedes fecho e fasedes de cada dia, e por la mucha deuoçion que tenemos al bienaventurado señor San Sebastian touimoslo por bien’, RGS 9 No. 2657, fo. 3. 213 See RGS 10 No. 2232, fo. 292; prepared by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the Crown Council.

the fate of jewish communal property

97

synagogue of the city to the Sociedad de San Sebastián in Zamora. The donation was in perpetuity, and two buildings adjacent to the synagogue were given along with it, for the purpose of establishing a hospital and shelter for the poor and needy who could beg for alms. A condition for the donation was that the buildings must be free of liens and of any monetary privileges or obligations to the Crown related to the taxes of the Jews. The corregidor, magistrates, the regidores, caballeros, the alguaciles, escuderos, the administration, and the notables of Zamora that day and thereafter were to act in order to implement the order as written. Only a lay judge would be permitted to adjudicate any appeal; address to an ecclesiastical judge would cause the property to revert to the Crown.214 This order might refer to one of the buildings that had housed the famous yeshiva of Zamora. On 28 February 1495 the Crown granted the synagogue and another house adjacent to it in the nearby town of Fermoselle (Hermosilla) to Juan Sandino, who had served as a guard (sotamontero) to the Crown. The favour shown to him was in return for services he had rendered and continued to render to the Crown.215 The alcaide of Hermosilla, and its magistrates, the council, the corregidor, the alcaldes, the alguaciles, and merinos in the kingdom were ordered to make certain that this property was transferred to him without any delay; they must remove it from the hands of any people who might have seized it. The Crown also granted Sandino the wood and stones of the synagogue and the buildings that remained in the town at the time of the Jews’ departure. If the Jews and the community had sold the synagogue and the house in order to cover debts related to taxes, then this arrangement was to have priority, and debts were to be covered first.216 Documents mention the purchase by the Count of Benavente, another nearby village, for 20,000 mrs from Cristóbal de Zamora, a local apothecary, of a garden (‘huerto’), courtyards adjacent to it, and other property in the area of the former synagogue. The purchase shows that the synagogue was destroyed some time after the Jews had gone into exile. Thus it is likely that Cristóbal de Zamora purchased the property cheaply when the opportunity arose, during the hard times that came to the local Jews, like the other Jews of the Crown.217

The Kingdom of Aragon The concentration of Jewish population in Castile was much greater than in Aragon, where few Jewish communities survived by the end of the fifteenth century. The largest communities of Aragon had declined, and the smaller ones became even weaker. This deterioration, which began in the fourteenth century, was aggravated after the persecutions of 1391 and the troubles during the first half of the fifteenth century. 214 The penalties stipulated: loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs; an appeal before the Crown, wherever it should be, had to be made within fifteen days. 215 See RGS 12 No. 919, fo. 11; drafted by Luis González with the approbation of the Crown Council. The grant was to the recipient and his heirs following him. He was permitted to do whatever he wished with the property. 216 The penalties stipulated were loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs to the treasury. An appeal had to be made within fifteen days in the place where the Crown might be. 217 See C. Carrete Parrondo, ‘El destino de la sinagoga zamorana de Benavente’, Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica, 30 (1981), 645–7.

98

the fate of jewish communal property

The fate of Jewish property resembled that of the communities, whose institutions were steadily destroyed as Aragonese Jewry dwindled during the fifteenth century. This is evident in the scarcity of information regarding communal institutions at the time of the expulsion.

Burriana A single document from this town, dating from 1486, shows us that the synagogue there was erected with the assistance of other communities. Even before that, in 1474, the local synagogue benefited from the legacy of David Bonet, who left it half of his worldly goods.218 In 1486 a crisis struck the Jewish community when the magistrates and jurados of the town tried to seize the silver ornaments of the Torah scrolls. However, because Jewish property belonged to the Crown, Juan Domingo, the veguer (that is to say, the counterpart of the Castilian corregidor), was made responsible for transferring these ornaments to the muqaddamin (elected community leaders) of the community of Sagunto, who were to serve as custodians of this property until the community of Burriana recovered. The expulsion cut short any possibility of recovery.219 The fate of the synagogue of nearby Castellón de la Plana was similar.

Daroca On 3 August 1492 Domingo Agostín sold the synagogue and the hospital to Juan Jaso. We do not know under what conditions this property was sold, but it was clearly a sale and not a grant to any religious or secular institution of the city.220

Ejea de los Caballeros An emissary of the Inquisition of Zaragoza, Juan de Peramán, broke into the synagogue of this town on 1 July 1492 and demanded that the Jews, who were about to leave for exile, should deliver their books to him.221 They were required to swear that they would do so. The Torah scroll was delivered to an agent of the Crown on 1 August 1492 by Leon Albo, who had converted and left the Jewish community. We do not know what happened to the synagogue.222 Most probably the local or ecclesiastical authorities took possession of it.

Gerona No one doubts that the important community of Gerona had several synagogues. On 12 May 1415 Benedict XIII ordered their closure, though he agreed to leave one of the less important synagogues in the hands of the community. However, this lenience was on condition that the synagogue had never served as a church in the past or that 218 The other half was destined for the synagogue of Sagunto, Murviedro. See J. Hinojosa Montalvo, ‘Sinagogas valencianas (1383–1492)’, Sefarad, 38 (1978), 301 ff. 219 Ibid. On the Jewish community see J. Doñate Sebastià and J. R. Magdalena Nom de Deu, Three Jewish Communities in Medieval Valencia ( Jerusalem, 1990), 183 ff. 220 M. Serrano y Sanz, ‘Notas acerca de los judíos aragoneses en los siglos XIV y XV’, RABM 21/37 (1917), 324–46 at 345; Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas, 202–3. 221 See J. Cabezudo Astrain, ‘La expulsión de los judíos de Ejea de los Caballeros’, Sefarad, 30 (1970), 222 355 ff. Ibid. 363, and see Ch. 5.

the fate of jewish communal property

99

no church or ermita had ever stood on its plot of land.223 On 20 November 1415 Fernando I of Antequera acknowledged the unjust injury to the synagogue. On 5 January 1416 Alfonso V, El Magnánimo, permitted the synagogue to be opened for the Jewish community. A document of 12 July 1492 discusses the synagogue located between the Carrer de Sant Llorenç and the old wall. Next to the synagogue were two wells which provided water for the ritual baths. A second synagogue was located in the Jewish quarter and erected after the destruction of the old synagogue at the time of the war for Catalonia against King Juan II.224 The vendors of the synagogue, and with it all the Jewish communal property, were Leon Aninay, Salamon Serro, Salamon Simuel, and Levi Isaac.225 They sold the synagogue, which was known as Les Escoles because the yeshiva was in it. They also sold a synagogue known as de les dones, the hospital and shelter, and the ritual baths. The purchaser was Miguel Scola, a priest who held a benefice of the chief church. The price paid was 32 libras of current coin, which was to cover the debts of the community and the annual payments which it was required to make. This sale also included the ornaments of the Torah scrolls and all the property in the courtyards surrounding the synagogue. Ownership passed into several hands, first in August 1493 and again on 22 February 1494. Regarding this synagogue, in a document dated 18 January 1497 the priest Francesc Romanyera confirms that a building that had belonged to Francesc Falco, a converso who was tried by the Inquisition, was transferred to the executors of the will of Sibil·la Júlia, who had bought the building on 10 April 1494 from the prosecutor of the Inquisitional court. This building was adjacent to the synagogue, which belonged at that time to Jordi Rafart, a priest of the cathedral. The area of the synagogue had been damaged in the war against Juan II, and it was divided among various buyers who purchased portions of the lot in 1492. In this manner the building itself was purchased. The heads of the Jewish community, including one of its wealthiest members, Bonastruc Benevenest, signed the deed of sale.226 He had farmed the remença tax for the Crown in the diocese of Gerona. The ruined building was sold for the sum of 10 florins to a canon of the cathedral, Pere Gran de Terrades, to cover debts owed by the community. On 12 July he made a gift of the synagogue to the notary Nicolau Roca, who had already bought the synagogue courtyards.227 223 See Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas, 221; Baer, JchS i. 829–33; J. Calzada i Oliveras, ‘Les sinagogues de Girona’, in Homenatge a Lluís Batlle i Prats ⫽ Annals de l’Institut d’Estudis Gironins, 25 (Gerona, 1980), 375–93, repr. in D. Romano (ed.), Per a una història de la Girona jueva, 2 vols. (Gerona, 1988), i. 251–69. 224 C. Batlle Gallart, ‘Solución al problema de las dos sinagogas de Gerona’, Sefarad, 19 (1959), 301–29; repr. in Per a una història de la Girona jueva, i. 229–50; see also E. Mirambell Belloc, ‘Los judíos gerundenses en el momento de la expulsión’, ibid. ii. 653–6; and also see Baer, JchS i. 829 ff., 847 ff. 225 Along with these four signed Bonstruc Benvenest, Joseph de Piara, Struc Teros, Belsom Mahir Caracosa, Salamon Abraham, Vidal Struc, Moses Vidal, and Benvenest Struc. The sale began on 3 July, continued on the 9th, and was concluded on the 12th. Mirambell Belloc, ‘Los judíos gerundenses’, presents a detailed description of the place, the buildings that were adjacent to the synagogue, and the other communal property. See also Sect. V below. 226 J. Vicens Vives, Historia de la remensas en el siglo XV (Barcelona, 1945), 250, 327. On the bill of sale, see Batlle Gallart, ‘Solución al problema’, 309 ff. Bonastruc Benevenest died in Perpignan a few days before 5 Oct. 1492. See Mirambell Belloc, ‘Los judíos gerundenses’, 661. 227 In the 16th c. his heirs sold the building. See Batlle Gallart, ‘Solución al problema’, 306 ff. For identification of the place as a synagogue, see Calzada i Oliveras, Les sinagogues de Girona.

100

the fate of jewish communal property

Huesca There were three synagogues in this city, large, medium, and small, and some details remain regarding their fate.228 On 23 July 1492 the Jewish community assembled in the great synagogue and authorized two of its muqaddamin, Samuel Exuen (mayor) and Samuel Abingaston, as well as Ezmel Abendant and Jaime Carmoy, a notary from Zaragoza, to resolve the question of the debts of the community. The communal property was at their disposal.229 This transaction shows that the synagogue remained in the community’s possession until its members actually left Spain. The great synagogue passed into the hands of the Sangüesa family. However, on 5 September 1493, by royal decree, it was conveyed to the ownership of Bartolomé de Azlor.230 The residue of the property, apparently including the other two synagogues, was delivered on 26 June 1493 by order of the king to Vicente de Bordalba, procurador of Gabriel Sánchez. This latter, a descendant of a Jew who had converted to Christianity in the late fourteenth century, thus became the owner of these places of worship.231

Jaca From a deed of gift executed by Ferdinand in favour of the municipal council of Jaca on 27 December 1494, we learn that the Jews there had two synagogues, a large and a small. The larger synagogue was granted to the board of jurados of the council, at their request, for the purpose of expanding the local School of Arts and Doctrine, which had been founded at the end of the fourteenth century and was located in a building bordering on the Jewish quarter. The grant included everything that had belonged to the synagogue—a courtyard and, apparently, other buildings.232 In the sixteenth century further privileges were granted to that institution.

Magallón The synagogue of this town was sold on 11 July 1492 to Miguel Coll, escudero, for 650 sueldos. The sellers were the heads of the Jewish community.233 They also sold the 228 See esp. R. del Arco, ‘La aljama judaica de Huesca’, Sefarad, 7 (1947), 271–301; id. and F. Balaguer, ‘Nuevas noticias de la aljama judaica de Huesca’, Sefarad, 9 (1949), 351–92; Del Arco, ‘Las juderías de Huesca y Zaragoza’, Sefarad, 14 (1954), 79–98; Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas, 229–32. 229 ‘Atendiendo a lo ordenado en el edicto de expulsión y considerando que estaba obligada a pago de numerosos çensos, confería a Samuel Exuen, mayor, Samuel Abingaston, ambos adelantados, Ezmel Abendant y Jaime Carmoy, notario de Zaragoza, poderes bastantes para resolver la forma de pagar aquellas deudas, poniendo a su disposición los bienes de la aljama y de sus individuos’, Del Arco and Balaguer, ‘Nuevas noticias’, 355, 388 ff. 230 Serrano y Sanz, ‘Notas acerca de los judíos aragoneses’, 346. The Sangüesa family possessed an annuity from communal property. See Del Arco and Balaguer, ‘Nuevas noticias’, 377. 231 See Baer, JchS i, index. 232 The order was issued in Zaragoza. This building still stood in the 19th c.; see Del Arco, ‘Las juderías de Huesca y Zaragoza’, 81 ff.; Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas, 232–3. 233 They were Yento Camel, Jaco Caruch, both of whom were muqaddamin; Moses Atortox, the clavario (treasurer); Abraham Benbesat; Abraham Aff de la Plesa; Yose Majo; Açay Gallat; Abraham Aff, the tailor; Açach Bendegat; Yento Farag; Abraham Moych; and Yento Gito. They were all residents of the town. See M. A. Motis Dolader, ‘Los judíos de Magallón (Zaragoza) a fines del siglo XV y su expulsión’, Cuadernos de Estudios Borjanos, 17–18 (1986), 157 ff.

the fate of jewish communal property

101

hospital and shelter for 670 sueldos, the ritual bath and two gardens for 300 sueldos. The sale took place on orders of the commissioners in charge of the expulsion. The sellers, who went into exile, apparently covered the debts of the community in that manner.

Sagunto (Murviedro) Shortly after the expulsion, the synagogue became the church of the Cofradía de la Sangre de Cristo.234 The synagogue had been the oldest one in the city and had been enlarged substantially in 1383.235 In January 1474 Moses Israel Serrano, the muqaddam of Burriana, announced to the baile general that David Bonet had left a will giving half his property to the synagogue at Sagunto and half to that at Burriana.236

Sos del Rey Católico This small Jewish community in Aragon numbered thirty-four households and had a single synagogue.237 The community sold its property in order to pay its debts to the Crown. The houses of Gento Papa and Juçe Fichel, which were opposite the synagogue, were sold at the time of the expulsion.238

Tarazona Before the Jewish community of Tarazona was dissolved, with the expulsion of all its Jews, they were required to pay all the communal debts to the Crown. The sum demanded came to 15,000 mrs; to cover it the community was forced to sell its property.239 On 26 June 1492 the heads of the community—the muqaddamin Judah Azamel and Rabbi Shem Tob Falcon,240 the procurador Abraham Ora Bona, the goldsmith Yose Bloch, maestre Samuel, and Jonah Azamel—were required to place the communal property and their personal property at the disposal of the Crown. On that occasion a Torah crown, the finials, and other ritual objects, all made of silver, were also delivered to the Crown.241 The community of Tarazona had two synagogues, a large and a small. Since the notarial documents speak of one ‘synagogue of the Jews’, it is likely that the smaller one served as a house of study. However, it is also possible that the synagogue in question was located in the new Jewish neighbourhood, and that conditions did not permit the community to erect a large synagogue there. After the liquidation of the community, its property was transferred to the Crown in payment of its debts. It was then conveyed to the church and to several private individuals, about whom we have no information. Most probably one of those who benefited was Pedro 234 See Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas, 268–71; L. Piles Ros, ‘La judería de Sagunto: sus restos actuales’, Sefarad, 17 (1957), 352–73 at 357 ff.; J. Hinojosa Montalvo, ‘Sinagogas valencianas’, 299 ff. 235 236 Hinojosa Montalvo, ‘Sinagogas valencianas’, 299, 301. See above, at n. 218. 237 See J. Cabezudo Astrain, ‘La judería de Sos del Rey Católico’, Sefarad, 32 (1972), 89–104. 238 Cabezudo Astrain, ‘La judería’, 97, 98. 239 M. Motis Dolader, ‘Explotaciones agrarias de los judíos de Tarazona (Zaragoza) a fines del siglo XV’, Sefarad, 45 (1985), 353 ff., 365 ff. 240 His house stood opposite the synagogue. See M. A. Motis Dolader and M.a T. Ainaga Andrés, ‘Patrimonio urbanístico aljamial de la judería de Tarazona (Zaragoza): las sinagogas, la necrópolis y las carnicerías’, 241 Ibid. 93 ff., 107. Revista de Historia de Jerónimo Zurita, 56 (1987), 108 ff.

102

the fate of jewish communal property

de Talavera, the baile and merino of Tarazona.242 He also received the grounds of the cemetery. On 26 June 1492 Ferdinand donated the silver Torah finials, formerly the community’s property to the church.243

Valencia Before the persecutions of 1391 there were apparently three synagogues in Valencia, the city of Vincent Ferrer. The largest of the three became the church of Cristóbal at the time of those persecutions, and the hand of destruction touched the other two synagogues as well.244 In Hinojosa Montalvo’s opinion, another synagogue must be added to the list, for which building permission was granted in 1385.245 Despite the poor condition of the Jewish community of Valencia, it must be assumed that a house of prayer was maintained until the end of Jewish residence there.

Zaragoza The eminent Jewish community of Zaragoza had several synagogues, some of which belonged to various charitable associations. The Biqur Holim (‘Visit the Sick’) and Turnes’ synagogues were well known because of their activities and status, although according to the evidence of Solomon Abenlopiel given on 2 May 1492, there was only one synagogue.246 Most probably this synagogue, like others, passed into the possession of the city. Important information is extant regarding the sale of the yeshiva (‘casas de Talmud’) and real estate that was attached to the yeshiva building. At the time of the expulsion, buildings were transferred to ownership of the city in partial payment of the debt owed to it. According to a decision made by the city leaders on 6 October 1492, the buildings were given to Fernando de la Caballería, a resident of the city. On 2 December 1492 the king confirmed this grant, but since the city had incurred considerable expense for public works at the Toledo gate, the buildings must go to the city and not to La Caballería. It was therefore decided to sell them at public auction. According to the announcement made by Alfonso de la Caballería,247 who served as the first jurado, the yeshiva was adjacent to the homes of Ezmel Abnarrabi and Samuel Franco. Both houses bordered on the public road and were opposite the house of Pedro de Bal, a cooper, and they also bordered on the house and courtyard of Pedro Martel, the notary. The property, which comprised two houses and a courtyard, was sold by Fernando Pérez de Monteagudo, a jurado who served as the official broker or corredor Hinojosa Montalvo, ‘Sinagogas valencianas’, 127, and the document from 23 June 1503 cited there. 244 Motis Dolader, Zaragoza, 200. Hinojosa Montalvo, ‘Sinagogas valencianas’, 292–307. 245 Ibid. 297. 246 See Baer, JchS i. 461–2; also Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas, 355. ‘Que habra bien doze o treze años poco mas o menos . . . que vna noche de pascua de rosana [Rosh Hashanah] de los judios, que le dizen la pascua del cuerno, estando este testigo en la sinoga de vicorolim, que en otra manera le dizen la sinoga de torneros, que esta en la juderia cerrada desta ciudat’. In the opinion of J. Cabezudo Astrain, ‘Noticias y documentos sobre los judíos zaragozanos en el siglo XV’, Sefarad, 14 (1954), 372–84, this synagogue is the same one as the Great Synagogue. Cf. also the will of Abraham Abarchicon, dated 13 Nov. 1491, cited in J. Cabezudo Astran (sic), ‘Testamentos de judíos aragoneses’, Sefarad, 16 (1956), 136–47 at 140. See also Baer, JchS i, index. 247 On him see H. Beinart, ‘Did messir Alfonso de la Caballería Intervene to Prevent the Expulsion of the Jews of Spain?’ (Heb.), Zion, 50 (1981), 265–75. 242 243

the fate of jewish communal property

103

público of the city. The first offer was 4,000 sueldos in Jaca coin, but the higher offer of Domingo Salabert, 4,400 sueldos, was accepted. He purchased the property for Miguel Pérez, a physician (‘maestre’) and resident of the city.248 On 12 June 1492 the commissioners appointed by the Crown to execute the Edict of Expulsion and representatives of the Inquisition assembled in the city to discuss the Jews’ debts, both public and private; their property, and the liquidation of their businesses.249 This was a very important meeting. The city wished to retain its income from the Jews who had been its vassals: the widow of Solomon Constantín, Mira Levi, Ezmel Abendino, and his family. Two members of the city council were authorized to address the royal commissioners and demand what was due to the city from the Jews. The Jews petitioned the Crown, which determined that the Jews owed the city nothing.250 This royal decision aroused anger among the city leaders, but Jaime de la Caballería advised the city to accept it. The assembly of the city leaders and the representatives of the Inquisition is important in itself, especially since the city had purchased the property of Jews who had gone into exile. The treasurer of the Jewish community, Yose Abuzmel, known as Chamorro, tried to gain control of the Jews’ property so as to guarantee the payment of the tax due from the community to the king.251 The Crown assured itself of this payment by placing a lien upon the community leaders’ property252 and by seizing ritual objects from the synagogue. One must also recall the prohibition imposed by the Crown Council on 25 June 1492, against selling Jewish communal property.253 The Torah crowns that were seized were melted down for the silver. On 27 June 1492 mosén Juan Fernández de Eredia, the adviser to the governor of Aragon in the name of the king, and Bernardino Spital, the zalmedina (local magistrate) of Zaragoza, and Jaime de la Caballería, the magistrate of the local Hermandad, delivered through the alguacil and the registrar of Jewish property, and Juan Zapata, three Torah crowns; on 29 June, Joan de Mor delivered finials and silver metal, draperies that had covered the Torah and decorative cloths, and another Torah crown; the next day, on 30 June, the receiver of property for the Inquisition, a resident of Zaragoza, Juan Ruis, delivered a gilded Torah crown, another Torah crown plated with brass, and eight finials; on 2 July mosén Juan Fernández de Eredia, the governor of Aragon, delivered brocade and silks worth 3,520 sueldos.254 On 5 July the goldsmith Juan del Prado, a resident of Zaragoza, appeared before mosén Onon de Ariño, caballero, the guardian of the monarchs’ treasure in Aragon, in the presence of the notary Jaime Testimony given on 6 Nov. 1500. See Motis Dolader, La Expulsión de los judíos de Zaragoza, 242–6. M. A. Motis Dolader, ‘Estudio de objetos litúrgicos de las sinagogas zaragozanas embargados por la Corona en el año de 1492’, Aragón en la edad media, 6 (1984), 247–622; Serrano y Sanz, Orígenes, 57 n. 1. 250 See Motis Dolader, La Expulsión de los judíos de Zaragoza, 107 ff. 251 ‘De aquellos CCCXII mil [sueldos] dineros de la propiedat, de aquellos XII mil sueldos dineros de pecha, de DL sueldos de lezda, que al dicho rey la dicha aljama de judios de Çaragoça pagava en el tienpo de la expulsion’; ibid. 252 They were Yose Abuzmel, Solomon Tarigo, and Ezmel Abnarrabi. 253 See Baer, JchS ii. 429; León Tello, Toledo, i, doc. no. 542. 254 On 24 Jan. 1497 this cloth was given as a donation to the church of Santa María la Mayor. See Motis Dolader, La Expulsión de los judíos de Zaragoza, 238–40. Perhaps this refers to the curtain before the Holy Ark. Purple and green cloth is listed, including the value of each piece. 248 249

104

the fate of jewish communal property

Malo; he announced that he had dismantled six Torah crowns and reported that the pure silver weighed 134 marks, 6 ounces, and 3 grains.255 This shows that these ritual objects of the community had been lost even before the deadline for going into exile. On 9 July another Torah crown, made of gilded silver, was delivered through Pedro Torrero, escudero and resident of Zaragoza. And this was not the end. In 1493 Ferdinand bestowed on Pedro de Capdevilla, the head of the Franciscan monastery of Santa María de Jesús in Zaragoza, the gift of the Jewish ritual objects that had been in the possession of Vincent de Bordalva, the receiver of Jewish property in Aragon. This donation included five Torah raiments and two cloths (perhaps curtains for the Holy Ark) from the synagogue. However, the objects donated might have come from synagogues elsewhere in Aragon. In this manner the sacred remains of the community were liquidated.256

iv. abattoirs and baking ovens Every Jewish community had abattoirs and baking ovens, and special permission from the Crown was needed to operate them. Clearly every city had its own particular conditions regarding kosher slaughtering, the sale of meat, and the baking of bread.257 In some communities the abattoir supplied the needs of several retail butchers’ shops, which were the source of the indirect tax on the Jews that the tax-farmer was contracted to collect. Usually the communities added duties to this tax (and to that on wine) for their own needs. The Crown used the income from this indirect tax to cover annuities (juros), which were disbursed annually by the tax-farmer to those who held them. In consequence there was great interest in the communities’ activities in supplying kosher meat and collecting the tax on it. The abattoir was ordinarily located at the edge of the town, but it had no fixed location, and the transfer of the Jewish residential quarters in the 1480s brought about the transfer of abattoirs that had been within the old neighbourhoods. Not much information is extant regarding the fate of abattoirs after the promulgation of the Edict of Expulsion. Obviously, with the destruction of Jewish communities during the waves of conversion associated with the persecutions of 1391 and throughout the fifteenth century, kosher slaughtering also ceased. Nevertheless conversos had animals slaughtered in kosher fashion for their own consumption in the courtyards of their homes,258 and frequently a Jew would perform this service for them. We shall now examine the fate of the abattoirs and kosher slaughter of animals after the promulgation of the Edict of Expulsion, beginning with the kingdom of Castile. See ibid. 206. On 1 Sept. 1493 Ferdinand granted the city the Citadel of the Jews, which was commonly called ‘the Prison of the Jews’ (ibid. 206–38). On 10 Dec. 1493 the Jewish quarter, including its squares, courtyards, and public places, was given to the city as a gift in perpetuity, with the right to do with it what it wished. See Sect. IV below. 257 See e.g. Asenjo González, Segovia, 569–80. Diego Arias Dávila was involved in setting the conditions for the abattoir in that city, on 11 Feb. 1466. A special condition deserves mention: it was forbidden to leave meat for safe keeping in the home of a Jew or a Moor (ibid. 574). 258 See H. Beinart, Anusim, index, s.v. ‘sheh.itah’. 255 256

the fate of jewish communal property

105

The Kingdom of Castile Alcalá de Henares García de Bustamante, a resident of Alcalá de Henares, complained to the Crown against the abbot and clergy of the local collegiate church. When the Jews of Alcalá went into exile, various annuities totalling 8,000 mrs were granted to the abbot and the clergy to cover a loan that had been guaranteed by income from the Jewish abattoirs. If there was not enough money to return the principal, the Crown ordered that they were to be paid at the prevailing interest rate of 12 per cent, so that with this sum the church could purchase another source of income. This arrangement brought the clergy an annual income of 5,544 mrs, which is what they had previously enjoyed from certain Jews. García de Bustamante argued that this arrangement was unfair for the following reasons. The arrangement was detrimental to him because he had not been summoned to testify when the grant was being made, as the law demanded; hence the grant had been obtained with the knowledge of only one party, that is, with incorrect information; it had thus been made to the clergy without following proper legal procedure. In addition to these formal arguments he stated that he had purchased annuities from the Jews at the time of the expulsion, which had been duly transferred to him, and he had proof of this. Thus the annuity from 8,000 mrs that the abbot had obtained was based neither on Jewish communal property nor on any other income from their property. Hence, according to Bustamante, it was clear that the annuity, which had been seized by the local clergy, headed by the abbot, belonged to him, and he was its rightful owner. He therefore asked for an order rescinding the grant to the local church. The Crown accepted his plea, and on 2 April 1495 ordered the return of this income to García de Bustamante,259 though the clergy were permitted to submit a petition in order to recover the lost income from the annuity which it had owned. Clearly this income was not based on a loan guaranteed by the tax on kosher meat.260

Ávila Two late documents attest to the fate of the abattoir. On 10 February 1497 Juan Ordóñez and Rodrigo de Ahedo, residents of Berlanga, and Antonio de Córdoba conveyed a building that was located in the former Jewish neighbourhood and known as the abattoir and butcher’s shop of the Jews, which was rented out to provide income to the clergy. The building adjoined the home of Gonzalo de San Martín.261 On 27 June 1502 Gonzalo, a skinner (‘pellejero’), rented the building that was in the possession of the local clergy. This building was near the abattoir;262 the documents could refer to the same place. 259 See RGS 12 No. 1600, fo. 238, drafted by Bartolomé Ruiz de Castañeda with the approbation of the Royal Council. 260 In 1509 the licenciado Francisco López accepted the obligation to pay 500 mrs annually for the building and oven located between the main street and Santiago Street. The building had been a Jewish butcher’s shop. In 1540 maestre Pedro, a barber, was recognized as the owner of the place. In 1701 it passed into the ownership of Doña Isabel de Arévalo, the widow of Luis de Aranda Quintanilla. See R. Santa María, ‘Edificios hebreos en Alcalá de Henares’, BRAH 17 (1890), 189. 261 262 See León Tello, Ávila, 162, no. 467. Ibid. 163, no. 468.

106

the fate of jewish communal property

Calahorra We learn about the baking oven of the Jewish community of Calahorra from the petition to the Crown of Pedro Sánchez Roldán, a resident of that town.263 When the Jews were ordered to leave the kingdom, they sold their property to the highest bidders. At that time the town had 120 Jewish households. The Jews had sold Roldán the old baking oven, which had been used for making bread and other foods.264 There were several privately owned baking ovens in the town. One belonged to the church, and others were owned by Gonzalo Ibáñez and several other clerics. The baking oven owned by Roldán had been built during the reign of King Pedro (1350–69) and was used by the residents of the surrounding neighbourhood. This arrangement probably relates to the privilege granted by Pedro to the Jews of the town to build that oven, whereas the others served the Christian inhabitants. Now the aforementioned Gonzalo Ibáñez and with him the priest, Sancho de Rojas, were preventing Roldán from using it. They demanded that he refurbish it, because it was in disrepair and therefore was apparently not fit for use. However, the residents of that neighbourhood had asked him to operate the baking oven. They were willing to bake their bread there and pay him as the Jews had paid its owner in the past. The owners of other baking ovens threatened the residents to prevent them from using his, a situation that caused him severe damage. Therefore he asked the Crown to intervene and reconsider the order banning him from the church, for he had been expelled from the church upon the demand of the clergy, and now he wished to be judged in accordance with his rights. On 28 January 1493 the Crown instructed Juan de Ribera, a member of the council and asistente or deputy asistente of Logroño and Calahorra, to summon the parties and adjudicate their petitions. From another order on the same matter we learn that there had been a delay. On 15 April 1494 the corregidor (or the resident magistrate or alcalde) was ordered to respond to the petition of Pedro Sánchez Roldán and to transfer the suit to another court, although at first the petition had been heard before Juan de Ribera.265

Guadalajara The convent of San Bernardo Without the Walls received from King Juan a juro de heredad or perpetual annuity of 10,000 mrs. This sum was divided as follows: 6,000 mrs from the service tax paid by the Moors who lived in the city, 3,000 mrs from the Jewish butchers’ shops, and 1,000 mrs from the alcabala tax paid by the shoemakers. After the expulsion of the Jews, the convent lost its income from the butchers’ shops. To solve the problem of this loss, the head of the convent petitioned the Crown, which responded by ordering Bernaldino de Lerma, a judge and investigator (‘pesquisidor’) of Jewish property, to deliver proceeds from the sale of the communal property of the 263 See RGS 10 No. 205, fo. 230, apparently drafted by Juan de la Parra or Alonso del Mármol, both of whom were at that time in service to the Crown in Barcelona, where the order was issued. 264 ‘Y que en aquella çibdad avia un çercado de poblaçion de fasta çiento e veynte judios, en el qual tenian una casa con un horno muy antiguo, y hera poblaçion por sy, en el qual los judios cozian su pan e lo bien les venia’, RGS 10 No. 205, fo. 230. See also Cantera Montengro, Las juderías de la diócesis de Calahorra, 521. 265 See RGS 11 No. 1257, fo. 165; drafted by Juan Alonso del Castillo with the approbation of the Royal Council.

the fate of jewish communal property

107

Jews of Guadalajara to the convent, which was to receive 45,000 mrs in compensation for the loss it had suffered. Lerma received full authority to take property that had been deposited in the hands of Juan de Labastida,266 from which the lien was lifted. Evidently this refers to Jewish property remaining after much of it had been seized, confiscated, and sold.267 This was not, however, the last of the issue of revenue from the Jewish butchers’ shops. Bernaldino Suárez de Mendoza, the Count of Coruña, also possessed rights to them.268 His right to income was worth 22,500 mrs, which he lost after the expulsion of the Jews. On 8 November 1494 the Crown ordered the magistrates of Guadalajara to ascertain which communal property of the Jews remained in the city and its environs, who had bought it, and who owned annuities from the communal property.269 The magistrates were ordered to sell the communal property to the highest bidder at public auction. The sum they received was to be divided among those who previously enjoyed income from the servicio and medio servicio tax,270 and duties on the meat and the wine of the Jews, which had been mortgaged to guarantee a lifetime annuity, according to the value of the money and the condition of the mortgage. This demand led to an order of the Crown to Del Mercado, dated 8 March 1495. The same income (this time on the principal of 22,000 mrs) was claimed by Mendoza from the alcabala taxes that he had lost after the expulsion. Del Mercado was ordered to examine the privilege held by the count upon the revenue from the Jewish butchers’ shops. After it was presented to him, he was to ascertain what communal property and moveable property the Jews had left behind, and what permanent income remained from them. He was to sell this property at public auction to the highest bidder. With the money he received, he was first to redeem the liens on Jewish taxes (the annual tax and the service and half-service taxes). With the remainder he was to pay the Count of Coruña 12,000 mrs for every 1,000 mrs of income from the annuity, which came to He was the veedor of the church of Santa María in Guadalajara. Regarding him, see above, n. 101. The response came on 9 Oct. 1494. See RGS 11 No. 3562, fo. 4. It was drafted by the secretary and pronotary, Felipe Clemente. 268 On him, with respect to private property, see RGS 11 No. 3175, fo. 498, dated 9 Oct. 1494. He was involved in a series of confiscations of property from the exiled Jews. For example, he seized the homes of Judah Benveniste and Isaac Alfandari (Ch. 7). He also tried to appropriate an annuity belonging to Sancho González de la Plazuela, who had bought it from the Jewish community in 1485 or 1486 (RGS 11 No. 4148, fo. 266; see above, n. 36); on 2 Dec. 1494 he lodged a complaint against the prosecutor for Jewish property in the diocese of Osma, Alonso del Castillo, who had collected debts sold to him by Pedro Martínez de Santa Fe, a Jew who returned from exile and converted to Christianity and a resident of Coruña del Conde, not far from Aranda (RGS 11 No. 4376, fo. 304), dated 16 Dec. 1494. On 2 Mar. 1495 he obtained a writ ordering the corregidor of Aranda to investigate the details of the agreement between Pedro Martínez de Santa Fe and Alonso del Castillo regarding the collections of debts that Christians owed to Jews (RGS 12 No. 993, fo. 320). 269 ‘Quien y quales personas las conparon e tienen maravedis algunos sytuados en las rentas del serviçio e medio serviçio’. See RGS 11 No. 370, fo. 6. It was prepared by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the king and queen. 270 ‘De la cabeça de pecho e serviçio e en la carne e vino judiego del aljama de la dicha çibdad tenian marvedis algunos situados de juro e de por vida por rata segund los maravedis de su situaçion’, RGS 11 No. 370, fo. 6. The purchasers were to receive what they had bought, according to law, and it was not to be confiscated without summoning them before a judge to hear their appeal. 266 267

108

the fate of jewish communal property

264,000 mrs. We thus find that a great deal of Jewish property remained in Guadalajara after the Jews were expelled. After the debt was cancelled, Del Mercado was to take the writ of privilege from the count, thus cancelling it.271 He was also to add to the amount payable to the count the revenue that he been unable to collect between the departure of the Jews and 1494.272 The effort to exploit every scrap of income that had derived from the Jews knew no bounds.

Toledo The regidor of Toledo, Pedro Baeza, possessed a lien on the income from the Jews’ butchers’ shops. On 22 June 1497 the corregidor of Segovia was ordered to ascertain what Jewish property remained, and to sell it at public auction, so as to provide the income that he had lost after the expulsion of the Jews.273 Local intervention and its impact on daily life were notable even after the expulsion.

The Kingdom of Aragon The Jewish communities that survived in this kingdom certainly had abattoirs and baking ovens, but we possess fundamental information only about Zaragoza.274 Its abattoir was close to the Jewish citadel, and six butchers’ shops were associated with it, from which the Crown and the baile general of Aragon collected taxes.275 Next to the abattoir were two courtyards, the larger of which was called the corral de los bueyes or courtyard of the oxen; scraps and rubbish were thrown into the smaller courtyard. In December 1493 these courtyards were granted to Christian owners. In 1488 the Jewish community of Zaragoza instituted ordinances governing the kosher slaughter of animals and the sale of meat,276 and these were doubtless observed until the expulsion. The price for leasing the abattoir was 22,000 sueldos, the sisa tax was 5 pence for each pound of meat sold.277 The ordinances determined the rights of those who leased butchers’ shops and guaranteed the price of kosher meat for the buyers. The functions of the slaughterer, the inspector, and the butcher in his store were all defined. The slaughterer received a fixed salary as well as parts of the animals that he slaughtered, such as the liver. This was also true of the inspector, and a fee was also paid to the local magistrate or zalmedina. The lessee of the abattoir also enjoyed rights to the meat that was slaughtered. Meat was sold off the bone, on pain of a 50 sueldo fine. The butcher could not require his customer to purchase a particular piece The document was to be forwarded to the chief accountants (contadores mayores) who were to destroy it. Hence Rodrigo del Mercado enjoyed broad authority. See RGS 12 No. 1135, fo. 335, drafted by Fernán Álvarez de Toledo, the secretary of the Catholic Monarchs. See also Cantera Burgos and Carrete Parrondo, 273 See RGS 14 No. 1655, fo. 277. Sefarad, 34 (1974), 380 ff. Cf. Baer, JchS ii. 432–4. 274 It is known that the abattoir of Tarazona was opposite the Jews’ communal building. This is mentioned in a documented dated 31 June 1491. See Motis Dolader and Ainaga Andrés, ‘Patrimonio’, 116–18. 275 There were six tables for the sale of meat, one of which was apparently the taula for collection of the sisa tax on meat, which was paid by the buyers. See Motis Dolader, La Expulsión de los judíos de Zaragoza, 236–8, and also below. 276 J. L. Lacave Riaño, ‘La carnicería de la aljama zaragozana’, 3–35. 277 The meeting of the drafters of the ordinances took place in the small Benveniste synagogue (‘la sinoga chica de la juderya Benbenist’). It cannot be ascertained which synagogue this refers to. 271 272

the fate of jewish communal property

109

of meat, but once it had been weighed, the buyer could not refuse to purchase it; he was permitted to waive the purchase only if the meat was wanted by the muqaddamin or the clavarí (treasurer) of the community, or if it was needed for a wedding, circumcision, or the like. The lessee was required to meet a series of obligations. (1) To pay the rent of 90 sueldos to the treasurer during the month of September. (2) To pay the purchase tax (lezda) on the animals slaughtered during the year.278 (3) To pay the rent for the store and to collect payment of the sisa tax. (4) To give free meat to the various charitable societies and to the treasurer of the community.279 (5) To pay the notary who ratified the transaction and 2 sueldos to a second notary, who had drafted the ordinances of the abattoir before the lessee appeared before the first notary, and another 15 sueldos for the heralds who were employed at the time the leasing of the abattoir was announced. The lessee was asked to declare whether he had partners in the lease and to present signed guarantees from men known by the community: to swear he would uphold the regulations for leasing the right to slaughter and sell meat. The members of the community were required to buy the meat that was slaughtered in the abattoir, and they were forbidden to slaughter animals for their own needs; they were only permitted to slaughter an animal for Passover (‘pascua florida de pan cotaço’) if they paid the sisa to the farmer of that tax, always two days before the holiday, and they were forbidden to bring meat from elsewhere. If someone bought meat while he was away from Zaragoza, he was required to bring the meat to the city and pay the standard tax to the farmer of the sisa. There were standard procedures for doing this. Another article in the ordinances deals with conversos, and it is a sign of the problems of the times. If a member of the community converted to Christianity, and he had been among those who paid the community taxes, aged 15 or older, having lived in Zaragoza at least four years, 15 sueldos would be deducted from the rent paid by the lessee of the abattoir. A similar sum would be deducted for every Jew who died of the plague. A Jew who was absent from the city for a period exceeding six months would pay the farmer of the sisa tax the sum of 15 sueldos. If he was absent for a shorter time, he would be required to pay the entire sum. Half of all fines would be transferred to the Royal Treasury. In 1488 the lessee of the abattoir was R. Benveniste, and the price he had to pay was 22,000 sueldos. When the Jews went into exile, the city asserted its rights to the abattoir. On 10 December 1493 the king granted the citadel and abattoir to the city. It cannot be determined whether this grant was meant to cover a debt of 86,000 sueldos owed to the city by the Jewish community, or constituted an act of grace to the city by the Crown.280 On 20 August 1496 the citadel and abattoir were transferred to messir Johan Cabrero, a caballero and camarero (household servant) of the king, for the sum of 27,000 sueldos of Jaca.281 The rate is not mentioned in the document published by Lacave (n. 276). The societies mentioned are: the Torah society (de las atoras) and the charitable deeds society (ose h.esed). 280 See Motis Dolader, La Expulsión de los judíos de Zaragoza, 119 ff. 281 ‘Como savian, la çiudat tenia graçia del señor rey de la casa y castillo e carniçerias que fueron de los judios, clamando el castillo de los judios, de lo qual la çiudat por concordia havia dado al magnifico miçer Johan Cabrero, cavallero e camarero del señor rey, vintisiete mil sueldos, jaqueses, el qual havia renunçiado a su derecho’. See Motis Dolader, La Expulsión de los judíos de Zaragoza, 122. 278 279

110

the fate of jewish communal property

v. cemeteries Jewish life in a town cannot be imagined without the presence of a cemetery nearby. From time immemorial the Jews of Spain had enjoyed the fuero and privilege of establishing cemeteries for their dead. The conditions for maintaining cemeteries varied from locality to locality, and it is known that cemeteries served as pasture for the sheep and cattle of the city, town, or village.282 We must therefore distinguish between the fate of the land containing the graves and that of the tombstones that survived after the expulsion: thus the preamble of the order granted by the Crown to the city council of Calahorra states explicitly that it relates only to the tombstones.283 Those who petitioned the Crown wished to benefit not only from the monuments but also from the area of the cemetery. This was the case in Calahorra and apparently everywhere else. Among those making the appeals were the church, municipal councils, and various individuals. In the writs of donation the Crown would specifically emphasize what was given and what were the considerations behind the grant of the land or monuments. The municipality of Calahorra, mentioned here as an example, complained to the Crown, arguing that the cemetery belonged to the general public,284 and this was generally the approach of many local councils. Hence the authorities opposed the erection of any building on the land or any other use of it,285 a step that would deprive the locality of an area which could no longer be used for pasturing animals. The Crown usually accepted the arguments of the residents, and the Royal Council saw eye to eye with the cities and towns, determining that the land of the cemeteries should be retained for the common good, as had been practised hitherto, when the Jews still buried their dead there.286 This holds true regarding Toledo, where an edict dated 23 December 1492 stated that the area of the cemetery had been delivered to all the residents of the city.287 The tombstones were granted to the church for use in its buildings and public works, as the clergy saw fit. They, too, were property that belonged to the Crown.288 The clergy were permitted to remove the tombstones from the cemetery, and the judiciary of Toledo was to assist in the execution of this edict.289 The queen issued this order because of her loyalty to the church of Toledo.290 282 ‘Pasto comun, segund que antiguamente en tiempo de los judios solia ser’; edict RGS 10 No. 10, fo. 60, of 4 Jan. 1493, drafted by Fernán Álvarez de Toledo with the approbation of the Crown Council. 283 ‘Para que la merçed de Sus Altesas fisieron o auian fecho a qualquier persona del onsario de los judios de Calahorra non se entyende nin esecute la merçed mas de las piedras del’; RGS 9 No. 2704, fo. 159, issued in 1492 (the date is missing; apparently in August). 284 ‘Porque el dicho onsario esta en lo publico e cosa de la dicha çibdad’, RGS 9 No. 2704, fo. 159. 285 ‘Por donde se defendiese el pasto’, RGS 9 No. 2704, fo. 159. 286 ‘De favor e manera que estaua al tiempo que se enterrauan en el los dichos judios e que la dicha çibdad se pueda aprouechar del, segun e como se aprovechauan al tienpo que los dichos judios se enterrauan el el dicho onsario’, RGS 9 No. 2704, fo. 159. 287 ‘Para el comun de la dicha çibdad de Toledo’, RGS 9 No. 3586, fo. 212. Drafted by Fernán Álvarez de Toledo with the approbation of the queen. 288 ‘Toda la piedra que ouiere e me pertenesçiere en el honsario de los judios como cosa nuestra propria’, RGS 9 No. 3586, fo. 212. 289 Those who violated the order were to be fined 10,000 mrs and punished with loss of royal favour, RGS 9 No. 3586, fo. 212. 290 ‘Por la deuoçion que tengo a la dicha yglesia’, RGS 9 No. 3586, fo. 212, and see also below.

the fate of jewish communal property

111

Although the grounds and monuments of the Jewish cemetery had been confiscated for the benefit of the Crown, which would determine what was to be done with them, the community of Badajoz did not refrain from selling the land and tombstones to several Christian residents of the city. Therefore Fernando de la Rocha, the procurador of the city, addressed the queen and asked her to declare the grounds of the cemetery a common pasture, as was the custom while the Jews still lived in the city.291 Indeed the queen saw fit to order that every buyer of the land and monuments must desist and cease, meaning that the transaction was annulled and the money that had been paid out was lost. The land was to become a pasture for the needs of the residents of the city, and it was forbidden to place a lien of any kind on it; the tombstones were to be collected and deposited with some trustworthy personage for safekeeping until the queen should command what was to be done with them. The council of Badajoz was required to execute this order. The foregoing examples are sufficient to indicate the line taken by the Crown regarding cemeteries, as part of its entire approach to Jewish communal property. Every cemetery was to become pasture and grazing land; the tombstones were to be removed and granted to various institutions, primarily the churches or municipal councils, that is to say public bodies, for the purpose of construction and renovation. Thus every remnant and memory of Spanish Jewry was to be eradicated. On shifts in this approach, see below. Accordingly it is appropriate to examine what is known to us about the fate of Jewish cemeteries and tombstones in those places from which documents are extant.

The Kingdom of Castile Ávila The Jewish cemetery, which is outside the city walls, passed into the possession of the Crown. On 23 March 1494 it was granted to the Dominican order to benefit the monastery of Santo Tomás. Most probably the man who received the donation was Tomás de Torquemada himself.292 The reason for the grant was not only to honour its recipient but also so that the prior and its friars might pray for the souls of the late monarchs, the ancestors of Ferdinand and Isabella, and also entreat God to grant the present monarchs a long life. The cemetery, whose tombstones had previously been granted, was given to the friary in perpetuity, and the friary was permitted to do as it wished with it, even to erect high or low buildings on it. The corregidor in office at the time of the donation as well as his future successor were not allowed to prevent the monastery from implementing the intentions of the grant.293 On the back of the deed of gift appears the date 15 April 1494, which is when Juan Verdugo appeared in the name of the monastery, as its procurador, to receive possession ‘Segund que antiguamente en tienpo de los judios la solia ser’, see above, n. 1. See León Tello, Ávila, 28–30, 101–3; ead., ‘La judería de Ávila’, 45; Fita, ‘Edicto’, 527; Ballesteros, ‘El cementerio’. 293 The penalty for failure to obey was loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 50,000 mrs. Such a high fine was very unusual, and shows the decisiveness of the Crown. The order was drafted by Miguel Pérez de Almazán, the secretary to the monarchs. The original is in Ávila, Archivo Municipal 1, 92. 291 292

112

the fate of jewish communal property

of the cemetery and the tombstones for the monastery and the monks.294 However, it must be mentioned that the monastery derived no benefit from the donation. On 11 July 1500 it transferred the area to the city council in return for grazing rights for its needs.

Ciudad Rodrigo As early as 25 July 1492 the Crown donated the city’s Jewish cemetery to García Gutiérrez, who had served as contino of the king’s guard, for his good and faithful service.295 The area was given to him and to his descendants to be used by them as they wished. But the grant seems to have needed ratification, which was given on 9 March 1495.296 This time the order was directed to the city council, the magistrates, regidores, caballeros, escuderos, officials, and notables of Ciudad Rodrigo. The reason for the ratification was an appeal lodged after Gutiérrez had held the property for more than two years. It was claimed that the property belonged to the city, because a royal edict stated that cemeteries must be transferred to the possession of cities. Hence he was prevented from deriving any benefit from the grant. The Crown responded to this petition and determined that the grant had been made to Gutiérrez in lieu of his salary and payment of debts owed to him by the Crown for services rendered;297 thus the matter is recorded in the annals of the Crown.298 García Gutiérrez was apparently embroiled in a serious conflict with the heads of the city regarding use of the grounds of the cemetery. He sold the tombstones and derived benefit from the sale. Later he sought to erect a building on the lot (‘solar’). The residents of the city objected, and its leaders argued that this act was contrary to the Crown’s general edict, which stated that ‘all the areas of cemeteries are to become pastures and meadows for the cities and towns’.299 Against them Gutiérrez argued that the cemetery had been granted to him ‘in payment for services’, and that he possessed writ after writ, and he was entitled to act as he wished. In response the heads of the city argued that ‘the Jews had rights only to bury their dead and not for buildings to be built, nor to pave it, nor to prevent use of the area as pasture and meadow, and this could never be forbidden’.300 The city fairgrounds were paved with Jewish tombstones.301 294 To ratify the sale an act of transfer was performed: ‘Con vna pica de hierro y cavo con un açadon en la dicha tierra del dicho onsario’, Ávila, Archivo Municipal 1, 92. Below were listed the names of the witnesses present at the act. 295 See RGS 9 No. 2566, fo. 16, published in Carrete Parrondo, Provincia de Salamanca, 68. 296 See RGS 12 No. 1136, fo. 16; published with omissions in Carrete Parrondo, Provincia, 78 ff. The order was drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the Crown. 297 ‘De çiertas debdas que nos deviamos e heramos a cargo de que nos dio fin e quito’, RGS 12 No. 1136, fo. 16. 298 The corregidores and magistrates were to see to implementation of the order. Sanctions like those imposed in similar circumstances were included in the order. 299 ‘Que todos los onsarios de nuestros reynos quedasen por exidos e pasto comun de las çibdades e villas dellos’, RGS 12 No. 2173, fo. 9. It was drafted by Alonso del Marmol with the approbation of the Royal Council and the Crown. 300 ‘Saluo del derecho que los judios a el tenian, los quales no tenian otro derecho saluo solamente se enterrase en el, e no faser en el ningund edifiçio nin enprendrar el pasto comun del dicho exido. En qual los dichos judios nunca auian defendido ni podido defender’, RGS 12 No. 2173, fo. 9. 301 ‘Sobre las piedras del se fasya la feria desa dicha çibdad’, RGS 12 No. 2173, fo. 9.

the fate of jewish communal property

113

Residents lived alongside the stream near the cemetery, and if they were not allowed to graze their flocks on its grounds, the place would become empty of its inhabitants and cease to supply the needs of their flocks. That is to say, damage would be done to the residents and farmers of the area. Although García Gutiérrez had already sold the tombstones, as the order permitted him to do, the city had received its rights to the land from the fathers of the kings and from the monarchs themselves (Ferdinand and Isabella), and these had been retained. Therefore the heads of the city sought to forbid García Gutiérrez to erect any building on the site, so that the land would remain for the public benefit, as it had been hitherto. The Crown acceded to the city’s petition; on 12 May 1495 it ordered that the cemetery should continue to be used for the public good and for the municipal council. García Gutiérrez was forbidden to do more than to exploit the tombstones and bricks of the cemetery.302

Cuenca, Carrascona The local council of Carrascona, which is near Cuenca, was involved in a lawsuit against the local council of Cuenca regarding land that was called ‘Val de Judíos’, Jews’ Valley, as well as other land that had probably been Jewish communal property. The claim upon the land was lodged with the corregidor, Juan Pérez de Baradas,303 who was minded to find in favour of the council of Cuenca. In the name of the council and good people of Carrascona, Alonso Martínez del Parral addressed a complaint against him to the Crown, alleging that he favoured Cuencas, that he had close relations with the regidor there, and that he was hostile and suspicious towards Carrascona.304 Therefore the attorney for Carrascona requested the appointment of another judge, or, alternatively, the addition of an arbitrator who should deliberate together with the corregidor and adjudicate the disagreements between the two councils. Juan Pérez de Baradas was known to be held in confidence by the Catholic Monarchs, who decided, with the concurrence of the Royal Council, to allow him to choose the additional arbitrator, with whom he should arrive at a joint decision regarding this dispute.305 The land in question was apparently the Jewish cemetery of Carrascona, which is how it got the name ‘Val de Judíos’, and it is likely that it also served the Jews of Cuenca, which is why the council of Cuenca claimed ownership of the land. We do not know what decision was reached.

Guadalajara Its cemetery became a common pasture,306 and the tombstones were conveyed to the supervisor of the church of Santa María de la Fuente, Juan de Labastida.307 In this The corregidor and magistrates were forbidden to agree to any change in the property. He had earlier served as the corregidor of Ciudad Real, Madrid, and Murcia. See Lunenfeld, Keepers, 211 and the index. 304 ‘Que soys muy odioso e sospechiso al conçejo del dicho lugar e omes buenos del e muy favourable a esa çibdad a cabsa del trato e conversaçion e amistad que cureys con los regidores della’, RGS 14 No. 616, fo. 78, dated 22 Feb. 1497; drafted by Juan Ramírez, escríbano de cámara. 305 The penalties for non-compliance were as usual: loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 20,000 mrs payable to the Royal Treasury. 306 ‘Exido’ (ejido), public land that is not cultivated and from which all the residents may benefit, and all 307 See above, n. 102. the herds are gathered there after returning from grazing. 302 303

114

the fate of jewish communal property

document, which was apparently executed in June 1493, the title supplied by the notary is interesting: ‘declaration concerning the cemetery of the Jews of Guadalajara, so that it will remain a grazing area after the tombstones are removed from it’.308 At the beginning of the decree the monarchs emphasize that, although they had granted the tombstones to Juan de Labastida, it had not been declared that the land should remain in possession of the city afterwards.309 Therefore the Crown again ordered that the tombstones should be conveyed to Juan de Labastida, and that the land of the cemetery should belong to the city of Guadalajara, its citizens and residents, from now and for evermore. In this declaration the Crown announced and ordered the alcaldes and everyone else in the city to remove the tombstones immediately so that the land could be delivered to the city to be used as a common pasture. The magistrates were to defend this decision and make certain that it was implemented, and it was forbidden for them to agree that anyone might seize the land and take it over.310 The demand that this order was to be implemented without delay is a good indication of the Crown’s intention.

Guadalupe The old and new cemeteries of Guadalupe were sold by the supervisors of the community to the head of the church there, Diego de Jerez, for the sum of 400 reales. The deed of sale was signed on 21 May 1492; it states that the price was low because of the many gracious acts that this deacon had done for the community.311 This sale took place before Abraham Senior and his entourage arrived in Guadalupe in order to be converted, on 15 June 1492; no doubt their impending arrival had a decisive influence on the fate of the place.

Miranda de Ebro The tombstones from the Jewish cemetery were delivered to the town council in order to rehabilitate the structure that had been the synagogue and was then used as the town council building, with permission of the Crown.312

Segovia The cemetery of Segovia was given to the municipal council for the purpose of building an exit from the city.313 308 ‘Declaraçion sobre el osario de los judios de Guadalajara para que quede por pasto como despues de quitada la piedra’, RGS 10 No. 1740, fo. 28. The name of the scribe who drafted the order, which was issued with the approbation of the Crown, is missing. See also the order dated 2 Jan. 1495: RGS 14 No. 12, fo. 3 (private property). 309 ‘Por quanto nos hesimos a Juan de Labastida, nuestro veedor, de la piedra del onsario de los judios de la çibdad de Guadalajara allende de otros bienes comunes que de los dichos judios quedaron, e en la carta de merçed que del dicho onsario le hesimos non fue declarado que el sytio del dicho onsario quedase por exido de la dicha çibdad’, RGS 10 No. 1740, fo. 28. 310 The penalty for non-compliance was loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs payable to the Royal Treasury. 311 See Baer, JchS ii. 408; Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas, 266–7. This deacon also bought the cemetery of Plasencia for the same price, and in 1496 he sold it to the city. 312 See Cantera Burgos, ‘La judería de Miranda de Ebro’, 349 and also above, Sect. III, on the fate of the 313 synagogue. See M. Asenjo González, Segovia, 33.

the fate of jewish communal property

115

Toledo The size of the Jewish cemetery of Toledo may be inferred from the impressive collection of tombstones published by Cantera and Millás.314 The site of the cemetery may be identified at the foot of Cerro de Palomarejos, near the road from Toledo to Madrid, after leaving through the Besagra gate.315 On 23 December 1492 the queen granted the monuments of the Jewish cemetery to the archbishop and clergy of Toledo.316 The area was devoted to the whole population. For many years afterwards monuments from the cemetery were still sold. The magistrate (alcalde ordinario) of the city, Alonso Azafrán, sold tombstones as late as 1508.317 They were bought by the well-known architect Enrique Egas, who built the Santa Cruz Hospital in Toledo. On instructions from Queen Isabella it was constructed in the shape of a cross. The tombstones were sold as building materials. Antón Egas, the brother of Enrique, a sculptor by profession, was a partner in this purchase, as were Luis de Aguirre and Garci Pérez de Rojas, both of whom were veedores of the city.318 At that time the tombstones began to be used for the construction of the monastery of San Juan de los Reyes.319 The monuments were apparently scattered in every direction, and memory of them was lost.320

Trujillo On 25 November 1492 the Catholic Monarchs donated the tombstones and roof-tiles that were in the Jewish cemetery to the monastery of Santa María de la Encarnación.321 This grant was made because of the Crown’s admiration for the monastery and its desire to have the monks pray for the monarchs’ lives and those of the Crown Prince and the infantes, and for the souls of the rulers after they went to their eternal rest. The local corregidores and magistrates were ordered immediately to convey the right to the tombstones and roof-tiles found in the cemetery; no one should dare take any of them without permission of the monastery. Anyone who did take the gravestones or tiles would be regarded as taking property without the owner’s permission, and anyone who had already taken these materials was obliged to return them and deliver them of his own accord to the monastery. This instruction and the intention behind it are clear.

Vitoria The cemetery was known as Judismendi or Judimenti, which means ‘the Mountain of the Jews’ in Basque. It is located to the east of the city at the end of Calle de Carlos F. Cantera Burgos and J. M. Millás Vallicrosa, Inscripciones hebraicas de España (Madrid, 1956), Reg. s.v. León Tello, Toledo, i. 360; J. Gómez-Menor, ‘Algunos datos sobre el cementerio de judíos de Toledo’, Sefarad, 31 (1971), 367–75. 316 León Tello, Toledo, i. 548–9. 317 See Gómez-Menor, ‘Algunos datos’. Some of the remains of tombstones can be seen in the museum installed in part of the synagogue of Samuel Halevi. 318 Aguirre was the alguacil mayor of Toledo, and Garci Pérez filled a central function in the Hermandad Vieja (Old Brotherhood) of Toledo. He also served as alcalde. 319 According to Gómez-Menor, who examined the building, no dated tombstones were found there. 320 The Museum of Spanish Jewish Culture has made an important contribution by collecting tombstones. 321 ‘fazemos merçed, gracia e limosna de la piedra e ladrillo que en el fonsario de los judios de la dicha çibdad estan e estauan en tienpo que ellos salieron de los dichos nuestros reynos’, RGS 9 No. 3407, fo. 20, drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation from the Crown. See Beinart, Trujillo, 247–8. 314 315

116

the fate of jewish communal property

VII and Olaguíbel. The mayor reached an agreement with Rabbi Moses Balid and Ishmael Moratans, the regidor and representative of the Jewish community, and other notables on 27 June 1492, by which the city obligated itself to preserve the cemetery.322 Nevertheless the Crown, with the assent of the Royal Council, ordered that the city authorities should sell the cemetery, the tombstones, and the bricks to the highest bidder. The purpose of the sale was that the revenue should be used to reinforce the walls, for which the sum of 15,000 mrs was needed. The idea of selling the cemetery was raised by Juan Martínez, who had bought the synagogue and was concerned that he might be deprived of his purchase.323 We do not know whether the sale was executed or whether only part of the grounds was confiscated for sale. On 27 June 1952 the heads of the city of Vitoria reached an agreement with the Jewish community of southern France (represented by Andrés Pareire of Bayonne) releasing the city from the obligation of watching over the remnants of the cemetery: on the site a monument was erected in memory of the Jewish community.

The Kingdom of Aragon No one will deny the extensive presence of Jewish cemeteries in these territories. Actual remains have not survived, and the few tombstones that remain were reused by local residents.324 Here we shall mention three cemeteries.

Gerona The Jewish community of Gerona was served by the cemetery on Montjuich (the Mountain of the Jews), which is situated in the parish of Sant Feliu. On 14 July 1492 the heads of the Jewish community conveyed the cemetery to the caballero Juan de Sariesa without payment, in return for the many services he had rendered it. The tombstones were also given to him.325

Tarazona The cemetery, and with it a garden and adjacent land, was granted to Pedro de Talavera, the baile and merino of Tarazona. This property was granted to him by Joan de Garrixo, the commissioner in charge of the expulsion, on 31 December 1492. The value of the land was appraised at 1,025 sueldos. According to testimony of 1494 the Montiver cemetery was within the city limits. On 30 January 1494 Pedro de Talavera sold a courtyard that was located within the cemetery area for the price of 130 sueldos.326 322 See Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas, 297 ff. He presents the names of the other men present at the event (Samuel Benjamin Gaon and his kinsman Eviatar Tello, Yose Paral, and Samuel de Mijancas). See Cantera Montenegro, Las juderías de la diócesis de Calahorra, 190–1. 323 See above, at n. 116. The edict dates from 5 Feb. 1495: RGS 12 No. 453, fo. 571. 324 See Cantera Burgos and Millás Vallicrosa, Inscripciones hebraicas, index. 325 See above, Sect. III, on the synagogue of Gerona and the names of the heads of the Jewish community. Members of the Sariesa family used the tombstones to build their house in a place named Palau. See Mirambell Belloc, ‘Los judíos gerundenses’, 658. 326 See Motis Dolader and Ainaga Andrés, ‘Patrimonio’, 113–16.

the fate of jewish communal property

117

Zaragoza The location of the cemetery cannot be determined. Documents mention ‘Fosar de allá’, and this certainly refers to an area outside the city. ✽

The story of the fate of Jewish communal property has been detailed above according to the extant documents. The fate of the synagogues was different from that of the abattoirs and baking ovens. The fate of both the synagogues and cemeteries demonstrate the clear intention of Ferdinand and Isabella to erase all memory of Judaism from Spain.327 Despite their actions and intentions, as we have seen, the memory of that Jewry still persists in the physical remains of their communal institutions. 327

See Cabezudo Astrain, ‘Noticias sobre los judíos zaragozanos en el siglo XV’, 372.

4

Jewish–Christian Credit and its Liquidation i. the kingdom of castile eciprocal credit arrangements and the problems they entailed between Jews and Christians throughout Spain date to very early times. When the church and R the secular government sought to restrict credit and limit the interest that borrowers were required to pay, they took decisions which for the most part failed to meet the test of reality. Evidence of this may be found in the numerous discussions and directives issued at meetings of the Cortes and of church councils, which were held repeatedly. No society can exist without credit. Our concern here is to examine the parameters of the problem during the transitional period, from the day that the Edict of Expulsion was published until the Jews went into exile, on the one hand, and to determine the fate of those debts which remained unsettled after the Jews’ departure. To understand the extent of the problem one must examine it in great detail, for the credit system illuminates the mutual relations between the Jews and the Christian community. This detailed description also serves to map the financial activities of the Jews, showing their extent and delineating what was dismantled by the Edict of Expulsion. Moreover, the information provided here bears upon the social and financial crisis in Spain that ensued in the wake of the expulsion. The Christian population of Spain faced serious problems in constructing a financial system independent of the Jews after their departure. To a considerable degree one finds that certain individuals, primarily men of means, exploited the turmoil that followed the expulsion for their own benefit in respect of debts that remained unsettled. Without doubt the Crown was aware of this and took its own measures in its own interests. The financial problems of exiles who were owed money by Christians are also discussed here. Immediately after the publication of the Edict of Expulsion the question of debts arose in its full gravity. On 16 May 1492 Ferdinand and Isabella answered the petition of the Jewish community by ordering the return of promissory notes given in payment for wool and merchandise that fell due after 31 July 1492.1 The problem of promissory notes due both before the final day of the Jews’ presence in the kingdom and also afterwards gave rise to many lawsuits for early payment. Claims for payment by Jews impeded their preparations for departure, for, as we shall see below, the Jews were 1 Regarding the decree for arranging payments, see León Tello, Ávila, 98 ff. The document is in the Ávila archive, no. 1/81.

jewish‒christian credit

119

required to pay their debts, while Christians avoided paying what they owed to Jews. Expression of the difficulties may be found soon after the promulgation of the Edict of Expulsion in the instructions given to Luis de Sepúlveda,2 a contino of the royal court. Along with Graviel de Tapia and Gómez de Robles, he was instructed to investigate the reciprocal debts between Jews and Christians, and ascertain what debts were owed within the limits of the towns of Maqueda and Torrijos.3 The order in itself is a sign of the concern within the state that these debts had to be settled before the expulsion.4 The Jews were certainly worried about payment of debts owed to them by Christians, for they were about to go into exile and had to obtain funds to meet their needs. The concern of the Christians to whom Jews owed money was different. They sought to collect debts before the Jews left their homes, never to return. This was not the same as raising funds from the sale of Jewish private property, which suffered a fate similar to that of the communal property considered in the previous chapter. The Crown permitted its subjects to accept the promissory notes of Jewish debtors for the transfer of property without impediment.5 However, before long Christian debtors decided on their own to cease paying their Jewish creditors, whereas the Jews were required to pay their debts to Christian creditors immediately. The bodies and assets of the Jews were frequently seized. Obviously this situation created financial confusion in the state, and the credit system ceased functioning. Hence the regime had to discover a way to solve the problem of debts that remained unsettled. The Crown did not decree the cancellation of all debts until 26 February 1493, and on 6 March 1493 it issued an instruction (‘cédula’) to the corregidores and special magistrates appointed to adjudicate Jewish debts and property on how to deal with these problems.6 This is not the place to discuss the church’s prohibitions of usury, or the additional restrictions imposed by the government.7 Nevertheless, the situation at the time of the expulsion obliges us to examine the credit arrangements then existing in Spain. The arguments voiced in Spain and particularly in Castile immediately after the accession 2 On 26 July 1491 he was ordered to adjudicate the claim of Rabbi Meir Melamed against Gómez Guillén of Madrid for failure to pay his obligations from the collection of the taxes of the Hermandad. See RGS 8 No. 1968, fo. 104; also above, Ch. 2, and below, Ch. 7. 3 See Baer, JchS ii. 441 ff. The document is in AGS, Diversos de Castilla, Leg. 8, fo. 127. Since it mentions the property of the Abravanel family, it appears to us to date from no later than June. 4 ‘Las cosas que vos, Luys de Sepulveda, aveys de platicar con Graviel de Tapia e con Gomes de Robles e con los otros criados son las siguientes . . . Averiguar las debdas que deben los judios a los christianos y los christianos a los judios para que aquellas se averiguen entrellos y se pag[u]en los unos a los otros, y faser luego un pregon que todas y qualesquier personas que tengan recabdos y obligaçiones y otras debdas liquidas sobre judios que las vengan mostrando dentro de [ ] dias que los faran conplimento de justiçia, con aperçebimiento que si dentro del dicho tienpo no vinieren, que despues de ydos los judios avran perdido qualquier cosa que les deban y que personas que compraren los bienes de los dichos judios quedaran libres y desenbargados a qualquier y qualesquier cosa que les deban y personas que conpraren los bienes de que los dichos judios, y los dichos judios les pueden vender a quien quieren’, AGS, Diversos de Castilla, Leg. 8, fo. 127. 5 ‘Comprar o resçebir en pago qualesquier debdas que a los dichos judios fuesen deuidas en los dichos nuestros reynos’; RGS 10 No. 2318, fo. 272, issued in Valladolid on 27 August 1493. 6 The content of the edicts can be reconstructed from references in various documents relating to the debts. See below. 7 S. Grayzel, The Church and the Jews in the XIIIth Century (Philadelphia, 1933), 41 ff.; J. T. Noonan, The Scholastic Analysis of Usury (Cambridge, Mass., 1957).

120

jewish‒christian credit

of the Catholic Monarchs and during their reign until the time of the expulsion are of great importance for understanding this topic. At various meetings of the Cortes, representatives of the cities, the clergy, and the nobility raised serious claims and demanded a decision of the Crown forbidding the lending of money for interest. In other words, they sought the establishment of norms to govern credit that would be acceptable in the state and conform to the customs and instructions of the church. Not long before the accession, a decision was reached by the Cortes of Toledo, which assembled in 1462 under Enrique IV.8 This decision was based on an act of Enrique III (1390–1406) that permitted the Jews to lend money for interest and collect their debts, if these did not involve fraude de usura, meaning concealed interest. The creditor was required to prove that the loan had been offered without any intention of fraud to cover hidden interest by extending credit for two years. If he did prove it, the loan would be valid; but if the borrower claimed that the credit arrangement involved interest, it would be cancelled. This law could not be rescinded. At the meeting of the Cortes in 1462 it was declared explicitly that all loans advanced by Jews to Christians were made with the intention of fraude de usura unless proved otherwise.9 Clearly Enrique IV viewed this as a way of maintaining Jewish credit while also responding to pressure from the Cortes, which was tantamount to public pressure, by requiring the lender to prove that the credit had indeed been advanced honestly and without usury.10 It also determined that if the lender could not show how the credit had been arranged, he would not be permitted to collect the debt by legal process. In other words, he could not seize the person or property of the debtor. Any payment arrangement made truthfully would be upheld, as stated in the law: And to avoid acts of fraudulent usury in contracts, since the Jews are in the habit of wearying the Christians and taking large sums of money from them, when the Christians need small sums of money for their needs, we order that no Jewish man or woman shall take an oath to pay from a Christian man or woman, nor obtain a judgment from an ecclesiastical judge for any loan or arrangement that shall be made between them, and no notary shall defend such oath or judgment against any Christian nor if there shall have been(?) such oath or judgment shall any Christian consent to serve as creditor in the place of the Jewish man or woman who shall receive such oath or judgment, on pain of loss of the loan, which shall [henceforth] belong to the Christian borrower, and further half of all his property to our Treasury. And the notary who shall give faith and witness of such oath or judgment shall lose his position and shall be ineligible for any similar position, for the rest of his life, and he shall pay a fine León Tello, ‘Legislación’; ead., ‘Disposiciones’, 287. B. Clavero, Usura: Del uso económico de la religión en la historia (Madrid, 1984), 53 n. 21; and cf. C. Sánchez Albornoz, España: un enigma histórico (Buenos Aires, 1956), ii. 190–206; F. Cantera Burgos, ‘La usura judía en Castilla’, La Ciencia Tomista, 127 (1939), 5–26. 10 ‘E fiso vna ley en las Cortes de Toledo de sesenta e dos, por la qual hordeno e mando que los judios e judias puedan resçibir libremente qualquier contratos liçitos e permisos que no se han fechos en fraude de vsura, e en los contratos que son asy de emprestido el acrehedor fuese thenido de prouar dentro de dos años lo contenido en el contrato ser verdadero sy el debdor opusyere el contrario. E que la dicha ley se non podiese rebocar. Pero sy los judios e otras qualquesquier personas a quien fuesen fechos los contratos fuesen publicos usurarios, que en tal caso oviese logar las leyes por el señor rey don Enrique terçero fechas e que se non podiese ser executados los tales coratos’, RGS 9 No. 190, fo. 178. Issued in Burgos on 30 Jan. 1492. 8 9

jewish‒christian credit

121

of 10,000 mrs to our Treasury, and the Christian shall be infamous and shall lose half of all his property to our Treasury.11

These details are of great importance. By what they forbid they inform us regarding the method used to extend credit and collect interest above what was permissible, and they also indicate the place of the Christian intermediary who exercised a public function, which was necessary for enacting the transaction. Frequently the moneylender was the notary’s partner. This approach was acceptable to the Catholic Monarchs at the Cortes of Madrigal in 1476. It was clear to them that prohibition of all contracts between Christians and Jews would cause ‘discomfort and even damage to the Christians’ by effectively drying up credit.12 The Crown adopted the same system when it permitted loan contracts according to which the creditor was required to prove within two years (which was apparently the term of the loan and the credit) that the loan entailed no concealed interest or, in the language of the edict, fraude de usura. However, here the declaration of the debtor alone was decisive, which meant that there had to be discussion between the lender and the borrower. ‘If the loan is given for pure interest [which was forbidden] the law enacted by the king, Don Enrique III, will be enforced.’13 It was clearly acknowledged in those Cortes that this ‘legal arrangement’ was never observed, and that people carried on as normal with respect to loans for interest. The Cortes of 1476 requested the Crown to renew this law, which it consented to do. The Crown’s concurrence must be seen as part of its effort to restore tranquillity after the union of the kingdoms of Castile and Aragon in 1474. It was necessary to calm the unrest and rebelliousness of the opposition, which supported the union of Castile and Portugal 11 ‘E por ybitar [sic] las fraudes de las vsuras de los contratos e que muchas veses los judios suelen fatygar a los christianos e lieuarles grandes quantyas de maravedís, e ara cosas por pequeñas quantyas que los christianos en tienpo de sus nesçesidades dellos resçiben, mandamos que ningun judio ni judia non resçiba de christiano nin christiana juramento de pagar, nin sentençia de jues eclesyastico por ningun enprestito, nin otra contrato que entre ellos pase, nin escrivano alguno defenda el tal juramento nin de la tal sentençia contra christiano alguno nin da sy [ ] do el tal juramento nin sentençia nin christiano alguno non se consynta poner por acrehedor de debda de ningun judio o judya que tal juramento o sentençia resçebiere so pena de perdida de la debda e sea para el debdor christiano, e mas pierda la mitad de todos sus bienes para nuestra camara, e el escriuano que diere fee e testimonio del tal juramento o de la tal sentençia perdera el ofiçio de la escriuania e sera ynabile para aver otro tal nin semejante ofiçio para en toda su vida e pagara dies mil maravedís de pena para la nuestra camara, e el christiano sea ynfame e pierda la mitad de todos sus bienes para la nuestra camara’, RGS 9 No. 190, fo. 178. 12 The decisions of the Cortes speak of this decision in the following terms: ‘Pero biuyendo el dicho señor vuestro hermano que del quitar del todo la contrataçion entre los christianos e los judios se seguian muchos ynconbenientes e aun daño a los christianos en muchos casos tovo una manera mediana e fizo una ley en las cortes de Toleto el año de setenta [sic] e dos, por la qual ordeno e mando que los judios puedan resçibir libremente qualesquier contratos liçitos e permisos que non sean fechos en frauda de oçura [sic] en los contratos que son a fin de emprestito el acreedor que fuese tenido de probar dentro de dos años lo contenido en el contrato ser verdadero sy el deudor oposiese lo contrario’, RGS 6 No. 3329, fo. 230, issued in Burgos on 21 Nov. 1489. In the printed version of this document the date has been changed to ‘sesenta’, which is correct. 13 ‘Por sy los judios e otras qualesquier personas a quien fuesen fechos los contratos fuesen puros osurarios, que en tal caso ouiesen logar las leyes fechas por el señor rey don Enrique el terçero, e que non podiesen ser esecutados los tales contratos’, RGS 6 No. 3329, fo. 230.

122

jewish‒christian credit

through the marriage of Juana, the Crown Princess of Castile, to King Afonso V of Portugal. Thus the Catholic Monarchs intended to show their willingness to solve this painful problem in the state, which affected the government, the clergy, and many citizens. The approach is clear, and it is stated explicitly: ‘If the Jewish man or woman, the Moorish man or woman, cannot prove in full the truthfulness of the arrangement between them and what is the form of the loan, no decision will be enforced, and no other order will be issued that will be to the detriment of the Christian [borrower], as the monarchs who preceded us have ordained.’14 The system of loans existing in Castile, whose foundations can be found as early as the tenth century, was known as renuevo, or renovo in its early form. The Jews also made use of it, and its development is worth noting. It happened in times of want that peasants and owners of small plots found it necessary to take loans to make ends meet, and when they failed to pay back these loans, they were required to renounce ownership of their land in full or in part, or of its crops. This was how they could meet their obligations to their creditors. Monasteries and great landowners exploited years of drought and shortage by lending money to the peasants and those without means, and when loans came due, they took their vineyards, gardens, and fields.15 In Asturias-León the debtor continued to live on what had been his land, thus becoming the tenant of the creditor who had taken it over. This transfer of property had some characteristics of a sale. If the amount of the debt was less than the value of the land, some of it remained in the debtor’s possession. The difficulty arose when the land was worth less than the amount of the debt. Generally debtors barely managed to discharge the debt after several years of bondage to the land and the transfer of the crop to its owners. During the tenth and eleventh centuries loans were made in kind: in grain (barley, wheat, or millet), wine, and the loan of horses and oxen for sowing and cultivation. Only later did the Jews enter the picture, and under the Catholic Monarchs loans were made in money, though they were often secured by crops such as grain (wheat, barley, or oats), oxen, or even wool.16 Thus in the Cortes of Madrigal in 1476, during debate on loans at interest a grave complaint was voiced against Jewish creditors for harassing Christian debtors who did not meet their obligations to pay, in kind or in money, the debts accruing from ‘small sums of money which Christians borrowed from them when they needed it’.17 This shows clearly how pressure from both town and country 14 ‘E sy el judio o judia, o moro o mora, non probaren conplidamente la realidad del dicho contrato o prestido que en tal caso el contrato ni sentençia ni otra escritura contra el christiano, e en esto ayan logar las dichas leyes fechas por los dichos señores reyes nuestros anteçesores’, ibid. 15 C. Sánchez Albornoz, ‘España y Francia en la Edad Media: Causas de su diferenciación política’, Revista de Occidente, 1 (1923), 310; L. G. de Valdeavellano, ‘El Renovo’, Cuadernos de Historia de España, 57–8 (1973), 408–18, in whose opinion the term probably originated in the north-west of the Iberian peninsula and was used in Sahagún and in the Rioja region. 16 See e.g. the order issued in Santa Fe on 30 Apr. 1492 for the judges of Sigüenza, Medinaceli, Morón de Almazán, Almazán, and Puebla de Eca, La Puebla, and Señuela: ‘Porque los judios de estas villas han hecho prestamos de pan, lana y bueyes con logro y exigen su cobranza ante la iminençia de su expulsion’, RGS 9 No. 1357, fo. 287; Cantera Burgos and Carrete Parrondo, Sefarad, 33 (1973), 296. 17 ‘Que muchas vezes los judios suelen fatigar a los christianos e lebarles grandes quantias de maravedís e pan e otras cosas por pequeñas quantias que los christianos en tienpo de sus neçesidades dellos resçiben’, RGS 9 No. 1371, fo. 287.

jewish‒christian credit

123

through their representatives in the Cortes served as a tool in the hands of the Crown and as a means to draw the population to its side. But there was no lack of threats on the part of the Crown to punish illegal collection of interest, with fines to be paid to the Royal Treasury. An examination of the debts owed by Christians to Jews and vice versa indicates the extent of the problem and shows the consequences of these debts for the system of credit throughout Spain. It is very important to study them in detail so as to evaluate the relations between Jews and Christians in various surroundings. They give evidence of the pulse of common life in cities, towns, villages, and hamlets. Nobles, clergy, and simple people are represented in the appeals to the Crown and the complaints against Jews. Similarly represented are municipal and village councils that sought to organize the Jews’ departure into exile fairly and without shocks either for those departing or for the Christians remaining behind. The details presented below show the great complexity of daily transactions between Christians and Jews and bring out their interdependence. The shock of the Edict of Expulsion, preparations for departure, and the liquidation of debt and credit were one aspect of the dismantling of this structure. The Jews leaving for exile were occasionally constrained to leave their property, their wealth, and their assets in the hands of trusted Christians, and even with people who did not inspire trust. Thus they liquidated what could be liquidated and saved what could be saved so as to leave with some means of livelihood in their possession. In the area of finance they could purchase letters of credit from Genoese merchants in Spain who had financial dealings which the government could supervise, even benefiting from them.18 Only in time did the government see an urgent need to take a clear stand regarding the debts that remained outstanding. First, on 9 September 1492 the Crown ordered the freezing of all debts;19 on 8 November Fernán Núñez Coronel and Luis de Alcalá were instructed to collect the outstanding debts and transfer them to the Royal Treasury;20 later a special appeals court was established to settle the legal problems that arose following the cancellation of debts and the liquidation of Jewish assets. The court was composed of licenciado Gonzalo Sánchez de Castro, who presided, licenciado Gonzalo Fernández Gallego, and licenciado Luis de Polanco.21 At the same time in important cities, towns, and districts,22 special judges were appointed, who took stern measures in respect of property, debts, and smuggling by the exiles of money and property beyond the borders of the state. Among those charged by the Crown with serving as magistrates regarding the debts remaining after the departure of the Jews, and especially to collect the promissory notes that the Jews had sold to Christians (thus making the Christians who bought them creditors of other Christians), were Día Sánchez de Quesada in Segovia (later to become corregidor in Salamanca), Rodrigo del Mercado in Toledo, Lope de Vera in On the part played by the Genoese in the expulsion see Ch. 5 below. This edict is mentioned and cited in the order of 4 Dec. 1492, RGS 9 No. 3490, fo. 148. See below for 20 details. See Ch. 8 below; also Beinart, Trujillo, 245 ff. 21 See for example the documents from the two: RGS 11 No. 3187, fo. 467, 9 Oct. 1494; No. 3364, fo. 92, 20 Oct. 1494; No. 4533, fo. 305, 23 Dec. 1494. See further discussion in this chapter below. 22 On their activities see Ch. 6. 18 19

124

jewish‒christian credit

Ávila, and Pedro Maldonado in Plasencia;23 their respective areas of jurisdiction corresponded with dioceses. Without doubt their activities included confiscation and pressure to collect debts based on the claim that only the Crown, upon whose behalf they were acting, had the right to receive them. The task demanded more than a little cruelty. On the other hand, although their salaries were paid by the Royal Treasury, the judges were also concerned for their private wealth. Local residents complained of injury from these investigative judges to the Crown and the Royal Council, who explicitly forbade them to exact any money from those who had recourse to them. Thus the Royal Council and the Crown forbade Lope de Vera, the prosecuting magistrate responsible for the debts and property of the Jews in Ávila, to collect a tithe of one maravedí in ten to cover his expenses, on the grounds that the judges received a salary from the Crown. Yet these judges had acquired a reputation for loyalty to the Crown and dedication to their duties. On 26 February 1493 an order was issued for the freezing of debts, detailing the methods used for transferring and selling promissory notes, whereby the Jewish sellers had sought to ensure payment of the principal of the loan or else had granted powers of attorney to Christian representatives to collect the debts as listed in the promissory notes.24 In order to prevent this, the monarchs placed a lien on all remaining debts owed to Jews by Christians, and instructed the corregidores to list them all.25 These detailed lists were to be transferred to the Crown. The corregidores were permitted to enable the collection of debts that did not involve interest, and for which no more would be paid than the amount for which the Jews had sold the notes to Christians. If the payments were for leases (‘arrendamientos’), the purchasers of those debts were to receive only what they had paid for them. Debts without interest were to be paid with the addition of expenses (‘con las costas’). If it should prove that the promissory notes had been purchased by people who were in that business, that is to say, moneylenders, and if payments were made over a long period of time, it was permissible to add suitable interest to them.26 The remainder of the sum was to remain subject to the lien, and for this they were required to notify the Crown.27 Immediately afterwards, on 6 March 1493, instructions were sent to a series of senior administrators in the towns and districts as to how these debts were to be treated.28 23 See RGS 12 No. 3320, fo. 120, dated 2 Sept. 1495; drafted by Alonso del Mármol by order of the council. Regarding these men see Ch. 7 below and the indexes. 24 ‘E otros dexaron poderes para que se les cobrasen como sus procuradores’: Cadiñandos Bardeci, ‘Judería y morería’, 277. From this one may assume that transfer of money was permitted to creditors in some way, wherever they might be, or else they believed they would return to their homes. 25 The edict in our possession was given to the corregidor of Burgos, García de Cotes. He was ordered to appoint someone trustworthy to see to the listing of debts and place their particulars in writing. 26 ‘Pero sy hallaredes que algunos de los que conpraron las dichas debdas eran personas que acostunbrauan tratos a ganar con el dinero e los plazos de las debdasque conpraron son largos, ayays consyderaçion e les tasar los yntereses que moderada e justamente se les deuiere dar por respecto del preçio que por ella dieron e del plazo a que los an de cobrar’, Cadiñandos Bardeci, ‘Judería y morería’, 277. 27 The order was drafted by Juan de la Parra, the secretary of the king and queen, on orders from the Royal Council; cited according to the authorized notarial copy of 30 May 1493, copy in the parish library of Santa Cruz de Pomar (see above, n. 24). 28 ‘Las cartas que sobre las debdas de los judios los abemos mandado dar, fechas a veynte e seys dias del

jewish‒christian credit

125

The foregoing account was intended to illustrate some of the problems that arose as a result of the Edict of Expulsion and the destruction of credit in the state. The Crown, whose treasury was always short of funds, found in these debts an inexhaustible source of revenue to supply its needs.

Attempts to Settle Accounts before Departure Despite the order to keep the Edict of Expulsion a secret, it was known in most of the cities of Spain before it was made public in Zaragoza on 29 April and in Castile on 1 May 1492. During the month between the signing of the edict on 31 March and its promulgation, various men, prominent Jews in the kingdom and converts from Judaism as well as the children of converts, appealed to the Crown in order to prevent it. This activity doubtless raised a stir in the kingdom.29 As noted, signs of concern that there should be a solution to the problem of credit were visible even during that month. The first to express this were the heads of the local councils, both Jewish and Christian. Moreover, because the deadline for departure fell three months after the promulgation of the edict, with every passing day the urgency of the problem of finding a reasonable solution became more acute. In this spirit one may see the personal concern of the merchant Fernando de Encinas, who was present in the royal court, and the petition to the Crown in which he expressed his suspicion that Don Salamon Abenturiel, a resident of Murcia or nearby Lorca, might go into exile.30 Salamon Abenturiel and his sons owed him 24,000 mrs, which he had not managed to collect. The Crown responded to this plea on 13 April 1492 by ordering the corregidor of Murcia and Lorca, Juan Pérez de Baradas, to summon the two parties without delay and adjudicate their dispute after hearing their arguments.31 From Santa Fe an order was addressed to the members of the Royal Council, the magistrates, corregidores, asistentes,32 and local judges, instructing them to respond to the appeals of the residents of Sigüenza, Medinaceli, Morón de Almazán, La Puebla, and the locality of Señuela and to enforce the letter of the law of the Cortes of Madrigal with regard to interest on loans. A complaint had been registered about the usurious interest demanded by Jewish moneylenders, using fraude de usura that was added to the principal of the debt.33 This order was issued on 30 April, before the Edict of Expulsion was promulgated in Castile. The Crown also responded to the appeal before mes de hebrero e la çedula que sobre la forme de haser justiçia sobre las dichas debdas vos escriuimos, dadas a seys de março deste presente año e en logares en ello contenidos atento el thenor e forma dellas llamadas e oydas las partes’, RGS 10 No. 856, fo. 359, dated 30 Mar. 1493. It is certain that the edicts mentioned below were sent to the corregidores and the officers mentioned above, and they will be mentioned again in Ch. 6. Beinart, ‘Did messir Alfonso de la Caballería Intervene?’. Salamon Abenturiel was a tax-farmer in 1490. Perhaps a lease or the collection of taxes is referred to here. Could it be that Fernando de Encinas served as a guarantor for the lease or collection? 31 The order was issued in Sante Fe, where the Catholic Monarchs lived for a considerable time before and after the conquest of Granada. See RGS 9 No. 1171, fo. 181, dated 13 Apr. 1492. Baradas failed to transfer various fines that he collected to the Crown and the monastery of Santa Clara, and apparently maintained close relations with Jews. See Lunenfeld, Keepers, index. 32 This is a term parallel to corregidor. Asistentes were appointed by the Crown in a number of cities 33 (ibid.). See above, n. 16. 29 30

126

jewish‒christian credit

that date; nevertheless, this response cannot be detached from other pleas to the Crown regarding debts, pleas which became increasingly numerous from the day that the edict was promulgated. The residents of these places were expressing concern lest they be required to pay their debts in full before the Edict of Expulsion was implemented. The huge increase in petitions to the Crown to settle debts resembled the bursting of a dam. The Christian subjects of the kingdom were evidently in a panic regarding future events, especially in relation to the debts owed to them by Jews. At the same time they also understood the great opportunity that had come their way, for they could avoid paying their Jewish creditors. Thus a behaviour pattern was established: delaying the payment of debts to Jewish creditors. Christian creditors, however, demanded prompt settlement of debts due to them. In response to this situation, Jews addressed complaints to the Crown out of concern lest their Christian creditors should have them seized and placed in detention and confiscate their property, so that they would be unable to carry out their wish to go into exile. The two parties were at odds: the Christians refrained from paying their Jewish creditors, whereas Jewish debtors were required to pay their debts to Christian creditors immediately, and were therefore imprisoned with seizure of their property. This predicament found expression not only in relation to debts that had already fallen due but also to outstanding debts. The Jews became increasingly short of cash as the date of the expulsion drew near. Detailed analysis of their appeals reveals the gravity of their plight. The Crown saw fit to appoint special judicial arbitrators or to charge loyal corregidores with examining each dispute on its own merits.34 Now one of the functions of the corregidores was to prevent moneylending for interest, as decided by the Cortes; they were supposed to investigate the arrangements made by the Jews, who were about to go into exile, with Christians to whom they had delivered or sold promissory notes, and these matters must be investigated in detail. Examination of numerous documents preserved in the Spanish archives brings out not only the extent of the problem but also the quality of relations between Jews and Christians in everyday life.35 Naturally these documents testify to merely a tiny portion of the reciprocal credit arrangements that existed throughout Spain, and that which is presented below is just a sampling of the credit arrangements that prevailed there at the end of the period of Jewish residence in the kingdom. It cannot be doubted that the heads of the Jewish and Christian communities were all aware of the situation.

Tordesillas One of the first requests for the mutual settlement of debts came from the Jewish community of Tordesillas. The three months allowed for their departure began on 1 May and were not sufficient to finish the preparations and arrangements for exile.36 On the function of the corregidores in executing the Edict of Expulsion see below, Ch. 5. For 1492 more than eighty of these documents are found in the Simancas archive. Many documents also date from the following year until the beginning of the 16th c. The discussion below generally follows the chronological order of the documents. 36 ‘Que bien sabiamos como por algunas rasones que nos movieron mandamos pregonar publicamente por estos nuestros reynos que todos los judios e judias vesinos e abitantes en ellos saliesen destos nuestros 34 35

jewish‒christian credit

127

They were also unable to pay their creditors, who arrested them and sold their property for less than its value (‘a menos preçio’), although the debts had not fallen due. The Crown appointed Pedro de Cepeda to summon the parties and reach a decision enabling the Jewish community and individual Jews (‘aljama e judios e personas syngulares’) to collect what was owed to them and pay their debts, so that they could leave in time. He also was to see that their property would not be sold cheap (‘en el barato’) because of the short time available. Meanwhile, the Jews of the town were required to set aside property equal in value to the debts they owed to Christians as security. This property was to be assessed by two appraisers (one from each side) after swearing they would act with honesty. If they disagreed, a third appraiser would be appointed to make a decision, and his opinion, together with that of one of the other appraisers, would be definitive. Only after this procedure, when the debts were covered and paid, would it be permissible to sell the property. Regarding debts owed to Jews by Christians, the laws of the kingdom were to be followed. For that entire time, from the promulgation of the edict on 5 May 1492 until the Jews’ departure, the Crown issued a writ of protection to the Jewish community.

Burgos On 5 May 1492 the Jewish community of Burgos received a response to their complaint that they were unable to collect the debts owed them by Christians and that the time given them to depart was too short. They could not obtain money to purchase what they needed for their exile, and their Christian creditors were harassing them and selling the property of those who owed them money. The corregidor García de Cotes was appointed to assist them. He was instructed to hold an inquiry among the debtors and their creditors. His authority included the entire area around the city up to a distance of five leagues. The Crown stated in his authorization that the Jews were forced to sell their property too cheaply (‘mal barato’) because of the short time available. Two appraisers were to help the corregidor, one representing the Jews and the other the Christians. Significantly, if a Jew’s property fetched a higher price than the amount he owed, the remainder was to be used for the benefit of the Jewish community (‘aljama y judios’); if the price was lower than the debt, the community was to supply the remainder.37

Aguilar de Campoo In May 1492 the Jewish community of Aguilar de Campoo together with those within the marquesado of Aguilar asked for an order from the Crown to advance by one month the payments of debts that Christians owed them.38 Another proposal made by the representative (procurador) of the community was for an official and mutual settlement of reynos dentro de tres meses que se cuentan desde el primero dia del mes de mayo’, AGS, Diversos de Castilla Leg. 8, fo. 101. The order was given to Pedro de Cepeda, a resident and regidor of the town of Tordesillas on 5 May 1492. It was prepared by Juan Sánchez de Ceinos (Çehinos) with the approbation of the council. The sanction for non-compliance was a fine of 10,000 mrs payable to the treasury. See RGS No. 1464, fo. 513. The communities were: Campos, Buelna, Saldaña de Aguilar, Valdesana, Osorno. See RGS 9 No. 1796, fo. 341. 37 38

128

jewish‒christian credit

debts between Christians and Jews, by which Jews who were creditors of Christians would deliver the promissory notes in return for the payment of the debts owed to them by the Christians. This appeal derived from the Jews’ inability to enforce this arrangement by themselves before the date of the expulsion. The documents dealing with mutual credit clearly indicated that the Jews intended to leave for exile.39 The appeal was accepted by the Royal Council, upon whose recommendation the Crown ordered Alonso del Castillo to comply with it. In that order the Crown took the Jewish communities under its protection, and Del Castillo was ordered to avoid all unpleasantness for these communities and to make certain that this was to be publicly announced.

Cea With similar intention the Jewish community of Cea, in northern Castile,40 requested the creation of suitable conditions for the sale of their flocks and the payment of their debts so that they could leave in time. The Crown imposed this task upon the corregidor of Carrión de los Condes and Sahagún, Juan de Luzón, ordering him to appoint a trustworthy man to investigate the claims of the parties—the Jewish creditors and their Christian debtors—and to make the necessary arrangements for a mutual settling of debts without delay.41 Here, too, the Crown took the Jewish community under its protection until departure. A different picture regarding debts emerges from another document of the community of Cea. On 6 July 1492 the Crown, as advised by Alonso de Quintanilla, the chief accountant of the kingdom of Castile and a member of the Royal Council, ordered an inquiry to be made into the action of the municipal magistrates, who were colluding with Christian citizens who owed money to the Jews. Many of these debts were renuevo debts, contracted straightforwardly, without interest, whereas others proved to entail 39 The documents indicate that the Jews of the aforementioned places owned cattle, sheep, and donkeys. The Crown’s response was issued in Valladolid on 22 May 1492 with the approbation of the Royal Council. See above, n. 38. Information about the situation of the Jews’ debts in Aguilar de Campoo, as well as the Jews of Herrera (and apparently also those of Pisuerga in the north) emerges from the appeal of Gutierre de Mier to the Royal Council. Jewish debtors were about to be arrested before their departure in exile, and to avoid imprisonment they handed over some of the promissory notes of Christians who owed them money in the marquesado of Santillana. The debts in the notes that were surrendered exceeded the amount owed to the Christians. A herald announced the collection of those debts. The Christians refused to pay what was due to Gutierre de Mier because he had obtained a lien issued by the Crown upon the debts of the Jews. The Crown ordered García de Cotes, the corregidor of Burgos, to act in accordance with the orders regarding debts that had been promulgated on 26 Feb. 1493 and 6 Mar. 1493. See RGS 10 No. 953, fo. 160, issued in Barcelona on 15 Apr. 1493. The order does not indicate which notary drafted it and which member of the council approved it. In this order the notary varied the wording of the Edict of Expulsion by writing: ‘mandamos hechar fuera de nuestros reynos’ (cf. Ch. 7 n. 81, Ch. 8 n. 406). 40 The Jews of this place lived mainly by agriculture: ‘Tyenen aparçerias de ganados de vacas e yegunas e ovejas’. See RGS 9 No. 1852, fo. 342. The Crown’s response was given on 23 May 1492 with the approval of the Council of the North in Valladolid. On Cea see J. Rodríguez Fernández, La judería de la ciudad de León (León, 1969), 158–9; id., Las juderías de la provincia de León (León, 1976), 404–6; Cantera Burgos, ‘Juderías medievales de la provincia de León’, 103–4; González Gallego, ‘Algunos datos’, 397. Mentioned in Baer, JchS ii. 425. 41 On this corregidor and on the corregidores and their function in implementing the expulsion see below, Ch. 5. He was a trusted follower of the Catholic Monarchs.

jewish‒christian credit

129

fraude de usura. These magistrates refrained from issuing court orders for the collection of debts owed to Jews by Christians that were already due. This situation made it impossible for the Jews to settle their own debts to Christian creditors. There were also tax-farmers among the Jews who were supposed to deposit tax revenue in the Royal Treasury, but they were unable to collect the taxes.42 Hence Alonso de Quintanilla, in his capacity as an accountant, took a special interest in the problem. The Crown’s instruction stated that the tax-farmers were not to be injured, and that prompt action must be taken to permit their orderly departure in time.43

Medina del Campo Increasingly, towards the end of May 1492, the Royal Council, and particularly the Council of the North, had to deal with problems of credit and debts: the Crown made use of them to hear the appeals of communities and the heads of cities and towns and also appeals by individuals on their own account.44 Among those addressing the Royal Council was the Jewish community of Medina del Campo; the Crown responded on 25 May by ordering the corregidor of Medina del Campo, Rodrigo del Mercado, and its judge to appoint two representatives, one for the Jewish community and one for the Christian debtors.45 The property of the debtors was to be appraised, and the mutual payment of debts arranged.46 The following day, 26 May, the Jews of Medina del Campo accepted the arrangement which had been reached between the community and the Christian debtors of the city, and the arrangement was ratified by the Crown.47 On the basis of this appeal and the way in which it was treated, and from the appointments made, much can be learnt about the man who was ordered to deal with it. Alonso de Quintanilla, the chief accountant of the kingdom and a member of the Councils of the Realm and of the North and Ports, was instructed to respond to another appeal concerning Medina del Campo.48 Alonso Sánchez, a priest from the locality of 42 On debts for taxes see below in the section devoted to that subject, also on the implementation of the Edict of Expulsion from Aragon. 43 See Cantera Burgos, ‘Juderías medievales de la provincia de León’, 104. 44 We shall discuss private appeals below, though sometimes it is difficult to separate the intention of a municipal or communal authority from a private appeal. 45 See RGS 9 No. 1890, fo. 529. This order was also issued with the approval of Alonso de Quintanilla and the licenciado Gonzalo González de Illescas. See La Soterraña and Postigo, Cancillería, pp. iv, 279–80. 46 In the case of differences of opinion, the third member was to decide, and his decision would be accepted by both parties. The representatives would determine the extent of the debts and what security should be given for their payment. The debtors’ property would be put on sale, and if its value exceeded the debt, the purchasers of the property would pay the difference to the person whose property was sold; if it was less, the Jewish community would make up the difference to Christian creditors. There was to be no collection of interest. This order gave the Jews protection which would remain in force until their departure from the kingdom. 47 This arrangement was approved by the Council of the North, which was composed of Alonso de Quintanilla and Gonzalo González de Illescas. See RGS 9 No. 3902, fo. 512, drafted by Sancho del Cuero and issued in Valladolid, where the council sat. The city’s arguments were advanced by the procurador of the ‘city and its good people’, Alonso Domínguez de Rodillana. Both sides appointed bachiller Juan de Barrionuevo as arbitrator. 48 He was given the task with the approval of Gonzalo González de Illescas and Dr Francisco Núñez, abbot of Husillos.

130

jewish‒christian credit

Cabrilego, today known as Cervillejos de la Cruz, which was in the territory of Medina del Campo, petitioned the Crown to intervene in favour of the town and ‘its good people’. The Jews of Medina del Campo not only traded with them, but often lent money to the local residents, for ten or fifteen years at high interest rates.49 This was because of their debt to the Hermandad, which they could not pay without borrowing money from the Jews. Now the local residents were pursued by their creditors, who had taken their means of livelihood from them, their businesses, houses, vineyards, lands, and all other moveable and immoveable property. They were being destroyed by their creditors, and many of them had been reduced to ruin (‘echado a perder’). The harm done to them was grave. They besought the Crown to act before the Jews left the kingdom and appoint a conscientious magistrate above all suspicion. All arguments and claims regarding interest and damages were to be brought before him.50 Alonso de Quintanilla was thus commissioned as a single arbitrator with full authority to deal with appeals and adjudicate them as he saw fit. Further indications of the problem of debts in the region of Medina del Campo are found at the time shortly after the Jews went into exile. On 17 August 1492 the corregidor or his successor was ordered to respond to the appeal of García Domínguez Barrueco, a resident of Rodillana, a village in Medina del Campo. Barrueco had acted as procurador on behalf of the Jewish community, its ‘good people’, and taxpayers.51 The Jews who went into exile had transferred the promissory notes in their possession to Christian residents, who, it seems, had begun to collect the debts and the interest that had accrued.52 The Crown ordered that the Christian creditors should be viewed as though they were Jews to whom Christians owed money, and that they should be treated according to the law passed by the Cortes of Madrigal in 1476: it was forbidden to demand payment by the debtors of interest in addition to the principal. Thus there is no doubt that the atmosphere created after the departure of the Jews into exile was charged with severe tension between Christian debtors and creditors, aggravating relations between domineering people of means, who began to tyrannize over the population, and simple folk who owed money. Arrangements for the settlement of debts continued for many years. Cristóbal de Ávila, a resident of Medina del Campo, had served as representative and authorized claimant to receive Jewish property, whose fate would be decided by Fernán Pérez de Menses. On 28 January 1496 Ferdinand and Isabella commissioned him to appoint one or two surrogates, depending on the need, 49 See RGS 9 No. 1867, fo. 530, dated 24 May 1492, issued in Valladolid. It was published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 413–14, with certain elisions from the latter part. 50 ‘Demandar los dichos logros e perdidas e daños que los dichos judios han leuado e fecho.’ 51 The Crown might have intended to remove him as procurador for the Jews. The reference number of the order is RGS 9 No. 2709, fo. 225. It was drafted in Valladolid by Sancho Ruiz del Cuero with the approbation of the Council of the North and Ports, comprising licenciado Gonzalo González de Illescas, Dr Francisco Núñez (n. 48), and the licenciado Juan de Pedrosa. The order was published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 461–2. See also in relation to Ampudia, where the Jews had the same problem, and where the alguacil of Medina del Campo was ordered to assist them in the matter so that they would be able to depart in time. RGS No. 2398, fo. 153, dated 2 July in Valladolid. Published by Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 447–9. 52 Below we shall discuss this method of selling the debts that the Jews had sold to Christians when they went into exile.

jewish‒christian credit

131

to act in his name and receive impounded property.53 Most probably similar conditions to these prevailed elsewhere. Almost certainly the settling of debts between Jews and Christians and pleas lodged by advocates in behalf of Jewish communities were intended to facilitate organized departure by the communities preparing to leave. On 25 May, upon the recommendation of the Council of the North and Ports, the Crown ordered Pedro Pérez de Vicuña, the corregidor of Santo Domingo de la Calzada, and with him the bachiller Vallejo, to arrange the sale of the property of the Jews of Valdezcaray (today Ezcaray) and Valgañón.54 The order followed an appeal made by those communities. The Christian residents of those places, demanding immediate payment of debts to Christian creditors, refused to buy houses, lands, and vineyards from the Jews, knowing that in any event the property of the exiles would remain ownerless. Consequently some Jews in these communities could not collect what was due them from Christians, Moors, and even other Jews, and they were unable to pay their debts to Christian creditors. The intention of the Christian residents was clear; they even sued their Jewish debtors, ‘thinking that in order not to risk the loss of their lives [by not going into exile] they would allow [the debts] to be lost’.55 The authorities in those places were not willing to appoint two appraisers to assess the Jews’ property and examine it for the purpose of settling their debts before they went into exile. Here, too, the intention was clear: ‘so as to remain with all that had [belonged] to them’.56 In the name of the local authority Jews without property who owed money were arrested in violation of the Crown’s order that they must leave within the time allotted to them: ‘Three months, beginning on 1 May [14]92, on pain of severe punishments’.57 For their part the two communities pleaded on behalf of their Jews and offered security: [domestic] animals and mules and other things entrusted to sundry persons, both Christian and Jewish. And they have it in their possession to this day and now claim it off them for their own profit, and he says that they do not wish to return it to them [the debtors], and that some of them [the Jews] have bought houses and property from such persons, for which they are paying in certain instalments, and they have paid part of the price and have still to pay the rest, and they [the creditors] have required and are requiring of them that since they are about to leave our kingdom, and are unable to satisfy them, they return the sums of money and other things that [the Jews] have undertaken(?) to pay, and that they [the creditors] shall take their houses and property from them, since they cannot take them with them.58 53 See RGS 13 No. 136, fo. 33, drafted by Antonio de Almendares with the approbation of the magistrate Castro and the bachiller Francisco. 54 RGS 9 No. 1889, fo. 527, issued in Valladolid. See also Cadiñandos Bardeci, ‘Los judíos de Belorado y sus contornos’, 240–50. 55 ‘Ante geles ponen a pleito, sabiendo el termino que tenian que hera bien, pensando que por no poner en peligro sus personas las dexarian perder’, RGS 9 No. 1892, fo. 327. Cf. the use of this expression regarding the property of the Jews in the locality of Calatañazor (n. 63); see also Ch. 3. 56 ‘Para a fin de se quedar con todo lo suyo’, ibid. 57 ‘Desde el primero dia del mes de mayo deste año del noventa e dos fasta tres meses primeros syguientes todos los judios e judias de qualquier hedad o condiçion que fuesen saliesen destos nuestros reynos so grandes penas’, ibid. 58 ‘Bestias e mulas e otras cosas en fiado a algunas personas, asy a christianos como a judios, e lo tyenen oy en dia en pie e gelo demandan agora para se aprouechar dello; e dis gelo non quieren dar nin entregar, e

132

jewish‒christian credit

Counterclaims were raised, and creditors avoided paying their debts, so that grave injury was done to the Jews. Therefore they asked the Crown to arrange the exchange of debts, although the payment date had not yet arrived. ‘For they are unable to return to collect the debts that Christians owe them, whereas the Christians can follow them anywhere they may be and collect their debts’.59 The community requested the Crown to remedy the situation so that they could leave on time and comply with the Edict of Expulsion.60 The Crown and the council ordered the two men mentioned above to convene the parties without delay in order to reach a determination and decide how to act. They were also ordered to ascertain whether the debts were loans for interest or arrangements involving fraud of usury, regarding which they were to follow the decision of the Cortes of Madrigal. Only debts without interest or usury were to be settled after summoning the parties. Here, too, the order gives protection to the Jews, stating that no physical injury may be done to them; they may not be killed, wounded, or seized; their property may not be confiscated or attached, and damage may not be caused them. The members of these communities, like those of others, apparently needed the assurance of such an order.61

Calatañazor On the very day that the order was issued to Pedro de Vicuña and to the bachiller Vallejo, an order was also issued to Dr Antonio García de Villalpando, the provisor of the diocese of Osma.62 Members of the community of Calatañazor addressed the Crown in their own name and in that of the whole community, describing the situation of the Jews who sought to leave but, within the three months allowed them by the authorities, could not pay their debts, sell their property, and collect money owed to them by Christians. According to this document, they were required to pay many debts to Christians, Jews, and Moors resident in Calatañazor and places in its vicinity that were regarded as within the limits of the town. These Jews were harassed by demands for immediate payment, though their debts were not yet due; whereas debts que algunos dellos tienen conprados casas e otros mandamientos a las tales personas para gelo pagan a çiertos plazos e que dello tienen pagado e dello han de pagar, e les han requerido e requieren, que pues ellos se han de yr destos nuestros reygnos e non pueden cumplir con ellos que les tornen las quantias de maravedís, e otras cosas que les tienen estomiçado [sic] a pagar, e que reçiban las tales casas e heredamientos, pues que non le pueden lleuar consigo’, ibid. 59 ‘Porque mucha mas rason hera que ellos fuesen luego pagados de lo que asy se les deve avnque los plasos non se han llegados, que non los christianos de lo que por ellos les es deuido, porque los christianos los pueden yr a buscar doquiera que estouiere, e ellos non pueden entrar en estos nuestros regynos pasados los dichos tres meses’, ibid. 60 In the wording of the response, as with all pleas, it was the practice to state: ‘or the Crown shall order as it sees fit’. 61 The Crown ordered this edict to be announced publicly in the presence of a notary. Anyone harming them would be punished according to the laws of the kingdom. Violators of the edict would be condemned for impairing the security arrangements determined by the Crown. The edict was issued with the approbation of the licenciado Gonzalo González de Illescas and Dr Francisco Núñez. It was drafted by Juan Sánchez de Ceinos. 62 See RGS 9 No. 1892, fo. 327. Issued on recommendation of the council in the composition mentioned above, n. 61. This order was also drafted by Juan Sánchez de Ceinos in Valladolid.

jewish‒christian credit

133

that Christians owed to Jewish creditors had come due but were not paid. Lawsuits had been brought against the Jews, with clear knowledge that they would not risk remaining in the kingdom for the purpose of collecting their debts.63 The Jews of the city, who intended to leave, were ready to sell their houses and property so that they could meet the demands for payment of their debts, but there were no appraisers to assess their property, and no buyers could be found for it. As noted above, the Christians assumed that after the Jews went into exile, their property would fall into their hands in any event. The community besought the Crown to order the immediate payment of debts to the Jews, so as to prevent severe damage to them, even though they were not yet due, for the Christians could follow the Jews wherever they tried to settle, catch up with them, and collect their debts. This was a clear indication that those leaving for exile intended to settle in nearby Navarre or in Portugal.64 The Council of the North and Ports regarded this appeal as urgent and recommended that the Crown respond to it.65 Dr García de Villalpando was ordered to appoint one or two appraisers, who would determine the value of the property and adjudicate claims in accordance with the laws of the Cortes of Madrigal regarding interest.66 On 5 June 1492 Isaac Baqui, a resident of Calatañazor, received a response to a petition that he had laid before the Crown in his own name and that of the community.67 The alcaide, the magistrates, and the merino were ordered to deal with the complaint, which concerned an event that had taken place after the provisor of Osma was instructed to deal with the matter on 25 May 1492. According to the complaint, the alcaide and the merino seized Isaac Baqui’s brother and other Jews of the community and confiscated forty measures of cloth (‘quarenta paños’). The cloth was confiscated in the village of Aldea de Burgo, while the Jews were on their way to a fair in Medina del Campo. They were apparently going to the fair in order to sell their merchandise and obtain funds for departure. Isaac Baqui repeatedly applied to those who had seized them for their release, along with the confiscated merchandise. They were prepared to pay the provisor what was due him by right, but the merino refused to accept the payment and avoided responding to the plea on various pretexts. The plaintiff 63 See above, n. 55. These particulars were expressed in exactly the same wording. It cannot be known whether the plea was couched in these terms or whether they belong to the response alone. 64 This was also the intention of those leaving for exile from Valdezcaray, Valgañón, and Medina del Campo, as described above. 65 The councillors were the licenciado Gonzalo González de Illescas and Dr Francisco Núñez. The order was drafted by Juan Sánchez de Ceinos. 66 The Crown also took the local Jews under its protection and ordered the promulgation of the decree in the city squares by a herald, accompanied as usual by a notary. The decree also included residents of places at a distance of up to 4 leagues from the town. Violators would suffer the normal punishments for those who disobeyed their lord, the king. See also Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 400; Cantera Burgos, ‘Juderías medievales de la provincia de Soria’, 459–60. 67 RGS 9 No. 2214, fo. 295. The names of the councillors who adjudicated the plea are missing in this order, as is the name of the notary who drafted it. The fine for disobedience was 100,000 mrs payable to the Royal Treasury. This is probably an error, for the usual fine was 10,000 mrs, and only rarely was it doubled and set at 20,000 mrs. Anyone with a claim was to appear before the council within eight days. Failure to appear would entail the aforementioned punishment.

134

jewish‒christian credit

asked that justice be done and that the detainees and their merchandise be released; his request was granted.

Medina de Pomar The plea of the Jewish community of Medina de Pomar was similar in spirit to that of the Jews of Valdezcaray, Valgañón, and Calatañazor.68 In its plea the community emphasized that the Jews were unable to find buyers for their property, although they had asked appraisers to assess it.69 Here, too, the Christian residents were confident they could take over property abandoned by the Jews after they left for exile, whereas the exiles would be unable to return and collect what was due to them.70 It is also evident that the Jews of Medina de Pomar intended to join those heading for the kingdoms of Navarre and Portugal. The community’s plea was answered by an order issued by Juan de Alvarado, the alcaide of the citadel of Medina de Pomar. He summoned the two sides to appear without delay: once he had established the nature of the debts, the Jews were to be paid only for the loans given on the basis of the permitted arrangements.71 But they were to receive protection as long as they remained on Spanish soil.72 A similar plea was advanced by Haym Muça, a Jewish resident of the town of Medina de Pomar who was owed money by many Christians within the limits of the merindad of Honor de Sedaño, and who himself owed money to other Christians. He intended to leave on time with the exiles, but his creditors demanded that he pay his debts, and he feared he would be unable to collect what was due to him. He asked permission to bring forward the payment dates of debts that had not yet fallen due. In his plea he argued that he himself would not be able to return to the places where his debtors lived, whereas his creditors could reach him. Hence it seems likely that he intended to go to nearby Portugal or Navarre. He therefore requested the Crown to appoint a magistrate to assist him in reaching the places where his Christian debtors lived, up to a distance of 10 leagues from the limits of the aforementioned merindad; in his contention the Crown was permitted to advance the date when debts fell due. The Crown accepted his arguments and on 5 May 1492 appointed Lope de Bustamante, a resident of Huidobro, to deal with his appeal. In the order, Lope de Bustamante is described as a faithful man who knew the conditions of the region. The Crown ordered him to appoint two trustworthy residents who would assess the prop68 The Royal Council replied on 6 June 1492 with the order RGS 9 No. 2245, fo. 167, drafted by Juan Sánchez de Ceinos with the approbation of Alonso de Quintanilla and the licenciado Gonzalo González de Illescas, in the spirit of the responses to the communities of Valdezcaray, Valgañón, and Calatañazor. See Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 423; Baer, JchS ii. 425; Cadiñandos Bardeci, ‘Judería y morería’. 69 ‘Non aun fallan conpradores para ello a fin de se quedar con todo lo suyo e como quiera asymismo que dan los tales bienes e non les quieren resçebir’, RGS 9 No. 2245, fo. 167. 70 See above regarding the argument that Christians could follow them anywhere they went in exile. 71 ‘Liçitamente por conçertos e otras escripturas premisas de derecho’, RGS 9 No. 2245, fo. 167. 72 The order explicitly states what this protection entails: against injury, killing, wounding, arrest, attachment of property, and orders to others to inflict injury. Juan de Alvarado was to ensure that this was announced in all the city squares, markets, and places where it was customary to proclaim royal decrees. If he did not do as he was ordered, the Crown would act towards him the way it treated those who violated the decrees of the king, their lord. His authority extended to a distance of 5 leagues from Medina de Pomar.

jewish‒christian credit

135

erty of Haym Muça up to the value of the debts demanded of him by his creditors.73 This step was taken so as not to cause Haym Muça severe damage, for ‘the property would be sold cheaply, since everybody knows about the departure of the Jews’.74 The Crown also took him under its care and provided him with a writ of protection. This order, which was one of the first following the promulgation of the Edict of Expulsion, shows that the Crown and the council had taken a position regarding the quiet departure of the Jews and the prevention of unnecessary tension.75 It is consistent with the plea advanced by the community.

Sahagún In its appeal to the Crown, the Jewish community of Sahagún claimed poverty, claiming that they were unable to pay their debts to Christians. The Christian creditors had seized and imprisoned them. The community requested an order to release them so that they could leave on time with the exiles. Under the local conditions, the Jewish community did not have the power to cause the imprisonment of Christians who owed money to Jews and had not paid their debts when they were due. The Crown’s response was prompt: Juan de Luzón was ordered to deal with the problem. Although the release of the imprisoned Jewish debtors was not mentioned, perhaps the order to summon both sides to appear before the corregidor can be viewed as an indication that this was done.76

Palencia, Carrión de los Condes, Torre de Mormojón, Amusco, Villalón The appeal of the communities of Palencia, Carrión de los Condes, Torre de Mormojón, Amusco, and Villalón to the Crown can be seen as an effort to arrange their combined and orderly departure into exile.77 The Jews of these places were prepared to settle their debts to their Christian creditors with property to be assessed by two trustworthy appraisers, although the Christians who owed money to the Jews had not paid them, and the Jews did not have the power to collect those debts. The Christians refused to accept property instead of money, here, too, certainly for the same reason: they assumed that the property would fall into their hands in any event. The Christian residents of those places arrested their debtors and imprisoned them. The Jews 73 If the two, one acting on behalf of Haym Muça, did not reach an agreed decision, a third appraiser was to be appointed, and the majority would decide. See AGS, Diversos de Castilla, Leg. 8, fo. 102. 74 ‘Sus bienes se venderian a mal barato por saber como saben todos la partida de los judios’, ibid. The Crown explained that if the value of the property to be deposited to cover his debts exceeded the amount of those debts, the remainder would be returned to him. However, he was not to be harmed if the property was not sufficient to cover his debts completely. 75 Drafted by Juan Sánchez de Ceinos with the approbation of Alonso de Quintanilla and the licenciado Gundisalves. 76 See RGS 9 No. 2264, fo. 180, dated 7 June 1492; mentioned in Baer, JchS ii. 426. The council comprised the licenciado Gonzalo González de Illescas and Dr Francisco Núñez. The order was drafted by Fernando de Cisneros in Valladolid. See below regarding the second part of the appeal regarding the debts of Christians to Jews. 77 See RGS 9 No. 2262, fo. 193. The response to the appeal was given on 7 June 1492. Regarding the composition of the council, see n. 76 above. León Tello, Palencia, 153, presents a copy of the document. See also Baer, JchS ii. 425–6. On the community of Amusco see Ch. 5.

136

jewish‒christian credit

who were about to leave could not wait until the payment of the debts the Christians owed them. Moreover some of those debts would fall due after the time of their departure. In effect, if no remedy was found, those debts would be lost. The council took a positive view of this plea, and the Crown instructed Rodrigo de Castañeda to appoint an appraiser (or two) to examine these arguments, and to compare the claims and agreements presented by both parties and the dates when the obligations were due.78 If the debtors lived up to a distance of 2 leagues from Palencia and the other places mentioned above, debts which had fallen due would be settled immediately; regarding debts which were not yet due, the parties in and around those localities, up to a distance of 2 leagues, would be summoned, and Rodrigo de Castañeda would adjudicate their claims. Limiting the extent of his jurisdiction appears to indicate that the communities’ demands had been accepted only in part, for they had asked to have the appraisers assess the value of Jewish property and permit its sale so that Jewish debtors should be enabled to settle their debts. In this way they had hoped to dispose of their property at reasonable prices. Nevertheless, despite the desire to carry out the expulsion without perturbations in the kingdom, the Crown was slow to respond to the appeals of the communities in full. Without the shadow of a doubt, the Crown and the members of the council were aware that they had dragged their heels. Evidence can be seen in the edict issued by the Crown on 16 May 1492, with the approbation of chanciller Francisco de Madrid, ordering the refund of down-payments made by the Jews for various goods which they intended to buy from Christian merchants but which had not yet been supplied: prompt official action in the first place would have obviated the need for such a special provision. An order in this spirit was issued in Ávila,79 and it referred to all the Jewish communities of the kingdom. We do not know who was the representative who addressed the Crown in the name of the communities.80 The Jews of Villalón found an original solution to the problem of debts exacted by the Crown: evading the payment of taxes owed to the state in favour of the payment of private debts. Jerónimo Pérez de Salamanca, collector of the castellanos tax in the diocese of Palencia, reported to the Crown that Alonso de Soria, the executive magistrate for tax-collection in the town of Villalón, demanded 200,000 mrs from the community, which it owed from 1492 and several preceding years. When he arrived with his men the people of the town, using various pretexts, prevented him from collecting the money. The Jews managed to liquidate their property and businesses, and when the tax-collectors entered the Jewish neighbourhood, they found very little property to confiscate. Collector and magistrate asked to have the men who had prevented the tax-collection, Jorge Martínez, the alcalde of the town, and Juan García de Benavante, the regidor, declared rebels against the Crown and be required to pay the aforementioned debt plus 6,000 mrs for expenses. The Crown responded to their plea on 78 He served as contino in the royal court and was in charge of court services. He was also appointed judge-administrator (‘juez esecutor’) of the alcabala and tercia taxes in the merindad of Campos and Palencia. 79 See Archivo Muncipal 1, 81, published in León Tello, Ávila, 98–9. The order was drafted by Fernán Álvarez de Toledo, the faithful secretary of the Catholic Monarchs. He was of converso origin. 80 Could this have been Jacob Cachopo? See H. Beinart, ‘Jacob Cachopo: The Last of the Advocates for the Communities of Castile Before the Expulsion’ (Heb.), Pe’amim, 46–7 (1991), 139–47.

jewish‒christian credit

137

18 August 1492 and ordered their appearance before the council of Valladolid within six days.81

Dueñas The plea registered by Rabi Yuçe, a resident of Dueñas, in the name of a group of Jews leaving for exile should be viewed as a communal plea. The group included Yuçe Farache, Don Symuel Farache, Yuda R[ ]no, Rabi Mose Farache, Symuel Alalu, Rabi Yuçe Alalu, Don Çag Çalama, Rabi Abraham Çalama, Salmon Çalama, Rabi Mose de Soto, and other Jews from the community. These men had bought merchandise from Christian residents of the town and from people who lived up to a distance of 10 leagues from it, and given them promissory notes, some of which had already fallen due and others not; for their part they had sold grain, wheat, and barley (‘pan, trigo e çebada’) to the Christian residents on the same terms. Since only a short time was left before their departure, they could not have recourse to judges to collect their debts, for by the time the hearing was held, July would be over, and they were not permitted to remain in the country after the last day of that month. Fearing lest those debts should be irrecoverable, they requested a court order that they must be paid, and the appointment by the Crown of a trustworthy man to examine each case on its merits, so that both sides would be able to settle their debts most advantageously.82 The Crown granted this request on 29 May 1492 and ordered the corregidor of Palencia, or the alcalde, and the dean of Palencia cathedral, who was a member of the Royal Council, to examine the notes and make certain that debts whose due date had passed were paid without delay. Regarding debts that were not yet due, the parties were to be convened promptly and the appeal was to be adjudicated.83 The plea of the Jews of Dueñas brings out the difficulties of the exiles in collecting debts and selling their property, from the proceeds of which they were also demanded to pay the debts of their fathers and grandfathers. The Jews of the town asked for an order against the Christian residents and the local leadership, to allow them to depart in time. One of the Jews of the town, Yuçe Harache, obtained a writ of protection on 26 June 1492 for himself against the Christian residents of the town, lest they should interfere with the sale of his property. The residents were also ordered not to refrain from buying it.84 This writ was based on the order issued on 14 May 1492 in Santa Fe, promising the exiles the orderly sale of their property and the settlement of the debts 81 The sanctions for violating the order were relatively severe: a fine of 20,000 mrs to be used for public works and buildings in Granada. See RGS 9 No. 2714, fo. 238, drafted by Sancho Ruiz del Cuero with the approbation of the council. 82 See AGS, Diversos de Castilla, Leg. 8, fo. 100; drafted by Fernando de Cisneros with the approbation of the council. The penalty for non-compliance was a fine of 10,000 mrs. This document is reproduced in León Tello, Los judíos de Palencia, 152. The corregidor of Palencia in 1492–5 was the bachiller Antón Martínez de Aguilera. See Lunenfeld, Keepers, 212; but on p. 96 he is said to have been a magistrate in Murcia in 1492, in Palencia in 1493, and in 1498 in Madrid. 83 See Baer, JchS ii. 426; RGS 9 No. 2369, fo. 149, issued on 26 June 1492 in Valladolid. 84 See Baer, JchS ii. 426; RGS 9 No. 2370, fo. 278. The petition submitted by Yuçe Harache can also be placed in this category. He asked the Crown to direct Christians who owed him money to pay him, even though the debts were not yet due. He also intended to leave Spain on time. The Crown responded to him on 26 June 1492.

138

jewish‒christian credit

owed to them. This settlement states that the sale and acquisition of the property must take place in accordance with time-honoured practice in the kingdom.85

Toro On 29 May 1492, the same day that the community of Dueñas received a reply, the nearby community of Toro also received one. The Jews of this community had complained to the Crown that the Christian residents of the town refused to pay their debts to the Jews, with the intention of impeding their prompt departure into exile.86 It was explicitly stated that the Christian residents claimed that they did not have to pay their debts to the Jews, for the due date had not yet arrived. For this reason the magistrates of the town refrained from ordering them to pay those debts. The Jews who owed money to Christians offered merchandise and property instead of money, but the creditors refused to accept them, while demanding that the Jews should pay their debts to Christians without delay. According to the Jews these measures had been taken to burden them and hinder their departure. Moreover the magistrate responsible for Jewish property in Toro, the bachiller Alonso Tállez, acted with severity against the Jews. He had a herald publicly proclaim that it was forbidden to sell property belonging to Jews who intended to depart, or the lamp in the synagogue, or the lands belonging to the community.87 This prohibition, which extended to persons willing to purchase Jewish property, was contrary to the edicts of the Crown, which permitted the sale of the property of those going into exile. The Jews of Toro asked to have a trustworthy man appointed to make certain that they could settle their debts. Despite the complaint of the community against Alonso Tállez, the council decided to require him to convene the parties and everyone else with information regarding the debts for a hearing as promptly as possible, and to adjudicate the plea of the Jews by delivering interim and final judgments.

Salamanca The order of the Crown and the corregidor of Salamanca, Honorato de Mendoza, to the city council, the regidor, and the Jewish community shows that there had been a joint appeal on the part of the local council and the Jews.88 Several local councils and 85 See RGS 9 No. 2379, fo. 300; drafted by Fernando de Cisneros with the approbation of the council. The edict, dated 14 May, was drafted by Fernán Álvarez de Toledo, the secretary of the monarchs. 86 ‘Para que diz que non pueden salir destos nuestros reynos en el tienpo’, RGS 9 No. 2379, fo. 300. The order was drafted by Fernando de Cisneros with the approbation of the council. The order contains no mention of penalties for disobedience. See also Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 52–3. 87 ‘Asy la lampara de la synoga como sytios de la judería’, RGS 9 No. 2379, fo. 300. 88 See RGS 9 No. 2406, fo. 100, issued in Arévalo and drafted by Fernán Álvarez de Toledo. The full name of the corregidor was Honorato Hurtado de Mendoza. On him see Lunenfeld, Keepers, 213. The edict was published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 449–50. On the city see Carrete Parrondo, Provincia de Salamanca; M. F. García Casar, El pasado judío de Salamanca (Salamanca, 1987), 143. An interesting facet of the relations between the Jews and Christians emerges from a directive of the Crown to the corregidor of Ciudad Rodrigo, licenciado Francisco de Vargas. Rabi Yuçe Ibn Yuxen or Xuxen owed the sum of 200 reales to Alfonso Bocalán, a resident of Salamanca. When Rabi Yuçe went into exile, he left a promissory note for 100 reales with Antonio de Paz, a Jewish convert to Christianity. Antonio de Paz was willing to pay that sum to Bocalán whenever he demanded it (‘cada e cuando gelos pidiese’). Bocalán asked to have the debt released from the lien placed on it, and the Crown acceded to this request, but ordered local offi-

jewish‒christian credit

139

private creditors demanded sums of money and property belonging to the Jews individually or collectively, arguing that the lenders had charged usurious interest. The creditors had harassed and assaulted the debtors, and seized their property in violation of the arrangement reached by the council and the community on loans at interest. This arrangement received praise and approval from the Crown,89 and an order was issued to the oidores and the judges of the audiencia of the Crown to act in accordance with it. The arrangement became part of the general instructions issued regarding loans, and the penalty of imprisonment was stipulated for those who refused to obey it. The council and the community again requested that the Crown order people to act in accordance with the arrangement, for otherwise both sides would be injured. The Crown acceded, ordering the corregidor to hold an inquiry to determine whether the Jews were acting as agreed with respect to interest, with instructions not to ‘force and press the Jews to return the money and the other things they had taken on account of interest’.90 It was forbidden to harass them or seize their property, except for those who did not act in accordance with the arrangement. Most probably this arrangement concerned the mutual settlement of debts between Jewish and Christian creditors, and in so far as may be gleaned from the sources, it was an isolated instance under the conditions of those times. In those difficult days of preparation for departure, given the necessity of saving whatever could be saved, so that the exiles would have means for sustenance on their long journey into their new diaspora, these mutual efforts must be seen as an opening to prevent the theft of the exiles’ assets and resources. The question again arises as to how much the central administration was privy to this system of relations between the local councils and neighbours who had lived side by side for centuries.

Public Debts to Jews Petitions and other actions by Jewish communities are one aspect of the problem of settling debts, which entailed the liquidation of Jewish credit. Without doubt the debts of Christians to Jewish moneylenders far exceeded those of Jews to Christians. Among those who owed money to Jews were also city and village councils that had cials to act according to the instructions issued on 26 Feb. 1493 and to come to a decision such that Bocalán should have no reason to lodge further petitions to the Crown. See RGS 10 No. 563, fo. 116, dated 6 Mar. 1493, drafted by Alonso del Mármol and issued with the approbation of the council of Castile. Regarding the discrepancy in the sums, perhaps Rabi Yuçe paid half of the debt, or else this sum might have been the principal of the loan. On the corregidor of Ciudad Rodrigo see Lunenfeld, Keepers, 203. It must be asked why the corregidor of Salamanca in 1491–4, Honorato Hurtado de Mendoza, was not charged with settling the debt. The details of the arrangement were not included in the document under consideration. ‘Non conpeleys nin apremieys a los tales judios a que bueluan nin restituyan los maravedís nin otras cosas que lleuauan de las dichas vsuras’, RGS 10 No. 563, fo. 116. Another corregidor, Juan Gutiérrez Tello, was ordered on 11 July 1498 to investigate the complaint of the representative of the Archbishop of Santiago de Compostela concerning a house seized from his mayordomo and given to Fernando de Torquemada, a resident of Aranda. The house had belonged to Yuçe de la Fuente (who had gone into exile but returned and converted, and whose name was now Per Álvarez de la Peña). He owed the mayordomo money for wax from before the expulsion. See RGS 15 No. 1736, fo. 113. The order was issued with the approbation of the council and drafted in Zaragoza by Juan Ramírez, the scribe of the chamber. 89 90

140

jewish‒christian credit

borrowed money from Jewish moneylenders in times of need. The liquidation of these debts placed great responsibility upon the local councils and demanded urgent measures between May and July of 1492 in order to achieve a solution that should satisfy both the Jewish creditors and also the councils.

Paredes de Nava We do not know when the council of Paredes de Nava was moved to lodge a complaint with the Crown regarding a debt that it owed to Rabi Shem Tob Bueno, a resident of Grajal. However, as early as 2 May 1492 the plea of the local council received a response. At issue was an old debt for a loan extended by him to the village council in return for pledges and promissory notes.91 The village council claimed that it had paid the debt, but he refused to return the promissory notes and the pledges, claiming that the council must pay him the sum of 17,500 mrs in interest and renuevo. The council, declaring that this claim was ‘contrary to divine and human law and against the tenor and form of the laws of our realms’,92 petitioned the Crown for a magistrate to adjudicate the claim, who should not be Juan de Vega, the lord of Grajal, because Bueno had good relations with him.93 The Crown instructed Juan de Luzón, whom it trusted, to investigate the complaint and decide according to the laws of the realm. If usurious interest had been charged, Bueno had committed a serious offence, and the corregidor would require him to return the promissory notes and the pledges; and if the pledges had not been returned to their owners, this was certainly a case of fraude de usura. The facts of the case indicate that the council was apprehensive lest Bueno were planning to depart in exile, taking the pledges with him, for they may have included moveable goods. The details are not sufficiently clear. Most probably he intended to go to Navarre or Portugal.

Gumiel de Hizán The council of Gumiel de Hizán had taken a loan from Samuel de Soto and several other Jews resident in Coruña del Conde. The council complained about the interest that these creditors had taken. Diego Sánchez de Revecha obtained an order in the name of the council addressed to the bachiller Alfonso de Torres, permitting him to 91 RGS 9 No. 1409, fo. 545, and also González Gallego, ‘Algunos datos’, 398–9. This document was published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 396–8. See also Rodríguez Fernández, Provincia de León, 403–4. 92 ‘Contra la Ley Divina e human e contra el thenor e forma de las leyes de nuestros reygnos’, RGS 9 No. 1409, fo. 545. With respect to the renuevo this might refer to the town’s public lands. It appears that the good relations with the Jews prevailing in this town are echoed in the plea to the Crown of Juan de la Torre and in the Crown’s edict directed to the magistrate for Jewish property in Palencia, which was issued on 25 Oct. 1494 (see RGS 11 No. 543, fo. 653; the order was drafted with the approbation of the Crown Council by Juan del Castillo). In that town at the time of the expulsion he purchased promissory notes of Christians who were owed money. They agreed among themselves to reduce the debts contracted according to the renuevo system by payments in instalments. On this basis he paid several debts owed by Jews to certain Christian creditors, whereas some Christian borrowers refused to pay him what was due from them, relying upon the lien imposed on Jewish debts. The Crown answered to his petition by ordering the magistrate for Jewish property to convene the parties and adjudicate the dispute between them. 93 See also RGS 9 No. 2165, fo. 173, issued on 4 June 1492. This refers to the sale of Bueno’s house ordered by Juan de Vega.

jewish‒christian credit

141

seize the creditors and imprison them and impound their property until they refunded the interest they had taken illegally.94 This petition to the Crown had a consequence from which we may learn that Samuel de Soto was summoned to provide guarantors for his own debts. He, in turn, presented promissory notes from Christian creditors to the three guarantors,95 and they, without unnecessary delay, collected considerable sums from the debtors. Thus the guarantors came to be collectors in place of Samuel de Soto in the name of the council and its ‘good men’. When Revecha addressed the Crown, he based his claim on the lien against Jewish debts that had been declared by the Crown. The guarantors, he argued, had become a third party in the transaction, and the council had no part in it. Apparently the council sought to avoid paying the remainder of its debt. In this matter, too, the Crown instructed Alfonso de Torres to investigate the claims. Revecha again addressed the Crown in his own name and that of the council of Gumiel de Hizán, its ‘good men’, residents, and neighbours.96 At issue were various monetary loans to residents of the town and its surroundings, for which usurious interest had been collected. Since the interest had been collected illegally, he asked that it should be refunded to the council, which owed money to Samuel de Soto. Since Samuel de Soto and his Jewish partners were about to leave for exile, he asked that appropriate pledges be given, or that the Crown order their imprisonment until payment was made. The council appears to have been concerned about its debts even though the Crown had ordered an investigation.97

Mansilla On the basis of the request of the council of Mansilla, in the merindad of Monzón, the Crown instructed Juan de Luzón to act against Jewish in the towns of Frómista and Osorno who charged interest on loans and were owed money by the council.98 The loan had been raised to pay the duties imposed by the Hermandad, and the lenders had obtained orders excommunicating the residents from the church, which did the lenders’ bidding. On 25 May 1492 the Crown instructed Pero Gómez de Setúbal, the corregidor of Palencia, Juan de Luzón, the corregidor of Carrión and Sahagún, and their alcaldes, the administrating magistrate of the Hermandad of Palencia and of its province, Dr Fernán González de Palencia, to investigate the complaint of Alonso González, a resident of Villadiezma, against Mose Mañan of Frómista, who served as attorney for the Jewish community. In 1488–9 Alonso González had taken a loan of 7,500 mrs in the name of the city. This debt increased to 10,000 mrs, the increase being interest.99 The city 94 See RGS 9 No. 2073, fo. 182, dated 2 June 1492. See also below in the discussion of private debts of Christians to Jews resident in Aranda de Duero. 95 They were Alvar González Cortesero, Juan Núñez, and Juan Prieto. See RGS 10 No. 301, fo. 150, dated 6 Feb. 1493; drafted by Sancho Ruiz del Cuero in Olmedo with the approbation of the Council of the North and Ports. 96 See above, n. 94. See Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 422–3. On the council sat Alonso de Quintanilla and the licenciado Gonzalo González de Illescas. 97 See below, on the private debts of Christians to Jews. Samuel de Soto was a resident of Aranda de Duero. 98 See RGS 9 No. 2263, fo. 181, dated 7 June 1492. Gonzalo Gutiérrez de Valdelomar, a resident of Mansilla, addressed the Crown in the name of the council. 99 That is to say, 33 per cent interest; this rate was not unusual.

142

jewish‒christian credit

council claimed that Mose Mañan was demanding the sum of 40,000 mrs instead of ‘twelve measures of wheat, according to the new measurements’.100 Two years passed from the day of the payment of the debt in 1490, and Mose Mañan continued to demand payment of 10,000 mrs and another 24,000 mrs in return for wheat, twelve measures a year; he had received land as a pledge, but still insisted on receiving a return on the basis of the renuevo. He was about to sell the land to a caballero who was resident in the area. Most probably Mañan was on the point of leaving. Clearly this was damaging to the residents at large.101 The predicament of the city and village councils that owed money to Jews was bound to concern the Crown, especially since the need for the loan resulted from duties levied for the war in Granada and from the taxes of the Hermandad both for its purposes and for its part in that war. Nor can there be a total separation between the debts of these councils and those of the residents of cities and villages. The debts of the councils are also a reflection of the relations between them, as institutions, and the Jews who lived there or nearby. The councils, too, apparently sought to benefit from the conditions that arose after promulgation of the Edict of Expulsion and the urgency entailed by its implementation.102

Private Debts of Christians to Jews When we consider the loans that Christians had taken from Jews, the first question is: who were these borrowers, and why did they take the loans? While there were certainly differences between one borrower and another, depending on their individual circumstances, the documents that have come down to us regarding the last months of Jewish residence in Spain show that the borrowers had constant needs both in ordinary times and also in emergencies. It is common knowledge, for which no proof is needed, that people borrow money in times of need; however, promulgation of the Edict of Expulsion upset the applecart and the entire system of credit was undermined. The Crown had to take note of the structure of relations between borrower and lender at that time, and acknowledged the urgency of finding a solution, subject to the policy regarding loans that had been stipulated by the Cortes. At the same time, the Crown recognized its obligation to provide protection to the Jews, as long as they continued to live on Spanish soil and while on their way from Spain, since they ‘belonged’ to the Crown. As early as 30 May 1492 the herald proclaimed in the name of the Crown that within twenty days both debtors and creditors were to appear before 100 ‘Doze cargas de trigo de medida nueva’. See RGS 9 No. 1893, fo. 522. The order was drafted by Fernando de Cisneros in Valladolid, and issued with the approbation of the licenciado Gonzalo González de Illescas and Dr Francisco Núñez. 101 Alonso González also complained that the Jews of Carrión, Frómista, and Osorno were demanding money of him personally, although he had already paid his debts to them. His complaint mentions pledges that were in their hands and had been delivered to the administrator. Among the items delivered were promissory notes that he had paid them. These Jews were about to leave for exile, and they had pestered him time and again regarding the debts, which were for interest. The Crown ordered to have this complaint investigated. On Mose Mañan see below. For the edict, see RGS 9 No. 2213, dated 6 June 1492. 102 On the debts of Jews to Christians see below.

jewish‒christian credit

143

the local magistrates and request the settlement of their debts.103 The magistrates did not always know how to decide, and local influence and personal connections were known to affect their decisions. Soon the parties were petitioning the Royal Council and the Crown for intervention. For its part the Crown ordered the magistrates to reach decisions by midJuly 1492; creditors were ordered to accept payment of their debts either in cash or in real estate; and the Jews who were about to leave had to provide security for debts that were not yet due.104 However, it is not always possible to differentiate clearly among different types of loans on the basis of the obligation given to settle them, for the documents sometimes describe loans that were given for several purposes. Hence we shall first try to describe the relations between Christians and Jews within various communities in the light of the credit extended to Christians. We shall then consider the debts owed by Jews to Christians. Taken together, these arrangements indicate a structure of close relations in times of emergency, interdependency that existed by virtue of the credit arrangements throughout the Iberian peninsula. This structure was undermined at the time of the expulsion.105 During the very first days after the promulgation of the edict, Isaac Ibn Zemeru, a resident of Badajoz, requested an order from the Crown addressed to the corregidor of his city106 to help him collect the debts that Christians owed him. The petition does not list the debts in detail. Nevertheless the Crown granted him an order issued on 5 May 1492107 for the immediate collection of these debts. Thus it appears that right after the publication of the Edict of Expulsion, pressure to collect debts was exerted upon the Royal Council and the Crown. It should be emphasized that the members of the Royal Council took a consistent line, both those who sat in permanent office in Valladolid and those who joined the monarchs on their journeys through the kingdom. Clearly these arrangements were planned from the start.108 Many petitions were addressed to the Crown and the council in the north. Diego Pérez de Lequeitia addressed the Crown with a complaint that many residents of 103 Biblioteca Nacional in Madrid, Sección de Manuscritos, Dd 108, fo. 126, drafted by Fernando de Toledo with the approbation of the Crown, published in Lea, A History, i. 569–71; see also ibid. 136 ff. The original document is in the municipal archive of Toledo; see León Tello, Toledo, i. 539–49. 104 ‘Que todos los christianos e moros a quien deven los dichos judios qualesquier debdas, o judios a quien devan christianos o moros otras debdas parescan e se presenten ante vos las dichas justiçias donde biben los debdores a pedir e liquidar e averiguar las debdas e otras abçiones que los unos deban a los otros. Las quales liquides e averigues e llamadas e oidas las partes, proçediendo en la liquidaçion simplemente e de plano sin estrepitu e figura de juiçio, solamente sabida la verdad, por manera que todas las dichas debdas e abçiones sean liquidadas e averiguadas e sentençiadas fasta mediado del dicho mes de julio primero que viene’, Biblioteca Nacional, Sección de Manuscritos, Dd 108, fo. 126. 105 Here, too, we shall try to retain the framework based on the dates of the responses of the Royal Council and the Crown. The approach to this investigation lies through the Crown’s responses to petitioners. 106 His name does not appear on the order. In 1492 two corregidores are mentioned: Sancho Sánchez de Montiel and the bachiller Gonzalo Fernández del Castillo. See Lunenfeld, Keepers, 199. 107 See RGS 9 No. 1452, fo. 307, published by Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 401; mentioned in Baer, JchS ii. 425. 108 The aforementioned edict was issued in Santa Fe. With the Crown there were Don Álvaro [de Portugal], Dr ‘Johannes’, Dr ‘Antonius’, and the licenciado Francisco. The order was drafted by Cristóbal de Vitoria.

144

jewish‒christian credit

Vitoria had borrowed money from Jews and mortgaged their crops to them: wheat, grain, barley, and the like. The borrowers had even deposited pledges and obligated themselves to pay the debts, which had increased with interest, against the laws of the kingdom. He asked the Crown to appoint a magistrate resident in the region who would force the Jews to refund the interest that had accrued on top of the principal. The Crown grasped the urgency of the appeal, because the creditors intended to leave, and it responded to it.109

Mansilla Gonzalo Gutiérrez de Valdelomar, a resident of Mansilla in the merindad of Monzón, addressed the Crown in his own name and that of the good men and residents of the town regarding loans that the people of Mansilla had received from Jews living in Frómista and Osorno, which were loans for interest and renuevo.110 The Jewish moneylenders pursued them and obtained orders of excommunication against them from the Church; leading clerics and magistrates acceded to the creditors’ demands.111 The plaintiff asked the Crown to order that these debts should not be subject to collection unless it could be proved that the outstanding loan was for the amount of the principal,112 and then it would be evident what had been added to it as interest and which loan was a renuevo. The Crown must order that the laws of the kingdom be upheld with regard to loans extended to Christians by Jews for usurious interest, or that the usurious interest that had already been paid should be deducted from the principal of the loan. Otherwise, if the Crown did not so order, the Christian subjects whom Valdelomar represented, the residents of Mansilla, would be ruined. He emphasized that he had presented his petition during the harvest season.113 The debtors could not go out to harvest, apparently because they had been arrested and detained, or else because they were excommunicated from the Church. Therefore they were lost and destitute.114 The Crown looked favourably on the residents’ petition, and reached a decision with the approbation of the Council of the North and Ports. Juan de Luzón, the corregidor of Carrión and Sahagún, and Dr Fernando González de Palencia, the magistrate and administrator of the Hermandad in the province of Palencia, were appointed to deal with this petition.115 The Crown granted them power of attorney to execute the order 109 Diego Martínez de Álava, the alcalde of the court and of the chancellery, was ordered to investigate the complaints and adjudicate them according to the law. A fine of 10,000 mrs was to be levied against anyone who violated the order, which was drafted by Sancho Ruiz del Cuero, and issued on 26 May 1492 in Valladolid with the approbation of the Council of the North and Ports, comprising licenciado Gonzalo González de Illescas and Dr Francisco Núñez. See RGS 9 No. 1902, fo. 450; published in Suárez Fernández, 110 Documentos, 419–20. ‘Logro, vsura e renuevo’, RGS 9 No. 2263, fo. 181. See above. 111 ‘Escommunion . . . de algunos jueses eclesyasticos’, ibid. 112 113 ‘Debda prinçipal’, ibid. ‘Tienpo como aora de coger pan’, ibid. 114 He also asked that the Crown should order the ecclesiastical judges (‘jueses eclesyasticos’) immediately to rescind the ban that had been placed on them because of these debts, or that the church should atone for them, and also that the Crown should decide as it saw fit, ibid. 115 Participating in the deliberations were licenciado Gonzalo González de Illescas and Dr Francisco Núñez, ibid. The response was given on 7 June 1492. A fine of 10,000 mrs was to be levied against violators of the decree. It was drafted by Sancho Ruiz del Cuero.

jewish‒christian credit

145

of the Cortes of Madrigal (1476) and to convene the parties, hear their arguments, and decide in accordance with the law and the town’s fuero or privileges.116 The involvement of Mose Mañan, the procurador of the community of Frómista, was also evident in his appeal to the Crown in the name of the Jews of that town regarding the debt that the Christian residents owed the Jews for the corn, oxen, and mules that the Jews had leased to the Christians in a manner known as half-and-half (‘a medias’) arrangements.117 In his petition he also mentioned loans that had been given for the purpose of paying various alcabala taxes.118 The Jewish creditors demanded that their Christian debtors must pay their debts, but the latter put them off with the clear and evident intention of avoiding payment, since the time remaining before the Jews had to depart the realm was growing shorter. One of their contentions was that they did not have to pay debts that had not yet fallen due. Mose Mañan added to his claims that certain Christians had obtained orders of imprisonment against Jews who owed them money, although those Jews were willing to pay their Christian creditors in kind. However, the Christian creditors insisted that the imprisoned Jews must remain in detention. Clearly these creditors intended to seize their property retroactively, after the expulsion, and in any event they sought to force them, since they were about to leave, to ransom themselves from prison by paying their debts in cash.

Frómista Mose Mañan demonstrates the severe damage that was caused to his Jewish clients. He asked the Crown to issue an order of settlement between the Christians and the Jews for immediate payment to the Jewish creditors of the debts for which there were contracts and agreements, although the due date for some of them had not yet arrived.119 The Crown acceded to this petition and, with the approbation of the Council of the North and Ports, it ordered the corregidores and the judicial system of Carrión, Castrojeriz, and Monzón to convene the parties without delay, to hear their arguments, and to reach a decision.120 Although the order to convene the parties appears to be ordinary in documents of this type, what is said in the summons is noteworthy: the Crown demanded that there should be no further reason for the either party to appeal to the Crown regarding any decision of the corregidor or the magistrates appointed to hear the claims. Despite this directive, the order cannot be seen as instructing the magistrates as to 116 The debt owed by Juan de Villoslada, a resident of Mansilla, should also be mentioned here. He owed 8,100 mrs to Don Isaac Abravanel. The Crown issued its opinion regarding payment of that debt in June 1492, before Don Isaac’s departure from the kingdom. See Ch. 9 below, also Rodríguez Fernández, Ciudad de León, 815. 117 On Mose Mañan, see the document dated 25 May 1492: RGS 9 No. 1893, fo. 522, cited above in the section ‘Public Debts to Jews’ and n. 100. 118 See RGS 9 No. 2213, fo. 292. ‘Al millar del escriuano mayor de rentas’, issued on 5 June 1492. 119 In this petition he also requested the evaluation of Jewish property by two trustworthy appraisers, and that the Christians should receive the property of the Jews to cover their debts. He also requested the release of Jewish prisoners and prohibition of the seizure and detention of Jewish debtors. See below in this chapter. 120 On this council sat Alonso de Quintanilla, the chief accountant, and licenciado Gonzalo González de Illescas. The draftsman’s name is missing. For disobedience a fine of 20,000 mrs would be levied, and the transgressor would lose the Crown’s favour. Those summoned were to appear within fifteen days.

146

jewish‒christian credit

how they should decide the case. Sanctions for disobeying this order were also standard and provide no indication as to the rigour of the instruction or about the Crown’s wishes.121 The appeal of Antonio de Herrera of Frómista to the Crown Council sheds additional light on the collection of debts owed by Christians to Jews. He claimed that with the Crown’s permission he had bought promissory notes from Jews who had gone into exile, and that these notes were transparent and involved no fraudulent usury. Nevertheless he could not find a magistrate willing to act against people who refused to pay these debts, even when they admitted to them. The Crown, with the approbation of the Council of the North and Ports, saw fit to order the corregidores of Palencia (Juan Martínez de Aguilera) and of Carrión (Juan de Luzón) and their alcaldes and successors to seize the property of the debtors and ensure that the debts attested by the promissory notes purchased by Antonio de Herrera at the time of the expulsion were paid.122 The purchase of these promissory notes shows what happened during the expulsion, as will become clear below. Mose de Castrillo, a resident of Frómista, was owed money by several Christian residents of a village named Boadilla del Camino for a loan and for pan de renuevo. When he went into exile, these residents reached an agreement with the council, exempting them from the payment of the debts. At the same time it left the decision to their conscience.123 Mose de Castrillo died in exile, and his sons returned to Spain and converted to Christianity. They demanded what was due from their father’s creditors, who argued that the debts included interest which they had paid to their father in his lifetime. The Crown ordered the corregidor of Valladolid, Alonso Ramírez de Villaescusa, to convene the parties, hear their arguments, and reach a decision satisfactory to both sides.124 Long after his death, Mose de Castrillo’s practices as a moneylender were remembered.125 121 The sanctions generally ranged from 10,000 to 20,000 mrs and sometimes included loss of the Crown’s favour or steps that would be taken as if the transgressor had violated the order of his master the king. The fines were payable to the Royal Treasury or for public buildings or works that the Crown ordered to be executed in Granada. 122 Regarding other obligations, they were to convene the parties and decide after hearing the arguments. Each corregidor would act in his jurisdiction. The punishment for disobeying the order was loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. The order was drafted by Fernando de Cisneros with the approbation of the Council of the North and Ports; it was issued on 27 August 1493 in Valladolid. See RGS 10 No. 2318, fo. 272. The case of Rodrigo de Castañeda is particularly interesting. He was the regidor and procurador of Palencia and active in settling the debts of Christians to Jews in Manzanos as well as Toro and Frómista. He complained that he had not received his salary or money to cover his expenses; the matter was discussed by the Royal Council, with whose approbation the Crown ordered the parties to pay his salary and expenses. Anyone violating the order would lose the Crown’s favour and be subject to a fine of 10,000 mrs. See RGS 10 No. 3126, fo. 179, issued on 4 Dec. 1493 in Valladolid, which was drafted by Juan Sánchez de Ceinos in Valladolid on the basis of an earlier order dated 24 Feb. 1493, issued in Barcelona. 123 The residents were Pedro Martínez de Fernando, Garcia Fernández, and Juan García Hurtado. The expression is: ‘En cargo de sus conçiençias’, RGS 14 No. 722, fo. 151. 124 The order was prepared with the approbation of the council by Bartolomé Ruiz de Castañeda on 4 Mar. 1497. 125 The sons may have been coerced into conversion in Portugal. Another order, issued in the name of the king on 21 June 1497 to the corregidor of Valladolid, authorized him and Diego Gutiérrez Manuel to collect debts owed by Christians to Jews there and in the diocese of Palencia. See RGS 14 No. 1643, fo. 310.

jewish‒christian credit

147

Torre de Mormojón The petition of Yose Abenasa in his capacity as procurador of the Jews of Torre de Mormojón is similar in style to that of Mose Mañan on behalf of the Jews of Frómista. The residents of Torre de Mormojón and the merindad of Carrión, Castrojeriz, and Monzón owed a lot of money to the Jews and to himself, for grain, oxen, and mules held in half-and-half partnership. They also had debts for failure to pay the alcabala tax. The Crown’s answer to Abenasa was consistent with its response to the petition of Mose Mañan; it was given with the approbation of Alonso de Quintanilla and the licenciado Gonzalo González de Illescas.126

Olmedo Fernando del Castillo lodged a strong complaint in the name of the Christian community (‘cabildo’) and good men of the town of Olmedo. Many peasants and residents of the town and its environs had bought commodities on credit from the Jews of the town: grain, wheat, barley, and rye at particularly high prices (‘a muy mayores preçios’). At the time of the purchase, the price of wheat was set at 400 mrs a measure (carga), of barley (cebada) and rye (centeno) at 300 mrs a measure.127 When the Jews were ordered to leave, they obtained orders from the magistrate of Olmedo, according to which the peasants were required to pay within thirty days, although the debts had not yet come due. The price for a measure of wheat had now fallen to 300 mrs, of barley to 250 mrs, and of rye to 200 mrs.128 These peasants were poor and unable to pay the sum demanded of them within a short time. When the Jewish creditors asked for their money, it was made clear to them that the peasants had been asked to pay very high prices and could not sell enough produce to pay back the loans. Hidalgos and escuderos, to whom the Jews owed money, were also involved in these arrangements. Most probably the Jewish moneylenders had sold debts or transferred them to Christians who had been their creditors in the past, but we do not know under what conditions these transactions were made. The plaintiff added that the conditions of the loans, which had been contracted under the renuevo system for the past ten or fifteen years, were severe, and that the borrowers were willing to maintain the renuevo arrangements for only one year, apparently the last one. Fernando del Castillo asked the Crown to forbid the Jewish creditors to take higher than normal prices from the peasants. He requested that those prices should be equal to those prevailing when the transaction was made. He also wanted the Crown to order the Jews to return to the peasants money that had been collected as interest. He further claimed that many peasants in Olmedo had bought wheat on credit from a single Jew, a resident of the town, and that he had stipulated with the purchasers that 126 It was issued on 6 June 1492. See RGS 9 No. 2249, fo. 139. It was drafted by Sancho Ruiz del Cuero in Valladolid. The magistrates and corregidores of Torre de Mormojón, Castrojeriz, Carrión, and Monzón were ordered to respond to the petition. The fine payable by delinquents was set at 20,000 mrs, in addition to loss of the Crown’s favour. It is published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 432–4 (with omissions). 127 The carga was a Castilian grain-measure equal to 4 fanegas. 128 The difference in price can be explained as an addition to the purchase price. This addition is similar to interest. However, it could be this was the ordinary price for grain, and the difficulty was the short term allowed for payment.

148

jewish‒christian credit

they should receive the wheat in the nearby town of Castronuño, where grain was cheaper, but had concluded the transaction according to the price of grain in Olmedo. In return for every measure of grain, the peasants were also obliged to make him a payment of one hen.129 Thus the vendor profited from the difference in price, for they had to pay him for grain at the price current in Olmedo, with the addition of the hen. Therefore Fernando del Castillo asked to have the expense of carting grain from Castronuño to Olmedo refunded to him and to be paid at the price current in Olmedo. This plea was discussed in the Council of the North and Ports in the presence of Alonso de Quintanilla and the licenciado Gonzalo González de Illescas. With their approbation the Crown ordered the corregidor and the alcalde of Olmedo to convene the parties without delay, to adjudicate the complaint on the basis of the laws of the kingdom governing interest, and that justice should be done for those peasants.130 It need not be emphasized the degree to which the peasants were bound by the loans and suffered from the oppressive payment arrangements.

Segovia On 21 July 1492, a short time before the end of Jewish residence on the soil of Spain, it fell to Día Sánchez de Quesada, the corregidor of Segovia, and the alcalde of the city, or either of them, to respond to the petition of Pedro de la Cruz, a resident of Losa, in the region of Segovia.131 His petition was personal and reveals his poverty. In 1481 he had lived in dire need and destitution;132 hoping to improve his lot, he bought bulls, cows, and calves on credit from David Tasarte, a stocking-maker, and he paid above market prices for them.133 Since he was unable to pay the debt in time, he was forced to buy mules from Tasarte at an excessive price, and at high interest. His brother Alonso also bought mules at an excessive price from Tasarte.134 In order to pay their debts they were forced to take loans at interest from Samuel Saragossa,135 and to meet that payment they were forced to sell their house and businesses; Pedro was also imprisoned for Payment arrangements including a hen were common in Castile. The penalty for disobedience was the punishment imposed by the Crown on anyone who failed to obey his lord the king. See RGS 9 No. 2243, fo. 192, dated 6 June 1492, drafted by Fernando de Ceinos in Valladolid. 131 See RGS 9 No. 2521, fo. 176, drafted with the approbation of the council by Alonso del Mármol in Valladolid; see also Ch. 7 below. On Día Sánchez de Quesada see Lunenfeld, Keepers, index, and the 132 ‘El se vino con mucha neçesydad y pobreza’, RGS 9 No. 2521, fo. 176. Appendix. 133 David Tasarte, from a well-known Segovia family, was an ome bueno in the community. On 29 Oct. 1481 Rodrigo Álvarez Maldonado delivered the order of housing segregation to him. His house marked the border between the Jewish and Christian quarters. On segregation of Jewish housing, see Ch. 1. 134 ‘Çiertos bueyes e novillos e vacas fiadas a mayores preçios que non valian, a luego pagar muletos fiados a mayores preçios que non valian, a luego pagar’, RGS 10 No. 2521, fo. 176. 135 He too came from a very well-known family in Segovia; see Carrete Parrondo, Proceso inquisitorial, Reg. s.v., and RGS 9 No. 190, fo. 178, on the moneylender Don Levi Saragossa. Samuel Saragossa owned land in La Almunia, in the region of Segovia, which he leased for cultivation to Pedro de Nieva for 5,000 mrs annually and 10 fanegas of wheat and barley per year. Since Nieva had paid him only 2,700 mrs and 10 fanegas, the lease was transacted in 1491 or 1490. Samuel Saragossa sold the land to Juan de la Hoz, the regidor of Segovia, who later also sought to remove Nieva from the land, but the latter claimed that the arrangement involved fraude de usura, and asked for an order from the Crown against La Hoz. The Crown acceded, but permitted La Hoz to appeal to the council within five days. See RGS 10 No. 697, fo. 336. 129 130

jewish‒christian credit

149

failure to pay the debt. When the Edict of Expulsion was published, he addressed the magistrate Alfonso de Tavira, asking for a lien to be placed on the property of the moneylender Saragossa in the sum of 20,000 mrs, which had been paid to him in interest and profits. The magistrate did nothing. Meanwhile the moneylender (apparently Saragossa) sold the brothers’ property. Pedro’s claim against his creditor was still pending at that time. His petition was accepted by the Crown Council; the Crown ordered that justice should be done immediately to the brothers. The municipal council of Segovia, the region, and the inhabitants lodged a complaint with the Royal Council against the Jewish residents and those who were there only temporarily (‘moradores y estantes’). The Jews had lent money for interest before the order forbidding that. The lenders obliged the borrowers to give them ‘promissory notes at double the amount as fraude de usura’.136 That is to say, 100 per cent interest. Now that the order had been given to expel the Jews from the kingdom, ‘if they are not required to return to the borrowers what they paid, damage will be caused [to the borrowers]’.137 The requests for refunding of interest payments made to creditors apparently derived from the state of affairs in the kingdom after the promulgation of the Edict of Expulsion; the borrowers clearly wished to exploit the new conditions and benefit from them. As early as 6 July 1492 Quesada was instructed as to how to deal with requests of this type.138 The instructions stated: (1) regarding residents who had borrowed money before 1480 and claimed that excessive interest had been taken from them and were capable of proving it, the corregidor was to summon the creditors within three days and decide the cases; they were not to be arrested for taking interest, but excessive rates were to be reduced.139 This means that he was not to interfere with the departure of the Jews into exile. (2) Regarding loans made after the order of the Cortes of Toledo was issued in 1480, he must make certain to settle the debts according to the law.140 That is to say, in these cases he was to ascertain under what conditions the loans had been given and whether they entailed fraudulent usury, and he was to prevent the collection of such interest or make sure it was refunded. The brothers’ debts fell into the category of loans made after the Cortes of Toledo in 1480. Quesada acted according to instructions. The feeling of urgency before the expulsion was remarkably intense.141 136 ‘Les han leuado muchas quantias de maravedís e otras cosas en fraude de vsura e faserles faser contratos e obligaçiones para el doblo de lo que resçibian’, see RGS 9 No. 2405, fo. 87; drafted by Fernán Álvarez de Toledo, the secretary of the monarchs. 137 ‘Sy non las ovieren de pagar lo que asy de las dichas vsuras resçibiran daño’, RGS 9 No. 2405, fo. 87. 138 He was one of the corregidores most loyal to the Crown and was charged with many missions. See Lunenfeld, Keepers, index. 139 ‘En otra manera non queremos nin mandamos que los dichos judios sean detenidos’, RGS 9 No. 2405, fo. 87. 140 ‘Çerca de la debdas que se deuan a los judios e ellos deuen a qualesquier personas e fasiendo sobre todo ello conplimiento de justiçia’, ibid. 141 The problem of debts might be linked to another later document of uncertain date but probably issued in May 1495, being found among documents of that year. Pero Sánchez de la Concha petitioned the Crown to order the corregidor, Diego Ruiz de Montalvo or his successor, to arrange the collection of debts which his son had waived at the time of the expulsion, though he could not challenge an act of his son’s without his permission. The debts had been waived because of the short time between the promulgation of

150

jewish‒christian credit

Castroverde de Cerrato The financial complications connected with loans to peasants also emerged in Castroverde de Cerrato. The judges of the royal court, the chancellery, and the magistrates of the cities of Palencia and Valladolid, and the towns of Peñafiel, Curiel, Dueñas, Castroverde, and Baltanas (and with them anyone else whom the issue concerned) were ordered to deal with them. Juan García, escríbano of Castroverde, submitted a petition in his own name and that of many residents of that town and other places complaining that in 1491 and 1492 they had been so hard pressed, and subject to such dire poverty, that they had to obtain loans to buy seeds. Being unable to raise money from other sources, they turned to Jewish and Christian moneylenders in those places. Since his clients did not have enough to pay for seeds and grain, they were forced to commit themselves to pay their creditors in kind by a certain date at 7–8 reales a measure, although the market price was at least 13–14 reales a measure; the difference in price constituted interest. They were now being pressed to pay their debts according to the reduced value of the grain. Moreover, his clients had sold cloth to certain merchants at 1,200 mrs a length (‘paño’); at the time this was the value of approximately 2½ cargas of wheat, which was selling at 500 mrs a carga or more, but since then the price had fallen to 240 mrs a carga.142 The borrowers had agreed to the deal in the hope that they could supply the cloth within a few days. When the Jews were about to leave the kingdom, the people of these towns came to an arrangement with their Jewish creditors to pay half the debts.143 But by that time Christians had purchased them from the Jews at a discount,144 giving 1,000 mrs for promissory notes with a face value of 2,600. The Christian purchasers of the notes became creditors, and they demanded full payment of the debt from the Christian borrowers, threatening them with total devastation. Consequently Juan García asked the Crown to forbid the sale of their property and not to compel them to pay more than the price that they had received for the harvest, 500 mrs, as was estimated at the time when the loan was given, and as it was mortgaged to Jewish creditors, and also that the promissory notes that they had given to the Jews should be returned to them. The Crown’s response, in accordance with the prohibition of interest enacted at Madrigal in 1476,145 was based on the decision of the Council of the North and Ports; the corregidores of the places listed above were instructed to treat the Christian merchants who had bought the promissory notes as they would have treated Jews who had lent money at usurious interest. They were forbidden to act in any other way, but at the same time they were ordered to convene the parties without delay and to decide according to the truth, which they would unearth in their investigation.146 the Edict of Expulsion and the departure of the Jews. The Crown ordered him to specify who must be summoned for an investigation before the corregidor. See RGS 12 No. 2426, fo. 112. See also below on the period after 31 July 1492. 142 ‘Dos cargos e medio de trigo e solia ser vendida cada carga en quinientos maravedís e mas, non valiendo entonçes cada cargo saluo en dosyentas e quarenta maravedís’. See RGS 9 No. 2825, fo. 224, dated 31 Aug. 1492, drafted by Sancho Ruiz del Cuero in Valladolid. 143 ‘Una de las dos cargas . . . e de mil maravedís los quinientos’, RGS 9 No. 2825, fo. 224. 144 ‘Las dichas debdas de maravedís e paños e de pan e grano a menos preçio de los dichos judios’, RGS 145 A copy of the law is presented in the document. 9 No. 2825, fo. 224. 146 Anyone violating the order would lose the Crown’s favour and be subject to a fine of 10,000 mrs.

jewish‒christian credit

151

Almazán On 10 September 1492 the Crown responded to a petition arising out of a lawsuit brought against Pedro López de Ayala by Pedro Benítez, a resident of Almazán, to whom Ayala, while still a Jew, had lent the sum of 4,500 mrs, 8 golden florins, and 128 fanegas of wheat and barley (‘de trigo e çebada’), which were worth 20,000 mrs at the time of the loan, in return for security consisting of land that brought in 7,000 mrs, an estate (‘heredad’) that brought in 80 fanegas of wheat every year, and a house to live in. This security would within a few years be worth more than the loan, and hence, Benítez claimed, constituted usury. Benítez’s suit was heard by García de Suazo, the acting commander of the citadel; he ordered that the claim should be met out of Ayala’s property, which was transferred to Benítez’s ownership according to its value. The affair evidently became complicated, and the magistrate of Almazán was involved. Acting on Benítez’s petition, the Crown court ordered Ayala to appear before it within eight days, or give power of attorney to his representative to respond in his name; Suazo was forbidden to deal with the legal dispute.147 The response of the Crown and the council to the usurious interest charged by Ayala while he was Jewish was quite clear. Relatively late evidence bears upon the economic activity of the Jews of Almazán. García de Santa Cruz was a merchant and moneylender in that town. When he went into exile, he left pending the debts that the Christians owed him for grain, woollen cloth, and other cloth, which he had sold to them on credit. When he returned to Spain after converting to Christianity, he found that a lien and confiscation had been imposed on his debts. He addressed the Crown and on 17 November 1494 obtained an order directing bachiller Diego de Salmerón, the corregidor of Soria, to deal with the petition. Salmerón determined that he was to be permitted to collect those debts. However, Pedro de Mazuelo, the magistrate responsible for Jewish debts in the dioceses of 147 See RGS 9 No. 2933, fo. 240, drafted by Alonso del Mármol in Zaragoza. Ayala was given eight days to appear, and ordered to provide Pedro Benítez with copies of the notes in his possession. This complaint gave rise to an offshoot in 1494, when Benítez also mentioned a debt of 3,000 mrs for seizure of his property during his absence and its confiscation by Ayala. Benítez asked Ayala to give him the document with the verdict, but Ayala avoided giving it to him and even threatened to have him imprisoned and to bring about his permanent exile from Centenera, where they had lived for years. On 12 Nov. 1494 the Crown ordered the magistrate of Almazán, Del Pueblo, to examine the complaint and to decide the matter according to justice. See RGS 11 No. 3773, fo. 239, which states that Ayala had been a Jew (‘Que solia ser judio’), and that he had great influence in the town. Also in Almazán a Jew named Abraham Daza was imprisoned for debt at the time of the expulsion. He converted to Christianity and took the name Juan Enríquez. He bound himself by oath and by guarantees not to leave the town, which was stipulated as his place of imprisonment. In return for payment Ruy Díaz Laínez, a resident of Almazán and the petitioner, arranged a place for him to stay. Juan Enríquez violated his oath and fled from the town and its region. Díaz Laínez obtained from the Crown an order for his arrest wherever he might be found; see RGS 11 No. 1587, fo. 335, drafted by Cristóbal de Vitoria with the approbation of the Royal Council on 30 Apr. 1494. Francisco del Águila lodged a complaint to the Crown against another Christian resident regarding interest in the amount of 40,000 mrs which he had allegedly collected from him. The Crown ordered the alcaide of Atienza, García de Suazo, to examine his accounts. Francisco del Águila was a Jew who left for exile but returned half-way (from Ciudad Rodrigo) to convince more than fifty members of his family to convert to Christianity with him. See Cantera Burgos and Carrete Parrondo, Sefarad, 33 (1973), 18; 34 (1974), 276.

152

jewish‒christian credit

Cuenca and Sigüenza, who had imposed the lien, did not accept his application and collected the debts for the Royal Treasury. Santa Cruz lodged a second plea before the judges of the royal court. The procurador Diego Beltrán, appearing in his behalf, argued that his client had not smuggled money or any other prohibited item into Portugal, and the debts owed to him by Christians should not be confiscated. The judges of the royal court responded and ordered Mazuelo to deliberate on the plea once again, with the collaboration of the chief magistrate, the alcalde mayor of Almazán, provided he had the title of letrado, so that Santa Cruz should have no further reason to address an appeal to them.148

Aranda de Duero An extensive structure of credit relations operated in Aranda de Duero in the north. In this city members of the Soto family developed business relations with various residents. Samuel de Soto and his sons Samuel (apparently an error in transcription) and Rabi (missing name)149 borrowed money from Christians and lent it to them. According to the claim they laid before the Crown Council, they lent money in order to do people favours. The family intended to go into exile, but they were badgered by their creditors to return what they had borrowed, whereas those who had borrowed from them refused to repay the loans. They could not pay their creditors what was due unless the Christians who owed them money also paid their debts. They were willing to deliver to their creditors promissory notes which they held from other people, but the creditors refused to accept them, assuming that they could purchase the notes and also the property for a low price and take control of the Sotos’ property. In their petition the latter asked the Crown to appoint a trustworthy man150 to serve as executor and collect the debts owed to them, and also to order their creditors to accept obligations from them (doubtless those of people who owed them money). Alternatively, they asked not to be required to pay debts which had not yet fallen due until they (that is, the Soto family) collected what was owed to them. The Crown sympathized with their difficulty and instructed the bachiller Alfonso de Torres, a resident of Aranda, to respond to this plea.151 He was ordered to appoint two appraisers, one from each side, so as to evaluate the property that would secure the debts.152 If the value of the property exceeded the amount of the debts, the Sotos would enjoy the difference, and if its value was less than the amount of the debts, they were not to be arrested, nor was a lien to be placed on their assets. According to this order they also received the protection of the Crown. This, however, was not the end of their complaint. Samuel de Soto and his sons 148 Regarding this order, dated 17 Nov. 1494, see RGS 11 No. 3847, fo. 218; for the second order, issued on 30 Jan. 1496, see RGS 13 No. 149, fo. 132. It was drafted by Juan Ramírez, the monarchs’ escríbano de cámara. 149 For the names, see Baer, JchS ii. 425. 150 ‘Sin sospecha’, i.e. above suspicion. See RGS 9 No. 1512, fo. 331, dated 8 May 1492. 151 That year he was charged with various tasks in implementing the expulsion. He is mentioned in a series of documents that referred to the Soto family; see n. 153. On 22 May 1492 he was ordered to assist and accompany Samuel de Soto on his way to exile. 152 If the two appraisers did not reach a decision regarding the value of the property, he was to appoint a third appraiser to determine which valuation was to be accepted.

jewish‒christian credit

153

Rabi Isaac and Rabi Moses addressed a complaint to the Crown against Torres for failure to comply with the Crown’s instructions. He had granted their debtors an extension of a month or more to pay their obligations and was not pressing them when they passed the extended date for payment. Torres argued that certain people, caballeros and the lords of the señoríos in which the debtors lived, would not agree to the sale of property, even though the Sotos had taken pledges for the debts, and even issued a public announcement demanding that their debtors should come and redeem their pledges. They therefore requested an order permitting them to sell the debtors’ moveable goods within three days and their real property within nine days. They also sought permission to sell the pledges. In response, on 22 June 1492 the Crown ordered the collection of debts that were due, provided that they satisfied the laws governing interest passed by the Cortes in Madrigal.153 Garci Sánchez de Calahorra lodged a complaint against Yose de Soto concerning a debt of 20,000 mrs and an additional 2,500 mrs and the pledge of a silver tray. Yose de Soto refused to pay him the debt and recover the pledge, claiming that he lacked the wherewithal, because the house where he lived was mortgaged to his half-brothers from his mother’s second marriage, and he himself had no business or income from which he could pay. Garci Sánchez claimed that Soto intended to go into exile without repaying him. The Crown instructed the magistrates of Aranda to hear the claims of the parties in this suit and to see to the collection of the debts.154 Yose de Soto also owed money to García de Quemada, whom he had given a mortgage on buildings he owned in the neighbourhood of Castejal in Aranda. He refused to pay this debt either, arguing that the house was subject to a lien based on his wife’s marriage contract. García de Quemada informed the Crown that Soto intended to sell his property so as to pay his wife’s marriage settlement. He demanded the sum of 36,000 mrs from him, which was the amount of the mortgage he had received from him. In his request García de Quemada asked for an order from the Crown requiring that Yose de Soto should pay him immediately, or else that his house should be placed in the care of a trustworthy man who would decide between them, so that Yose would not draw him into lawsuits and delays. Alfonso de Torres was given the task of hearing the arguments of the parties to the dispute and of deciding between them.155 A distant echo of these debts is found in an order issued by the Crown to the magistrate responsible for Jewish property in the diocese of Osma, Alonso del Castillo, on 17 February 1495.156 Juan Núñez de Calahorra, a resident of Aranda, lodged a com153 The document was published by Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 408–11. See RGS 9 No. 1800, fo. 524, drafted by Fernando de Cisneros and issued with the approbation of Alonso de Quintanilla, the licenciado Gonzalo González de Illescas, and Dr Francisco Núñez. See also Ch. 5. 154 The parties were to appear before the Crown Council within fifteen days if they had arguments for not fulfilling the order. See RGS 9 No. 1757, fo. 657, dated 17 May 1492, issued with the approbation of the Council. 155 He is called ‘our vassal’. See RGS 9 No. 1797, fo. 510, dated 22 May 1492, with the approbation of the Council of the North and Ports. 156 Alonso del Castillo bought the debts that Christians owed to Pedro Martínez de Santa Fe (as he was known after conversion), previously a Jewish moneylender to whom many residents of Coruña del Conde were in debt. The amount paid for the purchase was 140,000 mrs, and it was stipulated that any amount collected above that would belong to him. Thus his profits were multiple. The Crown ordered a secret

154

jewish‒christian credit

plaint against Samuel de Soto for the sum of 20,000 mrs and some casks of wine that were owned by the latter. Apparently this money was the counter-guarantee given Juan Núñez, in return for standing surety along with Juan Porto.157 From the claim it appears that Soto was in prison, and he was also apparently connected with the sale of debts to Alonso del Castillo for the sum of 160,000 mrs (sic), which were owed to him in the town. Samuel de Soto had sold him the promissory notes of Christian debtors, and the Crown placed a lien on those debts, so that the purchaser of the notes did not receive what was due. On 16 February 1495 the Crown instructed Alonso del Castillo to convene the sides and see that justice was done to Juan Núñez de Calahorra.158

Gumiel del Mercado An additional task was assigned to the bachiller Alfonso de Torres together with Juan de la Rivera of Valladolid. They were to examine the agreements, obligations, and other documents presented by Rabi Judah de Soto of Gumiel del Mercado, in his own name and in that of his brothers Yose and Samuel, Socorro, and Huze and Samuel de Soer, for debts owed them by residents of Gumiel del Mercado, Valle de Baldies Nueva, Ventosilla, Aguilera, La Horra, and other places in the vicinity of Aranda. All these Jews intended to leave. Although the time remaining until their departure was short,159 the judges did not collect their debts for them. On 24 May 1492 the Crown responded and ordered the two aforementioned officials to collect the debts from those owing them, up to a distance of 4 leagues from Aranda. If no promissory notes existed for the debts, the parties were to be summoned without delay, and a verdict was to be delivered, especially if the debt was past due. Clearly this decision was in accordance with the laws of Madrigal regarding interest.

Moradiella Financial complications resulting from the war with Portugal for succession to the throne of Castile in 1474–5 affected Moradiella and the village of Aldea de Horno, in the diocese of Osma. These two places were burnt down during the war and more than thirty houses were destroyed, along with the residents’ sources of livelihood. In order investigation to be held, undertaken by the corregidor or the resident magistrate of Aranda. The results of the investigation were to be communicated to the Royal Council. If proof was found, collection of the debts was to cease immediately. RGS 11 No. 4376, fo. 384, dated 16 Dec. 1494. 157 He was a partner in the guarantee with Juan Núñez and Álvar González Cortesero. The document is dated 6 Feb. 1493 (RGS 10 No. 301, fo. 150). The name is written as ‘Portero’ but probably refers to the same man. This was not the end of the trials. On 18 Feb. 1492 Catalina Rodríguez de Raina obtained an order against all three to appear before the members of the Crown Council in a trial that was pending before the president and the oidores. Without doubt this refers to deliberations concerning the promissory notes that the Sotos had sold when they went into exile. The three were given twenty days to appear before the council (fifteen days, the first summons; three days, the second summons; two days, the final summons). Otherwise the claims of Catalina Rodríguez de Raina would be heard in their absence. The sanction decreed was loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. The order was drafted by Luis del Castillo. RGS 12 No. 702, fo. 300. 158 Drafted by Cristóbal de Vitoria with the approbation of the Royal Council. 159 ‘Por ser la partida tan brebe’. See RGS 9 No. 1868, fo. 531. It is mentioned in Baer, JchS ii. 425. Concerning them, see Ch. 5 below. It has recently been published again. See Cadiñandos Bardeci, ‘Judíos y moros’, 315–17.

jewish‒christian credit

155

to recover their position they borrowed money against certain pledges from the Jew Samuel (perhaps this was Samuel de Soto), a resident of Aranda. When these debts were not paid, he demanded 16,000 mrs interest, and even took sheep and goats (‘carneros y cabrones’) from them, as well as vats of honey and many fowl. When the Jews were ordered to leave the kingdom, the residents of the place lodged a complaint against him, and he was arrested. To be released from prison he produced Christian sureties who owed him a great deal of money; they had already collected the debts that remained pending to the Jews, but avoided paying the Christians their debts. To an appeal from the council and the ‘good men’ of Moradiella and Aldea de Horno, the Crown instructed the corregidor of Aranda (or the resident magistrate) to investigate the complaint and transmit the results of the investigation to the Crown and the Royal Council.160 Christian residents of Aranda also bought grain (‘pan’) on credit at the price of 120 mrs a fanega from Rabi Mose Abenraby, a resident of Segovia. When the time came to pay the debt, in their poverty they were unable to do so. Abenraby then doubled the debt and demanded twice the amount owed him. His procurador appeared and argued that he was not going into exile, which means that he had converted to Christianity. Bartolomé de Pinella represented the residents of Aranda and demanded an order from the Crown to fix the debt at the price of grain current when it was purchased. The Crown Council based itself on the decision of the Cortes of Madrigal;161 that is to say, it saw clear proof of interest here and ordered the corregidor or alcalde of Aranda to act according to law.

Ávila From Ávila there came the complaint of Doña Lediçia, the wife of Rabi Yose, in their name and that of their children, Don Ysaque, Doña Reina, and Don Salamon. They had been arrested by the corregidor, Álvaro de Santesteban, who had also seized their property and held it because of many complaints that had been lodged against them by several caballeros and individuals (‘syngulares’).162 From this petition to the Crown we learn that the debts of Christians were at issue, and the Jews, as creditors, sought to speed up their settlement, since they intended to leave. However, the debtors probably realized they could pin their hopes on the Edict of Expulsion and obtain the refund of the interest they had paid. From the Crown’s response and its instruction to the corregidor of Ávila or his successor, we learn that if the debts had been contracted before the decisions of the Cortes of Toledo, the prisoners must be freed, and the lien must be lifted from their property. The corregidor must summon the parties to hear their 160 The inquiry was to be held in the presence of the public notary and the findings reported to the Crown after he had affixed his seal. The punishment for non-compliance was loss of the Crown’s favour in addition to a fine of 10,000 mrs. See RGS 11 No. 233, fo. 311, drafted by Juan Alfonso del Castillo with the approbation of the Royal Council and issued on 6 Feb. 1494. 161 The order was copied in a document, RGS 11 No. 252, fo. 310, drafted by Bartolomé Ruiz de Castañeda on 8 Feb. 1494. The punishment for violating the order was loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. 162 This apparently refers to the men who lodged separate complaints against them. This expression diminishes the power of the argument against the petitioners.

156

jewish‒christian credit

claims and see to the payment of loans that had been given with desirable intention (that is, without interest). The order was prepared with the approbation of the monarchs by their secretary Fernán Álvarez de Toledo, and the incident shows the clear line taken by the Crown regarding loans, in order to prevent arbitrary acts on the part of the local authorities that would impede the process of the expulsion.163 The Crown’s approach and practice indicate a consistent line of domestic policy, as determined by Ferdinand and Isabella, in creating a unified state and solving its problems in stages. The arbitrary conduct of the authorities in charge of debts is indicated by a late order, dated 20 October 1495. Lope de Vera, the magistrate responsible for Jewish property and the debts remaining to them after they went into exile, acted in a peremptory manner, in collusion with the corregidor Juan Pérez de la Fuente. They ‘collected debts from Christians and attached their property’. The council of Ávila, the regidores, caballeros, escuderos, the officials, and the ‘good men’ complained about them to the Crown. The two defendants possessed account-books written in Hebrew, which had been left behind by those who went into exile, and they collected debts dating back forty or fifty years in their arbitrary manner. The Crown ordered them to desist and ruled that they must permit the debtors an appeal to the Council and allow someone who knew Hebrew to inspect the account-books. This order was given directly by the Crown and shows the lengths gone to by the men in charge of Jewish debts, supposedly to collect debts for the benefit of the Crown—but there is no doubt that it was also for considerable profit of their own.164

Peñafiel On the very day, 26 June 1492, when the instruction was given to the corregidor of Ávila, the Crown, with the approbation of the Council of the North and Ports, ordered Francisco de Cabrera to act against several Jews who were resident in Peñafiel.165 163 RGS 9 No. 2366, fo. 82, dated 26 June 1492. On 4 July 1492 the accountants of the Hermandad announced to Diego Flórez that he was not to demand the sum of 10,000 mrs from the council of Ávila. This sum was paid to the Hermandad by the Jews before their departure in exile. See León Tello, Ávila, 100–1. 164 See RGS 12 No. 3791, fo. 285. Lope de Vera was sued more than once for arbitrary actions, as various documents show; see e.g. RGS 11 No. 4216, fo. 6, dated 6 Dec. 1494, directing him to ensure that the church of San Salvador in Ávila was compensated with Jewish property for the loss of revenue it had suffered. However, more than this can be found in orders beginning with RGS 12 No. 2389, fo. 106, 20 May 1495; RGS 12 No. 3320, fo. 120, 2 Sept. 1495; RGS 12 No. 3355, fo. 162, 4 Sept. 1495; RGS 13 No. 65, fo. 84, 17 Jan. 1496; RGS 12 No. 187, fo. 180, 5 Feb. 1496. See also RGS 14 No. 20, fo. 176, 3 Jan. 1497, and RGS 14 No. 21, fo. 179. On Juan Peréz de la Fuente, see Lunenfeld, Keepers, 598. On 6 Dec. 1494 Ferdinand and Isabella ordered Lope de Vera to pay the chapter of the church of San Salvador in Ávila the sum of 3,000 mrs as a juro that had been paid from the annual tax of the Jews in return for a juro that the priests had held from Jewish property, because they prayed for the soul of King Enrique (as early as 1301) and King Alfonso, his father. Similarly it was paid from the martiniega tax to the priests of the monastery of Santa Clara la Real of Tordesillas for praying for the soul of Kings Juan and Enrique. The sum would be paid to them from that date out of Jewish property after it was sold with the addition of 7 per cent interest, coming to the sum of 45,000 mrs, and the Crown also granted them another 9,000 mrs for past years. See León Tello, Ávila, 103–6. The order was drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the monarchs. 165 He is described as ‘Nuestro vasallo estante en la villa de Peñafiel’, RGS 9 No. 2372, fo. 281. It appears that as early as the beginning of June some of the local Jews began negotiations regarding the liquidation of

jewish‒christian credit

157

More than ten years earlier, when they were in severe economic distress, the residents of Canillas and Pinel del Yuso borrowed money from the Jews Benade, his son Yose Benade, Abraham Uziel, and Yose de Muños (the transcription of his family name is uncertain), and Rabi David. These Jews sold the borrowers merchandise on credit at very high prices on to the renuevo plan; this transaction ruined the borrowers because of debts that accumulated during the following decade. The debtors therefore requested an order from the Crown that the interest they had paid should be refunded to them, claiming that they had already paid for the merchandise, which was the principal debt (‘debda prinçipal’). They also requested the Crown to appoint a reliable man, resident in the town and its district, who should see that justice was done, because their creditors might leave the kingdom without refunding the money they had taken illicitly, and to ensure that the Jews gave security in response to the claims of the injured parties. As noted, the Crown acceded to this request, basing its decision on the law against interest passed at Madrigal in 1476.166 Pedro González de la Fuente, a resident of Peñafiel, tried to defend the Christian residents of Curiel and Peñafiel. In his pity for Christians who owed money to Jews who were going into exile, he had lent them money. In return, they had given him promissory notes. When the those debts fell due, the debtors had recourse to the Crown’s order placing a lien on debts to the Jews, and refused to pay him. The council and the Crown accepted his claim and viewed his action as a work of mercy. On 30 April 1493 they ordered the magistrates of Curiel and Peñafiel and their districts (as well as all village magistrates to whom the order might be shown), to help him collect what was owed to him.167

Villasilos Similar action was apparently taken regarding a loan contracted by the council and ‘good men’ of Villasilos, a behetría or free town directly subject to the Crown.168 They were in the practice of borrowing money at interest from the Jews Samuel Santo and their property and debts. Among the property was that belonging to the family of Rabi Mose Najera, the Jayat family, and Don Bueno Abulafia (on whom see n. 287 below). Najera’s wife, Doña Fadueña, acted in their name. The property was sold to Don Juan Téllez Girón, the Count of Urueña, and included flour mills on the River Duratón that served the general population. A document dated 15 June 1492 describes how ownership of the mills was transferred, by delivery of the keys, to Francisco de Cabrera, the governor of Peñafiel, and the appointment of Christian millers to operate the millstones in the mills. Rabi Yose Husiel was present at the transfer, representing Doña Fadueña. The sum of 60,000 mrs was paid for the mills. Similarly an installation for the soaking of cloth was sold. For the document, see AHN, Osuna, Leg. 97, Doc. 7. Two additional documents dated 30 July 1493 report the confiscation of property from Diego de Soto, Gonzalo de Soto, and Juan de Soto, residents of Peñafiel, who were tried in an Inquisitional tribunal in Palencia. The confiscated property was real estate, and these documents might refer to the members of one of the aforementioned families who had converted to Christianity. The property had belonged in the past to Doña Fadueña and Rabi Yuda the physician (‘fisico’), who had farmed the tercia taxes. The queen permitted the sale of the property, which was executed by Gaspar Lopéz de Gricio, the receiver of property confiscated by the Inquisition in Palencia. It was sold for 40,000 mrs to Juan Téllez Girón. See AHN, Osuna, Leg. 97, Doc. 15. A copy of the decision of the Cortes is attached to the document. See RGS 10 No. 1113, fo. 96, dated 30 Apr. 1493. It was drafted by Fernando de Cisneros in Olmedo 168 with the approbation of the Council of the North and Ports. Near Castrojeriz. 166 167

158

jewish‒christian credit

Mose, a resident of Castrojeriz, in 1486, despite the prohibitions of Madrigal and Toledo. They had repaid the principal of their debt in full or in large part; however, Andrés Benítez, who petitioned the Crown on their behalf, had no receipts or proof of his claim that the interest was usurious, or of the amount of the principal within the total debt. The creditors demanded payment of the interest, which had increased with the passage of time. The injury to the debtors was grave, making it difficult for them to subsist.169 Benítez asked the Crown to prohibit the creditors from suing the debtors for failure to pay the debt, selling the promissory notes to those who wished ill to the petitioners, and requiring them to take an oath as to how much they had paid or whether they had paid at all. He received a response from the Crown on 5 July 1492, ordering the corregidores and the magistrates to act according to the law of Madrigal,170 because this was an explicit case of usury. They were to act with severity and without negligence, on pain of being held to have violated the law of their lord the king.

Sahagún The Jews of Sahagún lodged a complaint against Christian residents of the town and its region who owed them a great deal of money. The Jews possessed contracts (‘contratos’) for the debts and other documents (‘otras escrituras’). Some of the debts were due, others were not. The debtors put off their creditors with delays, claiming that the debts were not yet due. If they had to wait until the payment date, they could not leave the kingdom in time, as they had been ordered to do. On the other hand, Jewish debtors had been seized and imprisoned, and if they were not released, they could not leave with the other exiles in time. They requested an order for immediate payment of the debts and the appointment of a trustworthy man to investigate their claims. The Crown acceded to this request and appointed Juan de Luzón, the corregidor of Carrión and Sahagún, on 7 June 1492. He was ordered to ensure that those owing money to the Jews, if the creditors were in possession of promissory notes which had fallen due, must pay at once. Otherwise the property of the debtors would be impounded. Regarding debts not yet due, the parties were to be summoned before him for a hearing.171

Torralba, San Yuste, Aldehuela A document dated 16 July 1492 describes the fate of the inhabitants of Torralba, San Yuste, Aldehuela, whose crops and flocks were damaged by hailstorms.172 In order to pay their taxes, they were forced to borrow money at interest from Jews, who, being about to leave the country, sold the promissory notes to Christians—powerful men 169 According to the petitioner, they had been required to pay interest for six, five, four, three, and two years. In fact, they had committed a transgression simply by agreeing to take a loan at usurious interest, although the decrees of Madrigal and Toledo mention the prohibition against lending money for interest and not taking a loan. See RGS 9 No. 2402, fo. 171. 170 The law was copied in full in the order so the recipient would know how to act. The order was given with the approbation of the Council of the North and Ports. It was drafted by Juan Sánchez de Ceinos. 171 This order contains no reference to the Jews imprisoned for not paying their debts. See RGS 9 No. 2264, fo. 180, issued with the approbation of the Council of the North and Ports, comprising Gonzalo González de Illescas and Dr Francisco Núñez. 172 ‘Por las fortunas pasadas de la piedra que destruyeron todos los frutos de pan e vinos, frutas de aquella tierra e avn muchos de los ganados della’; see RGS 9 No. 2449, fo. 202.

jewish‒christian credit

159

(‘onbres poderosos’), the alcaides of the citadels—at a discount; this apparently refers to sale of the debts at the price of the principal. The purchasers of the notes intended to collect the full amount. If this happened, they, their wives, and their children would be lost, and it would be best for them to leave the land (‘dexar la tierra’). They therefore asked the Crown to require the purchasers of the promissory notes to collect only the principal of the loan. The Crown, with the approbation of the Council of the North and Ports, accepted this petition and required the council, the magistrates, and the local authorities to act as though the debt were owed directly to the Jews, based on the law of Madrigal.173 Thus the purchasers of the notes became moneylenders; this was a sign of things to come.

Villalosada, Lumbreras, Hortigosa A collective petition of the inhabitants of the towns of Villalosada, Lumbreras, Hortigosa, on land owned by Pedro Manriqye, Duke of Nájera, describes debts owed by them to the Jewish community of Soria. The terms agreed all involved fraude de usura for considerable amounts of money. The Jews who were about to leave and those who had already left had passed the promissory notes and agreements on to Christians and Moors, or else to special agents whom they had appointed probably with the intention of going to nearby Navarre or Portugal and keeping in permanent contact with them. The Crown, taking note of the debtors’ distress, on 20 April 1492 forbade collection of their debts from either themselves or their sureties, and distraint on their property.174 The corregidores, magistrates, alcaldes, and the merinos of Soria and the other places were to investigate what part of those debts was accumulated interest and to act in accordance with the decisions of the Cortes of Toledo.175

Calahorra, Burgos, Soria An illustration of financial relations between Christians and Jews can be found in the economic ties and partnerships between Bienveniste de Calahorra and Francisco de las Heras, a merchant from Burgos. The two men bought wool from inhabitants of Lumbreras, Villalosada, and Las Tenas, on the lands of the Duke of Nájera. The sum of the principal came to 125,000 mrs. Bienveniste de Calahorra, who went into exile, sold his part—one-half—together with promissory notes of Christians who owed him money, to Francisco de las Heras,176 who also bought promissory notes from Jews who went This law was attached to the document, which was drafted by Alonso del Mármol. See RGS 9 No. 2501, fo. 89. The document recites that it was issued in Peñafiel, but according to the itinerary of the monarchs’ journeys, they were in Valladolid on that day and did not reach Peñafiel until 27 July 1492. The document was published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 453–4. An additional document regarding the residents of these three villages on the lands of the Duke of Nájera, Pedro Manrique, dates from 18 Jan. 1493; RGS 10 No. 126, fo. 173, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council of Castile. It concerns the sale to a merchant from Burgos, Francisco de las Heras, of promissory notes for wool sold to Jews by the shepherds from these towns, vassals of the duke; it does not state the amounts of the debts. The Crown ordered Juan de Ribera (on whom see below) to answer the petition of Ruiz de Asturias, who had entered the plea in the duke’s name. 175 The order was drafted by Fernán Álvarez de Toledo in the name of the Crown. 176 See RGS 10 No. 1250, fo. 297, dated 13 May 1493, drafted by Francisco de Badajoz with the approbation of the council of Castile. On Bienveniste de Calahorra, see elsewhere in this chapter. 173 174

160

jewish‒christian credit

into exile. They had advanced money for future payment of wool to shepherds who were vassals of the duke, residents of the aforementioned localities.177 The Crown ordered Juan de Ribera, a member of the Crown Council who had also served as the corregidor of the province of Guipúzcoa and captain-general of the Navarrese border, to respond to the request of the duke and his vassals, who were partners in the transaction, to hear the parties and to see to the execution only of those that involved no usury. Bienveniste de Calahorra was a resident of Soria and engaged in many and various business ventures. He went in exile to Portugal, leaving registers of debts and promissory notes in the hands of two residents of his city, Juan Alonso de Sahagún and his son Andrés de Escóbar. The Crown accused Bienveniste of smuggling forbidden items to Portugal, and seized upon this transgression as a pretext to confiscate the property he had left behind, including the debts that Christians owed him. The Crown ordered Fernán Gómez de la Cuera, the magistrate in charge of Jewish property, to take the register of debts from the two men, to collect all the debts, and to confiscate the property for the benefit of the Royal Treasury. He was to confiscate everything owned by the two: grain, wool, monetary debts, and flocks. What he collected in the diocese of Osma, the city of Burgos, and its diocese, within its boundaries, would be transferred to the Royal Treasury. All the residents whose obligations to Bienveniste Juan and Andrés had purchased were required to pay those debts to the receiver of Jewish property. The corregidores of Burgos and of Soria were ordered to assist in this action.178 The methods used by La Cuera in collecting these debts is indicated by a later order, dated 28 July 1495, to the corregidor of Soria, Diego de Salmerón,179 who was to deal with the petition of Antón Fernández de Morales, a recognized public notary (‘escribano público de número’) in Soria. Bienveniste de Calahorra was and remained in debt to him for wool and other articles totalling about 20,000 mrs. For some reason Antón Fernández had not realized this sum from Bienveniste’s assets. When he came to collect it from La Cuera, the receiver refused to pay him and put him off with excuses. The Crown ordered the corregidor of Soria to investigate this complaint.180 177 RGS 10 No. 126, fo. 173, issued in Barcelona on 18 Jan. 1493, prepared by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council of Castile. This document does not state the value of the purchase, only that the transaction involved interest. On 2 Mar. 1493 Juan de Ribera was ordered to ensure that guarantees were given by Francisco de las Heras to ensure the rights of the vassals of the Duke of Nájera, who argued in their defence. See RGS 10 No. 513, fo. 132. For his part the duke placed a lien on the wool and made certain that his claims were heard. The same Bienveniste de Calahorra might also be referred to in a document dated 7 Sept. 1494 (RGS 11 No. 2768, fo. 295). He sold four mules and a year-old suckling (‘cría’) on credit to Andrés Cabeza, a resident of Hinojosa de la Sierra, who paid him interest on the purchase. The overseer of Jewish property, Fernán Gómez de la Cueva, confiscated the animals on the pretext that they still belonged to Jews. Cabeza petitioned the council that the interest he had paid to Bienveniste should be included in the amount of the purchase. The Crown ordered Cueva to adjudicate the plea. 178 Issued on 30 Apr. 1495. See RGS 12 No. 1967, fo. 392, drafted by Fernán Álvarez de Toledo, the monarchs’ secretary. Judging by the man who drafted the order, it should be seen as important and determined directly by the Crown. The order was issued with the approbation of the licenciado Gonzalo Fernández Gallego, a member of the tribunal for Jewish property. 179 According to an order dated 17 Nov. 1494 he was in charge of Jewish property in the diocese of Osma, RGS 12 No. 3847, fo. 218. 180 See RGS 12 No. 2940, fo. 325. The order mentions the sanction of loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs for failure to comply. The draftsman’s name is missing.

jewish‒christian credit

161

Pedrosa de Redible Residents of Pedrosa de Redible, the brothers Juan and Rodrigo de Lodoso had obligations to Jews, apparently from as early as the end of 1491 or the beginning of 1492. They were to pay Rabi Ephraim, a man named Bali, and Cresçent, residents of Burgos, the sum of 8,000 or 9,000 mrs for wheat (‘çierto trigo’) they had bought from them at the price of 600 mrs a measure (‘carga fiada’). In fact they had returned the wheat to them at the price of 60 mrs a fanega, and arrangements were made for them to pay back the loan in instalments because of their poverty. The outstanding debt amounted to four times the original loan, and the promissory notes remained in the creditors’ possession. When the Jews were about to go into exile, the brothers were seized by their creditors and arrested. Even their wives’ clothing was taken, as was the family’s bedding. They remained in detention for sixty days or more. Being unable to impound more belongings, the Jews delivered the promissory notes to Christian creditors, who pursued the brothers and forced them to give them new notes, which were fraudulent (‘obligaçiones fraudulosas’). Fearing renewed incarceration, they fled and were now wandering through the countryside with their families in complete destitution. In their petition to the Crown they claimed to have paid what was due to the Jews, and therefore they requested the Crown to prevent further pursuit for debts already discharged. The corregidor of Burgos, García de Cotes, or alternatively the resident magistrate, was ordered to convene the parties, hear their arguments, and issue a decision according to the Crown edict of 23 February 1493.181 Although the preceding petition refers to events that occurred after the Jews’ departure, the issue of their debts was not concluded once they had left.

Collection of Christians’ Debts to Jews after the Expulsion Laguardia Circumstances after the departure of the Jews eventually forced the government to reconsider debts still outstanding and state the resulting problems. Manifestly the conditions prevailing between the promulgation on 1 May 1492 of the Edict of Expulsion and the last day of the Jews’ presence in Spain, 31 July 1492, were entirely different from any seen before. Thereafter Christians would have no Jewish creditors, although certain loose ends would remain to be tied up. As early as 6 August 1492 we find an order from the Catholic Monarchs to the magistrates of Laguardia in the north of the kingdom, as well as to the magistrates of the realm at large, regarding a Jew named Osua, a resident of the town who had moved to Genevilla (Xenevilla) in Navarre and whose petition reached the Royal Council.182 Having failed to collect the debts that Christians in the town owed him, despite possessing written contracts and obligations, he feared that they would take advantage of his absence not to pay him what was due. With the approbation of the Crown Council, the magistrates of Laguardia were 181 RGS 11 No. 551, fo. 185, dated 1 Mar. 1494, drafted with the approbation of the council by Alonso del Mármol. 182 RGS 9 No. 2618, fo. 109. It was drafted by Francisco de Badajoz in Agreda and is published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 458–9. On this town and its connections to Amusco see Ch. 5.

162

jewish‒christian credit

ordered to convene the parties as soon as possible in order to hear their claims. Since the Jewish creditor was evidently unable to appear before the magistrates, he must have been represented by a Christian attorney, who petitioned the Crown. Hence Jews in exile could maintain connections with Christians in Spain. The urgent nature of this appeal can be explained by the intention of Ferdinand and Isabella to expel the Jews of Navarre as well. The arrangement for settling these debts may well indicate that they were interest-free.183 The instruction to list the debts owed to Jewish creditors who returned and converted to Christianity is confirmed in an order of the Crown to the magistrates of the royal court, issued on 20 August 1495.184 They were required to announce, certainly to the local magistrate, what debts Christians owed them and had not been collected. The debts involving excessive interest (‘logro’) were not to be collected. However, this provision apparently refers only to the interest, not to the principal of the debt. In his appeal to the Crown and the council, Juan García de Janusilla referred to this order,185 which does not mention the Jewish creditor. However, this petition also names Pero Martínez de Araya, a resident of Laguardia, who had a debt of this kind. Regarding him we know that he owed a sum not exceeding 3,000 mrs to Antonio de Cuevas, who went into exile and then returned to Spain and converted to Christianity. Pero Martínez tried to avoid paying him. On 13 October 1495 Cuevas obtained an order to collect the debt.186 A relatively late document, dated 10 August 1496, provides information about the involvement of Jews in loans to Christian residents, peasants, and artisans in Laguardia. Diego de Paganos, arguing on behalf of ten residents, complained about Alonso del Castillo, the prosecuting magistrate for Jewish property in the diocese of Calahorra,187 who had seized their property and sold it at public auction. The residents, because of their ignorance and his threats, feared to take any measures against him. Several of them were orphans and minors. Diego de Paganos addressed the Crown in their name requesting the cessation of legal action against his clients. The Crown responded to him with the approbation of one of the judges on the appeals court regarding Jewish property and debt,188 ordering the cessation of legal action within thirty days from 15 August 1496, while giving both sides the possibility of appearing before the judges of the appeals court to present their claims.189 183 Failure to comply with the order would be punished by a fine of 10,000 mrs payable to the Royal Treasury. People appealing against the order were required to appear before the council within fifteen days. 184 See RGS 12 No. 3205, fo. 142, drafted with the approbation of the council by Alonso del Mármol. 185 His name seems to indicate that he originated from the town of Genevilla in Navarre, see above. If we assume that he was a Jew who had returned from Navarre and converted to Christianity, this debt would 186 See RGS 112 No. 3722, fo. 302. be owed to a converso. 187 The residents were Fernán Álvarez, Una Tejedor, Juan de Leza, Pedro Sánchez del Portal, Fernando de Mediavilla, Juan de Orta[ ]ses, Pedro el herrero (blacksmith), Juan de Xenebilla, and the sons of the deceased Martín Fernández. See RGS 13 No. 1419, fo. 178. 188 Apparently he was the licenciado Gonzalo Sánchez de Castro, who was the president of this court. It was also with his approbation that Antonio de Almendares drafted the order, see RGS 13 No. 1419, fo. 178. 189 They were to appear within fifteen days. The notary or notaries who recorded the actions of Alonso del Castillo in Laguardia were to transmit the judicial material within six days, closed and sealed, and the sanction to the notaries would be loss of their places, RGS 13 No. 1419, fo. 178. Most likely it is within the framework of Christian debts to Jews that one must view the decision of Diego de Ayala, the prosecuting

jewish‒christian credit

163

Torregalindo The complaints addressed to the Crown hereafter are mainly those of Christians. They concern Jewish creditors and Christians who, by purchasing promissory notes, effectively became the Jews’ partners in moneylending. Selling notes was a simple way for the Jews to obtain money to take into exile, though we find other forms of private arrangements between Jewish creditors and Christian debtors. García de Almoguera addressed the council of Castile explaining that he had owed Jaco Aben Simon the sum of 5,000 mrs, which he had taken as an interest-bearing loan. He had paid the principal, but the promissory note had not been returned. Jaco Aben Simon, a resident of Torregalindo who had gone into exile, delivered the notes to the alcaide of the town before his departure. The alcalde demanded the remainder of the debt from García de Almoguera, whose claim that he had paid it went unheeded, although the Jewish creditor would have been able to confirm it. The promissory note had apparently been delivered or sold to the alcaide even before the expulsion, with the clear intention of settling debts. The alcaide, for his part, had passed the note on to the alcalde of Aranda, Alfonso González de Curiel, who had issued a writ against García de Almoguera, placing a lien on his property. The latter argued before the council that not only had the debt been paid already, but it was also an interest-bearing loan, and the Christian alcaide was therefore a usurer; it was therefore fitting for the Crown to take steps against the alcaide and that such punishments should be imposed upon him as were common in the kingdom for transgressions of this kind. Almoguera also asked the Crown to annul the lien upon his property. The Crown responded, with the approbation of the council of Castile, by ordering Curiel and the other magistrates of Torregalindo (and every judge to whom the order or a notarized copy of it should be shown) to commence legal proceedings against the alcaide of Torregalindo. Legal action against Almoguera was to be stayed.190 Under these conditions the Crown was required, as noted, to take a position regarding Christian creditors who sought to profit from the new situation by demanding that Christians pay their debts. Contrariwise, debtors sought to avoid all payment of what they owed and to benefit from the current chaos in the credit system. The logical step at that time seemed to be to freeze all debts and thus force creditors to turn to the Crown for permission to collect debts, if indeed they were real debts and they possessed authentic promissory notes. In taking these decisions the Crown had its hands full, and the burden of settling the appeals generally fell upon the faithful corregidores in their respective posts. At the same time the Crown received most important information on magistrate for Jewish property in Ciudad Rodrigo, requiring Juan Flórez to pay the Crown the sum of 21,400 mrs, which he owed to the Jew Yose del Arari. Detailed information about the transaction is lacking, but Flórez was able to appeal against this decision and transfer it to the jurisdiction of the judges of the appeals court for Jewish matters and the outstanding debts owed to them by Christians. The decision of the alcalde Gonzalo Sánchez de Castro and the licenciados Gonzalo Fernández Gallego, Luis Polanco, and Pedro del Mercado was to transfer jurisdiction over the claim to themselves. See RGS 12 No. 2424, fo. 368, issued in May (day missing) 1495; drafted by Andrés de Herida, with the approbation of those magistrates. 190 The punishment for non-compliance was a fine of 10,000 mrs payable to the Royal Treasury. The order was drafted in Valladolid by Fernando de Cisneros, issued on 4 Sept. 1492. Its reference number is RGS 9 No. 2874, fo. 268.

164

jewish‒christian credit

the extent of outstanding credit, which gave it an opportunity to learn where and in whose hands money and notes were found. The value of this information was not to be underestimated, for the Crown was in financial straits and constantly sought additional sources of revenue. Moreover, information about the state of credit at the time reveals the pulse of daily life in Spain after the expulsion of the Jews and permits comparison with the earlier period. However, it is certain that only a small amount of this information reached the Crown and the special court that was established to deal with the problem of Jewish debts and property. Indeed on 9 September 1492 the Catholic Monarchs ordered the members of the council, the oidores and magistrates, the corregidores, the asistentes, the alguaciles, and the merinos throughout the kingdom in the matter of ‘farming taxes and the loans that were given against guarantees of crops, silk, and brocades, and other things at prices higher than their value and other interest agreements which were made with the intention of fraude de usura’.191 The Jews had sold the debts to Christian residents, subjects of the kingdom, and they had collected them as though they were transparent debts (‘debdas liquidas’). The Royal Council discussed which debts were to be paid and which were not. The council determined that it was to have authority as to what was to be performed, ‘therefore these debts will remain outstanding, and the agreements reached in relation to them will not be implemented’.192 Even if new notes had been issued to those who had bought the original promissory notes from the Jews, it was forbidden to collect these debts, ‘even if they are collected for the benefit of the Crown or against it’,193 until the Crown should order what was to be done with them. All those in possession of promissory notes must retain them. Their collection was frozen and prohibited (‘embargados’), and no settlement by anyone would be permitted without the explicit permission of the Crown.194 Once policy had been determined, on 6 October 1492 the Crown issued an order 191 ‘Las rentas que de nos tenian arrendadas como pan e maravedis que avian dado a logro e de paños e sedas e brocados e otras cosas que avian fiado a muy mayores presçios de como valian e otros contrabtos vsurarios e fechos en fraude de vsura’, see RGS 9 No. 3268, fo. 227, dated 7 Nov. 1492, and issued with the approbation of the Council of the North and Ports consisting of the licenciado Gonzalo Gonzáles de Illescas, Dr Francisco Núñez, the licenciado Juan de Pedrosa, and the licenciado Juan de Traja. It was published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 481–3. See also RGS 9 No. 490, fo. 148, of 4 Dec. 1492, an order intended for the judges of Cuéllar and for everyone who implemented the decisions of the town. The order of 9 Sept. was prepared by Juan de la Parra and signed by the chanceller Francisco de Badajoz. There are few differences between the two documents. One copy of this order, issued in Zaragoza on 10 Sept. 1492, is incorporated in full in that issued on 30 Mar. 1494 after residents of Revilla Mamolar had complained of attempts to collect debts from them on the basis of promissory notes previously held by Jews. The fine for non-compliance was 25,000 mrs, payable to the Royal Treasury. See RGS 10 No. 856, fo. 359, drafted in Olmedo by Fernando de Cisneros, with the approbation of the Council of the North and Ports. On the problems of interest and credit see also E. Cantera Montenegro, ‘Relaciones judeocristianas en la diócesis de Osma en el último tercio del siglo XIV’, in F. Ruiz Gómez and M. Espadas Burgos (eds.), Encuentros en Sefarad: Actas del Congreso Internacional ‘Los judíos en la historia de España’ (Ciudad Real, 1987), 122 ff. 192 ‘Es nuestra merçed suspender la paga de las dichas debdas e la esecuçion de los contrabtos que por ellos estan fechas’, RGS 10 No. 856, fo. 359. 193 ‘Aunque las dichas debdas se cobran por nos e contra nos’, ibid. 194 The fine for non-compliance was 10,000 mrs payable to the Royal Treasury. The contents of the edict were to be proclaimed in public squares and markets in the cities and towns and everywhere where it was common to proclaim the decrees of the Crown.

jewish‒christian credit

165

to Juan de Ribera, who in addition to his other duties was the asistente of the cities of Calahorra, Logroño, Alfaro, and Santo Domingo.195 The preamble to the order states that the Jews who had dwelt in the kingdom had many and various businesses, lent money, and bought and sold merchandise, grain, cloth, wool, flocks, and other things, and that Christians remained in debt to them, just as they too owed money to Christians. They had received promissory notes and obligations for loans involving interest and usury as if the debts were transparent and binding. Before going into exile, they had transferred the promissory notes to various people, some to cover debts they owed to Christians. They had also sold some promissory notes to Christians or delivered them to Christians for collection, as if those Christians were their agents. This arrangement had clearly been made under the assumption that the money would reach those Jews in some manner, for they had apparently not gone far away from the Spanish border. That is to say, they were in Navarre or Portugal.196 The new collectors of the debts, the creditors, were pursuing Christians, whose debts they had received for collection. Thus they were collecting usurious debts as though they were true debts (‘debdas liquidas e verdaderas’).197

Calahorra, Logroño, Alfaro, and Santo Domigo Later the Crown expressed full confidence in Juan de Ribera and appointed him to ensure that all the debts that Christians still owed to Jews were registered in the towns of Calahorra, Logroño, Alfaro, and Santo Domingo, in the merindad of Rioja, and in the districts of the Duke of Nájera, the dukes Don Sancho and Don Luis de Velasco, and Don Juan de Leyba, and of the other caballeros in that merindad and in the district of Rioja. Those who held debts of that kind for collection should come and make a declaration before him. Moreover they were required to declare under oath how much they had collected, and if the debts had been collected for Jews, they were to be impounded; this list was to be transmitted without delay to the Crown. In the list the amount of the debt was to be registered and who were the Jews to whom Christians owed money; who those Christians were, and who possessed the promissory notes for collection. Then the Crown would decide what to do with them. Ribera was also ordered to convene the parties, both the Christian debtors and the new collectors and creditors, and to clarify how much interest had been added to the debts, and whether the promissory notes had been drafted fraudulently so as to circumvent the laws forbidding interest, as determined in the Cortes of Madrigal. After this investigation he was permitted to allow the collection of the true amount of the debt in the case of transparent debts. The creditors were permitted to add expenses, interest, and risk (‘gastos e yntereses e riesgo’) such as they had when they took it upon themselves to serve as the collectors of those debts.198 195 For the asistente see n. 32; his jurisdiction extended over such places as the Crown saw fit. The order begins by reciting that a similar order had been issued to the corregidor of Soria and the Bishop of Osma. 196 I believe the Genoese were also partners in these transactions. On their part in implementing the expulsion, see Ch. 5 below. 197 These details are presented in the preamble of the document, showing the need for a clear and precise description of the conditions that existed in the realm after the departure of the Jews. 198 The reference number of the order is RGS 9 No. 3188, fo. 57, issued in Zaragoza on 6 Oct. 1492,

166

jewish‒christian credit

This order should probably be supplemented with one issued on 14 October 1492 to the corregidor of Segovia, Día Sánchez de Quesada. He, too, had been ordered to clarify what debts remained to be collected there, to list them, and to ascertain whether they were bona fide debts, and only then was their collection to be permitted. The debt must be sold to the Christians for the original amount, in order to prevent the collection of interest from Christians by Christians; but debts for the farming of taxes should be collected without delay. The corregidor was ordered to submit a detailed list of the debts, to be made after the Christian purchasers of the promissory notes had sworn to their good faith. Debts that proved to involve interest should be treated according to the laws of the Cortes of Madrigal.199

Segovia After 1492 the task of dealing with the property and debts of the Jews in Segovia and its diocese fell to Lesmes de Mazuelo.200 His methods are apparent in a complaint against him addressed to the council, alcaldes, corregidores, and ‘good men’ of El Espinar de Segovia. He had allegedly collected from Christian debtors in arbitrary fashion. These were apparently loans at interest that they had taken from Jews in Segovia before the expulsion. Together with the notaries he had allegedly taken percentages from the debtors. The Crown explicitly forbade him to act in this manner, since his salary came from the Crown.201 Nor does the notaries’ behaviour leave any room for doubt regarding their methods.202 Most probably these were not exceptional instances.

Cuéllar Benito Gómez, a resident of the town of Bahabón, in the district of Cuéllar, petitioned the Crown with the following tale: he had taken a loan from a Jew who then went into exile, and had mortgaged his crop as security.203 Either the creditor was not drafted by Juan de la Parra as ordered by the Crown: published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 473–6. On 20 Mar. 1493 Juan de Ribera was ordered to investigate the petition to the Crown of Juan de Leiva Maestresala concerning promissory notes of Jews that some Jews who conducted their business in the village of Leiva had transferred to him. The debts were from the district of the diocese of Calahorra. He was directed to act according to the instructions issued on 20 Mar. 1493 and according to the cédula issued in relation to the processes of collection on 6 Mar. 1493. See RGS 10 No. 712, fo. 196. 199 See RGS 9 No. 3196, fo. 58, drafted by Fernán Álvarez de Toledo, the Crown secretary, with the approbation of members of the Royal Council. On debts remaining in Segovia, see below. 200 According to the document dated 4 Sept. 1494 his title was ‘Pesquisidor de los bienes de los judios que pasaron moneda fuera de nuestros reynos’, RGS 11 No. 2709, fo. 181. On 7 Nov. 1495 his title was ‘Reçeptor de los bienes que fueron de los judios’. See Appendix. On the Coronel brothers, see below, Ch. 8. 201 The fine for non-compliance was 100,000 mrs payable to the Royal Treasury. This is exceptionally high. See RGS 11 No. 3738, fo. 180, dated 11 Oct. 1494. He was ordered to refund the money he had collected, as were the notaries. 202 On 17 Nov. 1494 he was ordered to cease all debt collection from the residents of the place who at that time were with their flocks in Extremadura. He had sold their property in their absence. The order was to remain in force until 1 Mar. 1495. Only after the residents returned and presented their claims was he to be permitted to deal with those debts, RGS 11 No. 3840, fo. 361. On him see Ch. 8. 203 ‘Tomado fiado a logro çierto pan de vn judio que ovo de yr de nuestros reynos’, RGS 9 No. 3268, fo. 227. Benito Gómez was in detention, as we learn from an order issued on 8 May 1493. His son Fernando addressed the Crown and asked for his release from detention and for the removal of the lien on his father’s

jewish‒christian credit

167

identified in the petition, or the Crown neglected to record the name; but clearly he was a resident of Cuéllar, with business dealings there, for he transferred the debt to the mayordomo of the Duke of Albuquerque, whose name was Villamayor. The latter had demanded the debt from Benito Gómez, who did not pay it; he therefore confiscated a mule worth 5,000 mrs according to Benito Gómez, and sold it for 780 mrs. The Crown saw fit to act in favour of the petitioner, perhaps in order to prevent further arbitrary actions, and ordered the mayordomo to return the animal and to pay rent for the time that it had been working for the purchaser. Again it was stated that he was to act in accordance with the new order, issued on 9 September 1492, which was attached to the instructions given to the magistrates of Cuéllar.204 Rabi Shemaia, also a resident of Cuéllar, extended loans against future crops; this may have been his main source of income. Pedro and Fernando Antón of Iscar obligated themselves to repay him a loan in kind at the rate of 200 mrs a fanega, though its market price was only 100 mrs. Before leaving for exile, Shemaia sold the debt to Juan de la Mesa, a resident of Navalmanzano, a village in the district of Cuéllar, and to other buyers. The creditors managed to persuade the provisores and clergy of Segovia to excommunicate the debtors, and also sued for payment. In their petition to the Crown, the debtors claimed that they did not have to pay twice. From their argument it appears that they had paid the principal of their debt to Shemaia, and the doubled price per fanega must be seen as hidden and usurious interest. The legal grounds for their petition was the decree of the Crown dated 10 September 1492 that proclaimed the cessation of debt collection and forbade the imposition of liens and detention of debtors for that purpose.205 property. The imprisonment was effected by Gonzalo de Porras and Fernando de Valderas, both of whom were agents (‘entregadores’) in the Cuéllar district. In response, the Crown ordered Benito Gómez to be transferred from detention to the seat of the Council of the North and Ports, Valladolid, and with him all the documents regarding his son’s petition. Anyone violating this order would be fined 20,000 mrs, payable for public works ordered by the Crown, to be built in Granada. See RGS 10 No. 1164, fo. 320. 204 The instruction was also addressed to the other magistrates of the kingdom. It was drafted by Fernando de Cisneros with the approbation of licenciado Gonzalo González de Illescas, Dr Francisco Núñez, and the licenciados Juan de Pedrosa and Juan de Traja. 205 The order of 10 Sept. 1492 is attached to the document. See RGS 10 No. 152, fo. 175, dated 21 Jan. 1493. It was drafted by Sancho Ruiz del Cuero with the approbation of the council. The sanction for noncompliance was loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 20,000 mrs for the construction of public works in Granada. Support for this transaction with the clergy in Segovia is found in a later order, dated 3 May (RGS 11 No. 1691, fo. 296). Alfonso Sánchez Gallego, a resident of Navalmanzano, lodged a complaint with the Crown against the magistrates of Cuéllar for not reaching a decision in a suit of his against the clergy, whose names and positions are not mentioned in the order (it indicates only that they are ‘canonicos’). Sánchez Gallego borrowed money to buy grain at usurious interest from Rabi Shemaia, who went into exile and transmitted the promissory note for collection to some clergy who demanded the full amount of the debt from Sánchez Gallego. The Crown ordered them to follow the laws of the Cortes of Madrigal and to reach a decision without delay. Perhaps these debts should also be connected to the transfer of debts executed by Jews who went into exile for collection by Juan de Salazar, the alcalde of the citadel of Cuéllar. These debts amounted to 50,000 mrs, for which Salazar was given the promissory notes of Christians. Since a lien had been placed on these debts, he requested permission from the Crown to collect them. The Crown ordered Día Sánchez de Quesada to act according to the instruction of 26 Feb. 1493 and to convene the parties to testify before him. The decision must be such that Juan de Salazar should have no further reason to address the Crown,

168

jewish‒christian credit

Horumbrada Alonso de la Calle, a resident of the village of Horumbrada (today Olombrada), owed Mose Bienveniste, a resident of Cuéllar, 3 fanegas of wheat, which, with the addition of interest, were now valued at 5 fanegas, and another 5 fanegas of barley. The monetary value of the interest was 1,200 mrs. La Calle also owed Judah Albuquerque, a resident of Cuéllar, 5 fanegas of oats (‘avenas’). The town magistrate, without hearing his claims and without deducting the interest from the debt, ordered him to pay Diego Vázquez, a regidor of the town of Cuéllar, 10 silver reales in return for the 5 fanegas of oats. Evidently Judah Albuquerque had sold him the debt; La Calle had been imprisoned for not paying it and remained in detention for four months. The magistrate also ordered him to pay Fernando Gómez, who served as the town’s agent (‘entregador’), for 5 fanegas of barley. To no avail did La Calle claim that he had paid the debt to Judah Albuquerque; the magistrate even ordered his property to be seized, contrary to the instructions of the Crown regarding debts of the Jews. La Calle requested cessation of the process of collecting his debts, the restoration of the pledges (‘prendas’) that had been taken from him, and exemption from payment for the steps that had been taken against him. The Crown Council that dealt with his petition ordered that the Crown’s order regarding debts, described above, should be observed.206

Guadalajara The foregoing examples are not only instructive regarding the system of credit connected with the harvest and dependent upon it, but they also show that it was a legitimate and accepted business, despite the harsh conditions it entailed. Similarly in Guadalajara the Jews were involved in loans secured against crops and commodities such as raw wool. The arrangements made for the transfer and sale of promissory notes are stark testimony to the system that must have prevailed in Spain for a very long time. Thus Sancho González de Plazuela of Guadalajara complained regarding the damage done him by the prohibition against collecting debts of this kind. Despite his claim that this was a transparent debt and not one based on usury, on 16 March 1493 the Crown ordered the corregidor of Madrid, Cristóbal de Toro, to act according to the instructions for collection issued on 26 February 1493.207 whose response to the petition is dated 2 Mar. 1493. See RGS 10 No. 520, fo. 108. The residents of Serón, in the district of Soria, also had recourse to this form of loan. According to their claim, the loans had been made at very high prices (‘a mayores precios’), and the Jews of Soria, who had gone into exile, had sold the promissory notes to powerful people (‘personas poderosas’). The Crown ordered the corregidor of Soria to summon the plaintiffs, whose names are not mentioned, and hear their claims. Debts for interest should not be collected. See RGS 10 No. 231, fo. 170, dated 30 Jan. 1493, drafted by Luis González, a royal secretary, with the approbation of the council of Castile. 206 See RGS 9 No. 3490, fo. 148, dated 4 Dec. 1492. The sanction for non-compliance with the order was a fine of 20,000 mrs for the execution of public works in Granada. The parties were required to appear before the council within fifteen days. The order was drafted by Fernando de Cisneros with the approbation of the same councillors as in n. 205. 207 See RGS 10 No. 672, fo. 75, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council of Castile-León.

jewish‒christian credit

169

Jadraque Before going into exile, a Jewish inhabitant of Jadraque, Jacob Luengo, transferred promissory notes for a debt owed him by Juan de Ríos and Martín García (both from Brihuega) to Diego de Brihuega, also a resident of that town. The amount of the debt was 3,700 mrs. Here the Crown responded to the petition of Diego de Brihuega by ordering the magistrate responsible for Jewish property in the diocese of Sigüenza to see that justice was done. Since the order was issued on 5 December 1494, perhaps the Crown had reasons of its own for departing from the strict policy it had adopted regarding debts, though it appears that there was no uniform policy here, but rather each case was decided on its own merits.208

Albacete Alfonso de Belmonte, a resident of Albacete, laid his problem before the Crown. When sorely pressed, he had obligated himself, in return for a loan, to supply Don Isaac Ibn David, a resident of Ocaña, 100 arrobas of olive oil at the price prevailing in Albacete, 100 mrs an arroba. The merchandise would also be delivered there. When Belmonte asked to put off payment for seven months, Isaac Ibn David imposed an obligation upon him to value the oil at 200 mrs an arroba, although this was against the law and forbidden by order of the Crown. The difference in price is the interest, and the borrower had to pay double for the loan. When the Jews went into exile, Don Isaac Ibn David sold the debt to Diego de Alcalá, a resident of Alcalá de Henares, at a very low price. The Christian creditor began to harass the debtor and caused his property to be sold publicly. Alfonso de Belmonte requested an order from the Crown annulling the sale. The Crown agreed and appointed Ruy Gómez de Ayala, the gobernador in the marquesado of Villena, or alternatively his clerk or substitute, as an arbitrator. He was to determine the price of oil in Ocaña at the time of the transaction, and that was the amount that Alfonso de Belmonte was to pay to the Christian creditor.209 In issuing this order the Crown was able to avoid deviating from the framework of the freezing of debts and still remedy the private difficulty of a resident of Albacete, a man of commercial initiative.

Torre A resident of Torre, within the limits of the town of Castroverde de Cerrato, Juan Zapatero (he might have been a cobbler), complained to the Crown regarding the 208 See RGS 11 No. 4206, fo. 123, drafted with the approbation of the council by Cristóbal de Vitoria. On the town of Brihuega, see Cantera Burgos and Carrete Parrondo, Sefarad, 33 (1973), 40–1. 209 RGS 9 No. 3306, fo. 77, drafted by Alonso del Mármol on 13 Nov. 1492, and issued with the approbation of the council of Castile. This complaint had further consequences. On 14 Feb. 1494 Ruy Gómez de Ayala was ordered to deal with another complaint lodged by Alonso de Belmonte against Diego de Alcalá: following that transaction a quantity of grain, 275 fanegas, was seized at the home of his father-in-law, Miguel Polo. The latter had first sold it to Diego de Alcalá for 75 mrs a fanega and then bought it back from the collections agent Juan Hortuno for 100 mrs a fanega. When payment fell due, Miguel Polo was sent to prison for four months. He had also seized from Alonso de Belmonte seven beasts of burden (‘reenas’) that were bearing fermented cider (‘çidra’), lemon peel (‘ponçil’), and sweet grapefruit (‘toronja dulçe’) valued at 8,000 mrs. The merchandise was on its way from Valencia to Guadalajara. He was required to pay 4,000 mrs for keeping the animals. The Crown responded to Belmonte’s complaint and ordered Ruy Gómez de Ísola to convene the parties and adjudicate the complaint. See RGS 11 No. 375, fo. 356, drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the council of Castile.

170

jewish‒christian credit

Archdeacon (‘arcediano’) of Cerrato.210 Juan Zapatero had borrowed 1,040 mrs from Mose Najera and 1,650 mrs from Abraham Uziel, both of whom were from Peñafiel. When the two lenders went into exile, they sold the debts to the aforementioned archdeacon. The borrower had paid 17 reales, but the archdeacon forced him to sign a new promissory note, transferring the entire debt directly to himself. After publication of the Crown decree regarding the freezing of debts, the archdeacon declared Zapatero excommunicate until he should have paid his debt. This was a severe measure to press payment, for the debtor could not remain where he was while under the ban. Zapatero requested an order rescinding his excommunication, claiming that the archdeacon was both an interested party and a judge (‘parte e jues’) in the matter. The petitioner requested that the royal judges should be commanded to maintain the edict regarding debts with its heavy punishments for those who disobeyed it, especially in the case of a loan bearing usurious interest. The Crown recognized that he had good reason to do so by issuing orders to the judges of the kingdom and the church in the spirit of his petition.211 We shall see to what degree clergymen were partners in loans and in the purchase of promissory notes from expelled Jews.

Plasencia The Crown did not, however, act in this manner when the debts to be collected were in its favour. On 27 November 1492 the Crown charged the comendador Pedro Suárez de San Pedro, a contino of the royal household, with certain tasks. In Plasencia and its diocese he was ordered to investigate the extent to which Jews leaving for exile had smuggled out gold, silver, coined money, and other items which it was forbidden to remove from the kingdom.212 He was also required to ascertain what debts Christians still owed to Jews, who those Jews were, what they had transferred to other people (that is, Christians or Moors), what they had deposited for collection, and what new promissory notes had been given for debts. The deposit of notes for collection indicates that those who had deposited them were dwelling in Portugal, not far from Plasencia. The exiles from that city apparently went to Portugal, just as it is likely that the Jews of northern Castile went to nearby Navarre. Pedro Suárez de San Pedro was ordered to arrest those who had drafted new promissory notes, to confiscate their property, and to place a lien on their debts.213 The Crown, convinced of the honesty and dependability of Pedro Suárez, also instructed him to collect 45,000 mrs of debts owed by Christians that the Jews had left behind, for which there were promissory notes, agreements, and transparent expenses. He was to collect that amount from all those who had received loans from the Jews; if they did not have ready cash, he was to collect the money from their property. The order required those who held the notes to pay Pedro Suárez RGS 9 No. 3398, fo. 149. The order was issued on 23 Nov. 1492 with the approbation of the Council of the North and Ports, consisting of Gonzalo González de Illescas, Juan de Pedrosa, and Juan de Traja. 212 For the document see RGS 9 No. 3427, fo. 221, drafted with the approbation of the Crown by Fernán Álvarez de Toledo, the Crown secretary. Published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 491–2. On the problem of smuggling, see below, Ch. 6. 213 The document states that the entire matter is presented at length, and it is likely that a list was attached to the order. Clearly there had been an appeal to the Crown on the part of the debtors. 210 211

jewish‒christian credit

171

without delay; he was permitted to summon anyone who, in his opinion, could provide information about these creditors. The following description might be connected to the same time: among those who left Plasencia was Yose Castano, who had obtained a judgment against Pero Suárez Villalobos, the regidor of Plasencia, concerning a debt of 30,000 mrs. Martín Pérez, the Crown receiver, ordered Pedro Maldonado, the prosecuting magistrate for Jewish property in Plasencia, to seize the defaulter’s property. Maldonado seized a vineyard and other property belonging to Villalobos. The latter, however, appealed against the seizure to the Crown appeal court with jurisdiction over Jewish property. While the appeal was pending, the corregidor of Plasencia was ordered to permit him to collect evidence, apparently in order to prove that the debt had involved interest or that it had been paid, so as to present it within forty days before the appeal court. Against this, the Crown claimed the property and alleged that he might have information about articles smuggled abroad by Castano; it was exempt from the need to produce witnesses to support its claim, the promissory note being basis enough for its demand that the property be realized to cover the debt. This suit between the Crown and a resident of Plasencia illustrates the Crown’s persistence in collecting debts for the Royal Treasury, as well as the strength of resistance against the Crown displayed by the regidor Pero Suárez de Villalobos.214

Villapadierna Let us return to the end of 1492. On 5 December 1492 Diego Ruiz de Villapadierna, a priest in the town of that name, obtained a writ ordering García Flamenque, an escribano in the town Valdearroyo, to accede to his demand. Forty days earlier, when the priest had been in Reinosa, in the merindad of Campo, he had addressed Diego de la Linda in the presence of Pedro de Asturias, the corregidor of the merindad, regarding property and promissory notes left behind by Solomon Farache. La Linda refused to deliver the papers to him and expressed himself publicly in a manner that would appear blasphemous: ‘that not God and not ourselves, our judges and not even the devil would force him to give anything’.215 The escríbano Flamenque had also been present; 214 See RGS 13 No. 630, fo. 65, dated 27 Apr. 1496. Pero Suárez de Villalobos was given forty days to produce witnesses, starting on 23 Apr. 1496. The order was drafted with the approbation of the court magistrates. Regarding the Crown’s methods, see also Ch. 8. A document from May 1495 (the day is missing) reports a special instance in which a promissory note was found. Among the books of Rabi Mose Caçes of Plasencia was found a recognizance (‘conoçimiento’) from Alonso Barnaldo de Queros. On the basis of this promissory note, Maldonado ruled in favour of the Crown receiver Martín Pérez. The document does not record the amount of the debt. Queros appealed against this judgment; the appeal judges permitted him to bring witnesses within nineteen days to vindicate him. In any event, Caçes had evidently left for exile, and his books remained behind in his home. See RGS 12 No. 2429, fo. 124. Perhaps the collection of debt from the Count of Nieva should be connected to this matter. Pedro Maldonado demanded it of him and ordered Martín Pérez to collect it among the debts of Christians to Jews. The amount of the claim was 128,244 mrs. The procurador of the Conde appealed this order in his name. The magistrates of the court responded and transferred adjudication of the claim to their tribunal. See RGS 12 No. 3062, fo. 77, dated 5 August 1495. 215 ‘Que aunque Dios gelo mandase nin nos nuestras justiçias nin aun el diablo que no se las daria’, RGS 9 No. 3501, fo. 120.

172

jewish‒christian credit

Villapadierna asked him for written testimony to La Linda’s words, but he avoided providing it. The Crown ordered the escríbano to prepare the testimony without delay, and to send it to the claimant signed with his seal.216

Villarrubia On the following day, 6 December 1492, the Catholic Monarchs, with the approbation of the members of the council, ordered the licenciado Juan de Valderrama, the corregidor of Madrid, to respond to the petition of Francisco de Bobadilla, maestresala and comendador of Villarrubia.217 Francisco de Bobadilla had let a farm (‘encomienda’) he owned in Villarrubia to the Jew Ibn Zadok. When the Jews were ordered to leave, to compensate Bobadilla, Ibn Zadok deposited promissory notes with him attesting to debts owed him by Christians for grain and money in the town. Because of the freezing of debts and the lien imposed on them by the Crown, the debtors were not willing to pay Bobadilla his due. Perhaps the petitioner’s status convinced the Crown to accede and to order the corregidor to summon the parties and ascertain whether indeed the debts were measure for measure (‘tanto por tanto’), which were the only ones it was permitted to collect.

Segovia At this time we find two orders given on the same day, 24 December 1492, to Día Sánchez de Quesada, the corregidor of Segovia, who was trusted by the Catholic monarchs. Juan de Segovia, under duress, took a loan at interest in 1491 from Jacob Galon in the amount of 24,000 mrs.218 In return for the loan, he undertook to pay 1,000 full fleeces of wool, the total value being 38,000 mrs.219 He delivered a promissory note to Jacob Galon, binding himself to deliver the wool on time. When the Jews left the kingdom, his creditor transferred the note to other people (‘a otras personas’), so that they could collect the 1,000 fleeces for which he had taken the loan. The promissory note that he gave Galon included hidden interest for the purpose of fraude de usura. Now he was being sued by the owners of the promissory note to supply the full amount of wool, as though the note had been a true loan (‘verdadera’). On 24 December 1492 the Crown issued contained clear instructions: the corregidor must hear the arguments of the sides and ascertain what loan was taken by Juan de Segovia and what obligation he had given for it, and if it should prove that ‘the loan was given for interest, or that there is proof of interest in it’, the debt must not be collected.220 The order repeated that it 216 The priest had to pay the expenses for preparing the testimony. If the escríbano had some reason for not giving the testimony, he was to appear before the council within ten days. The order was drafted by Sancho Ruiz del Cuero, with the approbation of the members of the Council of the North and Ports (consisting of Gonzalo González de Illescas, Francisco Núñez, Juan de Pedrosa, and Juan de Traja). 217 See RGS 9 No. 3507, fo. 45. The name of the escríbano who drafted the order is missing, though most likely he was Alonso del Mármol (on whom see n. 253). 218 ‘Con el neçesydad que tovo’, RGS 9 No. 3601, fo. 114, issued on 24 Dec. 1492. Perhaps this Jacob Galon is the same man as Jacob Galfon, about whom see Ch. 7. 219 ‘Mil velloçinos de lana, valiendo los dichos mil velloçinos de lana al dicho tyenpo treynta y ocho mil maravedís poco mas o menos’, RGS 9 No. 3601, fo. 114. 220 ‘La debda es de logro o que la dicha obligaçion fue fecha en fraud’, RGS 9 No. 3601, fo. 114.

jewish‒christian credit

173

was given (that is, that the debts were frozen) so that subjects of the kingdom should not be harassed because of debts of this kind (‘tales debdas’).221 The second order was issued in response to Lázaro Bohordo and Juana García, the widow of Juan Muñoz. Being in need, they had borrowed the sum of 15,000 mrs from Abraham Lumbroso, a Jew of Segovia who went into exile, and given him pledges.222 They claimed that although they had paid Lumbroso in full, he had not returned their pledges but on going into exile had delivered them to a Christian, who insisted they must be redeemed, and only then would they be returned to their owners. However, the petitioners alleged that the pledges had been given for interest, and therefore they should not be required to redeem them, especially since the principal of the loan had been repaid. Quesada was ordered to convene the parties, the borrowers, and the pledgee, to determine their true value and when the two had paid their debt, and if they were speaking the truth about it, he was to see that the pledges were restored to them.223

Talamanca de Jarrama The petition of two Christian residents of the village of Valdetorres, near Talamanca, informs us of the transfer of promissory notes to Diego de Torre, the mayordomo of the Cardinal of Spain. Juan García, known as el mozo, and Juan Coveña were called upon to discharge their obligations to Jews, which had been transferred to Torre and to other Christians. The two were arrested and their property was impounded. On 8 August 1493 they obtained an order that the corregidor of Madrid should act in accordance with the ordinary instructions, namely those of 26 February and 6 March (1493), and settle the suit, which the petitioners claimed was a case of usury.224 Apparently this was an instance of Jews who had been resident in Talamanca and left for exile and therefore wished to solve the problem of their debts by selling them. ✻

We shall now examine later edicts which contain information about actions taken during the time before and after the expulsion. The debts in question remained pending for a considerable time, and the creditors apparently took legal action against the debtors. 221 The corregidor was also permitted to summon anyone who, in his opinion, had information about the loan, to appear before him at the time and place to be determined, and he was permitted to impose any punishment he saw fit to those who refused to appear. The order was drafted by Alonso del Mármol on 24 Dec. 1492, with the approbation of the council of Castile. 222 See Carrete Parrondo, Proceso inquisitorial, 31, no. 35, also ibid. nn. 5 and 6, which provide bibliographical information. In Jan. 1486 he was a resident of Cobeña in the province of Madrid. See C. Carrete Parrondo, ‘Cobeña, aljama castellana en los albores de la expulsión’, in Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies ( Jerusalem, 1975), 71–6. His partnership in a loan of 50,000 mrs with Jacob Galfon in the town of Muñoveros, in the district of Segovia, is mentioned in an order of 13 Feb. 1495. On Galfon see Ch. 7, below, also RGS 12 No. 492, fo. 422. 223 See RGS 9 No. 3602, fo. 83, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council of Castile. 224 See RGS 10 No. 2127, fo. 201.

174

jewish‒christian credit

Tembleque The close ties of the residents of Tembleque with the Jews of the town are known to us from two orders issued by the Catholic Monarchs. One was addressed to the corregidor, the governor of Ocaña, and the magistrates of Tembleque,225 the other to the corregidor and to the resident magistrate of Toledo and the magistrates of the priorazgo of San Miguel.226 Before the expulsion, Alonso de Villacañas had bought two oxen on credit from Mose Abenamias for the price of 4,000 mrs, though their market value was at the most 3,000 mrs. At the time of the expulsion, Mose Abenamias sold the promissory notes that he held for the oxen to Gonzalo Trapero, a resident of Ocaña, who forced Villacañas to sell one bull for the price of 1,300 mrs. Having done so, Villacañas remained indebted to Gonzalo Trapero for the sum of 1,000 mrs for the beast. He felt that he had been cheated. He had also bought wheat worth 1,300 mrs on credit from Mose Abenamias, who had overcharged him for that too. At the time of the expulsion this debt was sold to Rodrigo Peralonso, a resident of Tembleque, who paid Mose Abenamias 2,000 mrs. Here the Crown ruled decisively in favour of Villacañas. Miguel del Pulgar of Tembleque owed Mose Abenamias 2,600 mrs. This debt was also sold to Rodrigo Peralonso, even though del Pulgar had paid it. Nevertheless Peralonso obtained an order impounding his property, and he was required to pay the debt again, including interest. He was also required to pay 2,000 mrs to one resident of Tembleque and 6,000 to another. Regarding those debts, he implored the Crown to issue an order forbidding the creditors from selling his impounded property until he could pay. The Crown ordered the corregidor of Toledo to convene the parties and decide according to the evidence. From these two matters it appears that Mose Abenamias was the only person who extended credit in this small village.

Tarazona, Agreda While the Edict of Expulsion was being executed, the Crown ordered the corregidor of Agreda, the bachiller de Escalante, to deal with the debts of the Jews and to see that justice was done. Among the debts was the suit of Juan (or García) González Castejón and other residents against Yumez Azamel, formerly of Tarazona but now settled in Navarre, for making usurious loans. After the corregidor heard the parties’ arguments (apparently the moneylender was represented by a local advocate), he exempted Castejón from paying his debt to Azamel. At Castejón’s request, the Crown upheld the corregidor’s ruling and ordered him to enforce it.227

Alcalá de Henares In the town of Alcalá de Henares, Alonso López, a butcher, owed the sum of 40,000 mrs to Rabi Yose Halcón, a local resident. He came to an arrangement with him to 225 RGS 11 No. 3424, fo. 304, of 24 Oct. 1494, drafted by Alonso de Castillo, with the approbation of the council. 226 RGS 11 No. 3466, fo. 292, of 26 Oct. 1494, drafted by Cristóbal de Vitoria with the approbation of the council. 227 The debtor’s name is listed once as García. See RGS 11 No. 4166, fo. 234, drafted with the approbation of the Crown Council by Bartolomé Ruiz and issued on 3 Dec. 1494. Yumez Azamel was a muqaddam in Tarazona. See M. A. Motis Dolader, ‘Explotaciones agrarias’, Sefarad, 45 (1985), 357.

jewish‒christian credit

175

pay 34,000 mrs, the rest of the debt being cancelled as interest. Yose Halcón sold the obligation to Diego de Carrión, also a local resident, who promptly sought to collect the debt through the sale of property, while López was out of town. He also collected 2,800 mrs from him for the alcabala tax. López sued him before the Royal Council, arguing that Carrión was not authorized to collect the alcabala tax, for López had come to an arrangement with the farmer of the alcabala tax, namely Halcón, regarding flocks (‘ganados bibos’) to the sum of 8,000 mrs. It appears that Rabi Yose Halcón was involved in trading livestock when he went into exile.228

Sigüenza In the region of Sigüenza a Jew named David (who went into exile) sold 60 fanegas of wheat on credit at 150 mrs a fanega to Antón de Muño, a resident of Sariñana in the district of Sigüenza. At that time the price of wheat was only 50 mrs a fanega. The buyer gave him a promissory note for 9,000 mrs for the purchase. When David left for exile, he sold the promissory note at a discount, with others, to Juan Sánchez de Medina, an escríbano in Sigüenza. This clearly appears to be a loan for interest, and the petition of Antón de Muño was accepted with the approbation of the council. The alcaldes and the magistrates of Sigüenza who dealt with this matter were ordered to determine that Muño must pay for the wheat at the price current before the expulsion.229 The purchaser of the promissory note and the Crown’s decision against him are worthy of attention here.

Haro On 7 April 1495 the corregidor of Burgos and Santo Domingo de la Calzada was ordered to deal with the petition of Gómez Fernández de Ribamartín and Pero Ortiz de Costa, residents of Haro, who had bought promissory notes from Samuel Chacon, a Jew from Haro who had gone into exile. The notes had been given by residents of Haro, Briones, and the Hermandad of Rioja and Nájera. The court of appeals for debts and property of Jews, headed by the alcalde, Gonzalo Sánchez de Castro, accepted this plea. The order does not state in detail which debts are concerned or under what conditions the bills were sold. The instruction to the corregidor stated that he must act according to the instructions for collecting debts issued on 26 February and 6 March 1493. He was to convene the parties to hear their arguments and then to determine as he saw fit.230

Cartagena, Murcia A fine imposed by Antonio de Andújar, the comendador, magistrate, and executor of Jewish property in Murcia, upon Luis de Gucina, the receiver of property impounded from heretics (doubtless crypto-Jews) in the diocese of Cartagena, informs us about a 228 RGS 12 No. 1196, fo. 491, of 11 Mar. 1495, drafted by Bartolomé Ruiz de Castañeda with the approbation of the Royal Council. 229 See RGS 12 No. 1627, fo. 279, drafted by Cristóbal de Vitoria with the approbation of the council and issued on 3 Apr. 1495. 230 See RGS 12 No. 1671, fo. 161, in addition to the alcalde Gonzalo Sánchez de Castro, the licenciado Gonzalo Fernández Gallego, Luis Polanco, and Pedro del Mercado participated in the decision of the council.

176

jewish‒christian credit

conflict of interest in the purchase of the promissory notes given by Christians to Jews. Gucina bought promissory notes from Jews who were owed money by Christians. He was challenged by Alonso Carreño, the director of Crown property in the diocese of Cartagena. Andújar fined Gucina 50,800 mrs; he appealed against the decision before the magistrates of the court, who ordered the details of the case to be transmitted to them.231 Gucina might have been acting in his own interest.

Boadilla del Camino When debts incurred with interest by Christians from Jews now in exile fell due, those charged by the Crown with collecting them had many opportunities to exert pressure and to seize and sell property. On 18 September the Crown responded to Santiago Inglés (Yngles), a procurador who petitioned in the name of the council, the good men, and the residents of the town of Boadilla del Camino against the bachiller Martín Gómez, a resident of Frómista, Francisco de Valladolid, the receiver of property, and Juan de Alcalá, a notary, for seizing property and imprisoning various debtors who owed money to Jews. They had acted in concert with Dr Francisco (or Alonso) Ramírez de Villaescusa, the corregidor of Valladolid and judge and prosecutor for Jewish property and debts owed to Jews. Their misdeed was apparently grave, for the Crown responded by forbidding Ramirez to authorize the three to act in the Crown’s name or his own. He was also required to return to the residents the payments and fines already exacted. Clearly the Crown was acting in its own interest here.232

Asturias A document from Asturias shows the involvement of Jews in loans to Christians, although Jews did not live in many localities in this region. The bachiller de Santa Cruz began collecting debts from a group of residents of Valle de Toranzo, in the marquesado of Aguilar.233 He was acting on the instigation of his father, the procurador Juan Rodriguez de Santa Cruz. Two residents, Juan de los Pandos and Juan Díaz, petitioned the Crown in the name of the group.234 Apparently referring to the instructions issued on 26 February and 6 March 1493, they argued that the Crown had ordered that debts were not to be collected until the Crown and the council so decided, whereas Santa Cruz had seized their property because of the interest agreements they had had with Jews. Their appeal to him to return their property had fallen upon deaf ears. They feared to lodge their complaint with the magistrates in charge of Jewish property and debts, lest the bachiller arrest and harm them. When they mustered the courage to appeal, 231 Bartolomé Toque, escríbano and resident of Murcia, was required to send a report of the trial. Gucina was represented by Francisco de Muso. The judges before whom the appeal was lodged were Castro, Polanco, Gallego, and Mercado. See RGS 12 No. 1757, fo. 340, dated 10 Apr. 1495. 232 See RGS 12 No. 3505, fo. 4, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the Royal Council. Dr Ramírez was active in a long series of debt-collections; see Appendix. He remained in office until 1503. See also Lunenfeld, Keepers, 116. 233 ‘Teniente del governador e justiçia mayor del condado de Bastes [sic] de Asturias por el marquesado de Aguilar’, RGS 12 No. 3658, fo. 80. The order was issued on 6 Oct. 1495. 234 The other residents were Gutierre Pérez de San Miguel, García de los Pandos, Diego Conernejo, Rodrigo Díaz de San Miguel, Rodrigo de los Pandos, Rodrigo del Aroyo, Juan El Antón, Gutierre Fernández de Soga.

jewish‒christian credit

177

the Crown responded by ordering Santa Cruz to desist from seizing property. The two parties were to appear before the local judiciary, which was to transmit the two sides’ claims to the Crown appeals court for Jewish debts and property.235 The detailed description presented above points out not only the conflict in the needs of borrowers—some for large amounts of money, others for their everyday wants when pressed—but also the quantity of money that was in circulation, even though only a partial picture emerges from the documents in our possession. Each region had its own needs, and the Jews were involved in daily life in these regions until the last day of their presence on the soil of Spain. This is an important chapter in the mutual relations between Jews and Christians. These loans show that the exiles apparently continued to arrange the collection of their debts even after they had left for neighbouring countries like Navarre and Portugal. Perhaps some of them still entertained hopes of returning quickly to the places they had left and the homes from which they had been driven. We shall never know. The role of the Crown and its interest in the matter of credit was extremely important in the transformation of the state after the expulsion of the Jews. Without conducting a deep investigation of this problem, it did not hesitate to intervene in the area of credit and to obtain maximum benefit from the situation for its own interests.

Ávila, San Bartolomé de los Piñares, Cebreros Let us conclude this account with a relatively distant echo from the time of the expulsion. A prolonged lawsuit, which ended in early 1497, recounts the business dealings of Yuda Caro and his wife Doña Reina. Yuda Caro was a resident of Ávila who farmed taxes and lent out money for interest. He also had an intermediary for triangular transactions, the Christian Alonso González del Lomo. During the legal deliberations the latter, who had apparently served as a cover for him in various transactions and loans forbidden to Jews by the Cortes of Madrigal, recanted and declared publicly that he no longer had any part in Caro’s business.236 The facts of the case are as follows: Juan de Madrid, the receiver of Jewish property in the diocese of Ávila, lodged claims against the council of Cebreros before Lope de Vera, the magistrate for Jewish property and debts in the diocese of Ávila. One claim mentions nine contracts and obligations on the part of the council to Yuda Caro, his wife Reina, and his sons, for a total of 215,050 mrs; a second claim concerned contracts to the amount of 210,215 mrs.237 Doña Reina and her sons, who had gone into exile, had smuggled out gold, silver, and coined money. Therefore the agents of the Crown had the right to confiscate their property, and the outstanding debts owed them by Christians belonged to the Crown. Lope de Vera required the council to pay the Crown about one-third less than the listed amounts: 150,026 mrs for the first 235 The summons was for three dates, including the ordinary sanctions for failure to appear and provision to hear the case even in the absence of one party. The order was drafted by Antonio de Almendares. 236 See three documents, all dated 3 Jan. 1497: RGS 14 No. 20, fo. 176; No. 21, fo. 179; No. 22, fo. 186, especially the last of the three. 237 See the documents mentioned in n. 236 above. It was said that Yuda Caro had died, and the claim was against Doña Reina for a total of 425,255 mrs. This was certainly an enormous sum of money. On Lope de Vera see also the index of this volume.

178

jewish‒christian credit

debt,238 and 141,210 mrs for the second—a total of 291,236 mrs. His approach to this debt was based on the custom of adding one-third to the actual amount of the debt, interest at the rate of 33 per cent.239 The third claim was lodged against the council of San Bartolomé de los Piñares and nine of its residents for three contracts totalling 21,000 mrs.240 The debtors were required to pay 7,700 mrs of this debt. It is difficult to determine the origins of these loan contracts: most probably they arose from business transactions or were taken out to cover tax debts and service to the Crown and the Hermandad. The documents indicate that they were incurred in 1476 and 1477. This fact provided an additional rationale for the claim that the sums were due to the Crown. However, the councils did not accept the magistrate’s decision and hired a procurador to address the Crown appeals court regarding Jewish debts.241 The procurador argued that the debts had been cancelled; the council argued that Lope de Vera was obliged by his instructions to consult the corregidor before passing judgment,242 no doubt because the corregidor was more familiar than the magistrate (who indeed came from elsewhere) with arrangements regarding taxes and duties in the region. Perhaps an additional detail of the instructions has come to light here, regarding treatment of the debts of Christians to Jews that their creditors has not collected before departing for exile. The procurador’s claims also reveal certain aspects of the methods used by moneylenders in their work. Clearly, as he said, if that debt existed, it was inconceivable that it would remain outstanding for twenty years. We do not know what year Yuda Caro died, but it is unlikely that Doña Reina would have left the debt outstanding until the expulsion. Moreover, the procurador argued that the judgment rendered by Lope de Vera was based on Caro’s account books, which were not to be relied on, since they were kept by ‘faithless people, as was the aforementioned Yuda Caro’.243 Yuda Caro was publicly known as a usurer,244 who ordinarily arranged loan agreements including fraude de usura. Therefore the sum of the debt as originally written in the promissory note was intentionally falsified by the lender. The council and other borrowers were forced to accept it, for lack of any alternative. Formal arguments reHe required the council to pay the expenses of the trial, the sum of 70,059 mrs. ‘Que sacando el terçio con que las obligaçiones e contratos con que a la sazon le fazian a los judios vesinos de Avila que se acostunbraron faser demandando lo que reçebian por la ganançia’, RGS 14 No. 22, fo. 176. To this must be added the expenses connected with the loan such as having the promissory notes and contracts drafted by a notary. 240 RGS 14 No. 22, fo. 186. The residents were Juan García, a cobbler; Martín García de la Fara; Pero García de Nos [ ]; Juan Fernández, the sacristan; Martín García, the alcalde; Pasqual Fernández [ ]; Antón García, and others whose names are not listed. 241 Gonzalo Sánchez de Castro is not named in these documents, which mention only the licenciado Gonzalo Fernández Gallego, Luis Polanco, and the licenciado Ludovico. See RGS 14 No. 22, fo. 186. 242 ‘Que por vna nuestra çedula le fue mandado que las sentençias que ouiesen de dar e pronunçiar lo fisyesen con consejo del corregidor de la dicha çibdad de Avila’, RGS 14 No. 22, fo. 176. 243 ‘Personas ynfieles como la hera el dicho Yuda Caro’, RGS 14 No. 22, fo. 176; similarly in the second complaint, RGS 14 No. 22, fo. 179. An argument in this spirit also appears in the defence of the procurador who appeared in the name of the council of San Bartolomé de los Piñares. The residents of the place were peasants (‘labradores’) who paid their debts to Yuda Caro, although he was not in the habit of returning their promissory notes. He claimed he registered their payments in his records (RGS 14 No. 22, fo. 186). 244 ‘Notorio logrero’, RGS 14 No. 22, fo. 186, ‘publico vsurario’, RGS 14 No. 22, fo. 179. 238 239

jewish‒christian credit

179

garding loans at interest to which were joined general statements regarding the methods of lending underlay the approach taken by the procuradores against the actions of Lope de Vera and his means of collecting debt on behalf of the government that he represented.245 He did not act in concert with the corregidor, who was appointed by the Crown and considered loyal to it.246 The debts of 1476–7 were not for loans connected to the needs of service to the Crown: they derived from other needs and from accounts for forbidden interest.247 Lope de Vera demanded the sum of 103,369 mrs from the council for those debts, to which he added court costs. The accounts were registered in Yuda Caro’s records, which had apparently fallen into the hands of the claimants. The procurador claimed that these were untrustworthy,248 but Lope de Vera, and the prosecutor in his name, argued that if there was an unpaid debt, it had to be paid, for Yuda Caro and his wife Reina would not have refrained from demanding the debt. The council and debtors used various delaying tactics to gain time with the intention of evading the debt, not acting in good faith (‘de buena fe’). Nevertheless, although significant sums of money were claimed on behalf of the Royal Treasury, the appeals court for Jewish debts decided to accept the claim of the procurador for the council of Cebreros, ruling in its favour with regard to all the claims lodged against it. In order to conclude the affair it also exempted the litigants from paying the expenses deriving from the legal proceedings.249 This was probably one instance of the many efforts to collect money for the Royal Treasury on various pretexts, efforts that had become government policy. The debt of the council of Herradón de Piñares, another town near Ávila, apparently belongs to this category as well. Presumably, the further in time from the expulsion, the more frequent these opportunities became. In this town the claim that a loan had been made for forbidden interest was accepted even after the debt had been paid to the Christian creditor who had purchased the promissory note from the exiled Jew. This was the case regarding the debt of certain residents of the town to a Jewish woman, Doña Reina, who had gone into exile,250 and also in Cañizar, where an unnamed Jew left 200 fanegas of grain (‘pan’) in the hands of a resident, Martín Alonso. Another resident of this town, Pero González Ruano, obtained a promissory note from Alonso for 7,000 mrs or more in return for the wheat, claiming that the Jew owed him money. In a counterclaim, the prior of the monastery of San Juan presented a deed of donation (‘çedula’) attesting that the debts of the local Jews had been granted to him, and he demanded that Alonso should repay him for the wheat.251 In any event this was an instance of the seizure of property and its public sale. In both instances the Crown intervened and ordered the suspension of the seizure and a hearing of the parties’ claims. This ‘Por virtud de vna çedula fyrmada de nuestos nonbres’, RGS 14 No. 22, fo. 176. The corregidor of Ávila in 1494–5 was Francisco González del Fresno, and in 1495–6 he was Juan Pérez de la Fuente. See Lunenfeld, Keepers, 198. The legal action was apparently taken at that time. 247 248 See RGS 14 No. 22, fo. 179 (the second group of debts). See above, n. 243. 249 The sanction for non-compliance was loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. The order was drafted by Francisco Fernández de Paredes, escríbano of the chancellery and of the prisons of the Crown and the appeals court. This applies to all three of the orders of the court. 250 The attempt was made by Lope de Vera. See RGS 13 No. 65, fo. 84, dated 17 Jan. 1496. 251 See RGS 13 No. 128, fo. 35, dated 28 Jan. 1496. 245 246

180

jewish‒christian credit

was done only after a petition was addressed to the Crown by the residents involved in the matter, asking it to remedy the injustice.252 Moreover, it should be noted, royal officials had dealt with Jews before the expulsion. Alonso del Mármol, that extremely active escríbano of the Catholic Monarchs in their chancellery, was a partner of Gonzalo del Monzón, a resident and regidor of Madrid and the son-in-law of Luis de Alcalá, in the sale of olive oil involving Jewish and Christian residents of Guadalajara and the maestrazgo of the order of San Juan and the order of Calatrava.253 Two orders recount the purchase of an obligation to supply olive oil. Don David Bienveniste, a resident of Guadalajara, had sold them 98 cántaras of olive oil before leaving for exile. The oil was income in kind that he had received from some tenants, residents of Pastrana and other places in the maestrazgos of the order of Calatrava, which were controlled by mosén Lope de Agotoguia, and from several tenants in the city of Alhóndiga, in the encomienda (estate) of Peñalver.254 The second purchase was of 90 cántaras, from the maestrazgo of Calatrava and that of San 252 On 5 Feb. 1496 the Crown, with the approbation of the members of the council, ordered the corregidor of Ávila, Juan Pérez de la Fuente, to prevent Lope de Vera from collecting fees (‘derechos’) for the collection of debts that Christians owed to Jews in the villages in the vicinity of Ávila. This was in answer to the petition of Francisco de Pájares on behalf of the unnamed villages in the district of Ávila. See RGS 13 No. 187, fo. 180. 253 On Alonso de Mármol and his activity in the Crown chancellery and his voyages throughout Spain see La Soterraña and Postigo, Cancillería (Madrid, 1959), Reg. s.v. Gonzalo de Monzón testified on 26 Nov. 1492 about the property and possessions of his father-in-law before the investigative committee of the Crown accounting department. He estimated that wealth at 5,015,000 mrs. See Hacienda, Leg. 1 No. 73, fos. 17r ff. See also Cantera Burgos and Carrete Parrondo, Sefarad, 34 (1974), 72. On the activity of Luis de Alcalá, see also Ch. 8 below. The Crown granted Del Mármol 8,000 mrs and 140 fanegas of grain in annual income from the property of the Jews of the city of Huete. He complained to the Crown and the council that people were conspiring against him to deprive him of the grant; see RGS 12 No. 3733, fo. 20, dated 17 Oct. 1495, drafted with the approbation of the council by Juan Ramírez. This does not state which property the grant was taken from, but a later document makes it clear that it was the property of the physician Samuel, who had gone into exile. His property was stated to have had been confiscated on account of ‘certain misdeeds’ (‘Por rason de çiertos delitos que el dicho judio cometio por que los dichos bienes fueron aplicados a nuestra camara e fisco’); RGS 12 No. 4139, fo. 37, dated 11 Dec. 1495, drafted by Bartolomé Ruiz de Castañeda with the approbation of the council. Most likely he was accused of smuggling forbidden items out of the kingdom. The Marquess of Villena, Diego López Pacheco, sought to take over this property. The Crown instructed the corregidor and prosecuting magistrate to prevent the seizure of property and any alteration to it until the matter was determined by the council. It cannot be known whether the physician Samuel is to be identified with Samuel ibn Sasson, a resident of Huete who, in 1488, was the farmer of the moneda forera taxes. However, Del Mármol had been granted annual income that had belonged to ibn Sasson from the residence of Rodrigo de Villena. When he demanded payment, Villena put him off with various excuses (see RGS 13 No. 841, fo. 187, dated 27 May 1496). To receive the payment, Del Mármol obtained an order from the corregidor Juan Pérez de Baradas to summon the two parties before him for a hearing. However, the notary of Huete, Álvaro del Castillo, avoided giving him the documents and contracts regarding this annual income. For this, too, Del Mármol obtained an order with the approbation of the council, requiring the notary to produce a copy of the contracts within four days from the issuing of the order (RGS 13 No. 839, fo. 175), on pain of a fine for non-compliance of 10,000 mrs payable to the Royal Treasury. The orders were drafted by Cristóbal de Vitoria. Thus there is no doubt that Alonso del Mármol did well for himself in exploiting the conditions that emerged in the kingdom following the expulsion. 254 This was according to the order of May 1493, drafted by Francisco de Badajoz with the approbation of the Royal Council. RGS 10 No. 1437, fo. 205.

jewish‒christian credit

181

Juan.255 When the parties reached an agreement with David Bienveniste, a new bill of sale was drawn up, and with it they purchased the income in kind. When they requested the oil, the debtors refused to supply it, arguing that the Crown had imposed a lien on debts to Jews. Alonso del Mármol and Gonzalo de Monzón argued that this was not the property of exiled Jews, but it had been sold legally and was not included in the lien. The Crown accepted this argument and ordered Agotoguia to execute the purchase agreement made with Bienveniste by the escríbano and the regidor, and to oblige the residents to supply them with the oil. The second order, issued on 17 May 1494, recounts that the local councils forced the two partners to revise the agreement;256 the bachiller Diego de Medina, who had been instructed to execute the instruction given to Agotoguia, had not succeeded in his task because of the opposition of the local councils and the residents required to supply the oil. He was successful only in areas under the control of the order of Calatrava. The Crown again responded to their petition, instructing the licenciado de Sahagún to remove the further implementation of the order from the hands of bachiller de Medina after examining the documents in the claimants’ possession. He was given full authority to act as he saw fit after hearing the claims of the parties.257 This does not exhaust the issue of debts and credit in Spain following the Jews’ expulsion. In the archive of the Duke of Alba there is an order from the Crown issued on 17 September 1497, according to which the Crown gave him as a gift all the outstanding debts owed to Jews at the time of the expulsion by Christians who were vassals of the duke. In the same order, the Crown commanded Alonso de Morales, the royal treasurer,258 the royal magistrates, and the receivers of Jewish property not to engage 255 Perhaps some of this purchase should be included in the purchase from David Bienveniste. Doubt arises from the announcement that the merchandise was supplied in the maestrazgo of the order of Calatrava. See RGS 11 No. 1902, fo. 363, dated 17 May 1494, drafted by Cristóbal de Vitoria with the approbation of the council of Castile. 256 ‘Que los conçejos e personas que los deuian a los dichos judios les tomaron a ellos a faser dellos contractos e reconçimientos de nuevo’, RGS 11 No. 1902, fo. 363. 257 The Crown charged the licenciado de Sahagún with a number of tasks. He was an oidor of the royal audiencia and served as guardian to the daughters of the Count de Lemos. See RGS 10 No. 764, fo. 183; RGS 10 No. 1924, fo. 133. He also obtained an order to the corregidor of Huete, over the dissent of Tomás de Torquemada, that, because of the debts he still owed, Isaac Cohen should not be released from confinement. Hence he remained in prison after the date when Jews were permitted to dwell in Spain. See RGS 10 No. 342, fo. 173, dated 21 May 1493. 258 His title appears in an order of 17 Sept. 1497 as ‘thesorero de lo extraordinario’. The order is addressed to him and all other magistrates of property and receivers, stating that they were no longer to collect debts owed to Jews by Christians who were vassals of the Duke of Alba. See León Tello, Toledo, i. 621. On 17 Jan. 1498 Alonso de Morales obtained an order to sell the property of Fernando de Villareal, Alonso Gutiérrez de la Caballería, and [name missing] de Parsa, a resident of Almagro, because of a tax debt from 1497. They were tax-farmers, and they owed 50,000 mrs. See RGS 15 No. 106, fo. 178. He is mentioned in an order dated 9 May 1498 issued to the corregidor of Málaga to seize from Martín de la Riasga the sum of 300 ducats and the possessions of Jews who were on their way from Portugal in a ship belonging to the latter. The corregidor was to deliver the money and possessions to Alonso de Morales (RGS 15 No. 1385, fo. 85). On 22 Dec. 1500 Fernán Núñez Coronel was ordered to transfer to him the remainder of his debt of 340,960 mrs to Alonso Gutiérrez de Madrid. The total sum was 902,376 mrs. See RGS 10 No. 1500, sin foliar.

182

jewish‒christian credit

in collecting those debts.259 How those debts were collected is unknown to us, but the duke most probably obtained what he sought.

Debts of Jews to Christians and the Payment of these Debts Toledo, Badajoz The account of credit would be lacking if we failed to note of the concern of Christians regarding debts that the Jews still owed them. Clearly this concern arose upon promulgation of the Edict of Expulsion, or very soon afterwards. One of the first petitions presented was that of three merchants residing of Toledo, Fernando Franco, Alonso Franco, and Antonio de San Pedro. As soon as the Edict of Expulsion was made known, they complained about Jewish merchants residing in Badajoz and the area of the order of Santiago in the province of León and in the region owned by Don Pedro Puertocarrero, the condado of Pareja, and the city of Albuquerque. The large area defined in this petition indicates the geographical extent of reciprocal trade. Jewish merchants, whose names are not mentioned in the documents before us, owed a great amount of money to the Christian merchants, who knew of their intention of leaving for exile without paying their debts ‘for contracts, obligations, alcabala taxes [as part of commercial transactions], and other notes in their possession’.260 The due dates had long passed, and their direct appeals to the debtors had borne no fruit. The Crown’s response, given on 2 May 1492, with the approbation of the council of Castile, ordered the local officials to act in accordance with the decisions of the Cortes of Toledo, to convene the parties involved in the complaint, to hear their claims, and to decide on the evidence.261 In the situation obtaining at that time, one may surmise that the Crown was groping for a policy. The persistent reference to the laws of Madrigal and Toledo regarding interest on loans might provide the basis for a practical policy to solve the problem of credit, which was grave from the start and grew ever more serious as the date of the Jews’ departure approached. Recourse to these laws was a retrospective expedient: the decisions of the Cortes of Madrigal and Toledo cannot be viewed as preparatory acts for the expulsion, but were taken in response to the immediate concerns of the delegates who assembled in 1476 and 1480 respectively. Clearly the apprehension of Christian creditors regarding Jewish debtors would bring heavy pressure to bear, without reference to the Jews’ anxieties about liquidation of their property before departure. Meanwhile, Christian debtors, determined to profit from the expulsion, had stopped paying their debts to Jews. The disequilibrium between groups of debtors was especially disadvantageous to Jewish debtors who lacked ready cash on the eve of exile. Thus it is understandable that several communities took steps to reach agreements with local authorities for the mutual payment of debts. However, these efforts were merely a drop in the ocean. It was not always possible to convince Christian creditors to pay Jews not only debts that were already due (and which might have been intended for extension), but also debts that would not 259 The order, drafted by Juan de Coloma, was given to Fadrique de Toledo, the Duke of Alba; it is published in León Tello, Toledo, i. 621. 260 ‘Algunas contias de maravedis asy por contratos e obligaçiones e alcaualas e otras mas çedulas e escripturas que entre ellos tienen’, RGS 9 No. 1397, fo. 597. On Don Pedro Puertocarrero see Beinart, Anusim, 73. 261 The order was drafted by Francisco de Badajoz.

jewish‒christian credit

183

come due until after 31 July 1492, the last day when Jews were allowed on the soil of Spain. It was equally difficult to persuade them to pay debts that fell due between the date of the edict’s promulgation (1 May) and the end of July. Nor should it be forgotten that for Jews to take legal action against recalcitrant debtors before the Royal Council, the Council of the North and Ports, and (after some Jews had returned and converted to Christianity) the judges of the court for Jewish property and debts involved time and expense. The decisions of the Crown and the council could only be guessed, for they depended upon policy dictated by the Crown and upon those charged with executing its orders. Time did not work against Christians who owed money to Jews; it was of concern only to those leaving for exile. One must also take note of the men whom the Crown charged with executing its decisions. These were chiefly the corregidores (or, alternatively, local magistrates and commanders of citadels), asistentes, and various loyal officials upon whom the main burden of implementing the expulsion was placed. Sometimes these men were partners of Christians who hounded Jewish debtors. Although the instructions issued to the corregidores date from after the expulsion, they nevertheless inform us regarding the situation at the time of the expulsion and before it. They state: ‘Be extremely cautious and take good care to punish any blasphemy, usury, and gaming, so that they cease in the region under your supervision, where you serve as corregidor.’262 While most loans were made at interest, the Crown was later to emphasize the problem of liquid credit, with which interest was not associated. Even if an order of execution was issued, or a directive to hear the litigants’ claims, the delay between the instruction and the action must be taken into account. The short span of time allowed between promulgation of the Edict of Expulsion and the departure of the Jews was detrimental to Jewish debtors, who were required to raise large amounts of money within a short period of time, sometimes to avoid being arrested and imprisoned, and to prevent the confiscation of all their property to cover their debts to Christian creditors. These were everyday occurrences. Occasionally Jewish debtors were held in prison until the last day they were permitted to remain on Spanish soil. Meanwhile their families had to do everything possible to free the debtor and prepare for his departure. Sometimes a Jew was ‘forgotten’ in prison even after 31 July, and compelled to convert to Christianity, for the ‘protection and security’ accorded to Jewish debtors who addressed the Crown was for a limited time: only until their departure into exile and the settlement of their debts. The merchants’ petition described above was delivered to the Crown when the monarchs still resided in Santa Fe. We shall now describe other debts which the authorities were asked to help settle.

Oña The petition of Joshua Munça, a resident of Oña, was one of the first to reach the Council of the North and Ports in Valladolid after the Edict of Expulsion had been promlgated. He owed money to several Jews and non-Jews living in Oña, Medina de Pomar, and other places. Apparently both Jews and non-Jews owed him money. His creditors all pestered him for payment, even for debts what were not yet due. When 262 ‘Otrosi tened mucho cuidado y poned mucha diligençia en castigar la blasfemia y las usuras y los juegos de manera que usen en toda la tierra de vuestro corregimiento’. The order was issued on 9 June 1500.

184

jewish‒christian credit

he began to pay them, they refused to accept reimbursement in instalments, because they meant to seize all his property when he went into exile. Meanwhile, his debtors refused to pay him what they owed him, even if their debts had fallen due, hoping to shrug off their debts once he had departed; the guarantors of these loans avoided paying him in the same spirit. Being about to leave, he could not return to collect the debts due him. Hence it seemed only just to him that he should be permitted to collect debts owed to him and to other Jews, even if those debts were not yet due. To that end, he asked for an administrator to be appointed, who could collect outstanding debts for him and for other Jews (in whose name and behalf he lodged the petition) who intended to leave, and for those promissory notes which were already due to be exchanged for new ones. He also requested that some of these debts should be paid, so that he could settle his own debts, and that all legal proceedings against him should be suspended; for that purpose he needed a writ of protection and security from the Crown. When this petition was discussed in the council, it was agreed that the Crown should appoint a trustworthy man, a resident of the region, to deal with the petition and rectify the matter. In order to protect Munça during the short time remaining to him in Spain, the lien was lifted from his property, and two appraisers (one appointed by him and the other appointed by his creditors) were to estimate its value.263 If that exceeded the amount of his debts, the remainder would be credited to Munça; if his property was worth less than the amount of his debts, he was to make up the deficit in cash.264

Valladolid On 5 May 1492 the Crown responded to the petition of Fernán López de Calatayud, who acted in his own behalf and that of Juan Daza of Valladolid against a group of Jews from several places,265 including Rabi Jacob and Rabi Shem Tob of Villalón, David Isaac Caro of Segovia,266 Abraham del Sobrado of León,267 and Don Yose Abenlaben 263 If they did not reach agreement, Fernando Masón, who had been ordered to see to the execution of the order, would appoint a third man to decide between them. See RGS 9 No. 1465, fo. 537, dated 5 May 1492, drafted by Juan Sánchez de Ceinos. 264 The Crown forbade his arrest and the impounding of his property. The punishment for non-compliance was a fine of 10,000 mrs payable to the Royal Treasury and loss of the king’s favour. The debts of Jewish residents of Oña who went into exile were mentioned in an authorization granted to Juana Fernández de Amusco, a resident of the courtyard of the convent of Santa Clara in Medina de Pomar. The debtors, not named in the document, owed her money for grain that she had sold them; when they went into exile they left promissory notes with her from Christians who owed them money. She collected only part of the debts. On 26 Feb. 1493 the Crown ordered García de Cotes, the corregidor of Burgos, to permit her to collect the rest of the debts. See RGS 10 No. 458, fo. 214. The order was drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council of Castile. Juana Fernández de Amusco might have received the authorization because she lived in the courtyard of the convent, for which this may have been an indirect subsidy. The document was published by Cadiñandos Bardeci, ‘Judería y morería’, 275–6. 265 Perhaps this refers to taxes which they collected, but the document does not mention this. See also Ch. 5. 266 This might refer to Isaac Caro, a resident of Segovia, who had collected the alcabala taxes in the merindad of Cerrato (1487), Salamanca, and Ávila, along with Samuel Cohen in 1489. He was the chief taxfarmer of the salt tax in Atienza in 1490–2. On him see Baer, JchS ii. 384, 387. See also Carrete Parrondo, Provincia de Salamanca, 128–9. 267 He was the chief lessee in the lands of the order of Alcántara (1485). In 1488 he was a resident of León and farmed taxes in Toro (in partnership with Isaac Caro, see n. 266). He also farmed the alcabala taxes

jewish‒christian credit

185

of Soria. They were said to have absconded owing money to the two Christian petitioners. The Crown’s edict ordered the corregidores, magistrates, and alcaldes of the aforementioned places to arrest the runaways, collect the debts that had fallen due, and obtain reliable security for debts that were not yet due.268 Each no doubt had his own reasons for leaving his place of residence, but they were probably motivated by the desire to exploit the conditions prevailing in the kingdom after the promulgation of the Edict of Expulsion; however, it cannot be established where they fled to. Mose Librero, a resident of Valladolid, addressed the Crown in his own name and in that of his brothers Yose Chapinero (a clog-maker) and Judah (also an artisan), who had both been illicitly imprisoned for some time (‘dias ha’). Mose asked for their release so that they could depart in exile. They were willing to surrender everything they had to cover the debt they owed, and they had no other property.269 The chief magistrate, Diego de Mercado, whose authority extended over the lands of the Count of Benavente, had refused to release them from confinement. If they were detained, they would be unable to leave in time, as the Jews had been ordered to do. Their imprisonment caused them severe damage, and therefore he requested their immediate release,270 so that they should be free to depart. This petition was considered in the Council of the North and Ports and found acceptable.271 On 7 June 1492 an order was given with the approbation of the Crown to release the brothers and let them depart without a lien upon their property, which was all to be left behind in order to cover their debt. Mercado and the other magistrates of Benavente were to execute the order on pain of loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 20,000 mrs for failure to comply, double the fine ordinarily imposed in such cases.272

Extremadura Gonzalo de Castro, a merchant from Burgos, complained about a group of Jewish merchants resident in Extremadura. Salamon Brado, Rabi Ephraim, and Rabi Isaac del Sobrado, all of Villanueva de la Serna, Haim de la Coelio, Mose Diego, Shem Tov de Almale, and Ephraim Coelio, a resident of Medellín, owed money to merchants of Burgos, and they were about to depart for exile. The Royal Council and the Crown did not hesitate to order the corregidor of Trujillo and Cáceres to appoint judges to investigate the complaint and arrest the debtors.273 from Salamanca and the region of Peñaranda. In 1491 the farming of the alcabala taxes from Toro passed into the hands of Meir Melamed. Abraham del Sobrado continued to deal with tax-farming. His wife’s name was Catalina Núñez, showing that she either converted and did not go into exile or returned from exile and converted. On her see RGS 11 No. 1236, fo. 301, dated 14 Apr. 1494. He was apparently the brother of Samuel Sobrado. RGS 11 No. 1236, fo. 301, issued with the approbation of the Royal Council. ‘Quanto mas que diz que non tienen ningunos bienes’, RGS 9 No. 2265, fo. 179. 270 ‘Yr libremente’, ibid. 271 Present were Alonso de Quintanilla and licenciado Gonzalo González de Illescas. The order was drafted by Fernando de Cisneros. 272 If Mercado had reasons to keep them in custody, he was to appear before the council within four days and present his arguments. We do not know where the creditor resided. 273 See RGS 9 No. 1618, fo. 426; issued on 14 May 1492 with the approbation of the Royal Council. 268 269

186

jewish‒christian credit

Burgos, Villalpando, Villafáfila, Valderas Jewish debtors resident in several villages owed money to the merchant García de Matanza, a resident of Burgos. They were Shem Tob Abenmayor of Villalpando, who owed 54,000 mrs, due on 17 June 1492; Aben Bueno of Valderas, who owed 77,000 mrs;274 En Ameze and his daughter-in-law Violante, residents of Villafáfila, who owed 25,000 mrs. Their debts to him amounted to 156,000 mrs, a considerable sum. He possessed notes prepared by a notary; in addition he held the notes of other Jews, whose names are not mentioned in the document under discussion, all for debts to him.275 Since the Jews were going to leave the kingdom by the end of July, they had intentionally avoided paying the debts, claiming that their due date had not yet arrived. They had secretly sold their property, which explains the merchant’s great apprehension and concern. He asked the Crown to issue an order to attach their property and businesses. This lien was to remain in effect until the debts fell due to him or to his son Fernando de Matanza, who also had been given promissory notes; alternatively, the Jews were to produce reliable guarantors resident in these places to vouch for them. The Council of the North and Ports, with the approbation of the Crown, ordered the magistrates of the towns where the debtors resided, and of other cities, towns, and settlements, to examine the promissory notes and agreements presented by García and Fernando Matanza and the dates when the debts were due. If the due date had passed, they were to seize the debtors’ property and businesses;276 if not, they were to require them to produce sureties. If they were unable to do so, they were to act as was customary according to the laws of the kingdom in cases of this kind, and the merchant and his son would receive the appropriate security, undoubtedly the detention of the debtors and attachment of their property.277

Peñafiel The petition of one de Gaona was addressed to the Council of the North and Ports in the name of his father, Juan de Baeza, to whom Don Bueno Abulafia, a resident of Peñafiel, owed the sum of 20,000 mrs in specie (‘moneda vsual en nuestros reygnos’), which he had agreed to pay in a promissory note (‘obligado por una obrigaçion’). The 274 On Abraham Aben Bueno, a physician (‘físico’), resident in Segovia, we find an order issued on 26 June 1492 that the magistrates of Valderas should release him from prison so that he could collect debts owed to his father by Christians. The order states that if he remained in prison, he would be unable to leave for exile with his Jewish brethren. See RGS 9 No. 2368, fo. 145, issued with the approbation of the Council of the North and Ports; published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 441–2; Rodríguez Fernández, Provincia de León, 411–13; F. Cantera Burgos and P. Albano García Abad, Sefarad, 27 (1967), 39–63 at 54 ff. This debt apparently originated in money advanced by García de Matanza to several Jewish residents of Villalpando, Valderas, and Villafáfila so that they could buy wool for themselves. The money was given without the ordinary guarantees, showing that he trusted the recipients. When the Edict of Expulsion was promulgated, he demanded guarantees for his money. On 24 May 1492 the council ordered the debtors to return the money to him. See Rodríguez Fernández, Provincia de León, 287. 275 See RGS 9 No. 1870, fo. 533, published by Rodríguez Fernández, Provincia de León, 403–8; also in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 416–18. The document dates from 24 May 1492. 276 On the council sat licenciado Gonzalo González de Illescas and Dr Francisco Núñez. 277 The order was drafted by Fernando de Cisneros. The fine for violation of it was 10,000 mrs and loss of the Crown’s favour.

jewish‒christian credit

187

due date had long since passed, but the debtor had avoided payment by requesting delays. Meanwhile he had departed and was not to be found, for he was wandering from place to place. The petitioner asked for the appointment of a reliable man to collect the debts from the property that Bueno Abulafia had left behind in Peñafiel. The Crown appointed Alfonso Rodríguez de Aranda, a resident of Aranda, for this purpose and authorized him to convene the parties and hear their arguments. He was permitted to arrest the debtor and confiscate his property.278 Perhaps he had the means to capture the debtor.

Frómista Solomon Tovi, a resident of Frómista, owed Fernando Álvarez de Paredes de Nava the sum of 10,235 mrs as security for grain (‘çierto pan’), in recognizance of which he had given a signed note obliging him to pay the sum by a certain date. However, when asked to fulfil his obligation, he had refused to pay. The creditor also asked the judge Juan Sánchez to issue a writ of attachment against Tovi’s property or to have the debtor produce sureties for his debt. The judge refused, claiming that the Jews, including Solomon Tovi, had transferred their property to Francisco de Benavides. Therefore Solomon Tovi was entitled to leave, as he had intended. The notary, too, whom the claimant had asked to confirm his claim, refused to respond to him. In this situation the claimant stood to lose his money and suffer severe damage. Therefore Fernando Álvarez de Paredes asked for the appointment of a man who would place a lien on the property of Solomon Tovi and require him to pay all the expenses that were added to his debt.279 The appointee must be a resident of the area. The Council of the North and Ports and the Crown accepted this claim, and on 2 June 1492 they ordered the magistrates of the town of Frómista to examine the complaint and summon the parties before them.280 They must see to it that Solomon Tovi ‘produced reliable Christian guarantors to deal rightly with the aforesaid Fernando Álvarez’.281 Alternatively, the defendant was to provide property free of any lien and debt to guarantee the loan. The affair did not end with this order.282 Juan Sánchez did not obey it, although 278 See RGS 9 No. 1947, fo. 436, dated 29 May 1492, with the approbation of the Council of the North and Ports. For its composition, see n. 271 above. Bueno Abulafia was married to Ledicia, the daughter of Doña Fadueña. His mother-in-law was a very active woman in Peñafiel and owned the town flour mill. She left for exile with her family after selling the mill to Don Juan Téllez Girón, the Count of Urueña, on 15 June 1492. Don Bueno and his wife were in partnership with Solomon Cohen, a resident of Madrigal, in the farming of the tercia tax of 50,000 mrs, for 1491. See above, n. 165. The documents are in AHN, Osuna, Leg. 97 Doc. 7–15. Solomon Cohen may have been one of those who returned and converted to Christianity. 279 This apparently refers to the expenses of petitioning the Crown and payment to the man who was to be appointed as the administrator. 280 See RGS 9 No. 2076, fo. 187, drafted by Fernando de Cisneros. 281 ‘Fiadores legos christianos llanos e abonados de estar a derecho con el dicho Fernando Alvares’, ibid. If the judges were remiss in carrying out their duty, the Crown would act against them as it was customary to act against judges who were negligent in their duties. Notaries who failed to act properly would be fined 10,000 mrs. 282 The second order lacks a date, but it was issued in July 1492, perhaps on the fifth of the month. See RGS 9 No. 2403, fo. 203.

188

jewish‒christian credit

two arbitrators had been appointed, one for each side, to examine and resolve the complaint, who determined that Solomon Tovi must pay 6,200 mrs, and a fine of 10,000 mrs was also imposed upon him, payable to the Royal Treasury, if he failed to pay the debt. Nevertheless Tovi did not pay, and when Fernando Álvarez discovered that he was about to leave without discharging his debt, he once again petitioned Sánchez to order him either to provide Christian guarantors for the debt or to transfer to him property free of any lien to the sum that it had been determined he must pay. He also demanded that Tovi should be required to pay the fine that had been imposed on him, for the benefit of the Royal Treasury. The magistrate did nothing, asserting that Solomon Tovi had transferred his property to Benavides’ ownership.283 Solomon Tovi departed in exile, apparently going to Portugal, taking his moveable goods with permission granted by Sánchez. Fernando Álvarez was clearly not one to give in, and he asked the Crown to order a notary to register his complaint against the magistrate and require him to pay the debt of 6,200 mrs and also the fine to the Crown that Solomon Tovi had been supposed to pay.284 The Council of the North and Ports also dealt with this petition, and it was agreed that the Crown should order Juan Sánchez to pay Fernando Álvarez the aforementioned sum, because it was his fault that Tovi had failed to pay his debt.285 However, he was given the right to appear before the council within ten days and argue his case; if not, he would be condemned in absentia.286

Torre de Mormojón, Frómista In Frómista and its vicinity, the Council of the North and Ports and also the Crown were called upon to act after the expulsion. We have seen above the petitions dealt with by Mose Mañan, who appeared before the procurador on behalf of the Jewish community of Frómista regarding the debts of Christians to Jews.287 He made it his mission to force Christians to accept the property of departing Jews in return for what was owed them. Perhaps in that way he hoped that it would be possible to prevent the property of those leaving in exile from falling into the hands of Christians for almost nothing. He asked to release the Jews who had been imprisoned for their debts 283 Benavides also seized the property of Yose Tovi, who went into exile from Castrojeriz and died in Portugal. On 11 Aug. 1492 the Crown ordered him to return the property to Diego Martínez (or Núñez), who had married the daughter of Yose’s son Tovi. This implies that she converted to Christianity and returned to the city of her birth. See RGS 9 No. 2672, fo. 202. Francisco de Benavides and his father Gómez de Benavides seized the property together. 284 Evidently the petitioner left the decision in the hands of the Crown, to determine as it saw fit. 285 The order states that he was to see to it that Fernando Álvarez should have no claims or complaints, and that he should not address the Crown again. This was to be done under penalty of 10,000 mrs, payable to the public works and construction that the Crown had undertaken in Granada. The magistrate would also risk loss of the Crown’s favour. The order was drafted by Francisco de Cisneros with the approbation of the licenciado Gonzalo González de Illescas and Dr Francisco Núñez. 286 The summons was divided in three parts: the first six days were the first summons; the following two days, the second summons; the last two days, the final summons. The notary Juan de Guevara and Juan de Castro were charged with preparing the testimony for Fernando Álvares. This, too, was under the penalty for non-compliance of a fine of 10,000 mrs payable to the Royal Treasury. 287 See above, at n. 118.

jewish‒christian credit

189

to Christians, and to use their property as security for the outstanding debt.288 Yose Abenasa, the procurador of the Jews of Torre de Mormojón, also lodged a petition in this spirit, for the release of Jews imprisoned for failure to pay their debts to Christians.289 He, too, was answered. It seems very likely that these two procuradores cooperated with each other in their work on behalf of their communities. On 6 July 1492 the Crown issued an order (with the approbation of the Council of the North and Ports) to Juan de Arce, the alcalde of the town of Paredes de Nava.290 Alfonso de Paredes, a resident of Paredes de Nava, complained that Yose Agai, a resident of Torre de Mormojón, would not remit a debt of 15,000 mrs in return for silver (‘çierta plata’) which was Alfonso’s property but in Yose Agai’s possession.291 Alfonso de Paredes had claimed what was due to him, but Yose Agai avoided paying it. He owned several buildings in Parades de Nava, which he let. The plaintiff asked to have a lien imposed on them so that no one could buy them and put in new tenants in place of the current occupants. He also requested the Crown to permit the buildings to be let to new, Christian tenants, from whom he could collect what was due him, until Yose Agai saw fit to pay his debt. If this was not done, because of the short time remaining before the departure of the Jews from the kingdom, he would suffer injury, for he would be unable to collect his debt. The appointment of Juan de Arce shows that his petition was indeed heeded.292 Abraham Tovi, a resident of Frómista, was called upon to refund the interest and the renuevo payments he had taken from Christian borrowers resident in the town of Tamara and its environs. The local council apparently imposed a ban (‘descomulgado’) upon him, but this step was not sufficient, and Pedro de Burgalés petitioned the Crown for an arrest order against him and his wife, wherever they might be, for the confiscation of their property, and for the revocation of their business dealings (‘hazienda’).293 The Crown responded to this petition and ordered the judges of the court, the corregidores, the muncipal magistrates, and the magistrates of towns and settlements to arrest 288 The Crown responded to the petition with the approbation of the Council of the North and Ports. At this session were present Alonso de Quintanilla and the licenciado Gonzalo González de Illescas. 289 See RGS 9 No. 2249, fo. 139, dated 6 June 1492. Here, too, the decision was made with the approbation of the two councillors. See above, n. 282. 290 Present were Alonso de Quintanilla and the licenciado Gonzalo González de Illescas. See RGS 9 No. 2244, fo. 197. 291 Symuel Agai, a resident of Torre de Mormojón, went into exile. He and Yose Agai might have been related. Symuel Agai’s son converted to Christianity and returned to Spain, changed his name to Diego Gómez del Castillo, and settled in Miranda de Rioseco. In 1495–6, Diego Gómez was a tax-farmer. He was involved in a large monetary claim for the sum of 150,000 mrs for the farming of the alcabala and tercia taxes in the town of Covarrubias, which were confiscated by Francisco Arias Maldonado, the prosecutor for Jewish property and debts. It was claimed that Diego Gómez’s father had smuggled out money and goods which were forbidden to be removed from the kingdom. The magistrate for Jewish property and debts, Gonzalo Sánchez de Castro, ordered that part of the sum, 72,000 mrs, should be deposited with a reliable magistrate and regidor in Covarrubias until the case was settled. See RGS 15 No. 1825, fo. 86, dated 24 July 1498, drafted by Antonio del Almendares. The order also included an earlier order dated 22 (?)July (the month is missing) 1498 addressed to García de Cotes, the corregidor of Burgos, requiring him to see to the problem. The earlier order was drafted by Gaspar de Gricio. 292 As usual the penalty for non-compliance was a fine of 10,000 mrs and loss of the Crown’s favour. 293 The order states that she was about to follow him into exile with their property.

190

jewish‒christian credit

them wherever they might be and to detain them for twenty-five days, that is, more or less until the departure of the Jews in exile, and to confiscate their property.294 The compass of the order testifies to its urgency.

Almanza Information regarding other localities and regions emerges from the petitions of Yom Tob Harache for the release of Rabi Mose of Carrión and Rabi Judah, who were both imprisoned in Almanza because of security they had given. This indicates that they had debts to Christians. On 4 June 1492 the claimant was answered, and the corregidor of Carrión and Sahagún was ordered to release them and also to make certain that the debts owed to them by Christians were paid.295 Therefore Shem Tob Harache must be viewed as a procurador who acted in their behalf.

Vitoria Abraham Aben Yañes was imprisoned because of a monetary debt that led to his arrest at the petition of Juan de Bilbao. Jacob Aben Yañes appealed to the Crown in his own name and in his client’s (perhaps his father or brother), requesting intervention in his favour. He was willing to transfer to the ownership of Juan de Bilbao both his real and moveable property, without any security whatsoever. He had no other source of money to pay the debt. He therefore requested an order from the Crown that the creditor should receive that property in payment of his debt. Even if the value of that property was less than the amount owed, he nevertheless requested an order to be released from prison, so that he could, as commanded, depart in exile at the time stipulated. This request was discussed by the Council of the North and Ports, whose decision was approved by the Crown.296 The bachilleres Pero Días de la Vicuña, corregidor of Santo Domingo de la Calzada, and Juan de Santo Domingo, a resident of Miranda de Ebro, were ordered to summon the parties and hear their claims. They were also to decide how to execute their decision.297

Burgos, Calahorra Two orders were given to Alonso de Quintanilla, the chief accountant of the Crown and a member of the Royal Council, a confidant of Ferdinand and Isabella, and to Francisco Triguero, the alcalde mayor of the Hermandad on 28 July 1492, both on the basis of a petition lodged by Alonso de Sahagún and his son Andrés de Escobar, residents of Burgos.298 They had been bound by commercial ties—trade in cloth and other 294 Violation of the order would incur a penalty of 10,000 mrs and loss of the Crown’s favour. See RGS 9 No. 2428, fo. 123, drafted by Sancho Ruiz del Cuero, dated 14 July 1492. Most likely this petition was discussed by the Council of the North and Ports. 295 See RGS 9 No. 2166, fo. 172, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 426–7; Rodríguez Fernández, Provincia de León, 59; González Gallego, ‘Algunos datos’, 377 ff., 397. 296 Sitting on this council were Alonso de Quintanilla and the licenciado Gonzalo González de Illescas. See RGS 9 No. 2248, fo. 140, dated 6 June 1492. The order was drafted by Sancho del Cuero. See Baer, 297 Anyone violating the order would be fined 10,000 mrs and lose the Crown’s favour. JchS ii. 425–6. 298 The first, RGS 9 No. 2384, fo. 290, touched upon Bienveniste de Calahorra; the second, RGS 9 No. 2385, fo. 165, referred to a Jew named Don Neçi. The two documents were drafted by Sancho Ruiz del Cuero. Also see above in this chapter.

jewish‒christian credit

191

merchandise—for twenty years with Bienveniste de Calahorra of Burgos at the fair of Medina del Campo. During one decade, their sales reached 1,500,000 mrs, and during another their sales reached 300,000 mrs annually. During those ten years (it cannot be ascertained whether it was the first or second decade), Bienveniste had falsified the accounts, removing mention of 3 m. mrs for the sale of cloth and wool that he had received from shepherds (‘pastores’), to whom he had paid 30 mrs for every unit of merchandise supplied to him, although the fair price per unit was much higher. The two Christian merchants requested an order to arrest Bienveniste and imprison him until justice was done and they could lay their hands on every maravedí in his possession. Therefore they also sought to seize his account books, from which it would be possible to learn about his interest-bearing loans. They had been connected with Don Neçi for two years in trade in cloth and merchandise at the fair held in May in Medina del Campo. Every year the volume of their business came to 2 m. mrs. Over two years he had taken more than 800,000 mrs from them in usurious interest. In calculating the value of the merchandise they had been paid 25, 45, and 50 mrs for each unit of merchandise. Thus Don Neçi underpaid them for the merchandise they supplied. He also used to substitute cloth and make fraudulent payments to them, unrelated to the quality and type of merchandise. They requested an order from the Crown to refund the 800,000 mrs he had taken by fraud. He was about to leave and was involved in the liquidation of his business. He must be required to provide reliable sureties, Christian merchants who would guarantee the sum. If he did not provide guarantors, they sought permission to arrest him or to impound his assets and businesses wherever they might be; his account books should also be seized. Almost certainly because of the size of the suit, it was placed in the charge of Alonso de Quintanilla, the chief accountant of the kingdom, and of Francisco Triguero, the treasurer of the Hermandad.

Laguna The petition to the Crown of Juan de Valladolid, a silversmith, describes how five months earlier, that is in early 1492, he had owed one V. de Soto the sum of 25,220 mrs. This sum was owed to himself, Juan de Valladolid, by Don Bueno Velilla, the tax-collector of the Count of Luna.299 Don Bueno had obligated himself to pay the sum by May 1492. When the Edict of Expulsion was published, Don Bueno began to shrug off the debt, despite Juan’s appeal to the corregidor of Don Bueno’s place of residence. Don Bueno argued that he had paid Soto—who denied it—and now he was about to leave. In order to prevent severe loss to himself, Juan de Valladolid asked the Crown to order Don Bueno to provide trustworthy Christian guarantors or, alternatively, to provide pledges in gold and silver in value equal to the debt. This appears to have been a business debt. The petition was discussed in the Council of the North and Ports,300 which asked RGS 9 No. 2387, fo. 299. On it sat Alonso de Quintanilla, the licenciado Gonzalo González de Illescas, and Dr Francisco Núñez. The order was drafted by Juan Sánchez de Ceinos on 20 June 1492. 299 300

192

jewish‒christian credit

the Crown to order the corregidor of Laguna, Bernaldino Delgadillo, to summon the parties, hear their arguments, and decide as he saw fit.301 Nevertheless the corregidor did not act against Don Bueno, arguing that the Count of Luna had ordered him not to deal with claims against Jews. Juan therefore, in a second appeal to the Crown, requested that an alguacil, someone from the royal court, should be appointed and arrest Don Bueno. Don Bueno would not pay for the sole reason that he intended to take the money from the kingdom when he left with the other exiles. On 29 June 1492 the Crown issued an ‘order on an order’ to the corregidor, commanding him to obey its instructions and make certain that Don Bueno gave the appropriate security to Juan de Valladolid that he would pay him what he was ordered to pay. If he did not so obligate himself, the corregidor was to arrest him and fine him 30,000 mrs, to assist in execution of the Crown’s instruction to build public works in Granada. Luis de Montanedo, the court’s scribe (‘escríbano de cámara’), was to see to the execution of the order, on pain of the usual penalties mentioned in the order, and he was to help the corregidor to implement it. ✻

Let us now consider the debts of Jews that remained outstanding after they went into exile. On 4 September 1492 it was decided in the council that a special emissary should set out with the order dealing with the debts of Jews, and he should also have the alcabala registry with him. He was to go from place to place and receive at the hands of the mayordomo such sum as the corregidor should order to be given him.302 This edict informs us of the Crown’s efforts either to lay hands upon the outstanding debts, anticipating that certain Jews might try to return to their homes and convert to Christianity, or at least to register those debts and seek an adequate solution for those who suffered losses with the debtors’ departure.303

Segovia Only on 26 November 1492 was the corregidor of Segovia, Día Sánchez de Quesada (or his successor), ordered to respond to the petition of Antonio del Portillo and the wife of licenciado del Águila to the Crown. Jews owed them money, and Antonio del Portillo had given 50,000 mrs to a Jewish moneychanger (‘cambiador’) named Isaac Galfon, apparently in order that he could use the money to extend loans at interest. Isaac Galfon went into exile.304 When the Jews departed, they could not repay their 301 If the licenciado Bernaldino Delgadillo did not conduct himself according to law, the Crown would act against him as though he were a magistrate who did not obey his lord the king. The penalty imposed upon him would be a fine of 10,000 mrs and loss of the Crown’s favour. 302 ‘Mandaron que un portero vaya con la carta que habla sobre las debdas de los judios, y con los quadernos dalcavalas por los lugares comarcanos y que se le de lo que el señor corregidor acordare y viere lo que se le deve dar por el mayordomo.’ See A. Gómez Iglesias, Libros de los acuerdos del concejo madrileño 303 On this see Ch. 7 below. (Madrid, 1970), ii. 38; Cantera Burgos, ‘Acuerdos concejiles’, 388. 304 He was also known as Galhon. On him see F. Fita in I. Loeb, H. Graetz, and F. Fita, ‘La Inquisición de Torquemada: Secretos íntimos’, BRAH 23 (1893), 369–433 at 393 ff.; Carrete Parrondo, Proceso inquisitorial, 55, no. 87, passim and also 105, no. 181, on Yose Galhon, apparently his brother. Their mother, Gemila, was the sister of Meir Melamed (see references ibid. 55, no. 87). Jacob Galfon returned to Spain and

jewish‒christian credit

193

debts to the petitioners; instead they gave them promissory notes of Christians for merchandise, crops, and the like. Among these there were no debts for interest or hidden interest (‘fraude de usura’). When the Crown ordered the freezing of debts and their confiscation, these promissory notes were covered by the decree; the petitioners were therefore unable to recover the Christians’ debts. They requested that these should be unfrozen, since they were transparent debts without even a hint of interest. The Crown ordered the corregidor to examine the matter. If he found that there was no interest, and the debts were transparent, he was to unfreeze them and permit their collection. However, it should be noted that the Crown did not give attention to the purpose of the loan or to the partnership between the Jewish moneychanger and these Christians. Without doubt this petition shows that Christians sometimes covertly invested their funds in the business of Jewish moneylending to Christians.305 converted to Christianity, bringing a group of exiles back with him for the same purpose; see Ch. 7 below. Jacob Galhon (or Galfon) of Segovia addressed the Crown from Portugal expressing his desire and that of his family—his children, sons-in-law, grandchildren—along with Jews living in other places to return and convert to Christianity. In response, on 20 Nov. 1492 the Crown ordered their return to Segovia and enabled them to repurchase their property at the price it was sold, with additional payment for improvements. The children of Rabi Meir, a physician who had lived in Ávila, returned with Galhon, to whom they were related. Rabi Meir had died before the expulsion; his wife Çidbuena, also of Ávila, died in Portugal. Their children were Giomar de Toledo, the wife of Pero López, a physician, and two minors, Maria de Toledo and Fernán Álvarez. Their return was authorized by an order issued on 20 Nov. 1493, and their property was restored to them in Ávila, based on precedent. See RGS 10 No. 903, fo. 211, dated 3 Apr. 1493. Galhon was proud of having brought a large group of exiles back to Spain with him and arranging their conversion. See RGS 9 No. 3371, fo. 26, dated 20 Nov. 1492, cited by Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 489. See Ch. 7 below. Pero Alonso, a resident of Las Vegas, lodged a complaint against him for taking interest in a transaction involving wool and depriving him of 300 sheep by fraud and extortion. Díaz Sánchez de Castro was ordered to deal with this complaint and to see that justice was done. See RGS 11 No. 797, fo. 314, dated 14 Mar. 1494, drafted by Bartolomé Ruiz de Castañeda with the approbation of the council. Castro had been instructed earlier, on 24 Dec. 1494 (RGS 9 No. 3601, fo. 114), to deal with the debt of 24,000 mrs that Jacob Galfon had claimed from Juan de Segovia. The money had been lent to him in 1491, and in return for it he was supposed to receive 1,000 units of wool, valued at 38,000 mrs. This debt had been transferred to a Christian when Galfon went into exile. Nor was this the end of the suits. In Mar. 1494 (the day is missing) the monarchs ordered the corregidor of Segovia, who had petitioned in his own name and in that of residents of the sexmo of Val de Lozoya, San Miguel, and San Llorente. They were apprehensive about a claim lodged by Pero Juárez (as Galfon was called after conversion) and the wife of Abraham Lumbroso (or Labrese), whose name after her conversion was Beatriz González, for debts arising from contracts and loans for transactions in wool. They certainly had reason to be fearful. The Crown instructed the corregidor to summon the parties and ordered them to obey the decree of 26 Feb. and 6 Mar. 1493 regarding loans. See RGS 11 No. 1010, fo. 235. Jacob Galfon, apparently in partnership with a certain Lumbroso (possibly the aforementioned), had lent 50,000 mrs to the local council of Muñoveros, in the district of Segovia. Francisco de Mazuelo impounded the council’s property on account of that debt. On 13 Feb. 1495 the council obtained an order against Mazuelo, who had taken the place of his father, Lesmes de Mazuelo, a magistrate for Jewish property. Francisco had acted improperly, and the Crown instructed Lesmes to investigate the complaint. See RGS 12 No. 592, fo. 422, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council. On Don Lumbroso see also Baer, JchS ii. 426, the order of Aug. 1492. He was arrested with several Jewish residents of Ciudad Rodrigo for failure to pay their debts to Christians. They obtained release from prison to enable them to collect debts owed to them by Christians, so that they could leave for exile. 305 RGS 9 No. 3419, fo. 170, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council of Castile. This Isaac Galfon’s business dealings included a transaction with Antón Herrero, a resident of the village of Cobos in the Segovia district. Herrero had bought an ox (buey) from Isaac Galfon for 2,000 mrs,

194

jewish‒christian credit

In another order, issued on the same day to Día Sánchez de Quesada or his successor, the Crown responded to the petition of Alonso López de San Miguel and Juan del Castillo.306 The two had maintained friendly relations (‘amistad’) with several Jewish residents of Segovia. In order to benefit them, when they were ordered to go into exile, and also because those Jews owed them money,307 they had paid the debts that these Jews owed to various people, and they also paid for asses, cattle, and merchandise, counting upon the order that the Jews ‘could sell, transfer, and exchange their property and the debts owed to them’.308 In return, they received notes for debts that Christians owed the Jews in Segovia and its diocese. They examined these debts and ascertained that they were transparent debts and not interest-bearing loans. Regarding debts that they found to be for interest, they made certain that the Jews saw to their settlement themselves. They received new promissory notes from those who owed transparent debts, and even reached agreement with some of the debtors. When the edict was issued freezing Jewish debts, the debtors stopped paying them, although their debts were transparent. These were debts for ‘grain, flocks, and merchandise’.309 The petition was accepted.

Ávila, Ledesma On 1 December 1492 the magistrate of the town of Ledesma was ordered to respond to the petition of Guiomar de Avalos, a resident of Ávila.310 Jewish men and women resident in Ledesma owed her money and other items that she had lent them. They also had debts for merchandise. When these Jews went into exile, she had lent money to one woman, who was in great need.311 Her Jewish debtors had given her promissory notes from Christians, which she could not collect because of the lien imposed on debts. Moreover, the Christian debtors refused to pay her. These debts were transto that end giving him an interest-bearing promissory note, in which he obligated himself to supply 30 fanegas of wheat. This promissory note was sold to Antonio Mundaño, who had Antón Herrero arrested, even though he possessed receipts for 2,000 mrs paid to Isaac Galfon. Only after signing a promissory note to Mundaño for 1,400 mrs did the latter agree to free him from detention. Nevertheless Mundaño seized a vineyard that had belonged to Herrero, and was assisted in this by the escríbano Antonio de Mancilla. The value of the vineyard and its fruit exceeded the nominal value of the debt. He also seized a cow from him valued at 1,800 mrs. These actions brought him to the verge of poverty, and he and his family would be forced to beg from door to door. Since he had paid the debt, the entire claim was solely for interest, and therefore he requested an order to restore the vineyard and cow to him. Quesada was ordered, together with Dr de Guadalupe, the regidor of Segovia, to hear the parties’ claims and reach a joint decision about the complaint that should give Antón Herrero no further reason to address the Crown. See RGS 10 No. 2575, fo. 257, dated 24 Sept. 1493, drafted by Fernando de Cisneros with the approbation of the Council of the North and Ports. (In this order the name appears as ‘Ysaque Galhon’.) The fine for non-compliance with the order was 10,000 mrs. On the use of fines to finance the restoration of the Alcázar in Segovia see Ch. 8 below, n. 396. 306 RGS 9 No. 3414, fo. 132, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council of Castile, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 489–90. 307 ‘Pueden vender y trocar y canbiar sus bienes y debdas que les fuesen deuidas’, RGS 9 No. 3414, fo. 132. 308 Most likely these were given to them to help them depart in exile. 309 ‘De pan e ganados e otras mercaderias’, RGS 9 No. 3414, fo. 132. 310 RGS 9 No. 3462, fo. 129. See Carrete Parrondo, Provincia de Salamanca, 85. The order was drafted 311 by Alonso del Mármol, based on a decision of the Crown. ‘Porque la vido muy neçesytada’, ibid.

jewish‒christian credit

195

parent and bore no open or covert interest. The Crown responded by permitting her to collect what was due her.

Torrelaguna Residents of Torrelaguna, Juan de Riaza, Juan Vaca, Álvar Rodríguez, and Martín de Toledo, addressed the Crown with the claim that they had received the promissory notes of Christians who owed money to Jews. The Jews had left powers of attorney with Christian administrators (‘factores christianos’) for collecting the debts. For their part the petitioners had drawn up new contracts with the Christians, involving no open or covert interest, but now they were unable to collect what was due them because debts had been frozen and a lien had been imposed by the Crown. On 20 December 1492 the Crown responded to the petitioners and gave them permission to collect the debts, provided they collected only the nominal amount without open or covert interest.312 Later testimony refers to a Jewish property-owner from Torrelaguna, Samuel Ropos, whose property had been sold and conveyed to Diego de Torres and his son Luis, residents of Alcalá de Henares; Diego also acquired through the church courts debts owed to Ropos by Christians. However, Pero Gil, the ward and servant (‘criado’) of the Cardinal of Spain, was by a special gesture of grace from his lord confirmed as owner of Ropos’s property after it had already been granted to Diego and Luis de Torres. Since Diego viewed the grant made to him as an established judicial decision (‘cosa juzgada’), he asked to have the property returned to him. The Crown ordered Gil to appear before the Royal Council within nine days;313 he did so and argued that he had a right to the property under the grant he had received from the cardinal. He apparently also included debts that had not yet been collected. Faced with these conflicting claims, on 6 May the Crown ordered Rodrigo del Mercado to convene the parties and judge between the claimants to the property; should he decide against Pero Gil, the latter was not to appeal against his judgment.314 This was doubtless an elegant way for the Crown to extricate itself from the predicament of the duplicated grant, which was apparently characteristic of those times.

León Isabel Osorio, the Countess of Luna, set out to defend her vassals, wards, and servants, who had bought promissory notes from the Jews who had gone into exile. They were unable to collect these debts because of the freeze on the collection of Christians’ debts to Jews. She claimed that these debts entailed no covert interest or intention of fraude 312 See RGS 9 No. 3566, fo. 109. The order was issued by the Crown. See E. Cantera Montenegro, ‘Judíos y conversos de Torrelaguna (Madrid) en tiempos de la expulsión’, Estudios en memoria del profesor d. Salvador de Moxó (Madrid, 1982), i. 239. 313 The summons is for three dates. It had to be proclaimed near his own home, his wife’s, and his sons’, or before his close neighbours. This was so that they could not claim ignorance. The sanctions for non-compliance were loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs payable to the Royal Treasury. See RGS 12 No. 1274, fo. 135, dated 14 Mar. 1495 314 RGS 12 No. 2065, fo. 242; the draftsman’s name is missing, as are those of the councillors who approved it. The sanctions for non-compliance were loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs to the Royal Treasury.

196

jewish‒christian credit

de usura, but they were transparent debts. The corregidor of the city of León, Juan de Portugal, was ordered to summon the parties and investigate whether indeed the notes had been bought at face value, so as to permit their collection. This order deviates from the norm, for the Crown wished to clarify whether the buyers of the notes were profiting from financial dealings.315 If the notes were long-term, tax was to be collected on the interest,316 ‘because of the low price they gave for them and their term’. Other debts were not to be collected.

Valencia de Don Juan Juan de Portugal (or his substitute) was involved in another petition. On 7 May 1493 he was ordered to deal with the petition of Martín Alfonso de Trinidad and Juan Álvarez Romano and to permit them, within the framework of the orders issued on 26 February 1493, to collect the debt owed to them by Isaac (Ça) Abenazar, from the town of Valencia de Don Juan. In settlement he had given them the notes of Christians who owed him money. These Christians grasped the lien placed on those debts and would not pay.317 The corregidor was to summon the parties and decide the case consistently with the laws of the kingdom.318

Aldeanueva del Camino Aldeanueva del Camino was a village in the district of Granadilla, owned by the Duke of Alba. Don Jaco (his last name is missing in the document) had gone into exile, but before leaving he had given Diego de Vargas promissory notes from Christians to cover his debts. Vargas was supposed to collect those debts, but the debtors refused to pay him, arguing that the Crown had prohibited their collection. He therefore had Pero Sánchez arrested and imprisoned for the debt he owed to Jaco. The Crown accepted the argument of Pero’s son Diego, and ordered the magistrates of Granadilla to summon the parties and reach a determination according to law.319

Toledo Izaque Isaque, a resident of Toledo, a dealer in cloth (‘paños y lienços’), bought merchandise for 125,000 mrs from Diego de Toledo, a wholesaler who also sold goods to 315 RGS 10 No. 407, fo. 29. ‘Son personas que acostunbran tratar e ganar con dinero’, issued in Feb. 1493 (the date is missing) with the approbation of the council of Castile; the draftsman is unnamed. See Rodríguez Fernández, Provincia de León, 419–20. 316 ‘Les tasar los yntereses que uuo de cada e juntamente por razon del preçio que por ellos dieron y del plazo que les han de cobrar’, RGS 10 No. 407, fo. 29. 317 RGS 10 No. 1155, fo. 279, drafted by Francisco de Badajoz with the approbation of the Royal Council. The place might be Valencia de Don Juan. 318 Inés de Guzmán requested permission from the Crown to collect a relatively small debt of 1,520 mrs from money owed to the Jews of Vecilla (this apparently refers to the village of La Vecilla de Curueña, on the road between Robla and Cistierna in León). She sought to collect the money on the basis of a promissory note to the Jews from Gonzalo Tomás. The Crown granted her request because it ascertained that the loan did not bear interest or entail fraude de usura. The local magistrates were ordered to act in her behalf. See RGS 10 No. 2592, fo. 254, issued on 25 Sept. 1493, drafted by Fernando de Cisneros with the approbation of the Royal Council. 319 See RGS 10 No. 1167, fo. 316, issued on 8 May 1493, drafted by Fernando de Cisneros with the approbation of the Council of the North and Ports.

jewish‒christian credit

197

other Jews to the amount of 24,000 mrs. When the Jewish purchasers went into exile, they gave him the promissory notes of Christian debtors. These Christians had agreed to pay him the debts instead of paying the Jews, and because of their agreement he had been willing to accept the promissory notes. Another reason for his willingness had been the instruction of the Crown that the departure of the Jews should be orderly. However, when the edict freezing the collection of debts to Jews was issued, the creditors ceased paying him. He suffered financial injury because of his willingness to obey the Crown. The Crown answered and ordered the corregidor of Murcia, Pero Gómez de Setúbal, to act in his case according to the orders of 26 February and 6 March 1493. The instruction to the corregidor of Murcia might indicate that the promissory notes were from residents of that area, and it is likely that he was also asked to convene the parties and hear their claims.320

Pedraza Rabi Mose, a resident of Pedraza, managed the affairs of the Duke of Frías, Bernardino Fernández de Velasco, condestable of Castile, in the town and its vicinity. Being about to leave in exile, he deposited with the duke the promissory notes of Christians from the town and its environs who owed him money. Rabi Mose died before leaving in exile, and the notes were not collected in time. Two orders were given by the Crown to the condestable, both on the same day, 30 July 1493.321 According to these orders, the corregidores of Segovia, Aranda, and Sepúlveda and their successors were to see that the debts were collected in accordance with the instructions of 26 February and 6 March 1493.322 Here, however, the monarchs’ order to Juan de Soria, the secretary of the Infante Don Juan, is noteworthy. It was based on a memorandum from Gonzalo Fernández Gallego, the alcalde of the royal court, regarding goods smuggled out by Jews going into exile. Gallego claimed that the Jews were smuggling out ‘silver, coin, jewellery, and other goods forbidden and prohibited by the laws of our monarchs’.323 They also smuggled out promissory notes for debts owed by Christians to Jews. The Crown instructed Soria to ascertain who the smugglers were and what promissory notes of Christians to Jews they had left behind. After investigating he was ordered to confiscate the property and notes from the holders, and to deposit them with trustworthy men wherever they might be found. It was forbidden to deal in these promissory notes without explicit permission from the Crown, and Soria was to present a detailed See RGS 10 No. 1285, fo. 280, drafted by Francisco de Badajoz on 16 May 1493. The reference number of the first is RGS 10 No. 2029, fo. 101. It was drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the Crown Council; the second was drafted by Cristóbal de Vitoria. 322 Concerning this Rabi Mose there is a document dated 25 Apr. 1488 which mentions an obligation of 450 mrs transferred to Rabi Mose by Miguel Sánchez and Velasco Martín, residents of Valderas. For the wording of the order of 26 Feb. 1492 see Cadiñandos Bardeci, ‘Judería y morería’, 276–9. This is a copy made on 30 May 1493 in Medina de Pomar (it is found in the archive of the parish of Santa Cruz). See Ch. 7 below. 323 ‘Sobre el paso e salida de los judios de los dichos nuestros reynos e de los bienes e debdas que dexaron en ellos que pertenesçen a nos por aver sacados dellos dinero e plata e joyas e moneda amonedada e otras cosas de las vedadas e defendidas por nos e por las leys de los dichos nuestros reynos’: RGS 10 No. 3267, fo. 25, issued on 30 Dec. 1493, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 529–30. 320 321

198

jewish‒christian credit

report, sealed in good faith with the seal of the escríbano, so that the Crown could issue orders according to law. The authority of Juan de Soria extended over the entire country and was comprehensive; anyone with relevant information was required to appear before him.324 While this order must be viewed mainly as a response to smuggling couched in general terms, it also raises another issue. The Crown, as noted, was aware that outstanding debts had not been paid to Jews, and that Christians now held notes from other Christians, which the Jews had sold to them, perhaps at the price of the principal of the loan, or less. These debts were not yet due. The seizure of these notes might have been an attempt by the Crown to acquire these debts. However, not many of these notes were still in circulation when the order was issued, as is indicated by the decisions of the Royal Council in response to petitions of this sort. Nevertheless the appeals court for Jewish debts and property probably did not cease to operate.

Plasencia The Jew Solomon (his last name is unknown) remained in debt to Pedro Gutiérrez, a resident of Plasencia, for the sum of 6,000 mrs. He had departed, but Gutiérrez managed to catch him, and Solomon then gave him the promissory notes of Christians who owed him money. This debt, according to Gutiérrez, was a transparent debt, and the notes that he had received contained neither open nor covert interest. The Crown responded by ordering the corregidor of Plasencia, Antonio Cornejo, or the alcalde, to act in accordance with the orders of 26 February and 6 March 1493.325 Efforts to seize the property of Jews who had left for exile and the debts they had left behind were not lacking. Pedro Maldonado, the magistrate for Jewish property and debts in Plasencia, issued an order requiring the Count of Nieva to pay the Crown 103,244 mrs, with another payment of 25,000 mrs according to the assessment, and payment for several buildings that he had seized there. Without doubt the count had seized the property and collected promissory notes for his own needs. However, the count did not wait but sent his attorney to the royal court to lodge before the judges of the special tribunal for Jewish property and debts an appeal calling for Maldonado’s decision to be quashed. However, he obtained only a postponement of sixty days from the date that the response to his appeal was issued, 20 May 1495, and the cessation of any seizure of property during that period. Maldonado’s action was consistent with the decision of the appeals court for Jewish property. It would appear that such efforts by various noblemen to create faits accomplis by seizing property and confiscating debts were widespread.326 324 His expenses were guaranteed in the order, which was drafted by Juan de la Parra on instructions from the Crown. 325 The penalty for non-compliance with the order was loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine payable to the treasury of 10,000 mrs. The order was drafted by Juan Sánchez de Ceinos with the approbation of the council, issued on 11 Feb. 1494. RGS 11 No. 300, fo. 276. 326 The penalty for non-compliance with the order was loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine payable to the treasury of 10,000 mrs. The order was drafted by Antonio de Almendares, whose title was escríbano de cámara. He drafted most of the orders relating to the actions of this court. The decision was rendered by the judges, Gonzalo Sánchez de Castro and licenciado Gonzalo Fernández Gallego, and Luis Polanco. See RGS 12 No. 2393, fo. 347.

jewish‒christian credit

199

Lillo Pedro Sánchez de Vargas, a resident of the town of Lillo, wished to benefit two Jews also from Lillo, Manrique and Rosillo, who owed 21,000 mrs to various fellow townsmen. In order that they could go into exile with the others, they gave Sánchez de Vargas a power of attorney to collect the sum of 20,000 mrs, more or less, from various residents of the town. These debts were for merchandise and cloth that they had sold at a fair price and honestly. Now those debts were his to collect, but because of the lien imposed on debts by the Crown, he could not do so. The Crown answered this petition as well and ordered the corregidor of Toledo, Don Pedro del Castillo, to act according to the decree of 26 February and 6 March 1493.327

Villa del río Pisuerga Gutierre de Mier petitioned the Crown regarding the debts of the Jews of Herrera.328 Antonio de Orenes or Orense also addressed the Crown in his own name and was answered on 6 May 1494. Yose Harache and his son Don Meir, both residents of Villa del río Pisuerga, or perhaps of Herrera, which is also on that river, owed Gutierre money as a result of the sale of merchandise in various place. During the expulsion, they reached an arrangement with him about some debts owed to them by Juan Bermejo and other residents of the marquesado of Santillana. These debts were to be transferred to Gutierre, and the Jews even left a power of attorney with him. Once the debts were due, he executed the sale of the debtors’ property, according to an order issued by García de Cotes, who served as the judge and commissioner of Jewish debts in the diocese of Burgos, in collaboration with his fellow judge Juan de Cahuerniga. The Christian debtors challenged this judgment, and presented an order from the Crown to the magistrate of the marquesado that no interest should be paid on such debts, arguing that these were loans for interest (‘contratos usurarios e fechos en fraude de usura’); besides which, Gutierre could have collected the debts from the Jews before they went into exile. However, Gutierre argued that the debtors had kept silence, assuming they could avoid paying the debts. In the Crown’s response García de Cotes was ordered to summon the parties for a hearing and decide as he saw fit.329

Llerena An echo of the days preceding the expulsion can be found in an order of the monarchs to the corregidor of Badajoz, Alonso Enríquez. He was to respond to the petition of Alonso Álvarez, a resident of Llerena,330 who had complained to the council that a 327 RGS 11 No. 684, fo. 149, issued on 19 Mar. 1494; the draftsman’s name is missing, nor does it say which council approved it. Dr de Toledo, a resident of Toledo, was also answered in similar spirit on 20 Mar. 1494. See RGS 11 No. 893, fo. 150, drafted by Juan Sánchez de Ceinos with the approbation of the Royal Council. 328 See RGS 10 No. 953, fo. 160, cited above, n. 39. Gutierre de Mier was camerero of the Countess of Haro. 329 See RGS 11 No. 1734, fo. 82, drafted by Luis del Castillo with the approbation of the Crown Council. The title of García de Cotes mentioned in the order was ‘alcalde de Atienza’, but it is hard to imagine that he is other than the man of the same name who served as corregidor of Burgos. 330 RGS 11 No. 1891, fo. 225, dated 16 May 1494, issued with the approbation of the Royal Council; the draftsman’s name is missing.

200

jewish‒christian credit

Jewish fellow townsman, Yose de Ávila, owed him 8,614 mrs, based on promissory notes and contracts that were in his possession. Yose had fled from the town and settled in a place named Villanueva de Barcarrota, on the lands of Fernán Gómez de Solís,331 who dismissed Álvarez’s application as a favour to Yose de Ávila, who was his tailor. After repeated appeals to Fernán Gómez had gone unanswered, Álvarez petitioned to the council, and on its recommendation the Crown ordered the corregidor of Badajoz to convene the parties and decide the case. This directive implies that Yose de Ávila had returned to Spain and converted to Christianity.332

Guevara In the town of Guevara, which belonged to the Count of Oñate, some Jews served in the capacity of mayordomo for his business and property. When the community was expelled, they left with him promissory notes from Christians who owed them money in place of their debts to the count. These debts were not, in his opinion, interestbearing loans, but transparent; he therefore requested permission to collect them. The Crown responded by ordering the corregidor of Burgos (García de Cotes), or anyone with a power of attorney from him, to convene the parties, meaning a representative of the count, who was the creditor, and the debtors. The corregidor was to reach a decision based on the royal instructions regarding debts issued on 26 February and 6 March 1493.333

Cornago Lope de San Vitores, a resident of Cornago, sued three Jewish residents of the town, Fernando de Alfaro, Solomon Levi, and David Chico, in a local court for failure to supply merchandise. The three had obligated themselves to supply 200 arrobas of wool, for which Lope de San Vitores had paid 47,748 mrs. The wool was not supplied, and they were placed in detention by the town magistrates, Hernando Alonso and Diego Ramírez.334 The magistrates then released the three, and the documents indicate that they left the area. Most probably at least two of the Jews, Solomon Levi and David Chico, went into exile. Lope de San Vitores sued the magistrates for damages; when they failed to respond, he petitioned the Royal Council, upon whose recommendation the Crown required the two magistrates to pay the aforementioned 331 Yose de Atejar had a house in that village, which Gómez de Solís took from him, no doubt because of a debt, and transferred to Luis Palos. See RGS 7 No. 4095, fo. 175, dated 23 Dec. 1490. The Crown ordered the magistrate of the village to investigate Yose de Atejar’s complaint. According to a document dated 7 Feb., Solomon Franco lived on his lands, and Yose served as his guarantor. Franco failed to pay the debt, which amounted to 9,000 mrs, and Yose was forced to pay it for him. See RGS 8 No. 325, fo. 43. 332 The document does not mention sanctions for non-compliance, though they might have gone without saying. It was drafted with the approbation of the council, but the draftsman’s name is missing. 333 The fine for non-compliance was 10,000 mrs. The order was drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the Crown Council, issued on 28 Jan. 1495. See RGS 12 No. 332, fo. 398. 334 Two orders refer to this affair. One, RGS 12 No. 3420, fo. 149, is dated 11 Sept. 1495. The name of Fernando de Alfaro is deleted from it, and in its place is written the name of Fernando Alonso as a partner in the deal. But in RGS 12 No. 3997, fo. 147, an ‘order on an order’ issued on 23 Nov. 1495, the correct name of Fernando de Alfaro is listed. The three are referred to as Jews, but it is doubtful whether Fernando de Alfaro was Jewish, and he might have been a convert to Christianity. Both orders were drafted by Bartolomé Ruiz de Castañeda.

jewish‒christian credit

201

sum to Lope de San Vitores because of their negligence, in addition to his expenses. If they did not pay him, the corregidor of Soria and its resident magistrate were to execute the Crown’s orders.

Murcia The petition of Doña Beatriz de Perea to the Crown raises a relatively distant echo of debts owed by Jews. Abraham Cohen, a resident of Murcia, had left the city and gone to Cartagena, the port of Murcia, from which the Jews departed. Without doubt he intended to leave. He owed Doña Beatriz 12,000 mrs, besides debts to other Christian creditors. When Doña Beatriz learned of his departure, she tried to seize his property, but only managed to gain possession of one of his female slaves, whom she transferred to the alcaide of Cartagena. We do not know why she chose that alcaide in particular rather than the one in Murcia; perhaps the slave-woman was caught right in the port of Cartagena. Two days after the Jews went into exile, that is, in early August 1492, the alcaide had the slave-woman baptized (she had apparently been a Muslim). When Doña Beatriz asked the alcaide to transfer ownership of the slave-woman to her, he refused, arguing that, now that she was a Christian, she was no longer obliged to remain in slavery.335 Doña Beatriz did not accept the alcaide’s ruling and addressed the Crown, asking for an order to have the slave-woman delivered to her or for payment of the debt owed by Abraham Cohen. The document does not specify what property should be sold to cover the debt if the slave-woman was not transferred to her. The Crown did not respond to Doña Beatriz’s appeal until 5 April 1498, when with the approbation of the Royal Council it ordered the corregidor of Murcia,336 or the resident magistrate there, to summon the alcaide and Doña Beatriz and reach a decision regarding her suit.337 This petition was unique, for despite the long interval between Abraham Cohen’s departure and the slave-woman’s baptism, Doña Beatriz de Perea’s claim remained pending; we do not know what the corregidor of Murcia decided.

ii. the kingdom of aragon Undoubtedly, because the number of Jews living in Aragon towards the end of their residence there was relatively small, they were also less involved in moneylending. However, Ferdinand took steps regarding the debts of the Jews related to taxes and mutual credit between Christians and Jews. These steps indicate that the Crown imposed official control in line with its own interests. Whereas in Castile the Crown was able to guarantee its revenue from taxes directly through the agency of Abraham Senior, the farmer of taxes in the kingdom, this was not the case in Aragon. There Ferdinand acted vigorously to obtain the tax revenue that had come from the Jews. Before Ferdinand’s order was issued, a discussion was probably held regarding ‘Ya no hera obligada a servidumbre’, RGS 15 No. 1080, fo. 53. The corregidor is not named; he might have been Fernando de Barientos. See Lunenfeld, Keepers, 211. See also R. Serra Ruiz, ‘Notas sobre el juicio de residencia en la época de los Reyes Católicos’, Anuario de Estudios Medievales, 5 (1968), 438–46. 337 The sanction for non-compliance was loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. The order was drafted by Pedro Fernández de Madrid. 335 336

202

jewish‒christian credit

Jewish debts, for as early as 17 May 1493 chief officials convened in Zaragoza at a meeting led by micer Miguel Molón. With him in consultation sat Juan Fernández de Heredia, the governor of the kingdom, Bernaldino Spital, the zalmedina of the city, and Jaime de la Caballería, the judge of the Hermandad. They ordered registry clerks to list the property of the Jews according to the instructions issued by the Crown in early May, according to which the work had to be finished during the first weeks of that month. However, the operation continued until June. The instructions could not prevent fictional transfer and the giving of gifts to Christian friends of the Jews. Those Christians who were found to be delinquent were punished with excommunication, the confiscation of their property, and trial before an Inquisition court. Most probably in registering the property a distinction was made between Jewish communal property and private property. On these occasions Jewish ritual objects and the ornaments of synagogues and Torah scrolls were also listed.338 On 5 June 1492 two Jews of Magallón, Yento Azamel and Yose Macho, gave Domingo Agustín the sum of 5,000 sueldos, which was part of the annual tax that the Jews of the city had to pay the Crown in January of that year.339 On 12 June the governor of Aragon, the zalmedina of Zaragoza, and the judge of the Hermandad reiterated the order issued on 28 May and expressed their concern regarding the covering of debts from Jewish taxes.340 This was publicly proclaimed. Those responsible for the expulsion made an arrangement with the heads of the Jewish community of Zaragoza, the largest and most important in the kingdom, regarding the collection of debts from the taxes and real property of the Jewish community or from other property that could be converted into currency. The remaining property would, after recovery of the debts, provide for the exiles’ expenses. In that arrangement appraisers were also appointed to assess that property. Mosén Domingo Agustín, who was appointed to collect the debts, arrested and imprisoned three heads of the community, Abraham Avenayut, Açachi Gutina, and Bonafos Abnarrabi, to ensure the payment of taxes owed to the Crown. This incarceration seems to have preceded the second proclamation, for on 29 May the governor, the zalmedina, and the judge of the Hermandad rescinded the order of imprisonment, arguing that they needed these Jews in order to negotiate arrangements for their departure. On 14 June quotas were determined for four leaders of the Jewish community of Zaragoza: Abraham Avenayut, Mose Abuzmel, Samuel Abenrabi (known as Patrón), and Adret Aninay were all required to pay. The main burden fell upon the shoulders of Yose Abuzmel (known as Chamorro), the treasurer of the community. Mose Cedosillo shared the responsibility with him. Mose Abuzmel was required to transfer several houses and a garden in the Jewish quarter to the notary Juan Aznar Guallart in order to cover the debt for taxes. Similarly other Jews were required to pay. Thus the first stage in covering the debts was the registry of Jewish property, both public and private. The second was seizure of that property. This limited and almost M. A. Motis Dolader, Los judíos aragoneses en la época del descubrimiento de América (Zaragoza, 1989), 38 ff. Serrano y Sanz, Orígenes, 59. 340 See Motis Dolader, Expulsión, 47 ff. The order was read by the notary Juan Aznar Guallart. The Jews were sworn to obedience before a commissioner of the Inquisition. See Serrano y Sanz, Orígenes, 57. 338 339

jewish‒christian credit

203

prevented the sale of property to cover private debts that Jews owed to Christians. Debts of Christians to Jews were also taken into account in covering debts to the Crown, which were collected first. The situation made it necessary for this procedure to be instituted in other communities as well.341 For instance, the community of Tarazona decided on 27 July that all Jewish property should be transferred to the Crown in payment for the debts of the community. The muqaddamin of that community were Judah Azamel, Rabi Shem Tob Falcon, who had been the procurador of the community, Abraham Ora Bona, Joseph Bivach, and maestre Samuel Vivanes Asmal.342 Vicente de Bordalba, the representative of the Inquisition, was authorized to deal with the collection of debts from taxes in Borja, Calatayud, and Daroca.343 The role played by the Inquisition in this activity is clearly evident. Nevertheless there remained debts that Christians claimed from Jews, apparently including the claim of Dionisio de Castro, a New Christian, for 3,000 sueldos from Vidal Abenrabi in payment of a debt with interest, and another debt of 2,000 sueldos. The debtor confessed his debt and arranged payment by transfer to the creditor of another debt from Duenya Levi, the widow of Solomon Ora Bona.344 On 21 July 1492 a lien was placed on debts owed to Yose Abuzmel, the treasurer of the community. This was decided by those in charge of the expulsion in Aragon. The list of his debtors is quite considerable and contains Christians resident in twenty-five places and Muslims resident in nineteen places. His business activity was quite wideranging and included loans in cash and for grain of various kinds and agricultural transactions.345 This lien apparently did not satisfy the wishes of the Crown, and on 26 September 1492 it ordered maestre racional Gonzalo de Peternoi and mosén Domingo Agostín, the acting baile general of Aragon, to conduct a renewed investigation and to list, with the assistance of one or more notaries, the debts owed and the transfers and sales made by those leaving for exile. Some of those responsible for organizing the expulsion had apparently seized property and debts. The Crown wished to confiscate these for the Royal Treasury.346 Thus Ferdinand clearly viewed himself as the owner of Jewish real and moveable property, the possessions and money of the Jews of his kingdom.

Huesca The muqaddamin of the Jewish community of Huesca ordered a meeting of the members of the community, and they convened on 29 July 1492 in the synagogue to discuss On these men and their part in the arrangements for departure, see Ch. 5 below. See Serrano y Sanz, Orígenes, 56–7; Motis Dolader, Expulsión, 53–6. 343 Motis Dolader, ‘Explotaciones’, 356 ff. Most of the Jewish community’s property was agricultural. 344 See id., Expulsión, 44–6. 345 In addition to Zaragoza, the places are given as (Christians): Ayebe, Pobla, Andorra, Oliete, Boquiñeni, Uyteo, Conuenda, Carinyena, Calatrau, Cuera, Sant Mateu, Pastiz, Castella, Ejea de los Cavalleros, Almudévar, Santa Pedrola, Barboles, Ambit, Mocalbarba, Nues, Corrella, Alcofea, Burgo. The places where Muslims borrowed, in addition to Zaragoza, are Pleitas, Barbols, Palencia, Bardollur, Perman, Sobradiel, Cabanyas, Mozota, Lumpiaque, Villafranca, Lurcenich, Correa, Borja, Brea, Nuella, Fuentes, Nues. There is an overlap with some places. See Motis Dolader, Expulsión, 166 ff. On Yose Abuzmel, see Ch. 5 below. 346 On the order see Motis Dolader, Expulsión, 230–3. The source of the order is ACA, Real Cancillería Reg. 3570, fos. 86–7. 341 342

204

jewish‒christian credit

the liquidation of the community’s debts. At that time they decided to ask Martín de Gurrea, the lord of Agravieso, who was responsible for implementing the expulsion, to lend the community 17,600 sueldos, which he could cover by collecting the debts owed them by Christians. This arrangement could apparently be justified before the monarchs. Indeed this agreement was presented to the commissioners responsible for the expulsion, and they approved it.347 The other debts of the community, including a debt to the king, the bailiwick-general, and other royal revenues (‘al Rey, bailía general et otras rentas reales’), totalling 30,000 sueldos, were partially covered by selling the property of the members of the Mosse family: Argelet-Gento, Tadioz, and Samuel the son of Azach. Another portion was covered by money borrowed from Martín de Gurrea. The main activity in settling the debts took place between 17 and 25 July 1492. On 23 July the heads of the Jewish community and twenty-one of its members held a final assembly before their departure. On that occasion a committee was formed, composed of three Jews and one Christian, which was authorized to settle the debts before the expulsion.348 At the same time, debts were also settled that derived from fixed annuities guaranteed by revenue from the community.349 The committee registered the Jews’ property and listed those who received annuities, which came to 5,490 sueldos, while the value of the property was 103,568 sueldos. Jaime Carnoy was authorized to arrange the sale of the property, which in addition to buildings included vineyards, fields, gardens, debts, annuities, and other property.350 There were also donations of property made by the exiles, as is attested by a unique document regarding the donation of the home of Mose Rahenas to his son, Jacobico Rahenas, who had converted to Christianity while young.351 347 The following were appointed as attorneys for collecting the debt: Pedro Peres, Mateu de Oblado, Juan Alfonso (the notary of Zaragoza), Juan de Broso, Juan de San Vicient, Juan de Novallas, and Pedro Labadía. See A. Durán Gudiol, La judería de Huesca (Zaragoza, 1984), 128. This was the sum that the community had to pay to Martín de Gurrea for guarding the deportees. See Ch. 5 below. 348 They were Jaime Carnoy, a notary from Zaragoza, the muqaddamin of the Jewish community, Samuel Xuen and Samuel Aben Gaston, and the maestre Ezmel Abin Dant. For this document see Del Arco and 349 Ibid. 388–90. Balaguer, ‘Nuevas noticias’, 386–8. 350 ‘Todas las casas, vinyas campos, planteros, güertos, heredades, censales, derechos e acciones de la dicha aljama e singulares d’ella; de los quales bienes los dichos comisarios non hayan tenido pagar en la manera a ellas vista asi el señor Rey como a otros erehedores’. It was understood and arranged: ‘Satisfechos e pagados, los otros bienes que quedaran queden a disposicion del dicho Jayme Carnoy para que dellos faga e disponga a su propria voluntat como de bienes e cosa suya propria’. See Durán Gudiol, La judería de Huesca, 132–3. They were also obliged to pay the fee of the notary Martín de Almorabet. His debt was settled by the transfer of real estate (two houses, including a winery and an olive-press; ibid. 134–5). The Argelet and Xuen families, the most affluent members of the community, contributed more than the rest to covering the debts. Since they needed to pay their travel expenses, the commissioners responsible for the expulsion ordered a sum of money to be left in their hands for that purpose. This arrangement was also made with the Jento, Mossé, Tadioz, Samuel menor, and Samuel major families. These families contributed 30,000 sueldos to the settlement of the debts. See ibid. 133–4. 351 The donation of the house was sealed with a deed in the presence of the magistrate of Huesca. Martín de Lanaja, the judge of the Hermandad, Pedro de Moras, and the acting zalmedina Ramón de Sijena were appointed to supervise the expulsion from Huesca. See ibid. 128. Ramón de Sijena was investigated in 1495 for his execution of the expulsion. His response was presented to the Crown on 6 Mar. 1495. See Del Arco and Balaguer, ‘Nuevas noticias’, 390–2. See also Ch. 5 below.

jewish‒christian credit

205

In this community, all the property of the Jews, both public and private, was effectively impounded to cover the claims of the Crown. The Jews of Huesca thus went into exile stripped of all their property. What befell the exiled Jews of Huesca apparently also befell those of Ejea de los Caballeros, of Calatayud, and of La Almunia de Doña Godina.352

Valencia In Valencia, the baile general of the kingdom issued an order on 8 May 1492 regarding the registry of Christians’ debts to Jews. Special emissaries were appointed for this purpose, charged with seeing that transparent debts should be paid without delay. Regarding doubtful debts, the local baile or magistrate was ordered to summon the parties for a hearing, and to collect the debt according to the decision.353 This order was doubtless issued with the approbation of Ferdinand, and it should be viewed in relation to Jews’ debts to Christian creditors. The latter were subject to the lien on Jewish property. Thus Abraam Lagem, a resident of Castellón de la Plana, complained to the baile general that his property had been confiscated. He claimed he had paid his debt. The baile general responded to him and accepted his claim.354 Nevertheless it should be noted that our knowledge about the liquidation of Jewish property and debts in that kingdom is scanty, and most of the information pertains to the Jews of Sagunto. These documents refer to the sale of property and the settling of debts, for which authority was given to various procuradores. Most of the businesses and property were liquidated in June and July. Among those who delegated authority were Salamo Cavaller, who authorized the notaries Juan Sánchez and Pedro Monsoriu, and with them Andrés Solanes, a silk-spinner (‘sedero’) to collect debts that Christians owed him. On 8 June Mose Ardit appointed Miguel Berdancha, a notary from Valencia, as his procurador and authorized him to collect the debts that Christians owed him. On 14 July Barbut Judah, a resident of Sagunto, appointed his fellow townsman Bernat Marzen as his procurador. A notarial certificate of this was signed on board the ship 352 On the fate of the Jews of Ejea see Ch. 5 below. Regarding their property see Cabezudo Astrain, ‘Ejea de los Caballeros’. One of the local Jews, Salamon Loro, waived the debts owed him by Martín Fostero and Martín Brun. Yose Ambron waived the debts of Antón de Velaguas and Miguel de Riglos. Mose Aholumbre, a farmer of the alcabala tax on skins in the abattoir (after the animals were slaughtered and certain organs were removed) in Castejón de Valdejas, transferred the debt of Domingo Olivan to the commissioners. The debt was for 280 sueldos in Jaca coin. See ibid. 357. On Calatayud see G. M. Borrás Gualis, ‘Liquidación de bienes de los judíos expulsados de la aljama de Calatayud’, Sefarad, 29 (1969), 31–48. M. A. Motis Dolader, The Expulsion of the Jews from Calatayud 1492–1500 (Jerusalem, 1990), 82, 89–95. On La Almunia see E. Marín Padilla, ‘Los judíos de La Almunia de Doña Godina, villa aragonesa de señorío, en la segunda mitad del siglo XV’, Sefarad, 50 (1990), 85–127, 335–71. On other property, Cadiñandos Bardeci, ibid. 312–15. In Teruel Abraham Faraig gave a power of attorney to Juan de Launata of Teruel to collect the debts that Christians still owed him. However, Abraham Biton of Teruel gave a power of attorney for that purpose to his son Pedro Comir, who had converted to Christianity. Samuel Mançanell, a resident of Albarracín, also left a power of attorney for that purpose. See J. A. Hinojosa Montalvo, ‘Solidaridad judía ante la expulsión: Contratos de embarque (Valencia 1492)’, Saitabi, 33 (1983), 107–8. 353 L. Piles Ros, ‘Los judíos en la Valencia del siglo XV’, Sefarad, 7 (1947), 151–6; id., ‘La expulsión de los judíos de Valencia: Repercusiones económicas’, Sefarad, 15 (1955), 89–102. 354 Doñate Sebastià and Nom de Deu, Three Jewish Communities, 162–3 and index.

206

jewish‒christian credit

La Nunciata, doubtless shortly before it set sail. These instances are not isolated.355 However, in this kingdom as well, it cannot be doubted that the debts that were collected were useful to the exiles, if they managed to realize them before their departure. After the Jews’ departure, these funds most probably found their way to the Royal Treasury, as happened in Aragon and in the few communities that survived in Catalonia. ✻

This list of debts, both those owed by Christians to Jews and those owed by Jews to Christians, represents only a tiny fraction of the credit extant in the state. Detailed examination of the matter shows the activity of Jews in a broad variety of settlements, even in remote areas, and a range of relations and occupations, and it indicates relations of mutual dependence for subsistence—for neither group alone could maintain itself. This is the picture of Jewish life. The Edict of Expulsion and its effects in the area of credit shows the impact of the Crown’s decision to expel the Jews and dismantle Jewish credit. Despite the Crown’s guarantee that the Jews would be allowed to depart safely from the realm during the expulsion, we learn of arbitrary actions taken by Christian creditors on the one hand, and on the other of mutual efforts to avoid paying debts. This is no innovation with respect to human behaviour. As noted, these documents represent only a tiny fraction of the extant credit. Hence it would be a distortion of the truth were one simply to add up the sums mentioned in these documents. Moreover, in some regions only isolated examples of debts were found, whereas in others quite a few were in evidence. As noted, an important point established here is that the Jews were dispersed in distant places of settlement. We have also found evidence regarding their businesses and trades, and the structure of their relations with the Christian inhabitants and local officials and leaders: the nobility, the clergy, the city council, the magistrates, or people hard pressed to make a living. The nobility, clergy, and local leaders bought promissory notes from the Jews and ultimately became usurious moneylenders to other Christians. Hence the Crown found it necessary to insist upon the prohibition on lending for interest among Christians. Its solution was to exploit the situation and become itself a creditor and heir of the debts of exiled Jews.356 355 See Hinojosa Montalvo, ‘Solidaridad judía’, 106–8, also for additional details on another power of attorney with which Jews authorized notaries and procuradores to deal with debts still owed to them by Christians. 356 See also Chs. 7 and 8 below for conversos who sought, after returning to their places of origin, to collect the debts that Christians owed them in Castile and to regain possession of the property they had left behind, which had been sold at half its value when they went into exile.

5

The Implementation of the Edict Señor, aqui estan pagados a vuestra merçed de aquellas casas en que moramos 17,000 maravedis, e pues que viene esta nueva que sabeys que ayamos de yr, de nos vuestra merçed alguna cosa por ellas que vayamos e tomese las dichas casas. Entonçes respondio don Ruys que no podia dar ninguna cosa, e con esto se salieron el don Ysaque Aljahen e su mujer llorando, e se vinieron.1 Sir, here is paid to your grace the sum of 17,000 maravedís—for the house where we lived. Since this news arrived, which is known to you, that we must depart, be merciful with us and give us something in return, and take the house. Then Don Ruys replied, saying to them, that he could not give them anything. And with this [refusal] Don Ysaque Aljahen and his wife went out, and they were weeping.

i. the road to implementation he edict of expulsion was signed by Ferdinand and Isabella on 31 March 1492, but not promulgated throughout the kingdom of Castile until 1 May. In T Aragon it was published two days earlier, on 29 April. Most likely, knowledge of the 2

existence of the edict was widespread in Jewish communities all over Spain. Jewish historiography has credited Abraham Senior and Don Isaac Abravanel with seeking to intervene with the Crown to prevent the promulgation of the Edict of Expulsion and to repeal it.3 For such intervention to have taken place, the two men must have been present in the military camp of Santa Fe near Granada, where the monarchs were F. Cantera Burgos, ‘La judería de San Martín de Valdeiglesias’, Sefarad, 29 (1969), 234, 269. On publication of the edict in Zaragoza see Serrano y Sanz, Orígenes, 56; Baer, JchS ii. 407 (with a detailed note). The edict was published in Sardinia on 28 Sept. 1492, though an announcement of the Edict of Expulsion had been sent for Ferdinand to the governor of the island, messir Johan or Giovanni Dosai, as early as 31 Mar. 1492: see M. Perani, ‘Appunti per la storia degli ebrei in Sardegna durante la dominazione aragonese’, Italia, 5 (1985), 127 with n. 31 there on the source presented in J. Vidal, Annales Sardiniae (Milan, 1645), which reports the departure of the Jews from the island as early as 31 July 1492. See above, Ch. 2. See below on the expulsion of the Jews of Sardinia and Sicily. In Barcelona the Edict of Expulsion was promulgated on 1 May 1492: see Conde, Aragón, 36 n. 74. 3 Don Isaac Abravanel, in his introduction to the book of Kings, mentions his personal appeal to the king of Spain, whom he addressed ‘three times, with my own mouth I implored him, saying: save us, O King! Why do you do thus to your servants?’ He also relates that he addressed his friends, the ministers of the kingdom, and asked them to intervene. He says that Queen Isabella stood ‘at his [the king’s] right to lead him astray’, meaning that they were in agreement. This account is found in Solomon Ibn Verga, Shevet yehudah: hashemad hah.amishim ushenayim, ed. E. Shohat ( Jerusalem, 1947), 102–22. One must ask in what circumstances such appeals could have taken place. In order to address the king after the edict kad been promulgated, Abravanel would have had to travel to the place where the king and queen were staying, which until almost the end of May was Granada (see n. 4). On 15 June Abraham Senior and several members of his family converted to Christianity in Guadalupe. 1 2

208

implementation of the edict

staying. Ferdinand and Isabella spent the entire month of April there, remaining until 25 May.4 The Edict of Expulsion was published in Castile and Aragon during their absence. We possess no information about an actual petition to the king and queen. It is no coincidence that this appeal was linked, though anonymously, to the legend of the intervention of Tomás de Torquemada. According to this legend, during negotiations held in Ferdinand’s tent, the king was offered 30,000 gold ducats to rescind the edict; when Torquemada got wind of this, he burst into the tent, brandishing a cross. He laid it on the table and proclaimed that the Jews had already sold God once for thirty pieces of silver, and now the king was repeating the deed. Having performed this dramatic act, Torquemada is said to have left the tent. This legend, although created after the expulsion, sought to attribute some reluctance to Ferdinand, willingness to negotiate, and to reconsider the expulsion itself. Without doubt, Torquemada, who was a member of the royal entourage at that time, exerted great influence upon the monarchs —but not decisive influence. His alleged response emphasizes the religious aspect of the expulsion. But perhaps a letter from the king to the heads of the Inquisition in Zaragoza is related to an effort to prevent the expulsion: Ferdinand wrote that messir Alfonso de la Caballería should not be accused of intervening to prevent the expulsion of the Jews.5 As noted above, the documents found in the royal archive dating from the months between the conquerors’ entry into Granada on 6 January 1492 and the signature and promulgation of the Edict of Expulsion at the end of March contain no reference to the intention of expelling the Jews. However, by the time the edict was proclaimed in every city and town, the die had been cast, and the Jews of Spain saw clearly that they had to organize the termination of their residence in that country, take up their wanderers’ staves, and leave the places where they had dwelt for generations. Within a short time they had to find places of refuge in other countries that were willing to take them in, whether temporarily or permanently. The exit routes by sea and land and the conditions prevailing at that time demanded extensive organization by an entire people.6 It may be stated categorically that there was no Jewish settlement from which some 4 They remained in Guadalupe from 11 to 25 June 1492. On the monarchs’ travels see A. Prieto and C. Álvarez Terán, Registro General del Sello, ix (Valladolid, 1965), p. x. On the last day of the presence of the Jews in Spain, 31 July 1492, the king and queen were in Burgo de Osma. See also Beinart, ‘Did messir Alfonso de la Caballería Intervene?’, 271. These sources were cited only to show that the problem of the publication of the Edict of Expulsion preoccupied people so much as to lead to the creation of the legend of intervention to prevent it, apart from the instruction sent by Ferdinand to the Inquisitors in Zaragoza not to try messir Alfonso de la Caballería for his intervention to prevent the expulsion. He came from Aragon, whereas those whom the legend makes intervene were from Castile. The secrecy surrounding the preparation of the Edict of Expulsion is of great importance. On this subject see Ch. 2 above, also Rumeu de Armas, Nueva luz, 138–42. 5 See Baer, Toledot, 435 ff.; Beinart, ‘Did messir Alfonso de la Caballeria Intervene?’, 274 n. 37. The letter, sent from Guadalupe in June 1492 (exact date missing), states: ‘Y porque es muy justa cosa que no se da lugar a las enemigas que en esta çiudat y reyno estan publicas y descaradas contra nuestro viçecançiller asi por actos por el fechos conçernientes nuestro serviçio y benefiçio deste reyno como por la expulsion de los udios, en el qual se dize les han dado a entender que el ha entretenido’. 6 See Ch. 2. The exiles’ tribulations are described below.

implementation of the edict

209

Jews did not go into exile. This was an exodus, not of individuals or isolated families, but of entire communities that liquidated their communal, familial, and personal property and departed. Below we shall see what is known to us of the trials undergone by the exiles, and how the exiled Jews of Spain withstood the dreadful hardships that afflicted many of them. The short and prosaic stories told by the documents are testimony to the general experience of the exiles, who wandered for shorter or longer times, sometimes for year upon year. Untouched by these tribulations, the Crown gave forethought to supervising with all the means at its disposal the implementation of the edict, to avoid harm to the state in the crisis that was liable to ensue. In a consultation with the Royal Council on 12 November 1522, which included the licenciado de Aguierre, the treasurer Alonso Gutiérrez, the accountant Beltrán del Saltón, and the notary for revenues Pedro de la Guarra, those present recalled the time of the expulsion and expressions of concern regarding what might occur after it, because of the loss of income from imposts and the alcabala tax. That is to say, they were concerned about the economic damage that might endanger the existence of the state.7 The Crown realized that it had to take those who were going into exile under its custody and protection, including the appointment of trustworthy men to supervise the exiles and the general population so as to prevent chaos in the country. Because the kingdom had only recently been united, and each of the constituent kingdoms had different and separate conditions of organization and government, each one was obliged to act according to its own situation. Moreover, defence of those going into exile required a military escort as far as the coast or the land borders with Portugal or Navarre. For that purpose an ad hoc organization was established, and the administrative bodies that governed cities and towns were employed. Thus a difference will be found between the kingdoms of Castile and Aragon. In organizing the central supervisory body, the Crown appointed special magistrates in central places in Castile. Their title was alcaldes de las sacas, and along with them were appointed prosecuting investigators charged with overseeing everything concerning the property of the deportees and the removal of property and goods from the kingdom.8 A special appeals court, associated with the Crown, was established, and it was authorized to deal with the petitions of the deportees, who, it was anticipated, would appeal the decisions of the special judges. The appeals court consisted of the licenciados Gonzalo Sánchez de Castro, Gonzalo Fernández Gallego, and Luis de Polanco.9 Of See Ch. 8 n. 337. The alcalde de las sacas was present at every border crossing-point. He checked to see whether forbidden items were being removed from the kingdom. Anyone leaving the realm was required to declare what he was removing from the state in the presence of three witnesses, and everything was registered. If he was discovered removing contraband, he was condemned for making a false declaration and punished. See Mariéjol, The Spain of Ferdinand and Isabella, 216. 9 In the documents they are called respectively ‘licenciado Castro’, ‘licenciado Gallego’, ‘licenciado Polanco’. Starting from 7 Apr. 1495 the documents also mention the name of licenciado Pedro de Marcado as a justice of the appeals court for the outstanding debts of Christians to Jews. See RGS 12 No. 1671, fo. 161. His appointment might have been made earlier. Castro was the senior justice. On the judges’ decisions regarding the property of the exiles and the departure, see the book of documents relating to the expulsion upon which I am presently working. See also Suárez Fernández, Documentos, index, and the monarchs’ order to the 7 8

210

implementation of the edict

course all three of them had at their disposal a full judicial apparatus of prosecutors, procuradores, executors, notaries, and a house of detention. In supervising local activity the Crown was assisted by the corregidores and asistentes, and by mayors trusted by the Crown, whose fidelity had stood the test of years. Regarding the Jews, this meant that they had been involved in the segregation of housing decreed in 1477. They had in fact been put to the test from the time when Ferdinand and Isabella assumed the thrones of the joint kingdoms, and especially in implementing the decisions made by the Cortes of Toledo in 1480. Their rule over the cities made them an extremely important instrument in implementing the expulsion.10 Along with these stood the civic organization, the Santa Hermandad, an urban police force used to keep public order. This force had arisen on the initiative of the cities themselves during times of disorder. In Castile the queen successfully used this body to serve the needs of the kingdom.11 Another institution whose role in the expulsion cannot be underestimated, and which was at the disposal of the Crown in implementing it in other regions, was the Inquisition. In the year of the expulsion, its net was spread over almost the entire kingdom. This body was experienced, having initiated and taken part in the expulsion of the Jews of Andalusia in 1483.12 In Aragon the Inquisition was the leading institution in implementing the expulsion.13 The Hermandad and the Inquisition effectively determined the pace of preparations for the expulsion, and they kept their eye on what was done in the Jewish communities. Agents of the Inquisition, the local clergy, and in some places the municipal authorities as well, sought to prevent the Jews’ departure by forcing them to convert or, by exerting personal pressure on the weak-willed, convincing them to do so and stay behind.14 We shall not speculate about their motives. Whereas the activity of the agents of the Inquisition found special expression in the kingdom of Aragon, the role of the corregidores was especially prominent in the kingdom of Castile. The ‘judges responsible for the removal of things from the kingdom’ acted at their side. Without their intervention, supervision, and fidelity to the Crown, it would certainly not have been possible to implement the Edict of Expulsion and to effect the prompt departure of the Jews from the kingdom.15 The role of the corregidores was particularly important in the border cities assigned for the exiles’ passage on their way to Portugal, for they collected the frontier duties.16 They also played an important role in the port cities designated for those leaving by ship. Though in principle it would be possible to limit discussion of their part in superlicenciado Francisco Vargas, the corregidor of Plasencia, and his assistants in July 1495 (exact date missing). This refers to the claim made by Cristóbal Pizarro, a resident of Trujillo, who spoke on behalf of María de Carauajal and Doña Leonor de Salazar, her daughter, regarding a debt owed to them by Juan Pizarro. Pizarro appealed against the verdict to the Crown in their name, and the Crown ordered the judge Alonso Ruiz de Olmedo, the local judge, not to deal with the matter until the appeal was heard by the judges appointed for that purpose. See RGS 12 No. 3014, fo. 439. 11 On the corregidores see Lunenfeld, Keepers. See Lunenfeld, Hermandad. See Beinart, ‘La Inquisición española’. 13 See the description of the expulsion from Zaragoza, Ejea de los Caballeros, and elsewhere below. See 14 also the comment of Baer, JchS ii. 407. Baer, Toledot, index. 15 16 See Lunenfeld, Keepers, 52 ff. See e.g. below, on Ciudad Rodrigo. 10 12

implementation of the edict

211

vising the expulsion to the period between the beginning of May and the end of July 1492, we shall see below that documents dating from after the expulsion shed light on their activities. For investigations lasting for years were later instituted against several of them. One must take special note of the close ties that existed between the corregidores and the Jewish communities, because the former were dependent on the Jews for payment of between a quarter and a third of their annual salaries.17 Clearly the expulsion of the Jews might lead to a steep reduction in their income, and they sought ways to make certain that this would not happen. Sufficient to cite the methods we have seen adopted by Día Sánchez de Quesada, who had served as corregidor in several places, especially in Segovia and Salamanca,18 as well as Juan Flórez and after him Álvaro de Santesteban in Ávila, Rodrigo del Mercado, the corregidor of Medina del Campo, Onorato de Mendoza in Salamanca, Juan de Luzón in Carrión, Pedro de Cuba in Badajoz (who took the place of the corregidor Gonzalo Fernández del Castillo, murdered in 1492), Pedro de Maluenda in Zamorra, and so on.19 Loyalty was important, and the queen insisted on it, despite serious complaints lodged by residents of these localities and their leaders. On occasion, though, the Crown ordered an investigation to be carried out against them. An example is the secret investigation imposed on Antón Martínez de Aguilera, the resident magistrate in Murcia and Lorca, on 3 December 1492. He found that the corregidor of Murcia and Lorca, Juan Pérez de Baradas, had together with his henchmen retained fines imposed by him on the exiles, amounting to 42,000 or 43,000 mrs. Furthermore, he had not given the prior of the convent of Santa Clara the sum of 9,000 mrs, revenue from fines imposed on various people. He had also taken bedding (‘una cama de ropa’) from the local Jews, which he gave to his subordinate, the bachiller Antón Álvarez de Hamusco.20 The investigator was ordered to make certain that the money and objects were transferred to the receiver of property of the Crown Council. The order against him was issued upon the request of Abraham Cohen, whose place of residence is unknown, in April 1492 (the exact date is missing).21 Cohen complained that border taxes above the permitted rate had been levied on him and other Jews and on their goods;22 as we 17 On the salaries of the corregidores see Lunenfeld, Keepers, 83 ff., 101 ff. They were subsidized in part by the Jewish communities, which were required to supply housing, clothing, and bedding for the corregidores 18 assigned to their city. Ibid. 101. 19 See Ch. 7 below, and also Lunenfeld, Keepers. When the salary of the corregidor of Badajoz was raised, the Jewish community paid a third of it. See RGS 10 No. 1641, fo. 101, dated 19 June 1493, and Ch. 7 n. 154. 20 He received a carpet from the local Muslims. See RGS 9 No. 3471, fo. 96. The investigation order was drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the Royal Council, composed of Don Álvaro, Don Juan de Castillo, the Dean of Seville, Dr de Alcocer, the chancellor, the licenciado Malpartida, and Dr de Oropesa. Sometimes this council met without all its members, and the documents occasionally mention only one of them. Juan Pérez de Baradas also served as the corregidor of Cartagena. On 18 June 1492 he was ordered to implement the agreement reached by Luis de Santángel and Francisco Pinelo with Juan Ambrosio de Negro regarding the departure of the Jews from the kingdom through the port of Cartagena. See RGS 9 No. 2317, fo. 280, dated 16 Apr. 1493. Pero Gómez de Setúbar is mentioned as the corregidor of Murcia in RGS 10 No. 1285, fo. 280. Perhaps he was removed from office. See Lunenfeld, Keepers, 211. 21 See RGS 9 No. 1357, fo. 39, drafted by the notary Luis del Diablo (sic) with the approbation of the council, published by Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 395–6. 22 ‘Demasiados dineros’, not according to the rates (‘alançeles’, ‘arançeles’). For the list of tariffs see Carrete Parrondo, Provincia de Salamanca, 68–73. See also below on those who went into exile via Ciudad Rodrigo.

212

implementation of the edict

shall see, these duties were an important source of income for the corregidores, as is shown by the royal decrees addressed ‘to all the corregidores, alcaldes, regidores, caballeros, escuderos, oficiales, and good men of all the cities, towns, and settlements, and to all portazgueros y roderos [tax-collectors]’. The Crown required the customs collectors to show the deportees the correct customs rates. Evidently this was one way in which the Jews appealed for protection when difficulties arose during their departure. These appeals became more numerous as the final date drew closer. The communities needed orders from the Crown for protection against persons who spread rumours that the Crown had forbidden the purchase of property from the Jews and statements to that effect by civic authorities and nobles.23 In the view of those who circulated the rumours, since the property of the deportees would fall to them in any event once they had left, there was no reason to buy anything from them. Regarding the exiles, any delay in purchase led to a decline in the value of their property, and the pressure to liquidate as much as possible was great, especially since the deportees needed cash to buy supplies for the journey. They also had to convert real estate into goods that could be sold in the place where they eventually settled. Such was the petition to the Crown of the small Jewish community of Burgos. The community must have appealed during the very first days of May, since the Crown responded on 5 May 1492. The community complained that Christians were not paying them what they owed. This refusal made them short of cash, so they were unable to purchase supplies for the journey. The Crown responded to the petition of the community of Burgos and charged the corregidor, García de Cotes, to take care of them. The task was given to him despite the request of the community to appoint a dependable magistrate for this purpose. The authority of the corregidor extended to places as far away as 5 leagues from the city, and the community was required to take responsibility for the arrangement. The feeling of Jewish communal responsibility is also expressed in concern to help the poor leave. For that purpose the community of Palencia sought to sell the synagogue with the buildings and courtyard adjoining it. The community relied upon the right to sell the synagogue granted in the 1480 order for the segregation of housing. According to that order, the Jewish community was permitted to sell its synagogues, and the Muslims were permitted to sell their mosques. Thus in 1492 the community sought to apply the old order to the new synagogue that they had built in their new neighbourhood in Palencia.24 Against them, the municipal leadership sought to take 23 See, for example, RGS 9 No. 1869, fo. 532, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 414–16, the appeal made by Samuel de Soto, a resident of Aranda, on behalf of the community and a group of Jews who lived in the town: Rabi Judah and Yose de Soto, Socorro, Huze and Samuel Soer, residents of Gumiel del Mercado. Their appeal was answered on 24 May 1492. 24 See RGS 9 No. 1464, fo. 513, drafted by Juan Sánchez de Ceinos, with the approbation of the Crown Council: ‘E dis que como non tenian otro remedio saluo cumplir nuestros mandamientos hera nesçesario segun la breuedad del tiempo poder probehir cobrar e recabdar los debdas que les deven asy para lo que devian como para comprar las cosas nesçesarias, pues que de otra manera non lo podian cumplir.’ This document mentions explicitly the date of the promulgation of the Edict of Expulsion, 1 May 1492: ‘Como por algunas rasones que nos movieron mandamos pregonar publicamente por esos nuestros reygnos que todos los judios y judias vesinos e abitantes en ellos saliesen de los nuestros reygnos dentro de tres meses

implementation of the edict

213

control over the buildings for its own needs. Therefore it ordered the herald to announce publicly that the Jews were forbidden to sell communal property. The Crown accepted the community’s argument and ordered the municipal council of Palencia, the resident magistrate and the regidores, to cancel the prohibition which they had issued within three days. Only the Royal Council would make determinations in this matter. Clearly the Crown had not yet decided how to act with respect to Jewish communal property. The order was issued on 23 May 1492.25 Another response, though an exceptional one, came from the Jews of Huete. When they learned about the Edict of Expulsion, they rose up at night and rioted, vociferously demanding four years in which to leave the country.26 Viewing this conduct, a spontaneous challenge expressing their despair in their new plight, as ‘a bad example and a scandal in that city’,27 the Crown ordered the corregidor of Cuenca and Huete, Pero Vaca, the Crown’s maestresala, to investigate the matter; the rioters would be punished on the basis of his findings. This was a swift reaction: the order was issued on 12 May 1492 in Santa Fe, where the royal retinue was present. que se encuentan desde el primero dia deste mes de mayo’. In this order García de Cotes was required to appoint two assessors to evaluate the property of the Jews going into exile. If the two did not reach agreement, they would appoint a third assessor. One of the assessors represented the Jewish community. See also Ch. 4, above. In this spirit the Jewish community of Medina del Campo also petitioned for the appointment of a special judge to deal with claims of the local Jews against Christians and to see that no postponements would be granted in the payment of debts, so they could be collected without delay. Here, too, the deportees needed the means to purchase supplies in preparation for their departure: ‘e como no tenian remedio saluo complir segund la breuedad del tiempo de se proueer e cobrar e recabdar las debdas que les deven para pagar lo que devian como para comprar las cosas nesçesarias’. This community received a response on 25 May 1492, see RGS 9 No. 1890, fo. 529. The Crown charged the corregidor and alcaide of Medina del Campo to appoint two men: one representing the Jewish community and the other representing the Christian debtors. These men were to assess the property of the debtors and fix guarantees for the mutual settling of debts. The order was drafted by Sancho del Cuero with the approbation of Alonso de Quintanilla and licenciado Gonzalo. See esp. Ch. 4. On 2 July 1492 the Jews of the town of Fuentepudia (today Ampudia) made use of the order given to them on that day against several alcaides of the town, who had made difficulties for them by not permitting them to sell their property and by not requiring their Christians debtors to pay them while they themselves had to pay their debts even before they were due. The alcaides also required the Jewish tax-farmers to remit taxes for a period of three years, arrested and detained Jews in violation of the royal decree, and refused to proclaim the Crown’s edict regarding the peaceful and orderly departure of the Jews. Those departing from this town were in danger of losing their property and businesses, and of being imprisoned for not paying their debts. In response, the Crown appointed García Rubio to go there and make sure its orders were obeyed. The sanction for non-compliance was a fine of 20,000 mrs for restoration of buildings and public works in Granada. See RGS 9 No. 2398, fo. 153, drafted by Fernando de Cisneros with the approbation of the councillors Alonso de Quintanilla and Gonzalo. On Palencia see León Tello, Palencia 142, no. 251. 25 See RGS 9 No. 1851, fo. 528, drafted by Juan Sánchez de Ceinos with the approbation of the council, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 411–12. The sanction for non-compliance was a fine of 10,000 mrs. See also Ch. 3. One of the adjacent buildings served as the women’s section of the synagogue. 26 ‘Alçaron vn pediçillo e començaron alçar gritos disyendo que tenian quatro años de termino para salir de nuestros reynos avnque pesase a los erejes de los confesos’; i.e. to the consternation of the conversos. See RGS 9 No. 1571, fo. 345, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 401–2. This might be an indication of tension between the conversos and Jews there. 27 ‘Mal enxenplo y cosa poner escandalo en la dicha çibdad’, ibid. The sanction for failure to comply with the order was a fine of 10,000 mrs.

214

implementation of the edict

Two days after this order had been issued, an additional order was sent to all those exercising official functions in the kingdom,28 in response to an appeal from the Jewish communities (‘aljamas de los judios’). Given the customary practice in the kingdom, a representative of the communities had doubtless appeared and requested protection for those departing. The Jews’ fears and apprehensions were justified, for the danger of injury and robbery threatening the defenceless deportees was great. They could be seized and held for ransom, arrested for alleged debts, or murdered, and other damage could be done to them, their wives, and their children while on their way.29 These conditions prevailed not only in Castile but also in all the cities with Jewish communities in the kingdom of Aragon.30 The response of the Crown to the petitioners in general and personally was that the deportees and their property should be protected, as ordered in the Edict of Expulsion, until the end of July 1492, and that no one should dare to harm them, kill them, seize them, incarcerate them, wound them, or do them any other harm or damage. The Crown ordered this decree to be proclaimed in every public square, market, and place where it was customary to proclaim royal decrees.31 Permission to sell real and moveable property to Christians and Moors without let or hindrance must be viewed as an appendix to this decree, and it was publicly proclaimed that non-Jews were permitted to purchase this property.32 Samuel de Soto petitioned the Crown in the name of the Jews of Aranda de Duero, expressing their apprehension. They had arranged for the sale of their property within the time allotted for departure. However, the Jews were concerned that while they were on their way and passing through cities, towns, villages, and places vacant and depopulated (‘yermos e despoblados’), they would encounter people who would injure or kill them so as to plunder their property and goods or require them to ransom themselves and extort payment of border duties while they were transporting their property from place to place. They also feared they would not be permitted to enter certain places and inns in order to rest, and that they would not be permitted to buy food and 28 The order was addressed to the Crown Prince Don Juan, to the infantes, the dukes, counts, clergy, and high aristocracy (‘ricos homes’), the masters of orders, the heads of monasteries, comendadores and asistentes, alcaides of forts, citadels, and unarmed houses (‘llanas’), to the members of the Royal Council, the oidores of the audiencia, alcaldes, the other magistrates of the royal court and chamber, the councils, the corregidores, asistentes, alcaldes, alguaciles, regidores, caballeros, jurados, escuderos, the good men in all the cities, towns, and settlements in the kingdom and in the areas owned by the Crown (‘señoríos’). See León Tello, Ávila, 96–8. The document is Ávila, Archivo Municipal 1/80; it was published by F. Fita, ‘La Guardia, villa del partido de Lillo, provincia de Toledo: Datos históricos’, BRAH 11 (1887), 373–431 at 425–7. 29 ‘Sepades que por parte de las aljamas de los judios destos nuestros reynos e señorios, e de algunas personas particulares dellos, nos fue fecha relaçion que ellos se temen que a cabsa de nos las auer mandando salir de los dichos nuestros reynos e señorios . . . algunas personas los quieren ferrir o lisiar o matar o prender o tomar sus bienes e les faser otros daños e disaguisados en sus personas e de sus mugers e hijos e de sus bienes de fecho e contra razon e derecho’, León Tello, Ávila, 96–8. 30 See below for a description of the expulsion of the Jews from the kingdom of Aragon. 31 The order was drafted with the approbation of the king and queen by their secretary Fernán Álvarez de Toledo, who usually drafted important royal decrees, directly as directed by the Crown. The sanction for violating the order was loss of royal favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. 32 See León Tello, Ávila, 96–7. The document is in the municipal archive of the city of Ávila, and its reference number is 1/79. It has also been published in Amador, Historia, 1006–7. This order was also drafted by Fernán Álvarez de Toledo. On the liquidation of Jewish property, see Chs. 3 and 4 above.

implementation of the edict

215

the other necessities for wayfarers, so that ‘they were liable to die of hunger and remain in the fields or barren places where people could rob and kill them’.33 They also requested draught animals and wagons, which they feared the local inhabitants would refuse to hire out, for transporting their women and children, and asked the Crown to appoint, at their expense, a man to accompany them and protect them, and to issue an order to all the councils, magistrates, alguaciles, alcaldes, tax-collectors, guards, and judges responsible for the removal of items (‘portazgueros e guardas e alcaldes de sacas’) and others in the cities and towns of the kingdom not to harass the deportees, ‘even if they are not in the place of departure or on the roads that the Crown has ordered’.34 In their petition they specified that the appointed escort should ensure that they were received in cities, towns, and villages and in inns, and that they could purchase supplies needed on the road.35 Their petition was indeed discussed in the Crown Council, which agreed that the Crown should issue an order on the problem. The bachiller Alfonso de Torres was instructed on 22 May 1492 to escort the appellant Samuel de Soto and all those who went with him during the three months given to the Jews to depart, ‘until the end of July this year’.36 He was to accompany the Jews until they left the kingdom without fear and to see that necessary supplies were sold to them at a fair price, that lodgings were let to them, and that they were treated as befitted wayfarers (‘caminantes’), neither harassed, nor injured, nor deprived of their belongings. The Crown took them under its protection for the stipulated period (three months), forbidding any injury to those departing; the order was to be proclaimed in every city, town, and place of settlement in the presence of a notary. In case of violation, Alfonso de Torres was to act against the offender as it was proper to act against those who violated an order of their natural sovereigns, the king and queen.37 All the councils, magistrates, corregidores, caballeros, escuderos, judges of the Hermandad, officials, and good men of the cities, towns, and settlements were required to obey the order, under penalty of loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 20,000 mrs.38 Samuel de Soto and his associates probably had connections in the royal court, for he, and with him Rabi Yehuda and Yose de Soto, Socorro, and Huze and Samuel Soer, residents of Gumiel del Mercado, acting in the name of the Jewish community, 33 ‘Que ellos podran peresçer de hanbre e seria cabsa que oviesen de quedar en los campos e despoblados adonde oviese mayor logar de los matar y rabar y despojar’, RGS 9 No. 1779, fo. 526, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 408–11. 34 ‘Sy non fueren en el puerto o en lugares por nos mandados’, RGS 9 No. 1779, fo. 526. 35 Clearly this petition also stated that the Crown was to decide as it saw fit. 36 ‘Por todo el dicho tempo de los dichos tres meses que se cunpliran en fin del mes de julio deste presente año’, RGS 9 No. 1779, fo. 526. 37 Alfonso de Torres was a bachiller who served as a juez pesquisidor (prosecuting magistrate), whom the Crown charged with several missions. For other activities in relation to the expulsion see Appendix. On him see Lunenfeld, Keepers, 97 (also Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 52, 400). He also served in Toro and in Zamora in 1491–2, and in Sepúlveda in 1492; in Toro again in 1493; in Molena in 1492. 38 The fine was increased from the ordinary amount of 10,000 mrs. Alonso de Torres was ordered to see to it that the deportees did not remove gold, silver, and other items that it was forbidden to take out of the kingdom. The order was drafted by Fernando de Cisneros with the approbation of the council (among whose members is mentioned Alonso de Quintanilla).

216

implementation of the edict

obtained an order on 24 May 1492 for their protection and the sale of their property. Certain residents spread a rumour (‘han dibulgado e echado fama’) to the effect that the Crown had ordered that no person must dare to buy their property, so that they would go into exile as lost people (‘a fin que se vayan e los dexen perdidos’), for in any event Jewish property would fall into the hands of the Christians who remained in place. In their petition the Jews asked for an order from the Crown stating that people should buy their property with no impediment. The Crown responded by taking the Jews’ property under its protection until the end of July. The town council was required to obey the Crown’s instructions regarding the protection of the Jews and their property, and this was to be proclaimed in public.39 Indeed, those leaving for exile were in need of protection, as the complaint of Francisco Vaca, regidor of the city of León, demonstrates. Both as a resident and as a member of the city council, he complained about the conduct and methods of Don Juan de Portugal, the corregidor of the city,40 who had demanded 30,000 mrs from the Jews in return for protection, and intended to take over the exiles’ property. He was assisted by Juan del Coral, the alcalde and alguacil of the city, together with whom he would execute the sale of property on the very day that a claim was lodged against a Jew, without investigating whether the claim was valid or false. Thus he took Jewish property without paying the owners, and he also constrained the city’s Jews to excommunicate anyone who sued him or complained against him.41 The Crown appointed Día Sánchez de Quesada, the corregidor of Segovia, who enjoyed the queen’s trust, to investigate the complaint scrupulously. Thus on 28 June 1492 the Crown responded to the plea of the regidor, who witnessed the suffering of the Jews of León.42 What the Jews felt when departing for exile finds unusual expression in an Inquisition trial against a Jew named Juan de León, apparently from San Esteban de Gormaz, who seems to have gone into exile and then returned to Spain and converted to Christianity. Francisco del Aguila, a converso who testified on 24 February 1502, told how the two men had discussed where to go, whether to Portugal or via Cartagena (that is, to the East). Juan de León expressed his joy in leaving and compared the gentiles to dogs. In this conversation he made Francisco del Aguila swear not to divulge a thing, because he was leaving as a punishment from heaven, whereas del Aguila planned to stay behind and convert.43 The two men swore to each other with a hand39 All the heads of councils were required to act against delinquents and to impose criminal and civil punishments on them for violating the order of the king and queen, their natural sovereigns. The sanction stipulated was loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. Those affected could appear before the council and lodge an appeal within fifteen days. See RGS 9 No. 1869, fo. 532, drafted by Fernando de Cisneros with the approbation of the council. On this group see also Ch. 4. 40 On whom see Rodríguez Fernández, Provincia de León, ii. 159 ff.; González Gallego, ‘Algunos datos’, 401. See also Ch. 4. 41 The petitioner declared with an oath to God and the sign of the cross that he was not lodging his complaint with evil intent, but only to prevent deeds such as those described in the complaint from taking place. See RGS 9 No. 2375, fo. 289, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 442–4. 42 The order was prepared by Juan Sánchez de Ceinos with the approbation of Alonso de Quintanilla, the licenciado Gallego, and the other members of the council. 43 ‘Yo me voy a la hira del Dio e vos quedays aca’: C. Carrete Parrondo, El Tribunal, 153, no. 369. In this book he collected sections of testimony about the synagogue in Simancas from Patronato Real, Inq., Leg. 28,

implementation of the edict

217

shake and by the Ten Commandments, and Juan de León prepared to depart with the rest. This is not our only testimony regarding departure and conversations about it. Another converso, Juan de Salcedo, whose name, when he was a Jew, had been Rabi Yento, a resident of Soria, was put on trial. He had owned a butcher’s shop and left for Portugal, where he converted to Christianity in 1494. The last days of his residence and of that of other Jews in Soria are described in his testimony, including how they continued to teach Jewish law (‘meldar’) and prepared to leave for Portugal.44 These were the impressions left during the first days after the promulgation of the 73, fos. 973r, 1121v. See the entire testimony, given in Oranda, as noted, on 24 Feb. 1502: ‘Françisco del Aguila, christiano nuevo, veçino de Sant Esteuan de Gormaz, preso en la carçel de la Ynquisiçion . . . dixo que puede aver fasta nueve o diez años que al tiempo que se partían los judios del reyno para Portugal, que Juan de Leon, el viejo, texedor, veçino de la dicha Sant Esteuan, apartó a este testigo en su casa de . . . Juan de Leon e le dixo que pues a donde acordauan de yr, e este testigo le dixo como acordauan de yr a Portugal e como otros desyan que hera bueno yr por Cartajena; e asy hablando, ¿en ello a estos diez mandamientos que no me descubrireis?, e este testigo le dixo que sy. E que alli no ovieron mas, saluo que segund las palabras el desya tan de buen coraçon, al paresçer deste testigo, quisiera . . . Juan de Leon yrse a donde este testigo e los otros yban. E que antes desto asaz veses, quando . . . Juan de Leon hablaua con este testigo, le desya: Jura el dio tal cosa e o tal es’. E que antes desto, en la primera quema que fizieron en esta villa, por la Ynquisiçion, dixo . . . Juan de leon a este testigo: Pese al Dio con esta Santa quemada; mira si no que diran de nosotros por donde nos quemar. El qual sabe que es converso, Juan de Leon dixo: “Pues no estes triste por esta yda vuestra, y pluguiese al dio que yo fuese vos y vos fuesedes yo, que sois neçio en estar triste por la partyda, que vosotros tragays la muerte en vn trago e nosotros quedamos aca entre esta mala gente, que cada dia reçeuimos la muerte con ellos; que bien sabes vos que los judíos desyan: Haba goym; haba quelabim! Y que le dixo que le fiziese juramento que no descubriese esto que la avia dicho; e este testigo le dixo; ¿Como lo he de descubrir? Yo me voy a la hira del Dio e vos quedays aca”. E que entonçes . . . Juan de Leon le tomo la mano e le dixo que: Jurais al Dio.’ 44 ‘Dixo que el año que Sus Altezas mandaron salir los judíos de Castilla, estando este testigo un dia de pascua del pan çençoño de los judios en casa de Ysaque el portugues, veçino de Soria, enseñando a un fijo del dicho Ysaque a meldar, vio que estando asy meldando entro Fernand de Guernica, el viejo, calderero, veçino de Soria, que hera mucho amigo del dicho Ysaque, e dixo: ¿Que hazes? Duelos os vengan. Gastays tiempo en mal: ¿Melda, melda? Y avn este otro, dolorido, piensa que algo faze. Lo qual dixo este testigo fariades mejor de entender aunque sea pascua o sea nada, en como aves de poner cobro en vuestra hazienda e como vos aves de yr, que algunos os dizen que os tornes christianos, mala pascua me de Dios sy yo os lo aconsejo. El por que es que, acabado que seays cristianos, luego buscaran por donde den con vosotros de rostros en el fuego; que mientras que este diablo biuiere, que en ora mala entro en Castilla, lo qual dixo por el rey, nuestro señor, con quanto poder tiene no fartara el Hermandad, el Santa Ynquisiçion, el Santa Cruzada; y digos que nos cumple tornaos cristianos por la razon que he dicho. Quanto mas que creo, como yo creo, que naçe para morir, que no ay otro en este mundo syno nasçer e morir, que despues que Dios crio el mundo e cada vno dexo con su dicha, buena o mala, quel que bien tyene de comer e de beuer e lo que ha menester en este mundo, aquel esta en el paraiso y el pobre esta en el ynfierno; que bien dizen la verdad para el Cuerpo de dios, que en este mundo no me veas malpasar que en el otro no me veras penar; que ochenta bueltos da onbre en el ynfierno por tener en este mundo lo que ha menester e honra. E que tanbien dixo quando dixo el nasçer e morir; tanbien estamos engañados nosotros, como vosotros. Lo qual todo susodicho desya el dicho Fernando a Ysaque el portugues e a su muger e a su suegra del dicho Ysaque e a este testigo. Los quales se fueron a Portugal e nunca boluieron. E el dicho Fernando, el calderero, ouo el tynte del dicho Ysaque con todo so aparejo, e desyan que ge lo dexo porque hera su amigo e porque le auia de tener los dineros dello a Portugal.’ The ‘diablo’ he refers to is Torquemada. The ‘rey’ refers to King Ferdinand, who entered Castile from Aragon. See Carrete Parrondo, El Tribunal. Juan de Salcedo testified in the city of Aranda on 31 Jan. 1502. His testimony also contains some prayers, derogatory remarks about the Inquisition, and comments about the way the Jewish commandments were observed by conversos.

218

implementation of the edict

Edict of Expulsion, which came as a shock to the Jewish community and a surprise to the non-Jews. Below we shall see the steps taken by the Jews in preparing for departure.

ii. organizing the departure: the role of the genoese The Genoese had several centres in Spain, which, since they were sea-traders, were mostly concentrated in port cities. Thence derives the importance of the Genoese in international commerce. As shipowners they played a significant role in the departure of the Jews expelled from Spain. The Genoese were one of the most important foreign colonies in the Iberian peninsula. They had a large centre in Valencia, which was the wealthiest of the Genoese colonies. In 1462–4 in Valencia alone 106 Genoese merchants were active, including Leonardo de Franchis, Francesco Gentile, and Sebastiano de Franciscis.45 These men owned ships, while other Genoese concentrated their activities in the ports of Cádiz, Sanlúcar de Barrameda, and Puerto de Santa María. In these ports, towards the end of the fifteenth century, members of the Zaccaria, Spinola, and Negro families were active. They were deeply rooted in the public life and society of south-western Castile, the base of their business and financial activities. Members of the Boccanegra and Blanchetto families were also active in Cádiz. In their various financial dealings, the Genoese were capable of competing quite well with Jews in tax-farming and international trade, as well as with Basque and Portuguese shipowners. In this activity the Genoese could serve as a channel for the exiles by offering to sell them bills of exchange for their money, a transaction that the Crown permitted because the purchase of bills of exchange did not entail the flight of capital from the country. The Genoese captains and shipowners were a decisive factor in the establishment of this system; among them were full-time and occasional moneychangers, and middlemen of various kinds were active. Some of these financiers were connected to prominent men in the kingdom of Castile, such as the jurado Francesco Adorno, a trusted associate of the Marquess of Cádiz, whose business interests were wide-ranging and multifarious. Another, as we shall see, was the ship’s captain Andino, a confidant of the Duke of Medina Sidonia, the centre of whose activities was the port of Sanlúcar de Barrameda. An extremely important connection in the expulsion was provided by Jews who had converted from Judaism several generations earlier. Such was Gabriel Sánchez, a descendant of Elazar Golluf,46 Luis de Santángel, from the Ginillo family,47 and 45 On the foreign residents in Valencia see J. Guiral-Hadziiosif, Valencia, puerto mediterráneo en el siglo XV (1410–1525) (Valencia, 1989), 513–33, esp. 520–3. 46 H. Sancho de Sopranis, ‘Los genoveses en la región gaditano-xericense en 1460 a 1800’, Hispania, 32 (1948), 355–402, esp. 379 ff. For a Hebrew source about the Genoese, see R. Capsali, Seder eliyahu zuta 1, ed. Shmuelevitz, Simonson, and Benayahu (Jerusalem, 1976), 210 ff. See also M. A. Ladero Quesada, ‘Los genoveses en Sevilla y su región (siglos XIII–XVI): elementos de permanencia y arraigo’, Los mudéjares de Castilla y otros estudios de historia andaluza (Granada, 1989), 283–312. 47 Ferdinand had a great interest in these arrangements, for he realized that the smuggling out of capital could damage the kingdom. See Hillgarth, The Spanish Kingdoms, ii. 449–52. The degree to which the Genoese merchants resident in Castile were involved in the transfer of Jewish debts is shown in Ferdi-

implementation of the edict

219

Francisco Pinelo. Santángel held the post of escríbano de ración, which entailed management of the royal household (‘hacienda de la Casa Real’) in times of peace.48 Pinelo was a jurado or member of the council of Seville and considered an influential man. Santángel and Pinelo were appointed to serve as ‘receivers of revenues from the ransom of Moorish prisoners’ in the conquest of Málaga.49 Thus it was natural that the two of them should deal with the chartering of ships for the deportees, and equally natural that the Crown should authorize them to do so. Chartering ships was a complex matter; a large monetary guarantee was necessary, as we shall see below with regard to the exiles from Aragon, and further arrangements had to be made. Both men were chartering ships as early as June 1492, as we see from an order issued by Ferdinand on 18 June 1492 to the corregidor, the alcaide, and the alcaldes and other magistrates of Cartagena.50 They reached an agreement with Juan Ambrosio de Negrón, the owner of a ship (‘carraca’), to remove Jewish residents of Castile from the kingdom.51 Negrón failed to honour the agreement made with the Jews, ‘because to transport Jews he could have made a better bargain’.52 The Crown responded to Santángel and Pinelo’s complaint by ordering the corregidor, the alcaide, and the alcaldes of Cartagena to act without delay and to summon Negrón and his nephew (‘sobrino’) Juan Antonio, who commanded the ship in his name, to set sail promptly.53 The official charged with nand’s order of 30 Oct. 1492 instructing them to address him regarding debts, merchandise, and exchange agreements made with Jews. It appears that this refers to notes of exchange effecting the removal of Jewish money from the kingdom. See A. Sanz Arizmendi, ‘Índice del Tumbo de los Reyes Católicos’, Revue hispanique, 62 (1924), 152, no. 1410. It should also be recalled that the Genoese controlled 40 per cent of all the wool trade in Castile, and had developed extensive banking activity in Spain. See Batista i Roca, The Hispanic Kingdoms, 318. This trade passed through the ports of Málaga, Cartagena, and Tortosa. Hence the Genoese also played a role in those ports. 48 See Baer, Toledot, 406 ff., and also the index. M. A. Ladero Quesada, ‘Actividades de Luis de Santángel en la corte de Castilla’, in Lluís de Santàngel i el seu temps: Congrès internacional, València 5 al 8 d’octubre 1987 (Valencia, 1992), 103–18; A. Blasco Martínez, ‘Aportaciones documentales para el estudio del origen troncal de los Santángel’, ibid. 119–31; R. Benítez Sánchez-Blanco, ‘El Valencià de Lluís de Santàngel’, in Lluís de Santángel: Un nou home, un nou món (Valencia, 1992), 221–36. See the latter also regarding the problem of Luis de Santángel’s Jewish origins. At the time of the expulsion he was apparently 52 or 53. For his relations with the Hermandad see Ladero Quesada, ‘Actividades de Luis de Santángel’, 108 ff. 49 Serrano y Sanz, Orígenes, pp. xcvii–cli. 50 In wartime, when the king left the kingdom, Luis de Santángel was supposed to remain there. On the details of his position, see Serrano y Sanz, Orígenes, p. cvi. He was appointed to this post on 13 Sept. 1481 (p. civ). In effect, he was the administrator of the kingdom, and it was he who financed Columbus’ voyage with a loan of 140,000 mrs. He had business ties with Francisco Pinelo, who also participated in that loan. On the Santángel family see Serrano y Sanz, Orígenes, pp. lxxiv–xc, cxxxiii ff. 51 ‘Reçeptores de las cantidades sacados a la vento o rescate de moros’, M. A. Ladero Quesada, ‘La esclavitud a fines del siglo XV: el caso de Málaga’, Hispania, 105 (1967), 71 ff. They apparently also ransomed the Jewish prisoners of Málaga. Pinelo’s title was ‘jurado e fiel esecutor de la çibdad de Sevilla’, RGS 9 No. 2317, fo. 99. 52 The order was issued in Guadalupe, where the monarchs were staying. It should be noted that this order was issued three days after the baptism of Abraham Senior and his son-in-law Meir Melamed. The queen’s name was erased from the document. See RGS 9 No. 2317, fo. 99. The order was drafted with the approbation of the king by Fernán Álvarez de Toledo. It was published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 434–5, as well as in M.a A. del Bravo, Los Reyes Católicos y los judíos andaluces (Granada, 1989), 258–9. 53 ‘Que con mi liçençia tiene fecho con çiertos judios para los leuar de mis reynos tyenen fletedas çiertas carracas genovesas’, RGS 9 No. 2317, fo. 99.

220

implementation of the edict

ensuring that this was done was Juan Pérez de Baradas, the corregidor of Murcia.54 Failure to fulfil obligations continued to be litigated years after the expulsion.55 From the arrangement made with the Genoese to transport the Jews into exile we learn that in the Crown’s opinion the Jews who went into exile deserved ‘to lose their money and the property they have in our kingdoms and the areas in our ownership’ because of smuggling.56 Nevertheless it recognized the arrangements the Jews made with the Genoese to transfer funds by means of notes of exchange, and also acknowledged that these bills were often stolen by ships’ captains and crew, who plundered the Jews on their way to exile. The document under discussion specifically mentions deportees who were accused of smuggling out coins, gold and silver bullion, and other things it was forbidden to remove from the kingdom, in addition to bills of exchange they bought from the Genoese. This order, issued on 30 October 1492, was amended in the following month (the exact date is not recorded) to state that the lien had been removed from debts owed by Christians to Jews at the request of the Genoese merchants Tadeo Negrón and Mateo Rey, residents of Murcia. These merchants had monetary claims against Christian debtors, having bought their promissory notes from the departing Jews in return for bills of exchange. Under the conditions prevailing at that time, the notes were sold at a very low price, far less than the value of the debts.57 In addition to the two mentioned above, at least another nine Genoese were involved in the transaction, and perhaps in others.58 It should be recalled that the ‘Que para leuar los dichos judios podria aver tenido mejor partido’, RGS 9 No. 2317, fo. 99. The owner and captain of the ship would be required to pay the damages caused to Santángel and Pinelo. The corregidor was given full authority. 56 On him see Lunenfeld, Keepers, 211; in 1497 he served as corregidor of Cuenca. On him see Ch. 7 below. 57 The hiring of this ship from the Negrón family encountered further legal difficulties in 1494. An order dated 20 Oct. 1494 mentions the ship, La Negrona; she seems likely to have been owned by this family. Juan Antonio Negrón and Juan Grellón had agreed to transfer Jews in a ship (‘nao’) from the port of Murcia. They did not keep their agreement, and in consequence they were arrested. The tax-collector for the Crown in Murcia and the diocese of Cartagena lodged the suit concerning ‘çierta fiança que fysyeron a un patron de nao e que pasaron algunos judios’. The ship-owners appealed to the judges de Castro, Gallego, and Polanco, asking to be released from detention in return for a guarantee they would supply. They were represented by Gabriel Pinelo, who, as their attorney, requested that the amount of the guarantee should be equal to the claim lodged against them by Alfonso Carreño, or as the judges saw fit. We do not know how closely Gabriel Pinelo was related to Francisco Pinelo. The petition was accepted by the aforementioned appeals court, which required the defendants to deposit a guarantee of 2,000 mrs. Trusted and honest men of Murcia were to serve as guarantors, and the defendants were released from prison. The order was drafted by Andres de Herrera with the approbation of the aforementioned judges. The sanction for noncompliance was loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. See RGS 11 No. 3364, fo. 92. Alonso Carnio was the tax-collector for the Crown in Murcia. See RGS 11 No. 4122, fo. 260 (Nov. 1492, the day is not recorded). See also RGS 12 No. 1757, fo. 340, dated 10 Apr. 1495. Ambrosio de Negro (sic) is mentioned in a contract signed with members of the Jewish community of Saragosa, Joseph Abusmel, known as Chamoro, and a group of Jews from that community, including Saul Afroes of Calatayud and Mose Surillo of Fuentes de Ebro, regarding the chartering of a ship for their departure. It was signed on 17 June 1492 in Valencia. The document was published in Hinojosa Montalvo, ‘Solidaridad judía’, 121–4. 58 ‘Por lo qual perdieron e meresçieron perder qualesquier bienes e maravedis que dexaron en los dichos nuestros reynos e señorios e con que les auia de ser acudido asy por çedulas como en otra manera’, RGS 9 No. 3209, fo. 54, issued in Barcelona on 30 Oct. 1492, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 479–81. The order was addressed to the Genoese merchants in Burgos, Sevilla, Toledo, Murcia, Cartagena, and all the other cities, towns, and places of settlement. 54 55

implementation of the edict

221

Crown made this arrangement conditional on the debts’ not being usurious. That is to say, the debts had to be liquid and derive from reciprocal arrangements between Christian lenders and Jewish borrowers. We cannot tell whether there was only a single transaction. Samuel Cohen of Murcia was connected with the Genoese merchants Marco and Domenico Rey, residents of Murcia, concerning guarantees of a transaction involving Andrea de Mar, a resident of Toledo. When Samuel Cohen went into exile, his place in the transaction was taken by Doña Yseo Fajardo and her son Don Carlos de Guibera, who was a contino in the royal court.59 The guarantee was for 300,000 mrs. The Crown permitted postponement of payment for four months following its response to the request on 12 July 1493.60 It is not known how Samuel Cohen was involved in another transaction with Domenico Rey and his brother. This might have been the sale of salt regarding which Jaime de Santángel, the baile of Orihuela, sued the brothers Sebastiano and Girolamo de Franciscis, both Genoese merchants, for 830 gold ducats which they allegedly owed him. They had given Jaime de Santángel a written guarantee that was in their possession, signed by Samuel Cohen and the Rey brothers, all assuming mutual (‘mancomún’) and individual responsibility. The guarantors had not paid Jaime de Santángel, who appealed to Juan Pérez de Baradas, the corregidor of Murcia, who ordered to have Samuel Cohen seized and arrested. While under arrest, Samuel Cohen managed to reach an agreement with Domenico Rey and his brother, to whom he gave promissory notes from Christian debtors as well as ducats in cash. Thereby it was agreed that they would remove him from prison and cease the sale of his property, which included several gardens (‘çiertas huertas’) and land (‘heredamientos’). They undertook to give him an affidavit stating that he owed them nothing. Most likely Samuel Cohen intended to leave for exile and wished to avoid delaying his departure. Domenico Rey and his brother, together with two Christian guarantors, Iñigo López de Ayala and Rodrigo de Roda, residents of Murcia, promised to pay Jaime de Santángel the sum of 150,000 mrs on the date stipulated for settlement of the debt. They agreed to cover the debt of 850 ducats at the October fair of 1492, which was to take place in Medina del Campo.61 When the note fell due, they did not honour their obligation; the bachiller of Aguilera, the resident magistrate of Murcia, began legal proceedings to seize the debtors’ property. However, the Genoese merchants, the Rey brothers, and the two merchants of Murcia, Iñigo López de Ayala and Rodrigo de Roda, appealed to the provisor of the Pope in Cartagena and to the vicar of the church in Valencia, averring that the agreements and obligations were usurious arrangements intended to conceal 59 See RGS 9 No. 3450, fo. 51, issued in Barcelona. The name of the scribe who drafted the order is missing, though he was undoubtedly the royal secretary, for the order was issued with the approbation of the council. It may be surmised that the scribe was either Fernán Álvarez de Toledo or Juan de la Parra. It should be noted that Fernán Álvarez de Toledo was in Barcelona in November. 60 These were: Agustín de Negro, Pedro Juan Justiniano, Juan Grillo, Juan Antonio de Negrón, Guiraldo Burgarello, Poleo Pinello and Leonardo Mineca (the nephews of Mateo Rey), and Jorje de Burisa. See n. 47 above. 61 On the Fajardo family see J. Gorres Fontes, ‘Don Pedro Fajardo, adelantado mayor del Reino de Murcia’, Estudios, 6, Patronato M. Menéndez Pelayo, Biblioteca Reyes Católicos (Madrid, 1953).

222

implementation of the edict

fraude de usura.62 These churchmen ordered the cessation of legal proceedings. Jaime de Santángel argued before the Crown that the laws of the kingdom and the orders of the Crown must be observed, and that the clergy had no concern with the matter. The Crown Council, having examined the decision of the provisor and the vicar, expressed its opinion that the Crown should order the corregidor of Murcia, the licenciado Pero Gómez de Setúbal, to serve as an arbitrator and judge, if Jaime de Santángel made certain that the transaction involved no fraude de usura.63 The Genoese were involved in a great variety of businesses, and in the case under discussion the corregidor was charged with convening the parties and deciding between them.64 Another Genoese merchant, Andrea de Mar, far from being a paragon of virtue, was accused of considerable wrongdoing. Two documents describe several of his escapades. First, he lodged a complaint against Rodrigo del Mercado, the magistrate responsible for Jewish property and debts in the archdiocese of Toledo.65 He asked for the appointment of a second judge to share with Del Mercado the adjudication of civil and criminal cases. The Crown Council accepted this appeal and made Del Mercado appoint a second judge, the two jointly to reach a verdict regarding the complaint.66 The suits against him were apparently related to a term of forty days in jail for agreeing to transport Jews to exile in Constantinople in a ship named La Negrona, but instead selling 250 Jews into slavery to the owner of the ship for the price of 1,500 ducats.67 Second, he reached an agreement regarding bills of exchange with certain Jews for the sum of 4,000,000 mrs but did not keep the agreement.68 He also smuggled out a silver 62 See RGS 10 No. 1905, fo. 57. Another repercussion of the Genoese suit is found in an order received by the corregidor of Toledo, Don Pedro de Castilla. This order authorized two Genoese merchants, Agustín de Grimaldi and Agustín Bravaldo (or Bivaldo), residents of Toledo, to collect the debts owed to them by Jewish residents of Laguardia (which is near Toledo) who had gone into exile. This refers to notes delivered to them by the Jews regarding debts owed by the Christians. The Genoese merchants managed to exchange those notes for new ones that the Christians signed in place of the notes that the Jews had delivered to the Genoese. The Crown included the authorization given to them within a series of ordinances for the collection of debts instituted on 26 Feb. 1493. See RGS 10 No. 564, fo. 251, dated 6 Mar. 1493. Pedro de Castilla was charged with executing the order. He served as corregidor of Toledo in the years 1491–1506, a justice in the city’s higher court, and a member of the Council of the Kingdom. Among other things he dealt with Jewish debts (e.g. RGS 11 No. 893, fo. 150, dated 20 Mar. 1494); see too the Appendix. 63 In return for this obligation, Jaime de Santángel gave them the promissory note from the brothers de Franciscis. See RGS 10 No. 2713, fo. 83. On 7 May 1492 in Valencia Solomon Cavaller and Mose Ardit (representatives of the community of Sagunto) and R. Menahem Delmati, Mose Alpegui, and Jacob Castel (representatives of the community of Xativa) signed an agreement with Bernardo de Franquis and his brothers, Genoese merchants, and Jaime Merga, a merchant from Valencia, concerning their departure from Spain on the ship belonging to Franquis. The ship was anchored in Valencia. See Hinojosa Montalvo, ‘Solidaridad judía’, 111. 64 On the provisor see below, Ch. 7. The Pope was Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia), who had financial interests in Cartagena. 65 On the licenciado Pero Gómez de Setúbal see Lunenfeld, Keepers, 211; and the Appendix. 66 The order was drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council on 15 Oct. 1493. 67 See RGS 11 No. 2961, fo. 353. Hernan Ruiz de Herrera appeared in his own name. He was a resident of Toledo who claimed there was animosity on the part of the appointed magistrate. The order was issued on 28 Sept. 1494 and was drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council. 68 ‘Auia fecho canbios en quatro quentos de maravedis para los dar a çiertas partes donde con los dichos judios se auia conçertado, e que despues no auia respondido con los dichos canbios’. See RGS 11 No. 3063, fo. 97. See below. The order was drafted by Cristóbal de Vitoria with the approbation of the council.

implementation of the edict

223

pitcher (‘pichel’) containing 2,000 gold pieces.69 He claimed before the panel of judges that he had lost his merchandise and credit in these business deals.70 He implored the members of the council to free him on bail, which he was willing to produce. He further claimed that his property was in Toledo, where he was a resident. The Crown responded by ordering him to deposit 4,000 gold ducats, after which he would be released from prison, and the money would cover the claims lodged against him. How appropriate are the words of the anonymous chronicler who describes the behaviour of the Genoese:71 When the Edict of Expulsion was published in the states, Genoese barques came to the coastal cities of Spain to transport the Jews. They also harmed and ruined and plundered them and delivered some of them to the famous sea pirate of that time, who was named Corsel Yenovesi. Those who had fled to the city of Genoa were treated cruelly by the Genoese, who plundered and robbed them, and the cruelty of their evil heart was so great that they plucked infants from their mothers’ breasts.

iii. implementation of the edict in the kingdom of aragon Hungry and thirsty, their spirit failed ps. 107: 5

The united kingdom of Aragon was composed of several kingdoms and principalities; one might think that this situation would have aggravated the difficulties of the Jews in departing for exile,72 but this was not the case. In this kingdom we must distinguish between organization for implementing the Edict of Expulsion and the actual departure by sea and land. The composition of the kingdom did not influence the direction taken by the exiles, who tended to choose destinations closest to their places of origin. Except for the Jewish residents of port cities or those living nearby, where the ships chartered for their departure could anchor, the deportees reached their destination on foot or with the available means of transport. In Aragon the expulsion was handled by King Ferdinand and his officials, with the help of the Inquisition and its agents. Here, as in the kingdom of Castile, the Crown took the deportees under its custody and gave them writs of protection and defence. However, in Aragon Ferdinand took a special interest in protecting his revenue from taxes remitted by the Jews and Jewish communities, and he sought to minimize the loss of this revenue. The situation in Aragon was different from that of Castile, where the farming and collection of taxes was entrusted to Abraham Senior, who was responsible for cash flow in the kingdom. In ‘Un pichel de plata con dos mil pieças de oro’, RGS 11 No. 3063, fo. 97. ‘Su credito de mercaderias’, RGS 11 No. 3063, fo. 97. 71 Marx, Studies in Jewish History and Booklore, 86. 72 At the time of the expulsion no Jews lived in the Balearic Islands, for the last Jews there had abandoned their religion in 1435. See Baer, Toledot, index. After the persecutions of 1391 the Jewish community of Barcelona was not revived owing to the opposition of the city leaders. On this, too, see Baer, Toledot, index. For copies of the Edict of Expulsion from places where no Jews lived see Conde, Aragón, index. On the expulsion of the Jews from Sardinia and Sicily, which belonged to the kingdom of Aragon, see below. 69 70

Table 5.1 Escorts of the deportee convoys from Aragon Name

Rank

Place of origin

Place stationed

Date of Source appointment

Juan de Sayas Juan de Gurrea Juan de Favrara

Infançon Unknown Escudero

Zaragoza Zaragoza Zaragoza

Kingdom of Aragon Kingdom of Aragon Ejea

5 July 1492 15 July 1492 16 July 1492

—

Escudero

Zaragoza

Kingdom of Aragon

19 July 1492

Juan de Longares Ramón Sister Rodrigo Almenón Juan Pérez de Letra Martín de Alfocea Pablo Daroqua Miguel Jiménez Álvaro de Homedes — Pedro Moldín Domingo Eximino Martín López Juan de Abadía Juan de Soyas Miguel Sancho Juan Molina Juan Icart Jaime Granell

Escudero Escudero Unknown Notary Notary Escudero Escudero Unknown Notary Unknown Notary Unknown Unknown Infançon Escudero Escudero Substitute of baile Veguer

Zaragoza Zaragoza Zaragoza Zaragoza Zaragoza Huesca Magallón — — — Daroca Huesca Huesca Zaragoza Zaragoza Zaragoza Tortosa Tortosa

Kingdom of Aragon Kingdom of Aragon Kingdom of Aragon Kingdom of Aragon Kingdom of Aragon Huesca Magallón Zaragoza — — Daroca — — Zaragoza Zaragoza Zaragoza Tortosa Tortosa

19 July 1492 20 July 1492 20 July 1492 20 July 1492

AHPZ, Pedro de Lueza, 1492, fo. 372v AHPZ, Pedro de Lueza, 1492, fo. 370v AHPZ, Pedro de Lueza, 1492, fo. 377r–v AHPZ, Pedro de Lueza, 1492, fo. 377r–v

21 July 1492

AHPZ, Papeles Sueltos No. 428

24 July 1492

M. Motis Dolader, Turiaso, 5 (1984), 244–5 AHPZ, Pedro de Lueza 1492, fo. 377r–v

Martín Razera

Magistrate of the Hermandad Magistrate Magistrate of the Hermandad

Calatayud

—

Jaime de Matas Juan Vives

— —

20 July 1492 20 July 1492 5 July 1492 29 July 1492 25 June 1492 28 Sept. 1492 —

AHPZ, Pedro de Lueza, 1492, fo. 306v AHPZ, Pedro de Lueza, 1492, fo. 352 AHPZ, Pedro de Lueza, 1492, fo. 353

AHPZ, Pedro de Lueza 1492, fo. 377r–v AHPZ, Pedro de Lueza 1492, fo. 377r–v AHPZ, Pedro de Lueza 1492, fo. 323r–v AHPZ, Papeles Sueltos No. 428 G. Secall Güell, Sefarad, 42 (1982), 110 E. Marín Padilla, Sefarad, 50 (1990), 91, 123 ff. Motis Dolader, Calatayud, 124

Notes

Brother of Martín de Gurrea Appointed after community petition on 12 July See pp. 232–4 on expulsion from Ejea

Investigated baile’s activities

implementation of the edict

225

Aragon the tax districts were organized in the framework of colectas or levies. Hence a different solution from that in Castile had to be found. The task of implementing the expulsion was given to Don Martín de Gurrea y Gil de Palomar, the lord of Agravieso.73 He was appointed to this position on 14 May 1492, and there was no doubt of his loyalty to the Crown.74 He was charged with ‘preventing any physical injury to Jews who went by themselves on the roads on the part of certain people who would want to harm them and rob them’.75 He was charged with assuring the direction of the departure and the places of exit without placing any pressure on the deportees: ‘lead them on all the roads, gates, and passes in our kingdoms and regions of sovereignty, by sea and by land, to any part of the world where they may wish to go outside of our kingdoms and regions of sovereignty, and protect them from any person who might cause them injury and harm to their bodies or property’.76 This shows that the Crown realized from the start that the deportees were liable to suffer physical injury and robbery. Furthermore, Gurrea was to make certain that the Jews reached the border crossing-points and the gates of port cities to board ships that would take them to their destination. Hence the principle guiding Ferdinand was that the deportees and their property should come to no harm after their debts to private individuals and the Crown had been paid. Once these were settled, they were given writs of protection and defence. Below we shall see which agreements were made with various ships’ captains for the departure of the Jews. Don Martín de Gurrea was provided with escorts and guards which he could appoint and conscript for the day of departure, 31 July. They would not determine the direction taken by the deportees. No Jew could depart without a personal writ of protection and defence from Gurrea or one of his officials. Departure without permission would lead to loss of property and physical arrest.77 Don Martín chose his assistants from the various ranks of the nobility (‘infanzones y escuderos’), who were appointed 73 His wife María was the daughter of messir Alfonso de la Caballería, who mentions her in his will. See Serrano y Sanz, Orígenes, p. cxcv; also Beinart, ‘Did messir Alfonso de la Caballería Intervene?’, 275. 74 AHPZ, Papeles Sueltos No. 428, promulgated on 14 May 1492 and drafted and signed in Santa Fe, near Granada. It was published in Serrano y Sanz, Orígenes, p. lxii n. 3. Passages from it were also published in Motis Dolader, Zaragoza, 205–6; Conde, Aragón, 33–6, 71–2: full publication of the document. Martín de Gurrea had a kind of monopoly on the transport and escort of the deportees. See the order sent on 15 July from Valladolid (drafted by Miguel Pérez Almazán): Conde, Aragón, 144. On 15 June 1492 the Infante of Aragon, Don Enrique, appointed Lluís de Monrós, the royal alguacil, to defend the deportees from Catalonia. On 18 July Jordi Miquel Eimeric, caballero, was appointed veguer of Barcelona. He, too, was to defend the Jews of Catalonia and those who passed through Catalonia. See Baer, JchS i. 916–24. Also on 15 June 1492 Ferdinand forbade the Inquisitors to interfere with the Jews’ departure: Conde, Aragón, 48, 100–1. 75 ‘Que yendo solos los dichos judios por los caminos fuesen robados por algunas personas, injuriados, mal tractados y robados y que les fiziesen otros danyos y males en sus personas e bienes y ahun que peligrasen sus vidas’, AHPZ, Papeles Sueltos No. 428. 76 ‘Los levedes por qualquier caminos, puertos y passos de los dichos nuestros regnos y señorios, por mar o por tierra, a qualquier parte del mundo que ellos quisieren yr fuera de los dichos regnos y señorios nuestros, defendiendo que por persona alguna no les sea fecho mal ni daño alguno en sus personas ni en sus bienes’, AHPZ, Papeles Sueltos No. 428. 77 Juan Molena was ordered to arrest Yose Baqua, who left Zaragoza without proper authorization. See Motis Dolader, Zaragoza, 62.

226

implementation of the edict

to their posts between 19 and 21 July 1492, close to the actual date of departure.78 Clearly the expenses of the escorts were borne by the deportees.79 The direction of departure was determined by topographical conditions, and depended on the deportees’ destination. By land, some people headed for Navarre. Others travelled by boat down the Ebro river to the Mediterranean port of Tortosa-Ampolia. Yet others journeyed by land to the port of Sagunto (Murviedro) in the kingdom of Valencia.80 Clearly the distance to be traversed influenced the departure dates of those who left the cities and towns together.81 One must also bear in mind the difficult climatic conditions prevailing at the end of July, when the heat often reaches 40°C, and the humidity is considerable. Hence, even if the deportees reached the collection 78 On 7 Apr. 1493 Martín de Gurrea was ordered to disperse the horsemen (‘jinetes’) and the military escorts whom he had conscripted to accompany the deportees; he was to appear before the Crown and announce the execution of the order on pain of loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. On 13 Apr. 1493 mosén Domingo Agustín, acting in place of the baile general of the kingdom of Aragon, announced that Gurrea had executed this order. Also on 7 Apr. 1493 the king informed Gurrea of the arrest of Juan de Torrellas, the lord of Novales. Motis Dolader, Zaragoza, 87–8, presents a partial list of the escorts (of the deportees from Zaragoza alone) which I have completed for other places; see Table 5.1, which differs from his list in certain details. It is difficult to estimate how many men were at the disposal of the escort commanders. The deportees from one place of origin were joined with those from another. For example, those departing from the town of Biel were joined with those from Luezia and El Frago. The five caballeros had another thirty foot. The escort was armed. 79 Motis Dolader, Zaragoza, suggests a total amount for the payments made by the communities to the escorts. The deportees from Zaragoza paid 33,000 sueldos in Jaca coin; Huesca 17,000 sueldos in Jaca coin; Jaca 5,800 sueldos; Ejea de los Caballeros 2,000 sueldos; Biel 10,000 sueldos; Daroca 480 sueldos. The total was 59,880 sueldos in Jaca coin. The size of the payment depended on the number of deportees, the distance they were escorted, the number of days they were on the road, and the daily pay for the soldiers of the escort. Clearly this payment did not prevent the soldiers from robbing the Jews themselves. See ibid. 89–96 for details regarding escorts’ pay and those who were responsible for implementing the expulsion in Zaragoza. Conde, Aragón, 176–7, presents a detailed account of the sums the Jews were obliged to pay Gurrea: Zaragoza 1,500 ducats; Huesca: 800 ducats; Jaca 5,800 sueldos (or 263 ducats, 14 sueldos); Ejea de los Caballeros 90 ducats, 20 sueldos. On 30 Sept. Ferdinand wrote to the treasurer of the kingdom of Aragon about this payment. Detailed study of the payments made to Gurrea shows that he collected far more than was permitted. On 26 July 1492 the Jews of Zaragoza paid him 1,500 ducats. See AHPZ, Pedro de Lueza 1492, fos. 306r–308v. Fifty-one heads of families were required to pay according to this agreement. Martín Perández de Heredia, Bernardino Spital, and Jaime de la Caballería were partners in this agreement. On 16 July Martín de Gurrea received 11,397 sueldos and 11 dinars (AHPZ, Pedro de Lueza 1492, fo. 353v); on 19 July he was paid 7,000 sueldos (fo. 38, 272v); on 21 July he was paid 21,269 sueldos and 6 dinars (fo. 380r). Thus he received a total of 39,660 sueldos and 18 dinars, quite a considerable sum by any account. Jaime de la Caballería was responsible for these payments. The sums paid were recorded by the notary Ruiz de Calcena, the king’s escríbano. See Motis Dolader, Zaragoza, 64–5. 80 Motis Dolader, Los judíos aragoneses, 103. He lists the distances from the ports of departure. The most distant Jewish community in the kingdom of Aragon from a Mediterranean port (Sagunto) was 330 km. away. The port of Taragona was at a distance of 282 km., Tortosa, 291 km. 81 Motis Dolader, Los judíos aragoneses, 97, suggested the following dates of departure: Jaca, 26 July 1492. Thus it is likely that this community walked by land to Navarre. Daroca, 27 July, via Albarracín, apparently to the port of Sagunto. Huesca, 28 July, to Navarre. Ejea de los Caballeros, 28 July, to Navarre (see below on the journey of this community). The Jews left Zaragoza on 27, 28, and 29 July, almost all to the port of Sagunto (see below for the departure agreement of this community); Calatayud, apparently on 27 July. The Jews left Tarazona on 31 July for Navarre. However, it cannot be determined whether all those leaving these places went in the same direction. Some Jews also departed from Zaragoza on 18 and 30 July. See below for the agreement of the community with ships’ captains in Sagunto.

implementation of the edict

227

point in the ports on time, they could not embark and sail unless the winds were propitious. Thus Tomás de Torquemada had to extend their right to remain in the kingdom for ten days, even though deportees left both Aragon and Castile as early as mid-June. Among those in the convoys were the old and infants, the ill and the handicapped. Though some of the deportees possessed beasts of burden and wagons which they could use until they reached the border or port, the trek was difficult. It is difficult to accept the estimate of Motis Dolader that the deportees travelled from 50 to 60 km. a day;82 despite the urging of the escorts and guards, they could not have walked more than 10 to 15 km. a day. For that reason they did not reach the ports precisely on 31 July, and we see that the dates of departure cannot be determined absolutely. It also appears that the Jews of certain villages and settlements joined convoys from other places on the way.83 Here, too, delays could have occurred. Robberies were not infrequent. For example, the deportees from Huesca were robbed on the plain of Ortilla, where they spent the night.84 The Jews of Biel were robbed near a place named Desfiladero de Isuerre, and those leaving Pina were robbed near Gelsa.85 The deportees from the villages of Sos and Uncastillo were also robbed. Astruc Aninay, a Jew from Zaragoza, was robbed in Tarragona, and all of his belongings were taken from him.86 The robbers were none other than the military escorts and their commanders. It was they who determined the date of departure in accordance with their own interests and convenience, without regard to the personal writs of protection and defence issued by the Crown. Not long after the expulsion, the Crown investigated their actions, and for good reason. On 26 September 1492, while he was in Zaragoza, Ferdinand ordered the investigation of the conduct of those who had been charged with implementing the expulsion,87 in order to determine to what degree they had been 83 Motis Dolader, Los judíos aragoneses, 99. See below on the departure from Castile. 85 See below for a description of the expulsion from Huesca. See Motis Dolader, Zaragoza, 69. 86 His son Martín García, who converted to Christianity, addressed the Crown on this matter. It appears that Martín de Gurrea himself was responsible for this. See Motis Dolader, Zaragoza, 66. The source is ACA, Real Cancillería Reg. 3571, fo. 127; also AHPZ, Antón Maurón 1492, fos. 309–10. 87 See Motis Dolader, Zaragoza, 230–3. On robberies of the Jews in Castile see below. The investigation of the escorts’ conduct lasted three years. Martín de Gurrea was also required to declare his assets. Among them it is mentioned that he had bought the Jewish cemetery (‘fosar de judios’). On 20 Mar. 1493 and on 13 Apr. he was ordered to appear personally before the Crown, under threat of a fine of 10,000 mrs. Juan de Torrellas, the lord of Novalis, who had been arrested, was also ordered to appear. See Motis Dolader, Zaragoza, 86–7. On 28 Sept. 1492 Ferdinand ordered the investigation of the conduct of mosén Juan Icart, acting for the veguer, Jaime Granell of Tortosa. Both men had been commissioners responsible for the expulsion. They were accused of collecting a poll-tax and a tax on belongings from every Jew who passed through Tortosa on his way to exile. These taxes were collected against the instructions of the Crown, which, on that day, charged the Infante with investigating the affair. The order was issued in Zaragoza. See F. Carreras Candi, ‘L’aljama de juheus de Tortosa’, Memorias de la Real Academia de Buenas Letras de Barcelona, 9, fasc. 3 (1928), 167, doc. 9 xii; G. Secall Güell, ‘Noticias de judíos aragoneses en el momento de la expulsión’, Sefarad, 42 (1982), 110–11. On 16 Aug. 1492 Ferdinand wrote to the veguer of Tortosa, asking him to inquire about the robberies among the Jews who still remained in the port or who had already boarded ships (see Conde, Aragón, 160). Several days later the royal notary, Domingo Salaverde, was sent to Tudela to investigate among the deportees who had gone to Navarre concerning the acts of robbery (ibid. 172, 174). On 29 Aug. 1492 Ferdinand ordered the commissioners for Jewish property to appear in Zaragoza and to bring with them all the documents in their possession (see Motis Dolader, Zaragoza, 145–6, and cf. Conde, Aragón, 168 n. 122): ACA, Real Cancillería Reg. 3665 bis, fos. a83v–a84r). The Crown demanded that they should immediately make available all information regarding the Jews’ 82 84

228

implementation of the edict

involved in acts of fraud, the illicit seizure of property, and the extortion of money from the deportees. However, we shall see that a distinction must be drawn between ordinary robbery that took place on the way and the actions of those appointed by the Crown and its agents in solving the problem of property left behind by the Jews in the cities where they had lived and the taxes they were to have collected for the Crown.88 Both highwaymen and officials exploited the situation resulting from the expulsion of the Jews. As noted in the order to conduct investigations, those responsible for implementing the expulsion collected more than the wages and salaries allotted to them by the Crown. They also seized Jews’ moveable property and the promissory notes that they held from Christians. The Crown placed the investigation in the hands of the maestre racional Gonzalo de Paternoy and mosén Domingo Agostín, assistant to the baile general of Aragon, Jaime de la Caballería. Paternoy was asked to employ a specially appointed notary or notaries in all his investigations. The commissioners responsible for the expulsion were ordered to appear before these investigators and report about the dates and transports in which they had been involved in various actions and about what they had received from the deportees. Whatever the investigators found to be illicitly collected was to be confiscated, and the revenue used to pay the outstanding debts of Jews to Christians. Those who had seized Jewish property were to be arrested, and the property was to be confiscated. The Crown was to receive a detailed report. This order shows the dual intention of the Crown: it wished to prevent the illicit seizure of Jewish property and to see that Christian creditors could collect what was due to them. Most likely this referred to censos paid to Christians by Jews as annual income on loans, as was also the custom in Castile regarding juros, to which Jewish communal property and the income from it was mortgaged after the expulsion. Moreover, most of those active in implementing the expulsion were from Zaragoza, and they had been appointed by the commissioners responsible for the expulsion, Jaime de la Caballería, maestre Juan Martínez (the receptor of Santa Cruz), and Gerónimo de Mur, and all the officials responsible for the expulsion had sworn allegiance before them. They also determined the salary to be collected from Jewish property.89 property. On 5 Sept. 1492 Ferdinand wrote to an unstated address ordering delivery to Gabriel Sánchez, the treasurer of the kingdom, of the remainder of the property of Isaac Serano, known as Auricopal, that had been stolen from him. The letter lists the names of the robbers (see Conde, Aragón, 170–1). On 17 May 1493 the maestre racional and his substitute were asked to deliver a report on the situation (Motis Dolader, Zaragoza, 153–6); similarly Juan ( Johan) de Ejea, a resident of Zaragoza, was ordered to appear in Calatayud to help the commissioners for the expulsion to deal with a series of matters touching upon its implementation in Calatayud and Daroca, incluing the exiles’ houses and property. On 22 July 1493 Nicolau Bernat, the commissioner of the expulsion in Calatayud, submitted documents and authorizations for the activities of Miguel de Peralta, the acting baile of the communities of the Moors and Jews in Calatayud (Motis Dolader, Zaragoza, 157–9). All this was part of the Crown’s investigation into what had been done to the deportees and their property. On 29 Sept. 1494 Bernat and Pero Tris, notary of Calatayud, were ordered to leave for Zaragoza and deliver a report on their expenses (Motis Dolader, Zaragoza, 189–90). 88 ‘Tambien haver resçebido y exegido indevidamente asi de los dichos judios como de otras personas ultra lo que por sus salarios les pertenesçia, muchas y diversas quantidades de pecunias y bienes mobles sedientes . . . asi en publico como en secreto’ (ibid. 189–90). On the salary of Martín de Gurrea, see n. 79 above. 89 See ibid. 83 ff., a summary of the budget, amounting to 13,330 sueldos, allocated for implementing the expulsion, including guarding the gates, disseminating information about the expulsion, listing the Jews’ property, and payment of the herald who announced the expulsion publicly (see above, Ch. 2).

implementation of the edict

229

The investigation shows the corruption that the expulsion brought in its wake and the efforts of royal officials to enrich themselves at the deportees’ expense. What the deportees suffered may be learnt from the details found in documents from the places that they left.

Departure by Land Zaragoza Two departure gates were designated for the residents of Zaragoza. The deportees making for Navarre were sent through the Puerta del Puente in the stone wall of the city. The second gate, for those heading towards the Mediterranean, was the Puerta Quemada, in the Muslim wall, bordering on the neighbourhood of San Miguel de los Navarros, in the judería nueva.90 The organization and supervision of the gates began immediately after the Edict of Expulsion in Zaragoza was published on 29 April 1492; by 2 June officials had determined the detailed steps to be taken to organize the departure, such as the listing of the exiles’ property, including moveable goods, by notaries appointed for that purpose, inspection for the goods forbidden to be exported from the kingdom, and registration of communal property and everything found in the various synagogues belonging to the community.91 Without doubt they left in large groups. On 6 June maestre Toui Abenlabel received a writ of protection and defence from the baile general for an entire group of Jews going into exile.92 The fate of those going by land to Navarre was not different from that of other communities who went in that direction. Furthermore, several cities in Navarre opposed their arrival.93 Those who journeyed to the Mediterranean ports apparently took river boats on the Ebro to the port of Ampolia, near Tortosa. Another group went to Sagunto; most probably it was forced to make its way on foot. 90 Cabezudo Astrain, ‘La expulsión de los judíos zaragozanos’; A. Blasco Martínez, La judería de Zaragoza en el siglo XIV (Zaragoza, 1988), 25 ff.; Motis Dolader, Los judíos aragoneses, 32. 91 Clearly this organization also included the other Jewish communities in the kingdom: Calatayud, Daroca, Albarracín, Teruel, Tarazona, Borja, Huesca, Jaca, Barbastro, Monzón, Tamarite de Litera, Faraga, Sariñena, Caspe, Alcañas, Alcolea, Montalbán, Huesa, Tauste, Magallón, Ejea de los Caballeros, Alagán. Details regarding each of these towns are not currently available, though they might be discovered in the future. 92 They were: Jento Almuli and his wife; Mosse Jaçoci and his wife; Rabi Amram Gallur and his wife; Salamon Armeu and his wife; his brother Açach Abencanyas; the young (‘menor’) Abraham Arditi and his wife; the wife of Zarfati; the wife of Yuçe la Rabiça; the wife of Arecanuno; Yose Paçagon; the wife of Aben Pesat; Jento Nazir and his wife. See Motis Dolader, Zaragoza, 70–1. The list is found in AHPZ, Juan Aznar Guallart 1492, fo. 146r–v, and there is no doubt that this refers to whole families. As early as 31 Mar. 1492 a series of instructions prepared by Juan de Coloma were sent to Zaragoza regarding the registry of Jewish property, both communal and private. They emphasize the role of the Inquisitors in implementing the edict through the registration of property and possessions. Conde, Aragón, 50–1, lists the copies of the order sent to the various cities in the kingdom of Aragon, as well as Sardinia and Sicily. The instructions regarding property are very detailed, showing how important it was to Ferdinand to obtain property in lieu of the taxes the Jews had formerly paid. He saw to this by confiscating property and collecting debts for past years: even Jews who had converted to Christianity were required to pay the debts (ibid. 14–17). He also required the collection of Jewish debts in the areas of the señoríos (ibid. 20 ff.). On 20 May 1492 the Archbishop of Zaragoza issued an order excommunicating any Christian who hid Jewish property. This was drafted by Juan de Coloma in Santa Fe (ibid. 64–5). 93 See the description of the settlement in Navarre.

230

implementation of the edict

Huesca, Jaca The Edict of Expulsion evidently surprised the Jews of Huesca, for as late as 15 March 1492 Juçe and Abraham Alentienz had contracted to collect a tax on grain known as the onceno in a place named Sangarrén for a period of eight years. When the edict was published the expulsion was placed in the hands of Martín de Lanaja, the city magistrate,94 Jaime de Ara, the magistrate of the Hermandad, and the zalmedina Ramón de Espés, acting in lieu of the zalmedina Ramón de Xixena.95 On 1 May 1492 the commissioners began listing the property of the Jews, taking their gold and silver and giving some to the receiver of property, Alfonso Gómez. This was witnessed by two notaries sent from Zaragoza, Jaime Carnoy and Jaime Capilla, who were involved in recording the expulsion. Martín de Lanaja, Pedro de Moros, and Ramón de Xixena supervised the mutual settlement of debts between Christians and Jews, and ratified the agreement with Martín de Gurrea, according to which the Jewish community of Huesca would pay him the sum of 17,600 sueldos for supervising and escorting the deportees. This agreement, signed on 14 July, speaks of the departure of 500 to 600 Jews. Among other things, it was agreed that suckling infants would be exempt from all payment.96 Most likely the agreement included the inhabitants of other places near Huesca such as Alcalá de Gurrea, and Almudévar, and perhaps also the Jews of Ayerbe, which is 30 km. from Huesca and had between twenty and twenty-five Jewish households. Pedro Cavero, the head of the jurados of the town, escorted the deportees from Huesca. They headed west on the road to Puendeluna or Ayerbe, and from there through the valley of Sotonera in the direction of the village of Ortilla, where they were supposed to stop over. Ramón de Xixena was present there. Thus we find that he, too, escorted the deportees, and it was he who collected two golden florins from them for the guards’ evening meal. That night the deportees were robbed of the ‘good cloth’ they had brought with them.97 The identity of the robbers was not discovered, and it is very possible that Xixena had a hand in the crime.98 In this village Pedro Cavero announced to the deportees that they were permitted to depart, since the community had settled its debt to the Crown, and Xixena was asked to accompany them. To that end he hired seven or eight escorts. Each exile paid 1 ducat (20 sueldos). Of the three roads leaving Ortilla, one was the Roman road linking Zaragoza to the district of Béarn in France. It was possible to leave Aragon on this road, which was the main highway to France over the Pyrenean passes during the Middle Ages. However, since the deportees were not heading for France, although the rulers of Navarre lived in Béarn, they travelled towards Navarre, not Avignon. Presumably the deportees from Jaca joined the party for Navarre.99 See below for the agreements signed with shipowners and ships’ captains. Del Arco and Balaguer, ‘Nuevas noticias’. Later Pedro de Moros and Juan de la Abadía took the place of Jaime de Ara. 96 Del Arco, ‘De Historia aragonesa’, 471. I am grateful to Dr A. Blasco for obtaining a photograph of the document on p. 471. See also F. Balaguer, ‘Notas sobre la población judía de Huesca’, Sefarad, 45 (1985), 97 See Durán Gudiol, La judería de Huesca, 139 ff. 341–51. 98 He was interrogated on 6 Mar. 1495. The document was published in Del Arco and Balaguer, ‘Nuevas noticias’, 377. 99 Little is known about the Jews expelled from Jaca. At the time of the expulsion of the Jews of Jaca certain buildings and debts were transferred to María Jiménez de Vera, the widow of Juan de Santángel, a resident 94 95

implementation of the edict

231

We do not know the date of departure. Perhaps an indication of it may be found in the arrival of representatives from Huesca in Ejea de los Caballeros on 27 July 1492.100 These were Samuel Lo Nieto, the physician Ezmel Avendaut, Samuel Exuen, and Todroz Argilet. They arrived in the company of Ramón de Xixena, representing the magistrate of the Hermandad. While under arrest they appeared before the notary in the presence of Sancho de Gordún, the commissioner responsible for the expulsion from Ejea. They had been arrested while on the road, travelling towards the sea with the intention of departing from one of the ports. Perhaps they did not possess writs of protection and defence as required of all who departed. Xixena for his part added that he had indeed received a bulletin from the commissioners in Huesca that these Jews were smuggling out objects, gold and silver, which they were forbidden to remove from the kingdom. Next day they appeared before the commissioner Pero Berza, who was acting in the name of Martín de Gurrea, and requested their release. On 30 July Samuel Lo Nieto and the physician Ezmel Avendaut demanded the return of the possessions confiscated from them. The commissioners in Ejea referred the case to Zaragoza;101 we do not know the outcome. On 6 March 1495 Xixena was interrogated about the departure of the Jews from Huesca.102 He affirmed under oath that he had received the sum of 225 sueldos from Jewish property. Of this 25 sueldos came by way of the commissioner Juan Carnoy from Ximeno de Luna, a resident of the town of Taviernas; from the ‘señor de letras’ he had received 100 sueldos, most of which he had disbursed as instructed by Jaime Carnoy when he was summoned to Zaragoza, for expenses incurred during the twentyeight days he had stayed there. Pedro de Moros had given him 100 sueldos to settle the debts of the Jews. He had gone to the mountains (‘a las montanyas’) in the company of the notary Jaime de Glera, and he had spent the sum he had received. He had stayed there for sixteen days, more or less. In his possession was a Torah garment (‘Capyllo de Tora’) which he had bought from a go-between (‘corredor’) for 4 sueldos. He maintained that he had been forced to employ guards in order to prevent the secret departure of the Jews, who had tried to sell their property and had committed great thefts (‘grandes furtos’); one of the guards took twelve pieces of Cordovan leather from a Jew, giving each of the other guards two pieces of leather and keeping eight for himself. Another Jew was caught by a guard selling grain without permission; the guard, called Jaime de Vielsa, took a measure of grain from him, which he was ordered to convey to Xixena’s house. On the orders of Alfonso Gómez, he confiscated a vineyard. The value of the grapes that he took was 25 sueldos, more or less. He also arrested fifteen or twenty Jews and confiscated money from them. His total revenue from the Jews was of Calatayud. The value of the transfer was 24,000 sueldos. This is on the basis of a censal that the Jews of Jaca had to pay. She was permitted to sell the income of the sum of 4,421 sueldos to Pedro Zapata Hidalgo, a resident of Calatayud. See Motis Dolader, The Expulsion of the Jews from Calatayud 1492–1500, 251, 254, in whose opinion the Jews of Jaca went to the port of Taragona. The number leaving was fifty. See id., Zaragoza, 69. Cabezudo Astrain, ‘Ejea de los Caballeros’, 353–5, 359–63. On the same day they delivered to Pedro Berça or Belsa many jewels worth more than the gold, silver, and gold coins confiscated from them. See Cabezudo Astrain, locc. citt. 102 See Del Arco and Balaguer, ‘Nuevas noticias’, 377, 390–2. 100 101

232

implementation of the edict

3,000 sueldos, as attested by a note in the possession of Jaime Carnoy. He further confirmed that the Jews had been robbed on their way into exile from Huesca, in Ortilla,103 as described above, and added that the Jews of Huesca had given him two gold florins to buy food for the guards that night.104 These details furnish harsh testimony about the suffering of the deportees in their search for shelter at that time.

Ejea de los Caballeros The Inquisition was actively involved in the departure of the Jews of this town,105 where approximately thirty Jewish families lived. Like the other Jewish communities of Aragon, this one was also required to pay its debts for taxes owed to the kingdom. The Crown imposed a lien on its real property to ensure payment. The Jews were also obliged to settle their private debts in mutual agreement with the Christian inhabitants, as was the case regarding the other communities of the kingdom. The Jewish community supported itself almost entirely by agriculture, and most likely the entire congregation left for exile.106 On 1 July 1492 Johan de Peraman appeared in the synagogue of Ejea as a representative of the Inquisition and summoned the muqaddamin (Albo, Anem Rabiça, and Tian). He required them to surrender to him all the books owned by the Jews of the town, manuscripts included, in particular commentaries on the Bible, tractates of the Talmud, and other books, including a halakhic code, the Turim (‘los adturin’). They were to produce the books within a day,107 and to proclaim the order ‘in public, while 103 He added that he had information about who did this. He reported on it to Alfonso Gómez, the commissioner who was appointed by the king. 104 He swore to this before the notary, Pedro Palacios; the witnesses to the oath were Juan de San Vicente and Juan de Madrid, notaries in Huesca. See Cabezudo Astrain, ‘Ejea de los Caballeros’. 105 Ibid. This town was one of a group of towns in which there were Jewish settlements. The others were: Tauste, Sadaba, Uncastillo, and Sos (today Sos del Rey Católico, since it was the birthplace of Ferdinand). The notary of the town of Sadaba, Juan Ramírez, was also active in Ejea. The documents from that town are not in Sos del Rey Católico. Ejea was apparently the largest Jewish settlement. There were twenty-four Jewish families in Sos. Cabezudo Astrain presents a list of the members of the community in his article. Its leaders were Leon Albo, Mose Anem Rabiça, and Abraham Tean: the rabbis of the town were Samuel Rahenas and Juçen; the herald was Isaac Atorox. On 1 Aug. 1492 Leon Albo appeared before the commissioners in charge of the expulsion and expressed his wish to convert to Christianity (ibid. 363). He gave them a Torah scroll that the Jews of the town had left with him and also several ornaments, which he declared, and a quantity of silver that had been deposited with him to pay Miguel Rami, who acknowledged receipt of the sum. Perhaps Rabbi Juçen can be identified with the physician maestre Yose Almereçi, though he is mentioned separately in the confiscation of books described below. A recent discussion of the deportees from the various villages can be found in M. D. Meyerson, ‘Aragonese and Catalan Jewish Converts at the time of the Expulsion’, Frank Talmage Memorial volume, Jewish History, 6, 1–2 (1992), 134–44. 106 These are the names of the Jews of the community: Sayo de Murçia, Simuel Almerich; Jaco(b) Zunava; Juçe Curi; Simuel Caro; Mose Alcolumbre; Simuel Plinias; Salamon Pazagon; Açah de Murçia Mayor; Simuel Estallo; Juçe Rogat; Açach de Aruech; Açach Turian; Mose Bonanat; Salamon de Murçia; Salamon Rami; Gento Orabuena; Gento Lazos; Salamon Loro; Simuel Rahenas; Juçe Loro; Jacob Thoro; Mosse Alazar; Abraham Aluengo; Jehuda Almeli. See Cabezudo Astrain, ‘Ejea de los Caballeros’, 351. 107 ‘Que habia probeydo dentro hun dia todos los textos del Talmut y las glosas de la Biblia y los adturins e todos las otras scripturas de la ley, excepto el sesto [sic] solo de la Biblia’, ibid. 355. This was according to the instruction sent by Ferdinand on 6 July 1492 from Arévalo to the Inquisitors of Zaragoza, according to which he ordered them to rescind the fines imposed on the Jews of Zaragoza and Tortosa, and to permit

implementation of the edict

233

holding a Torah scroll in their hands, on pain of excommunication’.108 This penalty was to be imposed not only on those who possessed books but also on those who concealed information about them. This action was exceptional, for the Crown permitted the Jews to remove books when they went into exile. Without doubt it was an initiative of the Inquisition, but Motis Dolader’s opinion, that Inquisition was pressing on the Jews to convert,109 seems unlikely: those who were willing to convert would have done so with or without their books. The intention seems rather to have been to harass the deportees and to make their lives miserable at that fateful hour. It is agreed that this was an initiative of the Inquisition in Zaragoza, whose hatred for the Jews was boundless. The muqaddamin submitted to the demand and proclaimed the threat of excommunication as they were asked.110 The books were delivered and placed in a sack to be transferred to the headquarters of the Inquisition in the Aljafería in Zaragoza. On that very day, 1 July, Johan de Peraman, accompanied by the notary and the aforementioned witnesses, went to the house of the maestre Juçe Almereci and took from him sixty books, which ‘were identified by maestre Jaime, a Jewish physician of Tauste, who was present at the event’.111 On that day, too, forty books were confiscated in the home of Rabbi Yose, which were also identified by maestre Jaime, the Jew from Tauste, and another forty books from the house of Mosse Avendavir, a physician, in the presence of the aforementioned witnesses. These books, too, were placed in a sack. On that day the muqaddamin of the community also delivered to Johan de Peraman another 120 books, those, too, in the presence of the aforementioned witnesses. Incidentally, the large number of books, 260, owned by the Jews of that isolated community is noteworthy: three members owned 140 books between them, as opposed to 120 books owned by all the rest together.112 On 12 July the Jews of the town assembled and addressed Martín de Gurrea, who had responsibility for the expulsion, and who was in Zaragoza,113 requesting him to them to take with them copies of the Talmud and other religious works: ‘Libros del Thalmud y otros qualesquiere libros de los dichos judios no les pongays empacho alguno, antes los dexeys yr libremente conellos’. See Conde, Aragón, 122–3. ‘Publicament con la Thora en los braços, excomunion con herem e niduy’, ibid. M. A. Motis Dolader, ‘La conversión de judíos aragoneses a raíz del edicto de Expulsión’, in Ruiz Gómez and Espadas Burgos (eds.), Encuentros en Sefarad, 217–52 at 227. Pressure to convert was exerted in several Jewish centres in Aragon where both priests and Inquisitors were active. See Baer, Toledot, 470. This is what happened in Teruel, Albarracín, and Zaragoza. The rabbis worked hard to prevent these conversions (Motis Dolader, ‘La conversión’, 223–4). 110 ‘Et encontinent puyo en la trona con la thora en los braços Simuel Raenas, rabi, el qual publicament segunt que a prima faz pareçia en hebraico echo la dita excomunion con herem cantando’, Cabezudo Astrain, ‘Ejea de los Caballeros’, 356. García Beltrán and Sancho de Torres, residents of Ejea, served as witnesses to the proclamation. 111 ‘Los quales fueron reconveidos por maestre Jayme, judio metge de Taust, alli present’, ibid. 112 On the same date, 1 July, Juçe Ambroy was forbidden to leave the town either openly or in secret (ibid. 357). Hence he most likely sought to take this daring step. 113 See ibid. 357–8 for a list of those who assembled, which matches that given above in n. 106 (except the name of Leon Albo, who clearly had decided not to go into exile but rather to convert to Christianity). The assembly was initiated by Mose Anem Rabiça and Abraham Tian. The herald who proclaimed it was Açach Atoros. It took place in the synagogue. It must be noted that Albo was under arrest as a guarantor to Mose Alcolumbre. 108 109

234

implementation of the edict

appoint someone to escort them on their way into exile. On 16 July Juan de Fabara or Favara, a resident of Zaragoza, was appointed for that purpose. The community obligated itself to pay this escort 2,000 sueldos in Jaca coin for accompanying them to their port of departure. However, when Fabara arrived in the town, he found that the Jews there were being held in detention until they should pay their debts to the Crown. He insisted that he too should be paid his due.114 Among those arrested are mentioned in particular Juçe Almeredi, Rabbi Juçen, Juçe Ambrun, Sio de Murcia, Vidal de Murcia, Leon Albo, Simuel Raenas, Mosse Rabiça. They served as guarantors for Mose Alcolumbre, who had gone to the port, doubtless in order to charter a ship for the deportees.115 From the date of the petition mentioned above, lodged by Leon Albo on 1 August, and the delivery of the Torah scroll to the commissioners responsible for the expulsion, we learn that the Jews of the town left before that day. We do not know at what port the ship awaited them, perhaps that of Tortosa-Ampolia.116

Sos del Rey Católico On 26 July 1492 two commissioners for the deportees from this town are named: Alonso de Artieda, a magistrate of the Hermandad, and Español de Sos. They were appointed by the chief commissioners of Zaragoza: Fernández de Ardia, the governorgeneral; Bernardino del Hospital, a zalmedina; and Jaime de la Caballería. The Jews of Sos del Rey Católico owned thirty-four houses and another forty-two rural properties, including vineyards, fields for flax and grain, and the like. This property was sold on the above date, but the sale of the houses did not cover the community’s arrears of tax. To this was added the sale of vineyards by Jews, as listed by the notary Bartolomé Español. Some of the Jews of this town and neighbouring Biel lent money at interest, and the debts owed to them by Christians were not collected. The Jews of this town apparently went to Navarre.117

Calatayud The deportees of Calatayud joined those leaving from Zaragoza at Fuentes de Ebro. According to the notarial documents from the city, there were between 550 and 650 Jews, but the number of exiles was smaller.118 Responsibility for implementing the Edict of Expulsion fell upon the baile and the jurados, who were assisted by the local Hermandad. They also registered the Jews’ property. Calatayud was one of the centres 114 They reached an agreement with him that first they would pay the Crown its due, and from the remainder they would pay his fee. 115 The bill of obligation was drafted on 23 July 1492. See Cabezudo Astrain, ‘Ejea de los Caballeros’, 30 (1970), 359. 116 Motis Dolader, Zaragoza, 64, cites a reference from the royal archive in Aragon concerning the departure of twenty people from the port of Tortosa-Ampolia, with Martín de Gurrea having responsibility for them. This document may refer to them. See ACA, Real Cancillería Reg. 3567, fo. 113. 117 In 1499 the Crown gave the Hospital de Huesca land that had belonged to the Jews expelled from Sos, as well as the courtyard of the synagogue. Cabezudo Astrain, ‘La judería de Sos del Rey Católico’, 89–104. 118 Motis Dolader, Calatayud, 31. He believes that 300 people went into exile, but the Jews from the town of Ariza and other towns in the vicinity must be added to the number of the Jews of Calatayud.

implementation of the edict

235

of the expulsion in the kingdom of Aragon,119 and the local Inquisition played its part in its execution.120 In the arrangements for the departure, the deportees of Calatayud were parties to an agreement signed by representatives of Zaragoza with their own representative, the Genoese merchant Carlo Calvo.121 However, not all the Jews of the city joined this group of deportees. Members of the Paçagon family, one of the most important in the community, headed by a widow, Bona Dona, went to Navarre accompanied by Brahem and Çalema Paçagon.122 On 6 July 1492 the Crown ordered that rabbis and holders of communal office should be permitted to leave without being required to cover their communal tax debts, for they were not among the local taxpayers.123 On the same day the Crown ordered the cancellation of fines demanded by the Inquisition from several Jews in the archdiocese of Zaragoza, since they had been imposed after promulgation of the Edict of Expulsion. The Crown also permitted the deportees to take copies of the Talmud and other religious books with them.124 The inventory of the possessions and property of Solomon Ezi (or Hezi or Hazi), taken on 4 May 1492, is informative regarding the status of some of the exiles from Calatayud.125 Nineteen books and manuscripts are listed (one of them on parchment; eighteen bound volumes).126 Solomon Ezi was a member of the Shomrei Holim (‘Guard the Sick’) society in 1466. The communal property included a building 119 Ibid. 84–5. The commissioner appointed was Juan Vives, a magistrate of the Hermandad (ibid. 124, 135). Martín Rasera and Jaime de Matas worked with him. See above, n. 78. 120 Ibid. 110, in the Crown’s response to the appeal of the commissioners responsible for the expulsion from there from 6 July 1492. They were ordered to cancel the transactions made by the assessor of the Inquisition in transferring Jewish property. Regarding the salary of the commissioners, who were appointed by the Inquisition, the order stated that those responsible for the expulsion from Calatayud should consult the commissioners of Zaragoza and act according to their decisions. The instruction was drafted by Miguel Pérez de Almaçen. See ibid. 119–20. 121 See below for a description of the departure contracts. This contract was published in Hinojosa Montalvo, ‘Solidaridad judía’, 105–20; Motis Dolader, Calatayud, 104–9. 122 Ibid. 143–4, 146, 151–2; in an order dated 3 Aug. 1492 and cf. the order dated 25 Apr. 1493. Samuel Paçagon was in Tudela on 11 Aug. 1494. See ibid. 188 on him and also 204–7. According to a document of 4 Mar. 1495 that was issued in Madrid it appears that he converted to Christianity and took the name Carlos de Verozpe; he was the son of Mose Paçagon. The property in Calatayud that he had owned before the expulsion was returned to him. Yose Paçagon also converted to Christianity, taking the name of Martín Montesa; his property was also returned. See ibid. 263–4 in the order dated 31 Mar. 1498 issued in Alcalá de Henares. On 21 Sept. 1498, in Toledo, a writ was issued confirming the conversion of this family at the time of the expulsion of the Jews of Navarre. The conversion took place in Mar. 1498. See also ibid. 269, 186. 123 Ibid. 120. 124 Although Calatayud is not mentioned in the order, the officials may have been ordered to act in this manner there too: ibid. 121–2. Cf. above, the expulsion of the Jews of Ejea de los Cabaleros. On 15 July the Inquisitors of Calatayud were ordered to free the Jews they had arrested, ibid. 130. 125 E. Marín Padilla, ‘Inventario de los bienes muebles del judío bilbilitano Salomon Ezi en 1492’, Sefarad, 48 (1988), 93–115; ead., ‘Más sobre los Constantin de Calatayud’, Sefarad, 46 (1986), 317–23; Borrás Gualis, ‘Liquidación’, 36–8. Recently, Motis Dolader, Calatayud, 41 ff., 73 ff.; see 86 for an estimate of the property of Salomon Ezi; and 93 ff. for a register of the property of Salomon Conejo, Juçe Molcho, Judah Manilla, Simha, the widow of Jacob Levi; Juçe Romi, Isaac de Pones, Judah Abrollo, and Isaac Palencia. 126 The list was compiled by Pero Sánchez de Pero Marta in the absence of a magistrate of the Hermandad and the royal commissioner Juan Vives. See Marín Padilla, ‘Inventario de los bienes muebles’, 104–11. The furniture in his house as described in the inventory was relatively sparse and heavily used. Other household effects are listed, including cloth, furniture, kitchen utensils, clothing, mattresses, and the like.

236

implementation of the edict

owned by the charity society (‘bestir los desnudos’) and also a house for purifying the dead (‘do vanyan a los muertos’).

La Almunia de Doña Godina The town of La Almunia de Doña Godina is situated on the lands of the Knights of St John, and included in it were several villages where the Jews owned property and might have lived. This community had a synagogue, a hospital, and a shelter, an abattoir, and a cemetery. Those responsible for the expulsion, Martín de Rasera, a magistrate of the Hermandad, and Jaime de Matas,127 dealt with the problems that arose from the liquidation of Jewish property. Information about their activities is found in documents from 9, 17, and 18 July, at the height of preparations for the expulsion. These documents refer to the family of a woman named Aljahor Cohen, whose grandchildren left for exile with her.128 The tailor Juçe Carrillo, the son of Jacob, sold his house in the village of Ricla on 17 July to the previous owners of the house, with the permission of the expulsion authorities.129 Juçe Cantala, a Jew from Mesones, appeared before the local magistrates, and lodged a claim against another Jew, Abraham Arruet, for the return of a pledge on 18 July 1492,130 showing that Juçe, the owner of the pledge, departed for exile, though it is possible that both Jews left.

Borja We do not know how many Jews from this town went into exile. They left in the direction of Navarre and joined the deportees from Tarazona, who travelled on foot beside the River Huecha. However, some of them apparently journeyed by boat down the Ebro to Mediterranean ports.131 Those responsible for the expulsion were the magistrate of the town, Pedro Francis, and the magistrate of the Hermandad, Miguel de Valsorga. According to testimony of 1493 they were joined by Juan de Mendoza. On 18 August the three were ordered to appear in Zaragoza and to report on their activity. Miguel de Valsorga is also mentioned in this capacity on 4 March 1498. Hence They were also responsible for the expulsion from Calatayud, see n. 118 above. Marín Padilla, ‘Los judíos de La Almunia’; on the Cohen family, Sefarad, 50 (1990), 347. The family’s property was sold to the head of the monastery of Santa María del Carmen in Zaragoza as part of the annual revenue that the community of La Almunia had been obligated to pay to that monastery. The property was 129 See ibid. 343. sold on 9 July 1492. 130 See ibid. 124. This refers to a silver chain worth 400 sueldos which had been pawned for 250 sueldos. He asked the magistrates to hasten its return. He was represented by the procurador Luis Navarro. What happened to the pledge is not known. A Jewish woman who took the name María García after converting to Christianity, the widow of a leather processor called Miguel, and her daughter, also María, both natives of La Almunia, appeared before Martín de Rasera on 5 Oct. 1492 and produced an order from the Crown (given them on 30 Sept. 1492 in Zaragoza) against the seizure of their property: a house, vineyards, grain fields (‘campos de pan lleuar’). The order indicates that they had converted to Christianity and settled in Zaragoza. They claimed they were poor and impoverished. Jaime de la Caballería, to whom their petition was referred, ordered the magistrate Martín de Rasera to see that the property was returned to them, on pain of a fine of 1,000 gold florins. On 17 Oct. the property was returned. See Marín Padilla, Sefarad, 50 (1990), 91. This could, however, refer to the return to their native city after their conversion. 131 M. A. Motis Dolader, ‘Los judíos de Borja en el siglo XV’, Cuadernos de Estudios Borjanos, 19–20 (1987), 229 ff.; id., Documentos sobre los judíos de Borja (Zaragoza), 1455–1500 (Zaragoza, 1988), 127 ff. 127 128

implementation of the edict

237

it may be assumed that he did not exceed his authority and continued to enjoy the confidence of the Crown. These officials registered the Jews’ debts and assets for the censal tax. These were immediately mortgaged to cover the Crown’s debts. Some of the Jewish property was sold to Moors living in the town and who had settled in the Jewish neighbourhood. Several documents related to Jews who converted to Christian and did not depart in exile, among them being the maestre Pablo García, a physician native to Borja who also served as a rabbi there.132 On 11 December 1493 Ferdinand granted him the sum of 1,000 sueldos for his action in converting the local Jews.133 One of the figures influential in converting the Jews was Juan de Coloma, the king and queen’s secretary, who drafted the Edict of Expulsion.134 Salamon Azamel, the richest man of the town, converted rather than leave for exile. After his conversion, he was known as Fortún Pérez de Bolea and settled in Zaragoza.135 The brothers Pedro and Miguel Francés also converted, as did Gerónimo Royz [Ruiz] and Luis González. They all recovered their property, meaning that they went into exile, returned, and converted.136 The attachment of the deportees of the town to Zaragoza and Tarazona is manifest, and most likely they went to Navarre.

Magallón The man appointed by Martín de Gurrea to accompany the Jews of Magallón into exile was the escudero Álvaro de Homedes de Heredia. Those responsible for implementing the expulsion locally were Pedro Navarro, the magistrate of the town, and Juan Francés, the magistrate of the Hermandad. The deportees had two possibilities: one was to go to nearby Navarre; the second was to go to the port of Tarragona, which was 300 km. distant, by way of the Huecha and Ebro.137 Most likely the proximity of Navarre made it easier to take that direction. Registration of the property of the Jews of Magallón began as early as 2 May 1492, and the commissioner of the Inquisition, a resident of Zaragoza, Francisco Cabañas, and with him the magistrate of the Hermandad of Magallón, Juan Francés, were in charge of it. Those departing were forbidden to conceal their property. Perhaps this Motis Dolader, ‘Los judíos de Borja’, 243. ‘A judizmento e conseio suyo se han convertido muchos judíos y judías’, ACA, Real Cancillería Reg. 3571, fos. 128v–129v. Motis Dolader, ‘Los judíos de Borja’, 243, emphasizes the word ‘muchos’; however, we do not know how to interpret that word and define the number of Jews who converted so as not to go into exile. For the document, see Motis Dolader, Documentos sobre los judíos de Borja, 136–7. 134 See ibid. 132–3; Motis Dolader, ‘Los judíos de Borja’, 244. 135 He departed for Navarre after his conversion in order to return his wife and children and convince them to convert. See Motis Dolader, Documentos sobre los judíos de Borja, 132–5. He claimed rights to the property of the Asamel family (R. Abraham, Judah, Solomon Yunes). See ibid. 150. 136 Ibid. 130; on Luis González, ibid. 334–5, an order dated 22 Apr. 1495. On Navarre as a country of refuge for the deportees and their subsequent expulsion, see below. 137 Motis Dolader, ‘Los judíos de Magallón’. This article is based on the manuscripts published by id., ‘Documentos para el estudio de la expulsión de los judíos de Magallón’, Turiaso, 5 (Tarazona, 1984), 209– 51. Those responsible for the expulsion in Magallón bore the title ‘Comisarios por la maestat del dicho senyor rey, dados e asignados para la expulsión de los judíos de la dicha villa’. See ‘Los judíos de Magallón’, 162, and cf. ‘Documentos’, 237. They were also responsible for the debts of the Jews in Almunia de la doña Godina, Jaca, Uncastillo, and elsewhere. 132 133

238

implementation of the edict

was because it was assumed they would go to Navarre, and it was also forbidden to transfer or sell their property to others.138 The muqaddamin of the community at that time were Jaco Caruch Trigo and Yento Açamel, and with them are mentioned Juçe Majo, Abraham Vergesan, Abraham Aff, a tailor, and Mose Atortox, who served as treasurer (‘clavario’). In accordance with the Crown’s orders, they transferred their property and the communal censales to the escudero Antón Jaime, a resident of Mallén, in order to cover the community’s debts with real estate. Other private property was transferred to the escudero Miguel Coll.139 Details are lacking concerning their journey into exile, though it may be assumed with certainty that they were not harmed, because their town is so close to the border of Navarre, which is where they went.

Gerona The principality of Barcelona at that time had few Jewish inhabitants; the once splendid community of Gerona had dwindled. The expulsion was overseen by the caballero Miguel de Vilanova, the veguer of Gerona and Besalú, and Juan de Terades, the baile of Gerona.140 The Edict of Expulsion was brought to Gerona by the notary Vicente Estrada of Barcelona, and the jurats of Gerona told him that they were prepared to implement the decree. The small Jewish community of Gerona immediately began preparing for departure by selling their communal and personal property. Without doubt the departure from the city took place near the end of July. Some of the deportees crossed the French border and settled in Perpignan. These were Struch Abraham, Levi Leo, Mose Vidal, Samuel Solomon, Esdras Belshom. They asked to take the Torah scrolls and books that were in the synagogue to their new place of residence.141 However, they were ordered to surrender them to the local magistrate or suffer punishment. One of the most important of the exiles was Samuel Benvenist, who had collected the hermansa tax in Gerona and the surrounding district.142 Some time after reaching Perpignan, he died, as did Bonastruch Benvenist.

Departure by Sea Until the exiles reached their destination, they depended on the mercy of the shipowners and ships’ captains. This dependency found expression in the contracts signed by the representatives of the exiles and the owners and captains. The deportees made use of guarantors and intermediaries, as described below. At bottom, it made no difference whether the shipowners and captains were Genoese, Basque, or Portuguese. 138 Id., ‘Los judíos de Magallón’, 165. He points out that seventy-three sales were authorized by representatives of the Crown. 139 See id., ‘Documentos’, 216–18. The document mentions the two muqaddamin, Yento Açamel and Jaco Caruch Trigo. It refers to a house opposite the synagogue, and also mentions the community hospital and 140 Belloc, ‘Los judíos gerundenses’. shelter. 141 ‘Rolles, libres et tos altres abilaments’, ibid. 665. 142 J. Ventura Subirats, ‘Documentos económicos de la Inquisición referentes a judíos conversos de Gerona (1490–1504)’, Cuadernos de Historia Económica de Cataluña, 14 (1976), 92 ff.

implementation of the edict

239

One factor that the exiles had to consider was the local port authorities, who were supposed to protect passengers embarking on ships and the escorts who accompanied them to the ports. As we have seen, it was not always possible to board the ships awaiting the deportees in port at the departure points, or which were supposed to arrive at those ports and proceed from there. Hence we find that the contracts that were signed and guaranteed stipulate a range of dates for the deportees’ arrival in port and setting sail. The ports of the kingdom of Valencia were Valencia itself and Sagunto (Murviedro); in the principalities of Catalonia, the main ports were Tortosa-Ampolia and to some degree Tarragona, and perhaps Barcelona itself served for one or two departures.143 What considerations led the deportees to prefer one port or another? Most likely the choice was practical, depending on the availability of ships and the willingness of their owners to transport the deportees. Another important factor was the destination towards which the captains were heading. All these considerations found expression in the negotiations between representatives of the deportees and the shipowners. It must also be recalled that the Crown collected a fee for departure from the kingdom not only at the border crossing-points on land, but also at the seaports. At the ports of the kingdom of Valencia the Crown collected 5 sueldos for every departing passenger, though in some instances this sum was reduced to 2 sueldos, and a few poor people were exempted from all payment.144 The amount of revenue collected serves as an indication of the number of exiles, since it is most improbable that more than a handful were exempted from paying the departure fee. Moreover, it is likely that communities and groups of exiles covered the fees for the poor, though this is not certain. Representatives of the communities negotiated with the baile general of the kingdom of Valencia, Francisco de Olmedo, the notary of the corte de bailía (bailiff’s office), Cristóbal de Vassurto, the baile of the port of Sagunto, Francisco de Sant Feliu, and the alguacil of the baile of Sagunto, Juan Duart.145 The negotiation with them did not obviate the need to reach agreement directly with the owners and captains, though it was probably useful to enable the exiles to traverse the kingdom of Valencia on the way to the port and stay in the port city itself. From the accounting taken on 1 August 1492, that is, the day after the final departure date of the deportees (theoretically a new era started on that day in the entire kingdom), we find that in addition to the Jews of Sagunto itself, Jews from Zaragoza, Teruel, Calatayud, Huesa, Épila, Daroca, Ariza, Albarracín, El Cuervo, Belchite, Xativa (Játiva), Castelló de la Plana, Sesma, and Jérica all left from this port.146 The total sum collected from the deportees came to 5,685 143 The port of Ampolia was not far from that of Fangal or Port Fangos. Another embarcation point was to the south of the delta of Tortosa in Port dels Alfacs. See G. Secall Güell, ‘Noticias de judíos aragoneses en el momento de la Expulsión’, Sefarad, 42 (1982), 108 n. 16. On the ports of departure from the kingdom of Castile, see above, pp. 218‒23, and below, pp. 244‒53. 144 Hinojosa Montalvo, ‘Solidaridad judía’. On the amounts paid for permission to depart, see ibid. 119. 145 Ibid. 146 Hinojosa Montalvo’s table (ibid.) registers the departure of 1,756 people and another 175 who were exempted from payment. Thus a total of 1,931 Jews left the port of Sagunto. This table mentions only the Jews leaving from Játiva, Sagunto, Épila, Daroca, Ariza, El Cuervo, Belchite, and Albarracín. In addition to these, thirty-five people left by ship from the port of Valencia along with members of the Abravanel family. Nevertheless, details are lacking regarding the deportees from Castellón, Zaragoza, Teruel, and Huesca (ibid. 120).

240

implementation of the edict

sueldos.147 Thus, based on a cautious estimate, 10,000 deportees left Spain from the port of Sagunto alone.148 Attorneys for the Jewish communities, or authorized local leaders, negotiated with the shipowners. They also had to find Christian guarantors, who apparently included conversos, people of status within the Christian social hierarchy. The first contracts date from early May, and are basically uniform.149 Most of them refer to large ships (‘naves’, ‘naos’, ‘naus’) which were fitted out to receive many passengers. These vessels ranged from a displacement of 93 tonnes (these were considered small craft and called carracas) to ships with a displacement of 1,023 tonnes. Each ship had a crew of sailors proportionate to her size, ranging from twenty-two to forty men, while some large ships had a crew of a hundred. One of their tasks was to protect the passengers from the attacks of pirates. The contracts determined the port of departure and the number of days the ship would remain in port, usually a layover of ten to twenty days. Any delay in departure caused by the passengers required them to pay a fine of up to 20 ducats per day.150 Once the number of passengers was determined, arrangements for food were also made: the number of wineskins, the amount of wood and charcoal; the merchandise that it was permitted to export, and sometimes merchandise bought from the shipowners themselves.151 Thus it was permitted to bring 150 quintales of books (1 quintal ⫽ 41.55 kg.). 147 The sum was divided among those mentioned above among the senior officials of Valencia. Cristóbal de Vassurto, the lessor of the escribeña of the court and the bailía, received 2,832 sueldos and 6 dineros. The remainder, 947 sueldos and 6 dineros, were paid to the baile general of the kingdom, the baile of Sagunto, and the alguacil of the bailía. See ibid. 120. 148 Ibid.; cf. the end of this chapter for the total of deportees leaving from the united kingdoms. On the expulsion from Valencia see Piles Ros, ‘La expulsión de los judíos de Valencia’. In his opinion (ibid. 100), the Jews of Sagunto owned 103 houses, occupied by over 500 persons. Cf. id., ‘La judería de Sagunto: sus restos actuales’, esp. 370: the houses of Jews were sold within thirty days and at a good price. The baile announced this to the Crown. The purchasers were new settlers. The baile proposed that these settlers should form a society. From a document dated 30 July 1499 Piles Ros concluded that the effort to resettle in Sagunto did not succeed. Perhaps the new settlers were Jews who returned to Sagunto after converting. In 1494 the king wrote to the baile and enquired about the house of Vidal de Blanes, because his widow had asked the Crown that certain property be given to her; she may have returned and converted. See too Cantera Burgos, ‘La judería de San Martín de Valdeiglesias’, 226. 149 See Hinojosa Montalvo, ‘Solidaridad judía’, 110. He presents the summary of five contracts made between 7 May and 28 June 1492. These dates are also instructive, showing that negotiations began soon after publication of the Edict of Expulsion, and contracts with shipowners were signed. Only one of these contracts is personal. The others were made in behalf of the community. The converso Jaume Salvador was the notary concerned with the drafting of these contracts. See also Guiral-Hadziiosif, Valencia, 457. Among the witnesses to the contract made with Grimalde, the shipowner, a Genoese, was the converso Joan Catan. The Jews were represented by Rabbi Nathan Faraig from Játiva (ibid. 458). Another guarantor to the contract was Alfonso Sánchez, a descendant of the Golluf family, which had converted to Christianity at the end of the 14th c. See Baer, Toledot, index. He was the treasurer of the kingdom of Aragon. On the negotiations of the emissaries of Zaragoza see below. 150 A ship named La Nunciada was delayed. She was about to sail on 10 July with deportees from Sagunto and Játiva. On 14 July Barbut, another Jew from Sagunto, signed a power of attorney to Bernardo Marzen in which he sold him a piece of property containing a fig orchard (‘higueral’); the property, which was in the city limits of Sagunto, was sold for 30 sueldos, a very small amount of money. See Hinojosa Montalvo, ‘Solidaridad judía’, 107, 113. 151 Occasionally the shipowner himself supplied the water and wood (ibid. 114). Clearly the Jews supplied the wineskins, because of the issue of kashrut.

implementation of the edict

241

The fare paid by the Jews of Sagunto and Játiva was 3 ducats a head, apart from the exemption for suckling infants and those born on the way. This payment was in addition to the fee for chartering the ship. Half the fare was paid fifteen days before the embarkation of the passengers, and the other half was to be paid by the passengers when the ship reached its destination, before disembarkation. In the contracts of Sagunto for the deportees from Zaragoza, Calatayud, and Fuentes de Ebro this was Naples. Arrangements were also made in case a passenger should die on the way (the body would be buried at the destination). The community paid the fare for the poor. The shipowner (patrón) for his part agreed to transport the Jewish passengers to their destination as agreed with them. In case of a quarrel between the passengers, they themselves were to solve their problems without the intervention of the captain (or owner, if he was also the captain), unless the disputants appealed to him to intervene. Naturally the obligation to protect them fell upon the captain. The contracts contained explicit clauses regarding the eventuality of attacks by pirates, and an alternative destination was also agreed upon, in case it was not possible to anchor at the designated port.152 The contract was signed in the presence of witnesses, two Christians and one Jew. Usually they attempted to sail in convoys to increase security on the way, though this often made disembarking difficult, when local rulers refused to allow the deportees to land because of their large numbers.

Sagunto From the contracts made by the Jews of Sagunto and Játiva it emerges that the deportees intended to go to Pisa, where the ships anchored for eight days to allow the passengers to debark. From there the ships proceeded to Naples, and there, too, they were to anchor for eight days to allow the remaining passengers to land. If the city authorities of Genoa, the lords of Pisa, forbade disembarkation, the ship would proceed to Civitavecchia. The Jews of Sagunto were represented in these negotiations by Solomon Cavaller and Mose Ardit; those of Játiva by Rabbi Benahe Dalmati, Mose Alpegui (one of the muqaddamin), and Jacob Castel. Játiva had a large Jewish community; its muqaddamin were Abram Abendavit, Mose Alpegui, Mose Abenzaydon, Joseph Capuço, Solomon Castelli, Mose Abencara, Yento Cohen, and Joseph and Solomon Duran. The shipowners were represented by Bernat de Franquis and Jaume Marga of Valencia. One hundred men were to sail the ship to be chartered, and between 1,000 and 1,500 passengers would board between 20 June and 10 July. She would make for Pisa, and from there continue to Naples; Bernat de Franquis bound himself to remain in port for twelve days. The Jews of Ariza and Sesma, near Calatayud, obtained similar conditions. Their destination was North Africa. Their ship remained in the harbour of Oran for eight days, permitting a group of women to disembark, accompanied by ten men. From there the ship sailed to Naples. Salamo Malequi, a resident of Játiva, made a separate agreement for himself and his household with the caballero Antonio Joan.153 Malequi was a merchant with commercial 152 153

See ibid. 116. We shall return to the matter of these alternative debarkation points. Against this obligation, Antonio Joan provided a guarantee of his own (ibid. 111 and table).

242

implementation of the edict

ties in North Africa, and he evidently had good reasons for chartering a ship for himself and travelling alone. He was to pay 300 ducats for the voyage upon signing the contract, and he was also to supply merchandise worth 600 ducats once the ship had anchored at her destination. He would store the merchandise he was bringing with him in Valencia, and there he would pay the charter fee (carabela). The merchandise was to be sold at the destination, and the captain was to be a partner in the transaction. If they failed to sell the merchandise, Malequi would pay the remainder of the charter fee. This appears to be a commercial arrangement as they were practised in comenda del mar. From another source we learn that Malequi, having left Valencia on 22 June 1492, in a few days reached his destination and settled in Bogia (today Bejaia), a port city to the east of Algiers. There, apparently, he fulfilled his agreement with Antonio Joan. Some time later, on 22 July 1494, he received a writ of protection and defence from the Catholic Monarchs for a period of two months from the day that his ship should anchor in a Spanish port, most likely on the eastern coast.154 He travelled with escorts as an emissary of the king of Bogia, certainly on a diplomatic and commercial mission, the details of which are not mentioned in the document. The writ of protection and defence was addressed to all members of the royal court, to the oidores, magistrates, governors, and viceroys (‘viso reyes’), the baile general, their assistants and substitutes, the corregidores, and the alguaciles in all the cities, towns, and settlements. The writ mentions the explicit prohibition of the Jews’ returning to Spain, which was to be perpetual.155 However, as noted, Salamo Malequi arrived for purposes of trade, and the writ was issued so that he would not be subject to the punishments detailed in the Edict of Expulsion.156 The Crown apparently assumed that he had come as an emissary of the king of Bogia, and certainly that he could serve the Crown in Spain ‘so that he may come with his retinue to the court of our kingdom, to negotiate, and that they may leave our kingdom and dominions’.157 We do not know the results of the negotiations for which Salamo Malequi was sent to Spain, how his stay in the kingdom was arranged, nor how he reached the royal court. However, it appears that the Spanish Crown had a special interest in maintaining contacts with the Jews of North Africa for clear political reasons and the great interest that Ferdinand had in gaining footholds for territorial expansion, which he had planned in advance.158 154 For this document see RGS 11 No. 2470, fo. 77, drafted by Luis González, this royal secretary, with the approbation of the Council of the Kingdom. In this document he is called Salamon Milaqui. 155 ‘Por nuestra pramatica sançion y reales prouisiones ouimos desterrado de todos dichos nuestros reynos e señorios perpetuamente a todos los judios que en ellos abitauan e estauan por exaltaçion de nuestra sancta fe y religion cristiana. Por lo qual ningund judio despues del dicho nuestro general destierro ha entrado nin puede entrar, estar, nin abitar en los dichos nuestros regnos e señorios so pena de muerte.’ 156 The writ of protection and defence reached him in Bejaia, sent by a special mesenger. The sanction against injuring him was grave: anyone violating the order would be subject to the punishment for violating the laws of the king and queen their sovereigns. The magistrates were charged with acting against those violating the order according to the procedures of criminal and civil law. 157 ‘Para que dentro del dicho termino pueda venir a la dicha nuestra corte e negoçiar con nos e salir fuera de los dichos nuestros reynos e señorios’. 158 See H. Beinart, ‘Relaciones entre judíos y los Reyes Católicos después de la Expulsión’, Sefarad, 46 (1986), 63–70.

implementation of the edict

243

Tortosa-Ampolia As a port of departure for the exiles, Tortosa-Ampolia was no less important than Sagunto. The question concerns only the number of those who departed via that port city. Deportees from Zaragoza boarded ship in Ampolia, for this was the most important port city in their vicinity. However, Jews from Almonacid de la Sierra,159 Aranda de Moncayo,160 and Illueca161 also boarded ship in Ampolia. On 17 June 1492 a group parting from Zaragoza, joined by deportees from Calatayud and Fuentes de Ebro, signed an agreement with three merchants: Carlos Calvo of Genoa, Pau Salvador of Barcelona, and Galceran Adret of Valencia. Both Salvador and Adret were conversos. Negotiations were handled on behalf of the Zaragoza community by Joseph Abussmel, known as Chamorro, who served as the procurador of the Jews of the city.162 The Jews of Calatayud were represented by Saul Arroes, and those of Fuentes by Mose Furillo.163 It was agreed that the fare per person should be 3 ducats, and that each merchant on board should pay an additional ducat for every quintal of merchandise he took with him; household goods, mattresses, and blankets were exempt. The captain bound himself to supply water, salt, and wood for heating without extra payment; babies and ten poor people were exempt from any payment.164 They could load two of the three ships 159 Abraham Ayages on 7 Aug. He was late apparently because he had been imprisoned. See Secall Güell, ‘Noticias de judíos aragoneses’, 106. 160 Samuel Bugales, Mose Cohen, and Daniel Sey, all on 28 July 1492; see ibid. 161 Osua Fahardas, Ahin Francho (whose brother Lauda Franch converted to Christianity and was known as Jaime Franch), and Samuel Habrullo, all on 16 Aug. 1492. The reason for their delay is not known; see ibid. 162 He represented Montug de Portal, Benvenist Benveniste, Vital Anmarabi, and Leon Mior. On Mose Abussmel, one of the wealthiest Jews of Aragon, ‘factor, procurador, adminstrador et distribuydor de los bienes de la dicha aljama et singulares de aquella, speçialment por aquella a ello diputado’, see Hinojosa Montalvo, ‘Solidaridad judía’, 122. See Serrano y Sanz, Orígenes, p. lxiii. On 21 July 1492, as commanded by Ferdinand, a lien was placed upon all the debts owed by Christians to Juçe Abussmel. The list was published by Motis Dolader, Zaragoza, 166–72. The total debt came to 95,080 sueldos. Similarly the debts owed by Christians to Ezmel Abnarabi were also impounded (ibid. 172–8). Their value came to 42,770 sueldos and 4 dineros. The debts owed by Christians to Salamo Trigo were confiscated by order of the king on 24 July 1492. These came to 21,582 sueldos and 4 dineros (ibid. 178–81). Their business dealings encompassed many cities and towns in the kingdom. See also ibid. 208 ff., 240–2. This money was only part of the property belonging to these men which was confiscated. Another group of deportees from Zaragoza granted power of attorney in the community’s name and their own to the procurador and member of the city council, the merchant Tomás Colom of Valencia, to negotiate for them with Pedro Laitha, the owner of a ship in Ampolia, to take them to their destination. As a guarantee they offered their property and that of the community. In this group were Adret Avinany, Astruc Avinany, Asach Alaff, Salomo Trigo, Salamo Sadicar, Salamo Rodrich, Rabi Asach Abusamel, Yush Sayet, Abraham Alisench, Saraiya Benofilla, Samuel Abadias, Mish Tarrillo, Abraham Tarrich, Namias Benditas, Juda Gona, Saraya Sema, Rabi Elazar, Jacob Aldich, Mahi Ezdra, Eladona Bona, The witness who signed this contract was Abraham Ayages, a Jew resident of Almenar de la Sierra, in Aragon. The document dates from 7 Aug. 1492 in Tortosa. Most likely this group arrived slightly late, but still before the expiry of the extension granted by Tomás de Torquemada. A summary of the document is presented in AHPT, Protocolos de Tortosa, Lib. 1237; J. Cubells i Llorens, The Jews of Tortosa 1373–1493: Regesta of Documents from the Archivo Histórico de Protocolos de Tarragona (Jerusalem, 1991), 158. 163 In Calatayud the scribe of the community, Abraham Almosyn, acted in its name. See Hinojosa Montalvo, ‘Solidaridad judía’, 122. 164 Several Jews from Castile resident in Valencia served as witnesses to the document, as well as the cloth merchants Pera Baladi (a velvet-weaver), Bartolome Biulayugua (a silk-weaver), and Clies Erembito. See Guiral-Hadziiosif, Valencia, 458.

244

implementation of the edict

with botes,165 a term which may refer to merchandise or perhaps to the passengerboats on the Ebro that were to bring the deportees to Ampolia between 18 and 30 July 1492. The ship was supposed to set sail for Naples on 20 July with up to 1,200 passengers. Half the agreed fare was to be paid to the owner on 15 July. The passengers were to bring with them fifty boxes of food and clothing and 20 quintales of charcoal for cooking. If the escorts mutinied, the captain would try them with the approbation of two Jews to be selected for that purpose. The shipment of 150 quintales of books was also arranged.166 A group of late departees from Zaragoza reached agreement on 7 August 1492 with the Valencian merchant Tomás Colom, and with a shipowner, Pedro Bicha. The ship was anchored in Ampolia. Perhaps they were included in the extension of ten days authorized by Tomás de Torquemada. They were eighteen in number and were apparently joined by some departees from Tarragona.167 Without doubt the effort to leave by ship demanded prior organization at home, that is, in the deportees’ city of origin. Not only was it necessary to decide who was going and to determine what they were permitted to take with them, but complex negotiations had to be managed, and guarantors had to be found, as well as defence along the way as described above. There also had to be security that the captains would keep their obligations, not only with respect to the date of embarkation but also concerning the course itself and the safe landing of the passengers at the final destination. Below we shall describe the tribulations of those who left by sea from Castile; we may be sure that those who left from Aragon also had no lack of grief and suffering, though perhaps the short distance from the eastern ports of Spain to Pisa and Naples was advantageous to them, for in favourable conditions they could reach Italy in about a week.

iv. implementation of the edict in the kingdom of castile Conversion instead of Exile or Prison The Edict of Expulsion stated explicitly that the expulsion of the Jews from the state was the solution for the religious and public problems confronted by Christian society: absolute separation of Christians from Jews.168 Some Jews decided to forsake the Jewish people and abandon their exiled brethren to their fate. The Catholic clergy 165 The word bote refers to a small ship or vessel that was used in river travel or to bring passengers from the shore to a ship riding at anchor which could not enter the port because of the shallow water. 166 See Guiral-Hadziiosif, Valencia, 459. 167 They were Adret Aninay, Astruc Aninay, Açach Aluff, Salomo Trigo, Salomo Sadicar, Salamo Rodrich, Rabi Açach Abusamel, Juçe Sayet, Abraham Alitensi, Saraya Benosilla, Samuel Abadias, Niffa Carillo, Abraham Carrich, Samaya Fema, Rabi Elazar, Jacob Aldich, Arabi Esdra, and Bona. See Secall Güell, ‘Noticias de judíos aragoneses’, 103 ff., 106 n. 15, 108 n. 20, with details on those who were late in departing and on the settlement of debts before departure. See too his general study Les jueries medievals tarragonines (Valls, 1983). We do not know the point of departure of those Jews who arrived in Marseilles. See I. Loeb, ‘Un convoi d’exilés d’Espagne à Marseille en 1492’, REJ 9 (1882), 66 ff. 168 See above, Ch. 2.

implementation of the edict

245

made great efforts to encourage conversion among the Jews preparing for departure. When Rabi Yuçe was placed under house arrest in Teruel, there were many conversions there. Rabi Yuçe was released from prison; he took preventive measures, and the conversions ceased. Rabi Solomon, the rabbi of Albarracín, acted similarly.169 The rabbi of Zaragoza, Rabi Açach Chaqon, was ordered to leave the city by Juan Fernández Heredia, the governor of Aragon, Bernardino Spital, the zalmedina of the city, and Jaime de la Caballería, the magistrate of the Hermandad. This took place on 13 May 1492; he was given one day to leave the Jewish quarter and only three days to leave the kingdom. In contrast, the Crown granted the former rabbi of the town of Borja the sum of 1,000 sueldos for his assistance in converting the Jews.170 In Castile the conversion of Abraham Senior, his son-in-law Rabi Meir Melamed, and several members of his household, had a grave effect. They converted in Guadalupe on 15 July 1492; the authorities regarded their baptism as a victory over Judaism.171 Nevertheless their conversion did not undermine the resolve of those who were prepared to take up the wanderer’s staff and leave for exile.172 We must also pay attention to those Jews who converted to Christianity while in prison, thinking they could save their skins that way, and to those who remained in the kingdom after the deadline for their departure, and who converted for various reasons. One of those was Yuçe Hadida, a resident of Ledesma in northern Castile. He intended to go into exile but was caught smuggling money to Portugal.173 He addressed the Crown and declared his intention of converting, saying that he was prepared to produce guarantors. His petition was well received by the Crown, and with its approbation it was agreed that after he had proven that he was a Christian (‘provado ser christiano’), he would be permitted to present secure guarantors for the sum of 100,000 mrs. He would have to appear before the Crown within sixty days from the day of his release, and to declare how much money he had smuggled out of the kingdom.174 That is to say, he would have to stand trial for the offence he had committed, and the sums involved were very large. Yuçe Hadida was a farmer of the alcabala tax in Ledesma. He had initially intended to go into exile and had even taken the step of selling his property, but he was caught because a relative of Lope de Sosa informed on him. Sosa was a converso resident of Salamanca, to See Baer, Toledot, 470; Motis Dolader, ‘La conversión de judíos aragoneses’. The instruction sent by Ferdinand on 15 May 1492 to the prior of Santa Cruz, Tomás de Torquemada, is exceptional. He was to order all the Inquisitors to announce the matter of the conversions: ‘Yo he sido informado que despues que el destierro de judios se publico, algunos y muchos dellos quieren ser christianos, pero tienen reçelo de lo faser a causa de la inquisiçion, creyendo que por liviana culpa en que yerren se executara en ellos grave pena.’ The letter was drafted by Juan de Coloma. See Conde, Aragón, 79. On 17 May 1492 Ferdinand gave guarantees that no harm would befall Jews who converted; an announce171 See Ch. 8. ment of this was sent to the Jews, also drafted by Coloma (ibid. 82–3). 172 On the crisis undergone by the exiles in Portugal see Ch. 7 below. 173 He was arrested at the Portuguese border by the alguacil of Ledesma, Álvaro de Acosta, who was responsible for the deportation from that city: ‘porque fallo que el dicho don Yuça Hadida auia enbiado çiertes quantias de maravedis’. See RGS 9 No. 3461, fo. 156, dated 1 Dec. 1492. The order, drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the council, was published in Baer, JchS ii. 382–4; Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 494–5. 174 It is not known how the entire affair ended. The order dictating how to act was sent to the comendador Gonzalo de Ledesma, the alcaide of the citadel of Ledesma. 169 170

246

implementation of the edict

whom Hadida had sold some of his property.175 Thus his conversion was probably a matter of expediency, an effort to save himself from prison. Ça Cohen was also a tax-farmer and tax-collector of the alcabala tax in the diocese of Cuenca. In 1485 he collected the sum of 10,000 mrs for the account of the Count of Tendilla as a juro;176 he paid him 2,000 mrs and diverted the rest to his own pocket.177 In 1489–90 Don Mose Ibn Nahmias was Ça Cohen’s partner in farming the alcabala tax in Cuenca. As early as 5 May 1492 the corregidor of Cuenca was ordered by the Crown to execute a legal decision against him following arbitration between him and Pedro de Cuenca.178 We do not know whether he converted at that time instead of going into exile. But a document of 2 November 1492 shows that he owed the Crown 300,000 mrs in taxes collected and not remitted.179 However, a man such as Ça Cohen was not one to panic. From an order issued on 15 April 1493, which was obtained against him by Gonzalo de Zorita, we learn that he was travelling about the kingdom and collecting debts.180 It would appear nevertheless that he was arrested, for an order dated 21 May 1493 shows Torquemada consenting to his release from prison so he could leave the kingdom. We also find that he owed the heiresses of the Count of Lemos the sum of 40,000 mrs or more, which he had also not paid. The Council of the Kingdom decided not to accept guarantees from him.181 From a document of 11 March 1497 it appears that he is to be identified with Álvar Núñez. The case involved a claim lodged against the council of Castrejón for 150 goats that he sought to have delivered to Mose Abulafia, a resident of Castrejón, for a debt of 6,000 mrs owed to 175 Several documents concern him and his business dealings. In one dated 6 June 1492 we find that he sold to Lope de Sosa, his relative and the regidor of Salamanca, a place and holding (‘logar e dehesa’) in Zorita which had belonged to him. He obligated himself to pay the alcabala tax on the transaction and to cover the other expenses as well, should there be any. Hadida claimed that, as the farmer of the alcabala tax, he had arranged the payment. Therefore he was obliged to appear before the council of the kingdom in Valladolid within eight days. See RGS 9 No. 2247, fo. 195. Another document of the same date (RGS 9 No. 2247, fo. 141) states explicitly that he should be arrested and his property should be confiscated. He was to deposit a guarantee of 500,000 mrs or produce reliable guarantors. Lope de Sosa accused him of misappropriating revenues from the alcabala tax. See also RGS 9 No. 2371, fo. 286, also Baer, JchS ii. 414–6. On 26 June 1492 the procurador Alonso de Alba obtained an order releasing his property from confiscation for failure to pay the alcabala tax which Lope de Sosa accused Hadida of taking for himself. His intention of leaving the country with the other deportees is clear. 176 The Count of Tendilla, having distinguished himself in the war for Granada, was appointed governor of the city after the conquest; at the same time Hernando de Talavera was appointed as Archbishop of Granada. On the latter, see Ch. 1. 177 See RGS 10 No. 1924, fo. 133. It was drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the council. He was required to give a third of this amount to the daughters of the count. The order was issued on 15 July 1493. 178 The arbitrators were Diego de Cuenca and Mose Abenmayor. Pedro de Cuenca was apparently his partner in tax-farming in 1488 and 1491. See RGS 9 No. 1457, fo. 575, drafted by Juan de Bolaño with the approbation of the council. 179 The Crown ordered the corregidor to arrest him and detain him in prison and not release him on guarantees until he paid his debt. The order was obtained by Pedro de Cuenca, a resident of Huete, his partner in tax-farming. See RGS 9 No. 3230, fo. 123, drafted by Francisco de Badajoz with the approbation of the council. This document indicates that he sold his property and that he might have intended to leave in exile. 180 See RGS 10 No. 938, fo. 198, drafted by Juan de la Parra, with the approbation of the council. 181 See RGS 10 No. 1342, fo. 173, drafted by Juan de la Parra, with the approbation of Juan de Castilla, Dr de Alcocer, and the chanciller Dr de Oropesa. The document was published by Suárez Fernández,

implementation of the edict

247

Ça Cohen.182 This appears to be a belated claim for a debt or transaction dating from before the expulsion.

Sahagún The Crown did not appear to be interested in keeping Jewish prisoners in detention after 31 July 1492. On 4 June Juan de Luzón, the corregidor of Sahagún, was ordered to see to the release of Rabi Mose and Rabi Judah, who had been imprisoned on account of guarantees they had given to certain tax-farmers. The Crown’s order stated that the taxes in question had been paid, and the two Jews intended to leave in exile. Rabi Mose was a resident of Carrión, Rabi Judah lived in Almanza.183 A petition for release from prison was also lodged by Mose, a bookseller (‘librero’) resident in Valladolid, in his own name and in that of Yuça and Judah Chapinero, residents of Salamanca who were in prison and who wished to leave for exile on time. They were prepared to surrender everything they owned to cover their debts, but Diego García del Mercado, the alcalde mayor in the lands of the Count of Benavente, had seized them and refused to release them, because they had no property. They were, however, released by order of the Crown on 7 June 1492 so as to leave for exile.184 After the deadline for departure had passed, Don Lunbroso was still in prison in Ciudad Rodrigo, as were his wife, Doña Adueña, and Abraham Avenruecas. They had been arrested for debts owed to Christians, while some Christians also owed them money. They had no property and did not dare leave the kingdom, because they were threatened with death, nor did the magistrates permit them to leave. They requested special permission and a writ of protection so they could collect what was due them and pay what they owed. On 8 August 1492 the Crown responded, ordering them to be released from prison and delivered to their creditors, so that a settlement of their debts could be reached, after which they were to leave the kingdom. The magistrates of the places where their debtors lived should help them reach this settlement. This order was addressed to the corregidor and the alcaldes of Ciudad Rodrigo. Perhaps the Crown treated them leniently because they resided in a city near the Portuguese border, which served as a crossing-point for the exiles.185 From a later document we learn that Lunbroso converted to Christianity. Documentos, 516–17. According to a document dated 23 Mar. 1493, the corregidor and the magistrate of Cuenca were ordered to collect tax revenues collected along with Pedro de Cuenca in Fonferada in behalf of the licenciado de Sahagún, who served as the guardian of the count’s daughters. See RGS 10 No. 764, fo. 184, and also RGS 10 No. 1924, fo. 133, dated 15 July 1493. 182 See RGS 14 No. 826, fo. 63, an order requiring Alonso de Mazelo, a magistrate and executor of the debts of the Jews in Huete, not to act for forty days upon any appeal of the council of Castrejón (a village in the district of Huete) concerning the flock in question. The order was drafted upon instructions of the magistrate Gallego. 183 Their brother Santo Harache, a resident of Castrejón, appealed in their name. See RGS 9 No. 2166, fo. 172, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 426–7, and in Rodríguez Fernández, Provincia de León, ii. 409–10. The order was drafted by Fernando de Cisneros, with the approbation of Alonso de Quintanilla and the licenciado Gonzalo of the Royal Council. 184 See RGS 9 No. 2265, fo. 179; Baer, JchS ii. 426, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 434; Carrete Parrondo, Provincia de Salamanca, 132–3, no. 380. 185 See RGS 9 No. 2637, fo. 114, drafted by Sancho Ruiz del Cuero with the approbation of the council. From a later document, dated 24 July 1494, it emerges that this Lunbroso was a tax-farmer in 1485–6; a

248

implementation of the edict

Buitrago In this town, now called in full Buitrago del Lozoya, there lived Jews with a great deal of property including tax-farmers, a silversmith, a surgeon, and the like. They owned pastures, vineyards, and many gardens and houses both in the town and outside it, and some of them decided to convert to Christianity and stay there rather than leave in exile.186 However, there was no lack of families who went into exile in Portugal. Among those who remained and abandoned Judaism, some were later condemned by the Inquisition to be delivered to the secular authorities. Others fled to Portugal and were tried in absentia, while yet others returned to the church after atoning for their transgressions. These trials were mainly held during the second decade of the sixteenth century.187 Members of the following families converted to Christianity: Abenhadar, Abensabad, Adaroque (including Abraham Adaroque, who changed his name to Luis González and became a procurador); Alfandari (Mose Alfandari changed his name to Diego Hurtado and was a tax-farmer); Algaroche; Amarillo; Asayol; Sasson Ibn Salama; Caballero; Coral; Cuéllar; De la Hija; and Sauarro (or Zauaro). sub-farmer of the alcabala taxes in the town of Gata was Juan González de Peral, whom one (name missing) de Mora had owed 75,000 mrs. Of this he had paid him 56,000 mrs, which had been confiscated by the Crown. Peral petitioned for the money to be refunded, claiming to have bought Lunbroso’s property (‘hasienda’) for the sum of 27,000 mrs. The Crown instructed the magistrates of Ciudad Rodrigo to investigate the claim: RGS 11 No. 2488, fo. 82. The claim is mentioned again in June 1494 (date missing): RGS 11 No. 2616, fo. 368. Juan González claimed that he had remitted the tax moneys; however, to his great regret, the account books had been destroyed in a fire that broke out in Ciudad Rodrigo. Lunbroso appealed to the state accountants; as a result of his appeal Juan González was required to pay 26,000 mrs as a tax-farming fee and another 30,000 mrs for expenses. Following an appeal lodged by Juan González the Crown ordered the corregidor of Palencia to investigate the matter and obtain guarantees until he paid whatever the magistrate should determine. If he did not provide the guarantees, the magistrate was to confiscate his property. See RGS 10 No. 2488, fo. 82, drafted by Fernán Álvarez de Toledo. The fine for non-compliance was 10,000 mrs. An account of Lunbroso, Doña Adueña, and Abraham Avenruecas was published by Carrete Parrondo, Provincia de Salamanca, 68; see too Baer, JchS ii. 426. 186 For a detailed list and description of the property see Cantera Burgos and Carrete Parrondo, ‘La judería de Buitrago’. For the names of those who converted and those who went into exile, see ibid. 47 ff. 187 Six dossiers of those condemned have come to our attention from there. Mari Álvarez, the widow of Diego de Sosa, was condemned in absentia in 1516–18: AHN, Leg. Inq. 134 No. 8 (old number 70). Juan de Buitrago was condemned in 1515–20 and subjected to water-torture: Leg. 137 No. 23 (118). Juan Caballero was condemned in 1532–46 and subjected to water torture: Leg. 138 No. 1 (19). Luis González was condemned after his death: Leg. 154 No. 23 (370). Iñigo López de León, a regidor and the son of Mose de Cuellar, visited his father in Portugal and advised him not to convert. There was a synagogue in his house in Buitrago. He was condemned to be burned at the stake in 1514–19. Half his property was transferred to Diego Hurtado de Mendoza by order of Charles V: Leg. 162 No. 5 (499). Juan Pérez del Olmo was condemned in 1516–18: Leg. 175 No. 2 (663). He went into exile and returned to convert. He was sentenced after tortures to atone for his transgressions. From the foregoing trials it emerges that not all the dossiers are extant. See also Cantera Burgos and Carrete Parrondo, ‘La judería de Buitrago’, 84 ff. Juan Caballero’s name had been Abraham. His father’s name was Fernando González, indicating that he, too, had abandoned Judaism and not gone into exile. Caballero was a merchant and tax-farmer. A great deal of information about other conversos from Buitrago can be found in the dossiers of those condemned in Guadalajara and other towns in that region (see e.g. the trial of Juana García, a resident of Guadalajara and wife of the bachiller Alonso de Medina, the attendant of the Duke of Infantado: Leg. 150 No. 8 (291)). These details are the merest indication of events in this town, where there were apparently a hundred Jewish households, and a yeshiva. See also Cantera Burgos and Carrete Parrondo, ‘La judería de Buitrago’, 56–82, for a description of Jewish property in the town and its location.

implementation of the edict

249

Herrera de Pisuerga The petition of Antón Rodríguez will serve as an example of the problems arising within families. Rodríguez was a resident of Herrera de Pisuerga who had converted to Christianity, whereas his parents went into exile. They left considerable property in the town and its vicinity. He claimed that he had a hereditary right to the property, but the condestable of Castile, who was the owner of the village, forbade him to take it. Since this prohibition caused him damage, he petitioned the Crown, which responded on 8 August by ordering the alcaldes and the magistrates of the town to return the property to the complainant without delay.188

Huete The documents about those who converted to Christianity rather than going into exile indicate that they were mostly people of means, such as the family of Don Joseph Ibn Meir and Don Isaiah Sayas Ibn Meir, Juana de Quirot and her husband, the bachiller Pedro de León. They were residents of Huete; their ancestors, wishing to benefit the family, left property there, which included a house (or an apartment) belonging to them in the citadel of the town, and in addition there were promissory notes from various people.189 The grants were transferred to the daughter, except for the house in the citadel, because the alcaide of the citadel refused to permit her to enter the citadel and receive the property. Because of the lien imposed by the Crown on the debts owed by Christians to Jews, they also refused to pay their debts to Juana de Quirot. Pedro de León asked for the cancellation of the lien on the debts and also of the alcaide’s prohibition against possessing the house in the citadel.190 Members of the Francis family, Ephraim and Samuel, served as mayordomos for the Count of Tendilla.191 In partnership with another brother, Samuel, they also were tax-farmers for the alcabala and tercia taxes in the districts of Zorita and Almoguera.192 188 See RGS 9 No. 2694, fo. 180, drafted by Fernando de Cisneros with the approbation of the council. Published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 459–61. 189 See RGS 10 No. 691, fo. 224, of 19 Mar. 1493, drafted by Francisco de Badajoz with the approbation of the council. 190 In response, the Crown ordered the corregidor of Cuenca and Huete, the resident magistrate, and the alcaide to act according to the instructions of 26 Feb. and 6 Mar. 1493 regarding the debts. In addition to Juana de Quirot and her husband Pedro de León, members of other families, the children and children-inlaw of the aforementioned Isaiah Ibn Meir, who went into exile but returned and converted to Christianity. These were: the wife of Pedro Çorita; the wife (whose name is missing) of Francisco Martínez; Leonor Carillo, the wife of Álvaro de Carillo; Miguel Sánchez de Ribillo, a resident of Huete; Meir Gaueso, the father of Leonor Carillo; and Abraham Serrano, the son-in-law of Miguel Sánchez de Ribillo. They all requested the recovery of their property, which included houses and vineyards; the Crown ordered the licenciado Sancho de Frías to see that this was done. They had been obliged, while they were still Jews, to sell their property in anticipation of exile at low prices; having converted and returned, they had the right either to recover the full price from the purchasers, or to regain their property by repaying the purchase price and reimbursing the purchasers for any improvements they had undertaken. See RGS 10 No. 2805, fo. 27. 191 On the transactions of the count, see the account of Ça Cohen above. 192 See Cantera Burgos and Carrete Parrondo, Sefarad, 33 (1973), 274–5. They went into exile owing debts in uncollected taxes, for which they had left security with Iñigo López Coronel, RGS 10 No. 453, fo. 38. See also Ch. 8. The Count de Tendilla claimed that Samuel and Ephraim Francis owed him money from the tax-farm. The Crown charged Gimén Garcés with investigating the claim and transmitting the findings to the council. RGS 9 No. 3575, fo. 105 (20 Dec. 1492). Ephraim’s daughter returned from exile as a Christian convert and took the name Leonor de Silva.

250

implementation of the edict

At the time the Crown ordered to expel (‘echar’) the Jews, Ephraim’s son converted to Christianity and took the name Pedro de Pastrana. He sued his parents for his portion of their property; they were forced to place it in the hands of arbitrators (‘jueçes arbitros’), who determined that the father was to give the son 70,000 mrs in cash, a house, and some jewels and household items (‘hallajas e preseas de casa’). Instead of paying his son in cash, the father gave him promissory notes from Christian debtors.193 However, in consequence of the lien imposed by the Crown on debts to Jews, the sum could not be collected. Therefore Pedro de Pastrana addressed the local magistrate, who ordered the lifting of the lien. However, he was still unable to collect any of those debts and requested the intervention of the Crown, which on 5 May 1496 ordered Pedro de Mazuelo to summon the parties and adjudicate the claim.194

Brihuega Fernando Páez, a resident of Brihuega, addressed the Crown in his wife’s name regarding an estate known as Archilla, which he had bought from a Jew who was supposed to go into exile. The transaction was arranged, but the Jew (whose name is not known) changed his mind and did not depart. Instead he converted to Christianity and refused to convey the property to the buyer. The Crown ordered the magistrates of the town to rectify this fraud on 24 September 1492.195

Jarandilla The Jews who went into exile were angry with members of their families who converted rather than leave, while they themselves took upon them the suffering of departure. Abraham Tajon, a resident of Jarandilla, sought to punish his son, who converted and took the name Juan Pajón. The father owned a house and businesses in the town, from which he granted the Christian García de Paz, a resident of Valverde, the sum of 500 mrs. The son protested before the Crown Council, which ordered the chief justice (juez mayor) and the magistrates of Jarandilla to see that justice was done him. The Crown’s response dates from 17 July 1494.196 One wonders why the son waited so long before addressing the Crown.

Medina del Campo Maestre Pablo was the municipal physician of Medina del Campo; he did not go into exile with the other Jews, but threatened the town that if he were not paid his salary he would leave. The local authorities, who needed Crown permission to pay his salary, were authorized to pay him 3,000 mrs annually, on condition that he treated the poor of the town.197 Here, however, one must wonder at the long time that passed between his conversion, his petition to the Crown, and the Crown’s response. 193 These were distributed as follows: 30,000 mrs in Pastrana and 40,000 mrs in the towns of Budias and Duro (today Durón), in the diocese of Zaragoza. 194 See RGS 13 No. 770, fo. 141, drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the magistrates Gallego and Polanco. 195 See RGS 9 No. 3060, fo. 96, drafted by Cristóbal de Vitoria with the approbation of the council. The sanction for failure to comply was a fine of 10,000 mrs. See also Cantera Burgos and Carrete Parrondo, 196 See RGS 11 No. 2378, fo. 190. Sefarad, 34 (1974), 375. 197 RGS 11 No. 2670, fo. 32, issued on 2 Sept. 1494. See too Ch. 7 n. 73.

implementation of the edict

251

Ocaña Among the Jews of Ocaña who went into exile were Yuçe Abenadavi, whose son converted and remained in his home town of Chinchón, changing his name to Juan de Cardenas. His father sold his property in Ocaña and in Colmenar de Oreja. The son sought to buy back his father’s property for the price he had received, that is, less than half its value. The Crown responded and on 9 November 1492 it ordered the magistrates of Ocaña to examine the debts the father had been owed by Christians and clarify whether the son had title to any of them. If these were not interest-bearing loans, the debtors were to be forced to pay the son what they had owed to his father. Thus a business partnership between father and son was recognized.198 An arrangement had been made regarding the years when it was possible to recover property that had been sold during the expulsion, and, if that arrangement applied to it, the Crown permitted the real estate to be returned to the son on 12 November 1494. Apparently the long interval between the two petitions resulted from an improvement in the son’s financial condition.199

Maqueda The Jews of Maqueda apparently obeyed the Edict of Expulsion and left together for Portugal. However, it is not known whether they crossed the border via Ciudad Rodrigo or via Badajoz to the south. Clear evidence about what transpired in Maqueda shows that Ziza Abensabad and his wife were among the deportees. They left behind their son, who had abandoned Judaism and taken the name of Juan Calderón.200 We know the names of sixty-eight men who converted from Judaism. While it cannot be known whether they converted rather than depart in exile, concerning six families it can be stated with utter certainty that at first they went into exile and reached Fez in Morocco from Portugal. From there they later returned to their home town of Maqueda after converting to Christianity.201 This entire group apparently stayed together in both Portugal and Fez and lived in huts made of branches (‘chozas’) that the families erected for themselves.202 Juan 198 See RGS 9 No. 3273, fo. 52, drafted by Fernán Álvarez de Toledo, published by León Tello, Toledo, i. 546–7. 199 See RGS 11 No. 2766, fo. 205, drafted by Bartolomé Ruiz de Castañeda with the approbation of the council. 200 See AHN, Inq. de Toledo, Leg. 138 No. 4 (122), passim. On his trial see H. Beinart, ‘The Jewish Commununity of Maqueda at the Time of the Expulsion’, Zion, 56 (1991), 239–53. 201 They are Antonio Herrador (apparently a smith by profession); Cristóbal Pérez, a muleteer (recuero); Fernán Sánchez (recuero); Juan de Vxena; Juan Bautista, a farmer (labrador). See AHN, Inq. de Toledo, Leg. 138 No. 4 (122). For their testimony in the trial of Juan Calderón, see fos. 4r–6v. They returned during the 1490s, though they testified before the magistrate Alonso Escudero, who set out on a fact-finding expedition in behalf of the Inquisition on 1 Dec. 1509. Carrete Parrondo, ‘La conversión’, lists sixty-eight persons, all men, who converted to Christianity in Maqueda. However, it is not certain that every one of them was the head of a household at the time of the expulsion, for the list includes brothers, and also fathers and sons. In this list, Cristóbal Pérez can be identified with Jacob Bahalul; Fernán Sánchez with Simon Abdus; and Juan Bautista (the farmer) with Judah Alholu. 202 The term choza refers to a shepherd’s hut made of branches, a very temporary structure. According to some witnesses, a fire broke out among the huts, and Juan Calderón died in it.

252

implementation of the edict

Calderón’s conversion had been a shock to his parents;203 he later regretted his action and went to visit them and bring them money in Portugal. Under his father’s influence, he returned to his home town and sold his parents’ property, item by item, while concealing the purpose of his actions (‘disimuladamente’). His residence passed into the hands of the secretary of the comendador of the order of Calatrava, Luis de Sepúlveda, apparently without being sold. Juan Calderón departed by way of Málaga and Granada and joined his parents in Fez. Hence there can be no doubt that his departure was planned in detail. In Fez Juan Calderón returned openly to Judaism, and attended synagogue there, dressed in Jewish costume, wearing the Jewish badge, and observing Jewish law.204 This is certainly a faithful description. Juan Calderón, or Judah Ibn Shabat, was condemned and burnt in effigy on 29 June 1510.205

Valdemaqueda Isaac Aleburrial and his wife Çenha did not leave for exile from their home town, Valdemaqueda.206 They had a contract with Juan de Cabrera, the Archdeacon of Toledo, according to which they owed him 6,641 mrs. Cabrera sued them to enforce the contract and collect the debt, but they refused. They had been residents of Toledo, and on 22 November 1494 the Crown charged the magistrates of that city with seeing that the payments were made to the creditor.

Miranda de Castañar Among those leaving in exile from Miranda de Castañar was Solomon Amigo. His son converted to Christianity before they went into exile and took the name Francisco Núñez. However, the receiver of property in Ciudad Rodrigo seized 180 silver marks from the converso son on the pretext that the father had smuggled his property out to Portugal. In his petition to the Crown, the son claimed that this sum was the dowry that his mother, Urosol, had brought in at the time of her marriage to his father, the sum of 60,000 mrs, and that the father bound himself to give a marriage-gift (‘arras’) of an additional 70,000 mrs. He, the son, was his mother’s legal heir, since she had died four years before the expulsion; his father had therefore enjoyed income both from the dowry and from his arras, the value of which came to about 1 m. mrs. Confiscation of the money was an injustice to him, which he asked the Crown to rectify. This argument convinced the Council of the Kingdom; on 1 August 1496 the Crown instructed the magistrate Diego de Ayala and the receiver of property to execute the verdict and refund the confiscated money to Francisco Núñez.207 ✻ 203 Testimony of Juan Vxena, AHN, Inq. de Toledo, Leg. 138 No. 4 (122), fo. 6v. The witness was present at the meeting between the parents and the son and describes how the father wept and conversed with his son in Hebrew: ‘e que el dicho su padre hablo con el dicho Juan Calderon en ebraico y que este testigo no le entendio lo que dixo. E el dicho judio començo a llorar con el dicho Juan Calderón su hijo’. Cf. testimony on fos. 19v–20r (published by Carrete Parrondo with elisions). 204 See the prosecution evidence against him, Leg. 138 No. 4 (122). 205 See Leg. 138 No. 4 (122), fo. 24r. 206 These were their names when they were Jews. Perhaps a scribal error took place, and the correct name is ‘Abenburrial’. See RGS 11 No. 3923, fo. 195, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation 207 See Ch. 6; also below for events in Ciudad Rodrigo, see below. of the council.

implementation of the edict

253

Practically speaking it is impossible to determine the exact numbers of those who went into exile and those who remained in Spain and converted to Christianity for various reasons. Each converso had his own fate.208 In addition to the incidents mentioned above, we may note one that took place in the neighbouring towns of Cea and Saldaña. A Jew named Abraham Pardal was baptized as a Christian by a canon of León, Pedro de Ordaz, and even took his surname. The descendants of this converso later intermarried with the Villafáñez family, and one of them eventually wished to be appointed dean of the church in his city. When his ancestry was investigated, he was found to be descended from Abraham Pardal. Therefore he was not appointed to that position, an irony of fate.209 The cases presented above probably represent only a fraction of the total. The conversos all had their own reasons for their actions, and more than a few of them were later condemned by the Inquisition, as we find from examination of the trials held after the expulsion. There were also deep rifts in the families of some of these conversos, when parents went into exile and their children converted. The children claimed their parents’ estates, which had been sold for less than half the value of the property. These conversos were joined by Jews who first went into exile and later returned and converted to Christianity.210 The story of these people increases our knowledge of the way the Jews of Spain lived and earned their livelihood.

Tribulations of Departure We do not know when people began attacking the Jews who were planning to go into exile; the injuries and persecutions took various forms, according to the ability of those who sought to harm the Jews and profit from their departure. The Jews were subject to attack even before leaving home, in the presence of their Christian neighbours, while they were selling their property and negotiating with Christian, converso, or Moorish buyers. At that time certain persons made violent attempts to seize property that was not theirs, to demand the payment of debts before they were due, and to spread rumours that the Crown had forbidden the Jews to sell their property and Christians to buy it. For in any event that property would fall into the hands of the Christian residents of the place. As we have seen in Chapter 3, Jewish communal property was a problem in its own right.211 Examples of conspiracies were not lacking. Many of them were brought before the Crown Council, leading the Crown to declare from time to time that the Jews were under its protection and not to be harmed. All these misdeeds were committed despite the directive issued to the corregidores in Castile, that they were to defend the deportees and see to it that their departure was orderly. While in Aragon, Martín de Gurrea, the lord of Agravieso, was made responsible for administering the expulsion. We have already noted above that the additional 208 See e.g. the trial of Diego de Acosta, a resident of Uceda. Mari, the wife of Sebastian de la Vega, also a resident of Uceda, described in her testimony that she had a brother in Torrelaguna who converted. In 1492 her family went to Cartagena in order to leave Spain from there, but they all converted to Christianity. The trial took place in 1533. See AHN, Inq. de Toledo, Leg. 131 No. 6, and also Cantera Burgos and Carrete Parrondo, Sefarad, 33 (1973), 317–18. 209 He demanded this position for himself until the day of his death. See Rodríguez Fernández, Provincia 210 211 de León, ii. 60, 161. See Ch. 7 below. See Ch. 3 above.

254

implementation of the edict

burden of hiring escorts and defenders fell upon the deportees themselves. Moreover, the Crown was probably apprehensive lest disorders accompanying the expulsion might spread and infect the kingdom itself. There were many cases of illicit seizure of property.212 We may mention here as an example what happened to Isaac Beque, a resident of Calatañazor, a village near Soria. On 25 May 1492 the local Jewish community obtained permission to arrange the sale of its members’ property and the settlement of their debts.213 Nevertheless the community and Isaac Beque himself were obliged to protest to the Crown against the alcaide, the merinos, and the local magistrates, who seized him and his brother and forty measures of cloth that they intended to sell at the fair in Medina del Campo in preparation for the expulsion. On 5 June 1492 the Crown ordered compensation to be paid for the wrong done to them.214 Above we have described instances in which Jews were imprisoned and not released in time to depart for exile, so that they ultimately converted to Christianity. However, other Jews sought to be released from prison so as to leave with their brethren in time. It is sufficient to describe the effort of Jacob ibn Yuñez, who served as a procurador for his father (apparently), Abraham ibn Yuñez, a resident of Santo Domingo de la Calzada, who was in prison when he was supposed to depart in exile. He asked Juan de Bilbao to receive his father’s real and personal property in return for the debt that was owed him. The Crown acceded to this request on 6 June 1492.215 As noted, the description of the tribulations undergone by the deportees on their way out of Spain can be divided according as the departure was made by land and by sea. Every journey was accompanied by severe trials, even though the distance by land to the borders of Portugal or Navarre was not inordinately long. The suffering of those who boarded ships in the ports of Castile on their way to North Africa and beyond, to the eastern Mediterranean, is the epic story of an entire people, who set out on their journey fortified only by their faith in God, who had imposed a grave trial upon them. The cup of their suffering was full and overflowing.216 The numerous pleas of the deportees from Castile for defence and the complaints of those who crossed the border to Portugal or who departed by sea, and even of those who returned and converted to Christianity and sought justice against people who had injured them, are also testimony to this. Without hesitation we may add to this number those whose cries for help were not registered in the documents of the kingdom, so that the details of their suffering were not made public. Those who robbed the Jews were often royal officials, including the heads of cities and towns, and corregidores who were responsible for the preservation of order during the expulsion. These were joined by ordinary people, including smugglers, shepherds who happened to meet the deportees on their way, and See Ch. 4 above. See RGS No. 1892, fo. 327. The order was drafted with the approbation of the Council of the North and the Frontiers (the border crossing-points). 214 See RGS 9 No. 2214, fo. 295. The order was drafted with the approbation of the same council. See Baer, JchS ii. 425, mentioned in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 432. 215 See Ch. 4 above, also RGS 9 No. 2248, fo. 140, drafted by Sancho Ruiz del Cuero with the approbation of the council. It was published with elisions in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 432–4. 216 See above regarding arrangements for departure in Aragon. 212 213

implementation of the edict

255

anyone who could reach out and strike at the unfortunate wanderers. Associations made with smugglers for the removal of property were extremely dangerous, for the smugglers knew very well how to exploit their advantage in a region with which they were very familiar. Some of them informed the Crown about efforts to smuggle out goods, which led to the deportees’ arrest. We shall now examine their tribulations in detail, as they appear in the royal documents that have come down to us.

Palencia On 3 February 1493 the licenciado Cornejo, the corregidor of Palencia, was ordered to investigate the robbery of Jews who were passing through the city and injured nearby it.217 The Crown received information that two shepherds had found a pouch (‘curron o aluarda’) full of silver and gold, which had belonged to Jews who were murdered on the edge of the city, and which they tried to smuggle out of the state. One of the shepherds fled with everything he had found in the pouch, or most of the plunder. The corregidor was charged with examining the resident magistrate of Palencia, Fernando Díaz del Castillo, to determine the details of the event. Both of them were to seize what had been found and deposit it with a reliable man. Thus some or most of the plunder might have been recovered, unless the order speaks of what they were to do once it was found. The results of the investigation are unknown. Most probably it also dealt with the physical injury inflicted on the deportees, and residents of Palencia or its vicinity might have had a hand in the robbery.218

Soria In June 1492 Salamon Levi, a resident of Soria, was robbed while on his way to Portugal. He had 1,300 gold pieces with him in Portuguese and Castilian coin (‘mil trezientas pieças de oro, cruzados e doblas’). The robbery took place at an inn in a town called La Bóveda, in the vicinity of Salamanca. He appealed to the magistrates of the Hermandad, who sought the robbers and their plunder, but they found only an empty purse (‘baruleta’). When he went into exile, he left guarantees with the Hermandad and asked it to continue searching for the lost money. In time the magistrates of the Hermandad found a shepherd who surrendered to it 170 gold pieces deposited with his master. The shepherd was arrested; on 30 March 1493 the Crown caused his trial to be transferred to the council of the Hermandad. We do not know what happened to Salamon Levi, who apparently prepared for his departure very well.219 On Antonio Cornejo see Ch. 7 below. See RGS 10 No. 278, fo. 134, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council, consisting of Don Álvaro, Don Juan, Dr de Alcocer, the chancellor, and Dr de Oopesa. Published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 505–6. 219 See RGS 10 No. 851, fo. 364, drafted by Fernando de Cisneros with the approbation of the council. The Crown ordered the bachiller Rodríguez Vala not to make an investigation, because the matter fell under the jurisdiction of the Hermandad. The sanction stipulated was loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 50,000 mrs for making repairs in Granada. The notary or notaries were to transmit the evidence to the Crown on pain of loss of the Crown’s favour and a 10,000 mr fine for non-compliance. The order was given to Pedro Fernández de Torro, a canon of Salamanca and the magistrate-commissioner for the crusade (‘cruzada’) in his diocese; to the bachiller Rodríguez Vala; to Pedro Martín, the prosecutor of the crusade in the diocese of Salamanca. Two alcaides of the Hermandad of Salamanca addressed the Crown on this matter, Francisco de Alahejos and Juan de Burgos. 217 218

256

implementation of the edict

Lucena In order to encourage people to inform against smugglers to the Crown, on 30 June 1492 Ferdinand and Isabella gave Bernaldo del Mármol, a follower (‘criado’) of the alcaide de los donceles, the sum of 170,000 mrs. This was in return for the information that Diego de Córdoba had stolen money from Jews who were about to smuggle it to Portugal. This was in response to Del Mármol’s request for his services. The Crown responded on 30 June 1493, impounding property that Diego de Córdoba had bought in Lucena with the money he had stolen. The corregidor of Córdoba and Lucena was charged with assisting Del Mármol to receive the property in perpetuity. We may surmise that a very large sum was stolen, for it was customary to give the informer a third of the value of the illicit dealings about which he provided information.220

Ávila Arnate Chacón had gone to Portugal as a Jew, returned, and converted to Christianity, after which he was known by this name. While departing in exile he had instructed his son to smuggle out the proceeds of the sale of his property, 55,000 mrs. This sum was taken or confiscated, apparently by two smugglers: Álvar Páez of Berrueco, and Juan Chiquito of Vilbesal. When he returned to Spain after his conversion, Chacón certainly intended to buy back his property and addressed the Crown, requesting an order to have the confiscated money returned to him. He claimed that in fact it had not been smuggled out of the state, though he had intended to do so. The Crown responded to him and on 30 October it ordered the corregidor of Salamanca to see that what was stolen should be returned to its owner.221

Mombeltrán Rodrigo de Dueñas, a resident of Mombeltrán, was one of a group of Jews who arrived in Cádiz with the intention of boarding a ship owned by Francisco Mellado and setting sail. Before they could embark, the ship’s captain robbed the Jews of 300,000 mrs. From Dueñas alone 60,000 mrs were stolen, and his daughter was raped. He laid the matter before the corregidor of Cádiz, Juan de Benavides, who condemned the rapist to death, but the sentence was not carried out. Dueñas successfully invoked the Crown, which on 4 February 1494 ordered the corregidor to convene the parties and see that justice was done.222

Valladolid During the expulsion Don Diego Ramírez de Villaescusa, the corregidor of Valladolid, took the sum of 12,000 mrs from the Jews who were going into exile, and instead of remitting that money to Juan Ramírez, the receiver of fines (‘reçebtor de penas’), he pocketed it, claiming that this was to defray expenses he had incurred in his official 220 That is to say, the Crown gave the informer a grant from the treasury. See RGS 10 No. 1729, fo. 44, drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the council. 221 See RGS 10 No. 1729, fo. 44, drafted with the approbation of the council, see Ch. 6, Ávila, below. 222 See RGS 11 No. 103, fo. 95, drafted by Cristóbal de Vitoria with the approbation of the council. The sanction for non-compliance was loss of favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. The defendant had to appear within fifteen days of the appeal. On Rodrigo de Dueñas see also Ch. 7 below.

implementation of the edict

257

capacity. On 18 March 1494 the Crown demanded accounts, prepared, arranged, and signed by a notary, as well as details regarding his expenses. He was required to deliver the money within three days to Rodrigo de Carmona, who was sent to collect it.223

Roa Abraham Garson, a resident of Roa, was escorted out of Castile, in possession of a writ of protection and defence, by Juan de Gualda, the alcaide of Aça Haza, Sancho Ruiz, the alcaide of Torre del Monte and a resident of Castillo, Alfonso Salmerón, a resident of Fuentecén, and Juan de Benito, a resident of Haza. It is noteworthy that two of his escorts were alcaides, that is to say, royal functionaries responsible for citadels, and they were partners to the conspiracy to rob him. We do not know how information regarding the plan reached the Royal Council, which appointed the bachiller Rogel, a resident of Valldolid, to investigate the incident and arrest those involved in it. His investigation revealed that the intention had been criminal (‘criminalmente yntentada’), and it was decided to have the magistrates of the royal court take care of the matter. They authorized Alfonso Bravo, the alguacil of the royal court, to arrest the guilty parties and to bring them to trial before the magistrates of the royal court. Since he could not find them, and they did not appear before the judges of their own free will, they were tried in absentia. The charges were presented by Doña de Avellaneda and her husband, Don Martín Acuña; we do not know what connection this couple had with Abraham Garson. The judges’ sentence was severe: the two alcaides were condemned to be executed by beheading, and the other two defendants (Alonso Salmerón and Juan de Benito) were condemned to having their right hands chopped off, and half their property confiscated for the Royal Treasury. They were also required to pay the expenses of the trial to the plaintiffs. The severity of this verdict shows the sensitivity of the regime to those who served as alcaides responsible for royal fortresses. The verdict was also sent to the executor of the chief justice of the royal council, the oidores of the audiencia, the alcaldes, the alguaciles of the royal court, and to all the other corregidores, the asistentes, the alcaldes, alguaciles, merinos, and other magistrates in Aranda de Duero, the town of Haza, and all the other cities, towns, and settlements, both those in office at the time and their successors, but especially the corregidor of Aranda and Sepúlveda, who were charged with execution of the verdict.224 The order was issued on 30 October 1494. Regarding Abraham Garson, there is a document dated 13 March 1492, before the signing of the Edict of Expulsion, and something certainly lies behind it. He asked the Crown for protection and defence because people intended to kill him, and he was accorded that protection. While it may be assumed that the robbery committed while 223 See RGS 11 No. 820, fo. 489, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council. On this corregidor, see Ch. 7, below. His name is corrupted in the documents, and he is called both Alonso and Francisco. Diego Ramírez de Villaescusa had the title of doctor. 224 The sanction for failure to comply with this order was also severe. In addition to loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs, those who failed to execute the judgment would also have their property confiscated. The order was drafted by Nicolas Gómez, the notary of the royal prison at the royal court with the approbation of the judges de Castro, Gallego, and Polanco (that is to say, the full bench). See RGS 11 No. 3556, fo. 441.

258

implementation of the edict

he was on his way to exile was not connected to the earlier special writ of protection and defence, nevertheless it might explain why he received such a powerful escort.225

Miranda de Castañar Gracia González, a resident of Miranda de Castañar, went into exile, returned, and converted to Christianity, taking this name.226 She was apparently an extremely active woman and one of means. At the time of her departure the alcaide, Martín de Argüello of the fortress, took an unspecified item of property, presumably moveable, from her and transferred it to the fortress.227 After returning and converting, she was owed debts totalling 9,000 mrs by farmers from Sotoserrano and El Alberca, but was accused of smuggling goods out of the kingdom;228 moreover, although the alcaide had died, his wife retained possession of the stolen object. She sued for restitition before the city magistrates, who refused to order it even though she had proved her case; however, in December 1494 the Crown instructed them to see that justice was done.229 Diego González had been a resident of the town before the expulsion. On the way to Ciudad Rodrigo, about a league from his house, while still within the city, he was robbed by Juan Maldonado de Quemagoros, who took all of his belongings, his wife’s jewels, their clothing, and 10,000 mrs in cash. He did not have time to complain to the Crown before departing. Several years later he returned to Spain as a converso and settled in the town of Sahelices de los Gallegos (today Salices). Perhaps he was one of those forced to convert to Christianity by the decree of 1497 in Portugal. When he did return, he discovered that in his absence, and without his knowledge, Juan Maldonado, the Countess de Miranda, and the managers of her affairs had joined together with Fernando de Meneses and seized his property, claiming that the Crown had granted the countess everything within the area of her dominion that had once belonged to Jews. In consequence he failed to collect what was his after returning from exile and becoming a Christian, although the Crown had promised that ‘up to the gates [of departure] no one would touch them or cause them any damage’.230 Thus his property was seized immediately after he left Spain. What had happened to him was an act of robbery and not connected to any favour bestowed by the Crown upon the countess. He therefore asked for an order from the Crown to compel Juan Maldonado to return what had been taken from him. On 5 August 1498 the Crown, confident that the cor225 See RGS 9 No. 757, fo. 77, drafted by Juan de Coloma in Santa Fe, where he was at that time with the king and queen, and with their approbation. 226 On them see Ch. 7 below. 227 He died soon afterwards: see RGS 11 No. 4417, fo. 396. This refers to the date of the Crown’s answer to the petition, which was given on 19 Dec. 1494. 228 This fact was later verified in the council from her complaint against the alcaide. See RGS 14 No. 3078, fo. 146. The document dates from 7 Aug. 1498. 229 See RGS 11 No. 4417, fo. 396, of 19 Dec. 1494, drafted by Bartolomé Ruiz de Casteñada with the approbation of the council. 230 ‘Que al tienpo que mandamos salir los dichos judios destos nuestros regnos les aseguramos que fasta los puertos no les fuese tomado ni tocado en sus haziendas nin fecho por los caminos agravio alguno’. See RGS 15 No. 1331, fo. 300, drafted by Luis del Castillo with the approbation of the council (composed of Don Álvaro, Dr de Alcocer, Dr Ponce, and the licenciado Pedrosa).

implementation of the edict

259

regidor of Ciudad Rodrigo (or the local magistrate) was trustworthy, charged him with convening the parties and reaching a decision after hearing their arguments.231

Guadalajara In the province of Guadalajara, where there was a large concentration of Jewish settlements, the expulsion was not allowed to take place without attacks against the Jewish population.232 Jews lived in forty settlements of various sizes, including communities with traditions going back for centuries, like that of Guadalajara itself, which was conquered by Alfonso VI in 1085. Rabbi Judah Halevi wrote a poem describing the arrival of the Jewish courtier Joseph Ferrizuel as a beneficent spirit after the conquest of the city and the ransoming of its Jews.233 This was the case regarding several Jews from Atienza who had lost their property.234 Many of those who left this province, and especially from the city of Guadalajara, returned and converted to Christianity, including some who returned after 1497.235 Doña Orovida, a Jewish woman from Guadalajara, had income from a garden that she owned in the form of a censo perpetuo from the farmers who cultivated it. At the time of the expulsion, she arranged to sell the property for 5,000 mrs, and Pedro de Hita was willing to purchase it. Since he did not have enough money, she agreed to wait eight days until he raised the stipulated sum. In his quest for credit, he came to Diego González, the secretary of the Cardinal of Spain (Pedro González de Mendoza), who offered to provide him with the lacking amount. When Pedro de Hita came to get the money, the secretary informed him that he was to receive the fixed annual income from the garden. In his plight Pedro de Hita addressed the Crown, which did not respond until 31 October 1494. The magistrates of Guadalajara were instructed to see that justice was done for the plaintiff and to bring the parties before them for a hearing.236 The long interval between Doña Orovida’s departure into exile and the Crown’s response is difficult to explain. Perhaps some delay occurred because of the secretary’s association with the Cardinal of Spain.

Berlanga A relatively late echo of the travails of expulsion is found in the petition of Tomás Méndez, who had left in exile with his wife and children and their belongings as early as June. On the way, not far from Berlanga, he hired Pero Alonso, a resident of Guzmán and the owner of a wagon, to transport their belongings to Salamanca (or Zamora) for a fee of 1,800 mrs, on condition that he would not part from the group of travellers, but would stay with them and their belongings in the wagons until they reached one of the destinations upon which they had agreed. This agreement seems The parties were required to appear before him, see RGS 15 No. 1331, fo. 300. Cantera Burgos and Carrete Parrondo, ‘Las juderías medievales en la provincia de Guadalajara’. 233 The muwashhah. that Rabbi Judah Halevi wrote on this occasion is known. See A. Vilanova, Antología literaria de autores españoles (Barcelona, 1964), 2. 234 See Cantera Burgos and Carrete Parrondo, Sefarad, 33 (1973), 17 ff. and the sources cited there. 235 On them see Ch. 7 below. 236 See RGS 11 No. 3566, fo. 263, drafted by Alonso del Mármol. The penalty for non-compliance was loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. 231 232

260

implementation of the edict

fair, for he could hire the wagon only as far as the border. Clearly the travellers were a group of deportees from the same place who wished to leave together and arrive safely at their destination in Portugal as a group. On the way, in their sleep, Pero Alonso rode away with his wagon and its cargo and returned to his place of residence, Guzmán. We do not know whether Tomás Méndez separated from the group of travellers and returned to Guzmán to dispute with the wagon owner. Perhaps he had already reached Portugal when he decided to return to Spain, convert to Christianity, and demand his belongings. This document presents the list of belongings that the family took with it, which is probably indicative of what moveable goods an average-sized family took with it. They had six new copper pots, a bed, a bag full of new clothes, two sheets sewn of greyish cloth, and many other items.237 When he at last addressed the Crown, he brought criminal charges against Pero Alonso, demanding his punishment as a robber, and also lodged a civil claim. The Crown Council took note of his troubles, and on 8 June 1496 it instructed the corregidor of Aranda to collect information about the action and convene the parties before him. If he were convinced of the truth of Tomás Méndez’s claim, Pero Alonso would be punished with the full severity of the law.238

Valencia de Alcántara Alonso Pérez Coronel lent his brother, whose name is unknown, a horse (‘rocín’) to help him reach Valencia de Alcántara on his way to Portugal.239 This brother was supposed to leave the animal with a certain mason (‘mesonero’) named Gordillo until Alonso Pérez should come to take it away; if he did not, Gordillo was to send it back. However, the comendador Francisco de León seized the horse and tried to lodge a claim against the Jews.240 On 26 February 1493 Francisco de León, ‘cavallero comendador de la nuestra casa’, who had been dispatched to investigate smuggling,241 was ordered to return the animal to its owner. Alonso Pérez Coronel’s name indicates that he was the son of Meir Melamed. If the brother travelled from Segovia or Ávila to Palencia (around 150 km.) and from there to Cáceres (about 80 km.), and from Cáceres to Alcántara (140 km.), his total journey was about 370 km. Hence it seems likely that he spent about ten days on the road before reaching the Portuguese border. This is apparently more or less the length of the journey taken by those who travelled by wagon or rode on horseback to the pass into Portugal from southern Castile. However, it should be remembered that the length varied from place to place, depending on the conditions of those who went into exile.242 It must be emphasized that there were Jewish inhabitants in Valencia de Alcántara. 237 ‘Seys calderas de cobre nuevas; une cama de par a mas; vn costal lleno de camisas nuevas del e de la dicha muger e fijos; tres ropastres; dos gavanes de paño pardilla; otras muchas cosas’. See RGS 13 No. 932, fo. 241, drafted by Juan Ramírez with the approbation of the council. 238 The sanction for non-compliance was loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. 239 On Alonso Pérez Coronel see Ch. 8. 240 ‘Por haser pesquisa sobre los negoçios de los judios’, see RGS 10 No. 451, fo. 49. 241 See RGS 9 No. 2706, fo. 157. He did not manage to complete this investigation, and on 16 Aug. 1492 was given a fifty-day extension. The appointment included Badajoz and the maestrazgo of Alcántara. See Ch. 6 below. 242 Also see below regarding the number of deportees from Ávila. Most of those leaving there probably left via Ciudad Rodrigo. See also León Tello, Ávila, 44–6.

implementation of the edict

261

Cea, Saldaña The Jews expelled from Cea and Saldaña in northern Castile petitioned the Crown and asked for a writ of protection and defence, although the Edict of Expulsion contained a clause giving defence and protection to the deportees. The Jews of these two places feared they would be attacked, killed, or robbed, that imposts and duties would be demanded of them, and also that they would not be permitted to enter any place to rest at night while they were on their journey.243 The Jews of these towns were afraid they might be in danger of starvation, and they also needed beasts of burden and wagons for their wives and children. On 29 June 1492, which was rather close to the final date of their presence in Spain, the Crown ordered the comendador Alonso de Montoya to accompany them on the road and ensure that they should not be robbed, and that foodstuffs should be sold to them. This was a most detailed order seeking to prevent robbery and to give defence to those on their way to exile; it even permitted the escorts to turn to the Hermandad for assistance in protecting the deportees.244 ✻

The details mentioned above regarding the ordeal undergone by these deportees on their way to the Portuguese border indicate what happened to many others, although documentation of the injury done them has not come down to us. This is living testimony to the travails of many of those who arrived in a safe haven, but in complete destitution. Without doubt, a chapter in the misery of the deportees from Spain emerges from between the lines here.

Exploitation on the Border: Ciudad Rodrigo In addition to robbery and persecution on their way out of the kingdom, the deportees also suffered tribulations both at the border crossings and in Portugal. The cities of Castile that had been designated as points for crossing the border in Portugal were 243 ‘Sin causa alguna e buscando forma por los aver de cohechar asy por los portadgos e viajes e castellerias e diesmos e pontajes como desiendo que lleuan cosas mudadas de vn lugar a otro, e por otras causas segund la variedad de los logares e gentes por donde dis que han de pasar, e que asi mismo se temen e reçelan que en algunos logares les vedaran las entradas e pasadas por ellos, e que non les querran dar posadas nin viandas nin las otras cosas nesçesarias por sus dineros’. See RGS 9 No. 2390, fo. 146; Baer, JchS ii. 426; Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 444–7. Cf. Rodríguez Fernández, Provincia de León, ii. 23, 124–60, 413–15. The order was drafted by Juan Sánchez de Ceinos with the approbation of the council with the participation of Alonso de Quintanilla. 244 Alonso de Montoya was the contino of the king’s court. As early as 23 May 1492 the monarchs ordered Juan de Luzón, the corregidor of Carrión and Sahagún, to see that the Jews of the town of Cea could collect the debts owed to them by Christians, and to settle the problem of their flocks and to have them set aside in the common pastures of the town (so they could be sold). See RGS 9 No. 1852, fo. 342. This order was published in Rodríguez Fernández, Provincia de León, ii. 104, 404–6. On 6 June 1492 the council of the kingdom ordered the alcaides of Cea to see to the collection of the debts owed by Christians to Jews for leases and the like, so that they could leave in time. See Rodríguez Fernández, Provincia de León, ii. 409–10. This clearly indicates the Crown’s concern for order during the first days of the expulsion. A similar petition was lodged by the Jews of Pancorbo, who asked the protection of the city council, which was given to them. See T. López Mata, ‘Morería y judería’, BRAH 129 (1951), 335–84 at 381, 384. His source is Libro de Actas 1491–2, fos. 176, 177.

262

implementation of the edict

Zamora, Ciudad Rodrigo, and Badajoz. As noted, everyone who crossed the border to leave the state was required to pay a frontier tax and various duties, in addition to what was extorted by the guards at the transit points and bridges. These were personal payments, for which it happened quite often that no protection was accorded to those from whom they were collected. These arbitrary procedures led Ferdinand and Isabella to appoint investigators and supervisors and dispatch them to the border cities to locate and investigate any wrongdoing committed by the heads of those localities or those responsible for the crossing-point. Authority was given to Alonso de Arévalo and Luis González de Sepúlveda to investigate events during the deportees’ passage through Ciudad Rodrigo. On 18 July 1492 Sepúlveda was ordered to investigate the collection of the portazgo tax, which had been imposed on every household (‘casa’) that passed through Fresno de los Ajos: 12 mrs were collected from every household, in addition to 1 real for every individual. The tax-collectors argued that they were collecting a ‘portazgo nuevo’ that the Crown had entitled them to collect with a special privilege. In this order he was also instructed to go to Ciudad Rodrigo, where every household was required to pay 1 real, and every individual had to pay 4½ reales. The guards defending the deportees also demanded 36 mrs from every household. Sepúlveda was sent there with urgency. At the same time it was forbidden to collect any duties at all from the deportees until the Council of the Kingdom could examine the matter. Severe punishments would be imposed on those who collected taxes and duties without permission and against the laws that had been passed by the Cortes and against other decisions of the Crown. Sepúlveda was instructed to gather information on the amount collected and what moveable goods had been seized from the deportees as they passed through. He was to arrest the collectors and bring the accused to stand trial before the council at their own expense. Their property would be seized and, after it had been inventoried, placed on deposit with reliable men. The money seized from them would be transferred to the Crown until it was decided what to do with it. Sepúlveda was given forty days to conduct the investigation, with broad authority to impose punishments.245 Ortuño de Ayala was charged with a similar mission on 5 September 1492: to investigate the claims that payments had been demanded from the Jews during the expulsion while travelling on the King’s Highway (Camino Real), which was a protected roadway passing through La Bóveda in the direction of Zamora. In one mountain pass several men demanded payment of 12 mrs for every wagon (‘carreta’) and half a real 245 See RGS 9 No. 2469, fo. 119. The name of the scribe who drafted the order is missing. It was issued with the approbation of the council in Valladolid, so the scribe might have been Alonso del Mármol or Juan Sánchez de Ceinos. Sepúlveda’s salary was set at 200 mrs per day, and the licenciado who accompanied him received 70 mrs per day. Appropriate orders were issued to the corregidores, the councils, the alguaciles, and the magistrates to assist him. We are informed about his activity by an order issued at the request of Yuçe Ibn Farax, a Jew who lived in Fresno de los Ajos, and the nephew of Pedro Osorio, whose name as a Jew had been Isaac Ibn Farax. He was the son of Don Meir and Doña Çinha. See Carrete Parrondo, Provincia de Salamanca, 61, no. 98. We cannot tell whether this town was the place known today as Fresno de la Vega or Fresno el Viejo. The former is on the road from León, the latter between Medina del Campo and Salamanca. On Sepúlveda’s activities in Ciudad Rodrigo see below, and see Carrete Parrondo, ibid. 62, no. 119, and also Suárez Fernandez, Documentos, 451–3.

implementation of the edict

263

from every individual, as well as 24 mrs from a pregnant woman. This money was collected by force and against the monarchs’ order regarding the departure of the Jews. Similar methods were employed elsewhere in the diocese of Zamora. Ayala was also authorized to arrest the guilty parties and bring them to trial before the council to decide what to do with them. He was to arrest the collectors of fixed taxes (‘portazgueros’) and bring them before the council at their expense. Their property would be impounded, registered, and deposited with trustworthy men. He was also to determine who had authorized these men to collect taxes, and those who had done so were required to appear before the council within ten days.246 In November 1492 (the day is missing), Ayala was commissioned to investigate the collection of the frontier duties collected from the Jews who passed through the towns of Castronuño, Bóveda, Paradines, Villaescusa, and other places in the area under the dominion of the order of San Juan. While traversing the village of Fuente del Sahugo they were required to pay 12 mrs for every household and another 12½ mrs for every individual. In certain cases they had also been required to pay more. They were told this was a new portazgo (‘ynpusiçion nueva’). The border guards demanded another 36 mrs from each household, and sometimes more. This money was collected cruelly and by force, despite protests. The Jews did not wish to lodge an appeal but just to give them the money and go.247 We do not know how this information reached the Crown. Perhaps one of those who returned and converted reported it. The Crown viewed this arbitrary collection of taxes as violating the laws of the kingdom. The collectors were required to present to the Crown the privileges in their possession for the collection of the portazgo tax. Ayala was also authorized to investigate misconduct in Fresno, on the lands of the order of San Juan, where Sepúlveda may have been unable to act;248 he was to transmit the results of the investigation to the council, and the tax-collectors were ordered to appear before it within ten days. This investigation was to be concluded within twenty-five days.249 We learn of events at that time in Ciudad Rodrigo from a special investigation that is described in a unique document, which recounts far more than the conditions of transit through the city for the deportees from Castile on their way to their new place of exile in Portugal.250 This document is the detailed notarial register of the investigation 246 The Crown accorded him and his notary a fixed daily salary. See RGS 9 No. 2892, fo. 266, drafted by Juan Sánchez de Ceinos with the approbation of the council of Castile and León, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 464. 247 ‘Nin querian litigar por tan poca cosa por yr sus caminos e entender en sus negoçios’, RGS 9 No. 3460, fo. 236. The end of this document, containing the sanctions for non-compliance and the exact date, is missing. The order was issued with the approbation of the council of Castile and León. 248 On him see above. He was appointed on 18 July 1492. By 9 Aug. 1492 he was already engaged in the investigation in Ciudad Rodrigo. See below. 249 His expenses were 200 mrs per day and 80 mrs for his escríbano, Juan de Benavente. 250 The document is in the archive of the Duke of Frías, no. 2300; it contains thirty-five folio pages. See P. León Tello, Archivo de los Duques de Frías, i (Madrid, 1955), 392. Some of these are entirely blurred or spattered with ink stains. I am grateful to Dr León Tello for providing me with a photocopy of this document, which was published with omissions in Carrete Parrondo, Provincia de Salamanca, 68–73. See also Suárez Fernandez, Documentos, 501; Ladero Quesada, ‘Apuntes’, 45. The testimony of the witnesses, which would have been extremely valuable, has mostly been eradicated.

264

implementation of the edict

of the chief alcaide of the citadel and fortress (‘alcázar y fortaleza’) of the city, Diego del Águila. He was accused of collecting larger sums of money than was permissible from those who passed through the city on the way to the Portuguese border. It is unknown who laid information against him before the monarchs, but according to the indictment, he collected 4½ mrs from every person in transit.251 If we take note only of that accusation, we find that the deportees who passed through Ciudad Rodrigo on their way to Portugal were also required to pay duties at the customary rates for their legally exported merchandise.252 These sums were in addition to the 8 cruzados paid by everyone who entered Portugal, which the deportees had to remit on the other side of the border. This clearly shows the heavy financial burden borne by the exiles, not only the costs of the departure itself, but also the arbitrary collection of levies demanded of them, without taking into consideration their means or the suffering they underwent in being uprooted from their homes. Despite the dry formulation of this document, which is the description of an investigation, between the lines it recounts severe human suffering undergone by the deportees who had come close to the Portuguese border, with a safe haven more or less in view. The testimony of the witnesses on the humane attitude of Diego del Águila towards the deportees, as described by his attorney, is unique. As noted, the investigation was placed in the hands of two men who held positions in the royal court, both continos:253 the alguacil Alonso de Arévalo and Luis González de Sepúlveda.254 They arrived at the arena of the investigation, Ciudad Rodrigo, and 251 Certain personal details about him emerge from this document. He was appointed by virtue of the favour and privilege accorded to him by King Enrique IV in 1465 to oversee the collection of the tithe and the portazgo, which were imposed upon merchants and go-betweens who crossed the border between Castile and Portugal. He was also responsible for collecting the tax imposed on all goods exported from the kingdom. This entitlement was renewed by Ferdinand and Isabella in 1475 at the end of the war between Castile and Portugal, doubtless because of his services to the Crown. In addition to these taxes there was one known as the portazguillo, which was collected in behalf of the local church. This was collected by various tax-farmers and had been granted by a certain queen, whose name is not mentioned, and none of the witnesses remembered it. All the witnesses emphasized that the privilege had been granted long ago. See the testimony of Rodrigo de Ávila, who had served as the escríbano of the city and witnessed the varous acts committed in passage through the city. He was the only witness who remembered when Enrique granted the privilege to Diego del Águila (fo. 29). The other witnesses also confirmed this, but they did not remember when the privilege had been granted. Almost all the witnesses testified about the privilege of the portazguillo, but see, for example, the testimony of Gonzalo Viçoso, fo. 26. 252 In the interrogatory attached to the collected testimony a list of rates is presented. It is extremely detailed regarding all the types of merchandise exported to Portugal. The document is of intrinsic interest for its information about trade and customs duties in Castile under Ferdinand and Isabella, and perhaps before them as well. It was published by Carrete Parrondo, Provincia de Salamanca, 70–2, and Ladero Quesada, ‘Apuntes’, 45. 253 On this function see Carrete Parrondo, Proceso inquisitorial, 148. 254 On 26 July 1491 the Crown charged Luis González de Sepúlveda with adjudicating the claim of Rabi Meir Melamed against Gómez Guillén of Madrid for failure to pay the taxes collected by Rabi Meir on behalf of the Hermandad. See RGS 8 No. 1968, fo. 104, and also see Baer, JchS ii. 412, which presents an order found in AGS, Diversos de Castilla, Leg. 8, fo. 127. According to this order, on issues regarding the expulsion, Luis González de Sepúlveda was to consult Graviel (Gabriel) de Tapia and Gómez de Robles as to how to act. This refers to deportees who left from Maqueda and Torrijos. The document dates from May to July 1492. See Beinart, ‘The Jewish Community of Maqueda’ (Heb.), Zion, 56 (1972), 239–53. Luis González de Sepúlveda was also sent to investigate smuggling committed in the region of Badajoz and the maestrazgo of

implementation of the edict

265

began inquiries on 25 October 1492 by hearing testimony. A considerable time earlier, on 9 August 1492, Diego del Águila had taken a defence attorney (‘procurador’) and asked another alcaide in his city, Juan de Salazar, to represent him and appear in his name. This date is soon after the last day when Jews were permitted to remain on Spanish soil, showing that the question of his conduct arose quite early. Perhaps there had been other judicial procedures before the opening of the official inquiry. On the day it began, the defence attorney’s speech was prepared, and on that occasion an interrogatory was presented for the witnesses whom he was planning to produce in his client’s defence.255 In his speech and in the document that he presented to the two investigators, Alonso de Arévalo and Luis González de Sepúlveda, the procurador categorically denied that his client had taken payments beyond what was permitted in these imposts. On the contrary: he had decreased these taxes for those who went into exile, and he had done so especially for the poor among them.256 Thus he determined the strategy of his defence: his client’s treatment of the deportees had been fair, as with any merchant who crossed the border with his merchandise; his client had not intended to profit or benefit himself to the detriment of the Crown. Had he collected transit fees higher than permissible from either merchants or the deportees, he would have transferred them to the Royal Treasury. Indeed, according to the testimony of various witnesses for the defence, he was lenient towards Christian merchants and the agents who crossed the border. His aim was to maintain an open border and to encourage the merchants, thus helping the city and the kingdom. The interrogatory for witnesses is an important source regarding the border crossing fees then levied in Castile upon those engaged in import and export with Portugal.257 Alcántara. See RGS 10 No. 1910, fo. 230, dated 13 July 1493. González de Sepúlveda was active with Lope de Villarreal there. 255 He continued to present his witnesses until 2 Nov. 1492. The investigation and testimony of the witnesses began as noted on 25 Oct. and they appeared on 25, 26, 27, 30, and 31 Oct., as well as on 2 Nov. On 6 Nov. 1492 counsel for the defence summarized his arguments, and on 17 Nov. he presented them in writing and again asked for the details of the testimony and the names of the witnesses who had testified against his client. This investigation was thus similar to one of the Inquisition. On 30 May 1493 a certified copy of the details of the examination of the defence witnesses was delivered to Juan de Salázar. He was not found innocent in the matter of collecting too much money from the deportees. On 26 Mar. 1492 the Crown ordered the seizure of his property because of these actions. Cristóbal de Ávila worked with him. See Carrete Parrondo, Provincia de Salamanca, 75, no. 132; Juan de Salazar is mentioned in a document dating from 20 July 1493: RGS 10 No. 1956, fo. 181, issued in Barcelona. This was a verdict against him and Cristóbal de Ávila for the collection of 8,500 mrs in transit taxes. 256 ‘Lleuando mucho menos a los pobres que a los ricos’, in the opening of the argument, fo. 3. 257 Discussion of the schedule of customs duties is beyond the scope of this work, though it did affect the merchandise that the deportees were permitted to remove from the kingdom. These rates are mentioned in detail in the fourth item of the interrogatory; as noted they define the conditions of import and export, the rate for merchandise, and the basis according to which the duty was determined. These rates were probably also applied at other border stations in Castile, for the list contains items which the deportees were forbidden to take with them: horses, farm animals, weapons, gold, silver, jewels, gunpowder, coins. In the testimony this list of rates is called the ‘arançel’, and it is connected to commonly practised customs (‘de vso e costunbre’). The list was read to each witness, and he responded to it. We have no precise information regarding what the deportees took with them, aside from general categories such as textiles, books, and the like.

266

implementation of the edict

The questions that touched personally upon Diego del Águila describe the long period when he had contracted to collect the taxes and duties: he had engaged in this business for twenty-seven years, from 1456, during the reign of Enrique IV, when he was granted the privilege to collect these taxes, until 1492, the year of the investigation. The portazguillo tax, as noted above, was collected for the benefit of the cathedral (‘iglesia mayor’) and its dean and chapter. These were accustomed to leasing out the collection of the tax to the highest bidder at public auction (‘publica almoneda’). Diego del Águila was the last of these tax-farmers before the expulsion of the Jews.258 Two central questions in the interrogatory, the sixth and seventh, related to the transit of the deportees. Juan de Salazar wished to inquire into the conduct of those who passed through Ciudad Rodrigo, and the way Diego del Águila had treated them. He wished to receive confirmation from the witnesses that the schedule of transit tax rates had been observed, that is: 4 reales for affluent and wealthy people, 2 reales for people of moderate means. Most likely these were the fixed payments demanded from anyone who crossed the border, in addition to the duties collected for transporting merchandise and possessions. Clearly the instructions of the kingdom regarding any resident who crossed the border also applied to the Jews. The witnesses produced by Diego del Águila were further asked whether the Jews also brought merchandise (‘mercaderias’) across. The answers to these two questions show the method employed by the Jews who crossed the land border into exile, though Juan Salazar sought to demonstrate the proper conduct of his superior, the degree of his general humanity, and also his humane behaviour towards the deported Jews.259 Of the twenty-two witnesses who testified in this investigation, twenty were residents of Ciudad Rodrigo, and two were residents of Portugal. All of them were adults who had known Diego del Águila for many years.260 Their answers provide an authen258 On this subject, there was another Jew who farmed this tax: Yuçe Arali. See the testimony of his son Antonio de Paz, who converted to Christianity: fos. 29–30. It cannot be known when he did so, but it was for seven or eight years (‘Por venta que tenia de la dicha yglesia siete o ocho años’). 259 The witnesses were examined on the day that the defence attorney produced them. On the method of examination see Beinart, Anusim, index. The notary, Juan de Herrera, recorded the details of the investigation and signed it with his full title: ‘Notario publico en la corte e notario de sus reynos e señorios, secretario de los señores pesquisidores’. 260 The witnesses from Portugal were Pedro Álvarez, a resident of Guarda, who was produced as a witness on 31 Oct. 1492, and had known Águila for thirty years; Lorenço Yvañes, a resident of Sabugal, who was produced on 2 Nov. 1492, had known the accused for nearly twenty years. For their testimony see fos. 27–8, 31–2. Deportees settled in both of those places. This is the length of the other witnesses’ acquaintance: Gonzalo Gallego, 35 years; Luis Martínez, 40 years more or less (this witness was 80 years old when he testified); Alonso Pallego, 28 years; Pedro de Palencia, 13 years; Luis de Padilla, 25 years; Pedro de Palencia, 13 years; Juan de Vegas, 35 years (he was 60 years old when he testified); Fernando de Villafaña, 24 or 25 years; Andrés Núñez, 25 years; Juan de Padilla, 12 years; Alonso de Olmedo, close to 40 years; Diego de Soria, 44 years; another witness whose name is completely effaced, 40 years (he was 75 years old when he testified); García de Fermosa (or Hermosa), 12 years (he was a resident of a village called Vaçovares, near Ciudad Rodrigo); Gonzalo Ruiz, 65 years; Pero Sánchez Macaro, 50 years (he was 65 years old when he testified); Gonzalo Viçoso, 40 years (he was 60 years old when he testified); Gonzalo de Valladolid, 12 years (he knew him as a tax-collector); Rodrigo de Ávila, 15 years (he was the city notary); Antonio de Paz, 25 years; Gaspar González, 30 years. The method of interrogating the witnesses is clearly evident. Not all the witnesses responded to all the questions. Thus it happened that the notary who was recording the testimony combined several answers and recorded them as a single answer to several questions. There were also witnesses who answered several

implementation of the edict

267

tic description of events in Ciudad Rodrigo when the deportees arrived there on their way to the Portuguese border, including women and children, old and young, with their belongings, after the many trials they had undergone, not knowing what awaited them across the border. We do not know what day the deportees reached Ciudad Rodrigo and where they stayed. Perhaps it was in the municipal citadel, where they made contact with Diego del Águila, the alcaide, and the commanders of the citadel and fortress. The defence witnesses testified that the Jews arrived in groups according to their community of origin. They had left together, journeyed together, and as an organized body their representatives conducted negotiations for crossing the border. ‘Those from Ávila, Segovia, Almanza, and Soria went together. There were many poor people among them, and they reached an agreement [with Diego del Águila]. If he had taken what was due from them, not a single Jew would have crossed [the border].’261 Other witnesses testified in a similar vein. Among them was Juan de Padilla, who had been present at the time of the border crossing and had written a series of permissions (‘çedulas’) for the Jews, as ‘some communities came to an agreement with Diego del Águila about how much they had to pay together, for according to the right to collect, they would have had to pay much more’.262 Another witness, García de Fermosa (or Hermosa), a resident of Vanovares, a village near Ciudad Rodrigo, testified: ‘the Jews reached an agreement with Diego del Águila according to their community, and he treated them honourably, so that they should all pass through the city, for according to what [the deportees] took with them, a great deal more money was due to Diego del Águila than he collected from them’.263 Gonzalo de Valladolid, who was questions by denying any knowledge. Others testified according to hearsay, as was common in interrogation at that time. Rodrigo de Ávila was exiled from the city and forbidden to function in his profession as a notary. A fine of 24,000 mrs was imposed on him for collecting money from Jews who passed through the city on their way to Portugal. See RGS 10 No. 790, fo. 753, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 510–11; Carrete Parrondo, Provincia de Salamanca, 74–5. 261 ‘Y yvan algunas aljamas de Avila, Segovia y Almança y Soria se vinieron . . . por saber dellos muchos pobres no les levaua ni cogio cosa e antes levaua los iiiio reales e a otros dos como se ygualauan e les fasia muchas honrras . . . que sy el dicho Diego del Aguila les oviese de lleuar los dichos derechos que le pertenecian segund que solia llevar continuamente no oviera judio que (pasaria)’, fo. 16; the testimony of Andrés Núnez. Almost certainly among those who journeyed in an organized party was Rabbi Simon Meme, the rabbi of Segovia. He died as a martyr during the persecutions in Portugal. See N. S. Leibowitch, Rabbi Abraham Sab’a and his Books, Tseror hamor ve’eshkol hakofer (Heb.) (Brooklyn, NY, 1937), p. xii; D. Manor, ‘Towards the History of Rabbi Abraham Saba’ (Heb.), Meh.karei yerushalayim bemah.shevet yisrael, 2 (1983), 208–31 at 213–14; Tishby, Meshih.iyut. On the Meme family and its sons Rabi Yuçe, Rabi Shemaya, and Rabi Abraham, see Carrete Parrondo, Proceso inquisitorial, 55, nos. 86, 87, 88, 91, 92; 62, nos. 103; 63, no. 106; 68, no. 116; 116, no. 223. 262 ‘Porque este testigo lo vido e estava presente a ello al dicho tienpo, e este testigo escreuio muchas çedulas para que dexasen pasar a los dichos judios de la manera e forma que en la dicha pregunta se contiene, e aunque algunas aljamas se ygualaron con el dicho Diego del Aguila por todos los dichos derechos que auian de pagar, porque sy otra manera fuera, que este testigo [sic], que segund los derechos tenian que de pagar sy por entero se les lleuaua que pagaron mas de lo que pagaron’ (fo. 17). 263 ‘Que los dichos judios pasaron por la dicha çibdad este testigo vido muchas veses en casa del dicho Diego del Aguila como levaua a los dichos judios a iiiio reales e a dos reales e a muchos ninguna cosa, y aunque se juntavan quatro o çinco judios disiendo que heran pobres, e el dicho Diego del Aguila non les levaua cosa ninguna, e aun a los que levaua los dichos quatro reales fueron abenidos con el dicho Diego del

268

implementation of the edict

summoned to the city, also corroborated the testimony of the previous witnesses. He had heard it from the Jews themselves. The poor paid only 20 mrs for entire families.264 This description is an important key to understanding how the Jews organized their departure from Spain. Each community made its way to the nearest border station. Hence we may combine here the Jews of Salamanca and Béjar and the entire area of Castile that lay in the direction of Ciudad Rodrigo. Choice of the route was clearly an important element in planning their departure, and this also applies to some of the northern communities, of both Castile and Aragon, which went to Navarre. The deportees of Burgos acted similarly, as did those of Valdezcaray (today Ezcaray) Tortosa, Borja, Zaragoza (in part), Huesca, and others, all of whom headed towards Navarre. Perhaps the deportees thought that by remaining near the border of the kingdom but beyond it, they could solve problems of property and assets that had remained pending. Physical proximity could also influence the direction taken towards a port of departure, such as Laredo in northern Castile, though not in order to sail from there to the Low Countries or England, which remained closed to them. Rather they circled the gulf of Cantabria and continued south to the coastal cities of Portugal. The port of Laredo might have been utilized by the deportees from the area of Briviesca and Medina de Pomar, from which 300 families departed.265 Regarding the transit through Ciudad Rodrigo, we must regard the testimony of the witnesses as sincere with respect to the humanity of Diego del Águila’s relation to the deportees and their suffering. He probably did try to be lenient in his negotiations with representatives of the communities, who spoke for the heads of the households, concerning the amount they had to pay to cross the border. The families also combined into groups of four or five heads of households who claimed to be related. Thus not only did they receive a discount in the transit duty, but they also managed to remain in large groups for the sake of mutual assistance in times of need.266 These collective departure arrangements were settled in the alcázar of the city, where most likely the Jews also spent the night, as reported by Francisco de Villafaña in his testimony. He emphasized that the deportees intended as much as possible to avoid overpaying.267 Aguila por aljamas por yguales, e porque el dicho Diego del Aguila ouise prouecho les fasia muchas honrras porque pasasen todos por el dicho puerto. E que cree este testigo que se el dicho Diego del Aguila ouise de leuar todos sus derechos, porque segund las cosas que leuavan los dichos judios le venia mas de derecho de lo que leuava el dicho Diego del Aguila’ (fo. 21). 264 ‘Lo vio pasar asy todo el tyenpo que pasauan los dichos judios e aunque a los mismos judios oyo desyr como se auian ygualado, con el dicho Diego del Aguila por aljamas y por pobres que salian a cada casa veynte maravedises’ (fos. 28–9). 265 On the Jews of Medina de Pomar see RGS 9 No. 2245, fo. 167, dated 6 June 1492, and cf. Baer, JchS ii. 425. See also RGS 9 No. 1889, fo. 527, dated 25 May 1492. On the Jews of Calatañazor see RGS 9 No. 1892, fo. 327; and see Bernáldez, Memorias del reinado de los Reyes Católicos, 256. 266 See n. 262 above, regarding the witness García de Fermosa, and cf. the testimony of Juan de Valladolid: ‘A los mismos judios que por la dicha çibdad pasauan que se juntauan quatro o çinco casas e desian que heran una’ (fos. 28–9). 267 ‘Porque los judios por no pagar mas de los dichos quatro reales que pagauan, o dos que pagavan, se juntavan ende o muger e fijos casados con sus mugers e otros con ellos y desian que heran una casa, todo a fin, como dicho tiene, que non les lleuasen mas’ (fo. 15). Cf. Bernáldez, Memorias del reinado de los reyes

implementation of the edict

269

This testimony sheds light on the possessions that they took with them into exile,268 an issue connected not only to the payment of transit taxes and export duties but also to their ability to transport only a small quantity of possessions. We have seen above that at the border crossing-point in Ciudad Rodrigo there were differences in the size of the payments, ranging from 4 reales for people of means, to 3 or 2 reales for those of moderate means, or an exemption for those with none. For, as noted, some deportees were excused from all payment.269 The Jews themselves confirmed these facts, as Luis Martínez testified that he had heard the deportees themselves say so.270 The question is, according to what criterion was the rate of payment determined? Diego del Águila wanted the departing Jews to pass through his city, and he was lenient with them for that reason.271 He believed the claims of some of the deportees ‘that they had nothing to eat and no money with them’, and exempted them from all payment.272 The documents do not describe in great detail the possessions, merchandise, and other goods that the deportees took with them on their way to Portugal; as we have seen, the export of goods to that country was limited. Nevertheless, several of the witnesses testified about this. Andrés Núñez reported that some of the Jews took expensive upholstery fabric (‘tapiçeria’) with them, and other things for which they had to pay duty. On this as well they reached agreement with Diego del Águila.273 Apparently a full register was made of the transit permits and also of the textiles that the deportees exported, as we learn from the testimony of Rodrigo de Ávila, who was the escríbano of Católicos, 256: ‘E casaron todos los moços e moças que eran de doze años arriba unos con otros; porque todas la henbras desta hedad arriba fuesen a sonbre e compaña de maridos’. Villafaña also testified to his presence in the citadel: ‘Este testigo estava muchas veses en el dicho alcaçar e lo vido como pasaua, pero que no sabe sy hera de su voluntad de los judios o no’, ibid. Andres Núñez also testifies about the formation of groups of families. According to him, only two or three families joined together: ‘otros disiendo que dixesen que vnos biuian con los otros, porque no les lleuase mas derechos que por vna casa pasando dos o tres juntos’ (fo. 16). One must not forget the duties on textiles and similar items which they were required to pay. ‘Que los judios que por la dicha çibdad pasaron para se yr al reyno de Portogal pagauan a Diego del Aguila e a quien tenia por su mandado puesto para que lo recabdase por las mercadurias e sus cosas movidas a quatro reales de plata por cada vno, e estos desian que se lleuauan a los ricos e a los que lo non podian bien pagar los lleuauan dos reales e a otros a tres reales a a otros ninguna cosa’ (fo. 8). 270 ‘De muchas personas de los mismos judios que en la dicha çibdad estauan dicho por que passauan’ (fo. 10). 271 ‘Muchos fauores a los judios porque viniesen por el dicho puerto, e a los que non podian pagar los derechos se los soltaua, e a otros lleuava los dichos quatro reales e a otros a dos e a otros a menos por ser pobres’ (fo. 9). 272 ‘Muchos dellos vido como desian al dicho Diego del Aguila que non tenian que comer ni llevauan blanca’ (fo. 11), the testimony of Alonso Pliego. 273 ‘Via pasar a los dichos judios asy tapaçeria e otras cosas, de los que avian pagado sus derechos, que el dicho Diego del Aguila non les lleuava cosa ninguna por ello. E avn este testigo vido algunos judios al tienpo que yvan a pagar los dichos derechos’ (fo. 16). Cf. the testimony of Diego de Soria: ‘A los judios que por estonçes pasauan como el dicho Diego del Aguila les llevaua a quatro reales e a dos reales por sus casas e cosas que llevauan e que davan graçias a dios porque tanbien se avia el dicho diego del Aguila con ellos que se ouieron de pagar todos los derechos por virtud que les levaua mas de lo que levauan, e aunque a muchos de los dichos judios no les levaua ninguna cosa por ser pobres, e avnque se lo oyo a los dichos judios este testigo desir de algunas veses como el dicho Diego del Aguila les hasya muchas honrras en el lleuar de los dichos derechos e los soltaua a muchos dellos’ (fo. 19). 268 269

270

implementation of the edict

the city and served as a witness in many of the transactions and acts of mercy done by Diego del Águila. Indeed, this escríbano and ‘with him the other escríbanos who acted in the service of Diego del Águila saw that he did not take extra payments [from those Jews], and only a few paid 4 reales, many paid 2 reales or 1 real, and others paid nothing at all’.274 With other escríbanos he recorded the proceedings at the border crossing. Diego del Águila acted as he did in order to benefit those Jews who asked him for mercy. However, some of the witnesses speak of the deportees with contempt and hatred. Luis de Padilla claimed that the Jews made arrangements because ‘they were seeking manners and ways to cross [the border] without causing damage to their businesses’.275 This was also the substance of the testimony by Diego de Soria about ‘those Jews who wanted favours’.276 We need not go deeper into this matter. The document does not mention the number of Jews who passed through the city. Just one witness, Pedro de Palencia, who was present during the negotiations, mentions a number exceeding 200 heads of households whom Diego del Águila exempted from payment of any tax.277 That is to say, out of all the deportees, just a small number, let us say about a thousand, paid no tax when crossing the border into Portugal. All the testimony was in praise of Diego del Águila and his decent treatment of the deportees,278 and it should probably be taken as reliable. His conduct also influenced the attitude of the residents of the city towards the deportees. It is said that he treated them with respect, the way he treated all the merchants and middlemen who visited the city on their way to Portugal. Juan de Salazar built his defence of Diego del Águila on the testimony of these witnesses, all of whom were, as noted, adults, veteran residents of the city, of good repute.279 He was an alcaide who did not act arbitrarily, who did not seek to enrich himself at the expense of the deportees, and did not cheat the Royal Treasury. Is he to be seen as a ‘righteous man’ in his city? Certainly the conditions of transit depended upon the good will of the man responsible for the border crossing. It is difficult to imagine hat this fact was not widely known among the deportees who were on their way across the border. Consequently many of the deportees may have chosen this northern crossing-point because of the attitude of Diego del Águila. But perhaps it just happened to be designated near the time when the Jews were required to leave Spain, and whoever arrived there happened to be fortunate. A similar question arises regarding other border crossing-points, such as Badajoz and Zamora, for which 274 ‘Por les faser plaser a los dichos judios a cabsa que lo auian rogado auia fecho la dicha yguala de los dichos quatro reales por cada casa eçebto paños. E que despues este testigo fue a escreuir el paso el paso [sic] de los otros escriuanos del dicho Diego del Aguila. E que vio como no se lleuauan mas derechos syno a muy pocos de los dichos quatro reales e a otros muchos a dos e a real e a otros de balde’ (fo. 29); ‘Porque este testigo lo escreuia juntamente con les escriuanos del dicho Diego del Aguila e lo via asy lleuar’, ibid. 275 ‘Porque segund de los dichos judios byen ellos buscarian sus formas y maneras como mejor pasasen syn daño de sus faziendas’ (fo. 13). 276 ‘Que lo oyo desir asy en la dicha çibdad a los judios que por estonçes pasavan como a los vesinos de la dicha çibdad, e que cree que seria asy porque los dichos judios son tales que buscan sus prouechos’ (fo. 19). 277 ‘Aun este testigo escreuio mas de dosientas alualies de balde que el dicho Diego del Aguila non lleuaua cosa alguna’ (fo. 12). 278 The eighth and ninth questions in the interrogatory addressed this issue. See e.g. n. 264 above, and also the testimony of Juan Vegas, who described Diego del Águila’s character and behaviour (fos. 13–14). However, this witness responded with uncertainty to the questions touching his relation to the Jews. This 279 See above, n. 260. is also true of the testimony of Alonso de Olmedo (fo. 18).

implementation of the edict

271

we do not possess similar information. Certainly Juan de Salazar, counsel for the defence, built his case on true facts, and therefore he could argue that evildoers had slandered his client. With a tranquil heart he could ask to have the witnesses’ testimony made public and transmitted to the king and queen and the Royal Council. The outcome of the inquest is not known to us. Most likely Diego del Águila was found innocent and the investigation sank into the archives of the royal chamber.280 However, testimony about the events in Ciudad Rodrigo is found in a royal order to Rodrigo de Ávila, the escríbano and judge for the export of merchandise (‘alcalde de sacas’) in Ciudad Rodrigo, which was issued on 26 March 1493.281 He was accused of taking money from the Jews leaving in exile, and fined 24,000 mrs, payable to the Royal Treasury against the account of 500 reales that the Crown ordered to be paid to Luis González de Sepúlveda, who was sent to investigate events at the border crossing in Ciudad Rodrigo. In addition the Crown forbade him to approach within 5 leagues of the city for a year. During that entire year he was forbidden to act as an escríbano, and he was required to deposit guarantees in the amount of 8,500 mrs to complete payment of the fine. This was to be delivered to the receiver of fines (‘reçebtor de penas’) of the Crown.282 An order of the Crown to Diego de Flores, a contino in the royal court, issued on 20 July 1493, indicates that Rodrigo de Ávila (he is called Cristóbal de Ávila in the order) did not pay the 8,500 mrs he was required to remit to Juan de Salazar, escríbano and alcaide of Ciudad Rodrigo.283 Flores was ordered to make certain that the payment was arranged, and, since he had full authority, most likely he succeeded.284 In addition to other events in Ciudad Rodrigo, Francisco de Águila converted to Christianity there. He arrived from the town of Atienza, converted, and with him his wife, children, mother, and other relatives, a total of fifty-three people. That number shows how many people went to Portugal through this border city. The trials undergone by Francisco de Águila show what other deportees suffered, if they had the courage to continue on their way into exile. He left considerable property behind him, and most likely his relatives also left behind real estate and other possessions. He was involved in a lawsuit against Fernand Bravo, who had not paid the debts he owed him, and against Francisco Laínez, a resident of Almazán. The Crown issued several orders to García de Suazo, the alcaide of the citadel of Atienza, to investigate and adjudicate his complaints.285 It should be noted that Francisco de Águila repeatedly called attention to the large number of people whom he had brought to convert rather than leave in exile. 280 On 30 May 1493 a copy of the investigation record was given to Juan de Salazar. Juan de Herrera, escríbano of the Crown, signed the entire protocol of the investigation. See above, n. 259. 281 See RGS 10 No. 790, fo. 253, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council. Published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 510–11. On 26 Oct. he appeared as a defence witness for Diego del Águila. See above, n. 274 (in the testimony, fo. 29). As a notary, he listed the names of those passing through the city to Portugal. 282 He was to arrange this within sixty days from the day the order was issued. After he provided the guarantees, the lien would be removed from his property, and he would be exempt from providing further guarantees. He was permitted to leave the royal court; see RGS 10 No. 790, fo. 253. 283 On him see Ch. 5. 284 See RGS 10 No. 1956, fo. 181, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council. 285 For this document see RGS 9 No. 3390, fo. 205, dated 23 Sept. 1492, RGS 9 No. 3463, fo. 73, dated 2 Dec. 1492, and RGS 9 No. 3505, fo. 74, dated 6 Dec. 1492, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 495–6, and see also Cantera Burgos and Carrete Parrondo, Sefarad, 33 (1973), 17–19. On Francisco Laínez,

272

implementation of the edict

The Passage from Castile into Portugal He brought them out of darkness and the shadow of death, and He severed their bonds ps. 107: 14

The exit points in Castile ought to have corresponded to entry points into Portugal. Yet comparison of the two shows that there were more of the latter than the former. Perhaps the discrepancy arises because the places of entry mentioned include all those where Portuguese customs officials intended to collect entrance duties. King João II of Portugal signed an agreement in Cintra allowing the deportees to remain in Portugal for eight months. Five entry points were designated: Olivença (now Olivenza in Spain), Arronches, Castelo Rodrigo, Bragança, and Melgaço. If we look at these five points on the map of the Castilian border, we find that those who passed through Ciudad Rodrigo passed via Fuentes de Añoro and entered Portugal through Vilar Formoso, and from there they headed towards Guarda and south to Sabugal. This was most likely the crossing-point for those deportees who left from Zamora, and they probably found refuge in the vicinity of Guarda. Rabbi Abraham Saba says of himself that he left Zamora and settled in Guimarães. The deportees from León probably entered Bragança, in the north, and deportees who passed through Orense entered Melgaço. The deportees from Cáceres and those who passed through there probably went to Arronches, while those who passed through Badajoz entered Olivença.286 We do not know how many people remained at these border crossing-points nor how they were dispersed throughout the entire country. However, most probably the concentrations of deportees did not move far from the Castilian border. Certainly they had reasons for choosing to settle in any particular place, but the documents discussing those who returned to Castile after converting to Christianity provide no information about where they had lived in Portugal. We know only the places to which they wished to return and recover their property. see eid., ‘La judería de Hita’, Sefarad, 32 (1972), 249–305, esp. 265; also Ch. 4 above, near n. 131. Perhaps he is to be identified with the converso who was in prison and testified in Aranda on 17 Jan. 1502 about the living conditions of the exiles in Portugal. See Carrete Parrondo, El Tribunal, 144. 286 See González Gallego, ‘Algunos datos’, 375 ff., 400 ff. According to Bernáldez, Memorias del reinado de los reyes Católicos, 256, there were entry points in Braganza for those who crossed the border via Benavente; Miranda do Douro, for those who crossed via Zamora; Vilar Formoso, for those who crossed via Ciudad Rodrigo; Marvão, for those who crossed via Valencia de Alcántara; Elvas, for those who crossed via Badajoz. See Manor, ‘Towards the History of Rabbi Abraham Saba’, 211, citing Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS Opp. Adds. 4o 11 ⫽ cat. 254 of Tseror hamor, Seder vayeze (a page is missing in the manuscript): ‘When I was in Castilla in the city of Zamora, quiet and tranquil in my place, I set my heart to interpret and survey the Torah, and I began to write a book giving pearls of wisdom from the five books of the Torah . . . and the King Fernando drove all of the Jews out of his kingdom. And some of them went to Navarra, and some of them entered the kingdom of Portugal, and some of them died of plagues and hunger, and everywhere they went, the earth did not bear them. And I remained in exile in Portugal in the city of Nimarish, and there I settled.’ ‘Nimarish’ is a misreading, since there is no city of that name in northern Portugal. Rather ‘Gimarish’ is correct, referring to Guimarães, whence he passed through Oporto to Lisbon; the Hebrew letter gimel is easily confused with nun. On his fate see also Tishby, Meshih.iyut, 31. We do not now the route taken by Rabbi Samuel Valensi (or Balensi), the head of the yeshiva of Zamora. See A. David (Heb.), Kiryat sefer, 51 (1976), 325. On him see Tishby, Meshih.iyut, 37. He was one of the Jewish martyrs in Portugal.

implementation of the edict

273

We do not know who negotiated with João II to obtain permission for the Jews to live in Portugal, though they were certainly of high rank. The king obligated himself to provide ships so that those who went into exile could continue their voyage. Those entering were required to register at the border crossing-points, on pain of being seized for hard labour. This was also to be the fate of those who did not leave after the eight months they were permitted to remain in Portugal. The fee paid by every deportee who crossed the border for entry into Portugal was 8 cruzados, whose value in 1492 was 365 mrs, similar to the dobla de banda. At that time the value of a golden ducat was 374 mrs.287 At this rate of exchange, everyone crossing into Portugal had to pay 2,920 mrs. Moreover, the head of every household was required to take with him a significant sum of money in negotiable currency, and to carry this in a special pouch or purse. This sum of money, which everyone crossing the border knew he would have to pay, was in addition to the amount that the deportees were required to pay upon leaving Spain. We do not know how this sum was stipulated, nor who were those ‘great men who spoke with the king of Portugal so that he would gather them in his land’.288 The tribulations of those who arrived in Portugal form a chapter of its own in the epic of the Jewish people in its exile from Spain and the displacement from which they suffered, not only in Portugal. Thus we should admire the adaptive strength of those deportees who arrived in Gouveia. Though we do not know where in Castile they came from nor under what conditions they crossed the border into Portugal, we do know that they managed to build a synagogue for their congregation. They expressed their hopes on the lintel of the entrance of the place of worship they erected: Greater will be the Latter Honour of this House than the Former Honour, saith the Lord of Hosts. The House of our Holiness and Glory was Completed in the Year of the Redemption by the Lord and His Arrival in Zion in 5257.289

In the event they were unable to dedicate the building because in that very year, corresponding to 1496/7, the Jews in Portugal fell prey to great persecution.290 287 See Lea, A History of the Inquisition of Spain, 137 n. 6; cf. Ibn Zacut, Sefer hayuh.asin hashalem, 227; Amador de los Ríos, Historia, 736–7. 288 ‘When the king of Spain expelled the Jews from all the places in his kingdom, many of the great men came to speak with the king of Portugal, so that he would assemble them in his land’, Y. Hacker, ‘Chapters in the History of Jewish Society in the Middle Ages’ (Heb.), in Sefer hayuval leya’akov katz ( Jerusalem, 1980), 31, according to a letter of Rabbi David ibn Yehiah ben Don Shlomo to Rabbi Yeshaya Mishini. See also the description of the hatred of the king of Portugal for the Jews. ‘For the king was misanthropic by nature and hated the nation of Israel even more so. The entire congregation as one man would help the deportees with all manner of assistance, and the king was filled with wrath against them and took property from many of them, and some he punished bodily, and they died in the bonds of poverty.’ The anonymous chronicler (see below, n. 332) states that it was Don Vidal Bienveniste de la Caballería who negotiated with Don João; he may have meant messir Alfonso de la Caballeria. 289 See M. A. Rodrigues, ‘On a Hebrew Inscription Discovered in Gouveia (Portugal)’ (Heb.), Zion, 33 (1968), 203; id., ‘A inscrição hebraica de Gouveia’, O Instituto, 130 (1968), 5. 290 The numerical value of the Hebrew letters bet resh nun heh is 257; hence the building was to be dedicated after the New Year of 5257, which was Sept. 1496. The Edict of Expulsion of the Jews from Portugal was issued in December 1496 in the town of Muga. That expulsion must be investigated in a separate study.

274

implementation of the edict

Most of the spiritual leaders of Castilian Jewry went to Portugal. Rabbi Isaac Abohab, the head of the yeshiva either of Buitrago or of Guadalajara, died in 1493, apparently from an epidemic that broke out among the exiles. Rabbi Abraham Saba of Zamora went to Guimarães, where he tried to rebuild his life; however, in 1497 he obeyed an order of the Crown to move to Lisbon, and there he was arrested. He was one of the victims of persecution who managed to be released from prison and move to Fez, as were Rabbi Abraham Zacut and his household, Rabbi Jacob ibn Habib of Salamanca, Rabbi Isaac Besudo of León, Rabbi Simon Meme of Segovia and his family, Rabbi Samuel Franco of Frómista, Rabbi Samuel Valensi or Balensi of Zamora, Rabbi Isaac de León of Toledo, Rabbi Moses Alfrangi of Valladolid, Rabbi Abraham Abzaradiel of Toledo, Rabbi Joseph Garson, and other rabbis who witnessed the doom of the communities they had led. Some of them survived the trials they were forced to undergo; others were dragged by force to the baptismal font, but in time they shed their baptism and found atonement by moving to the Land of Israel and to Jewish centres in Salonika and elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire.291 These prominent men were an example for many who underwent exile and forced conversion to find their way back to their people and their sources.

Departure by Sea The exiles from Castile who sought to leave by sea for North Africa or areas controlled by the Ottomans did not enjoy good fortune. Like those departing from the kingdom of Aragon, as described above, these deportees also had to find sea captains and shipowners who would agree to transport them to their destinations. We have seen above the great part played by Luis de Santángel and Francisco Pinelo in the assistance they provided to the deportees. Like their brethren from Aragon, the Jews of Castile had to hire Genoese, Basque, or Portuguese captains and to undergo all the risks and travails that the sea held in store for them. There is a difference among the deportees from Castile between those who departed directly from the southern ports of Castile or from Cartagena and those who first went to Portugal and left on ships for North Africa, and from there to other destinations. The stories of some of the deportees, who returned and converted to Christianity, informs us regarding the travail of those who did not return and convert. Some residents of La Fuente del Maestre, on the maestrazgo of the order of Santiago in León, decided to depart by sea. Diego García and his wife told the story of their hardships. Their children and the members of their household were with them, as well as several other Jews. While they were still in the fields, that is to say, encamped before finding a ship, the Duke of Medina Sidonia, Enrique de Guzmán, told them that he was prepared to do them more honour and grace (‘honrra y graçia’) than they would find at other ports. If they left via the port of Sanlúcar de Barrameda, which was in his possession, he would make certain that his ship took them to Oran in Algeria. Once they arrived there, the ship’s captain would wait in port for ten days while they negotiated 291 See Benayahu, ‘The Sermons of Rabbi Joseph ben Meir Garson’, 43–205; Manor, ‘Towards a History of Abraham Saba’; Tishby, Meshih.iyut, is a rich source of information about events among the deportees from Spain in Portugal and the fate of the band of 107 martyrs whom Tishby rescued from oblivion.

implementation of the edict

275

their status, that is, the conditions of their settlement there, and determined whether it was worth while to remain. If the place and the conditions did not seem suitable to them, the captain would be prepared to transport them, after coming to terms on the fare, to any place they wished.292 They agreed to these conditions and boarded the ship, taking cloth with them. Diego García and a partner purchased cloth to the sum of 400,000 mrs, and they also brought the water and food that would be needed on the trip. These conditions were similar in spirit to the contracts signed at that time with other deportees. After the contract was signed, Captain Andino appeared, a resident of Carmona, who insulted and mistreated them.293 In addition, he also sold them food, certainly also for a pretty penny. When they reached Oran, Diego García disembarked with another Jew to negotiate about remaining there. Meanwhile Captain Andino pledged the passengers to another sea captain, a pirate (‘corsario’) named Montenegro. Diego García and his partner sent to Andino’s ship in order to have their wives, children, and possessions taken ashore. Montenegro sought to prevent their return to the ship. Meanwhile Andino managed to steal merchandise worth 110,000 mrs from Diego García as well as a large quantity of jewellery (‘joyas e mercançias’). Other Jews who were in the ship were also robbed. The writ of protection and defence which they had received from the duke was of no avail. Diego García and his family managed to return to Castile, where they converted to Christianity. They sued Captain Andino for return of what he had taken from them. He did not respond to their pleas for twenty-five months. The ship must have departed from Spain in August 1492, for on 29 July 1494 the Crown ordered the corregidor of Carmona, or the resident magistrate of that town, to convene the parties before him and adjudicate the matter so that the plaintiff, Diego García, should have no further cause to complain before the Crown.294 The story of the tribulations of Alonso Díaz de Acuña and his wife, residents of Mombeltrán, is also connected to their departure by sea.295 They and their children departed with the intention of reaching North Africa, perhaps via Portugal. When they reached Arzila, they realized how difficult their situation was, so they decided to convert to Christianity and return. Therefore they went back to Gibraltar, where a man named Boccanegra, doubtless a Genoese, proposed that they leave their daughter with him as a servant by way of pledge for 4 reales.296 So dire were their straits that they accepted. When they reached their home town, they successfully petitioned the Crown for an order that Boccanegra should return their daughter to them. On 18 April 1495 the asistentes, alcaldes, and other magistrates of Mombeltrán and the other cities, 292 See RGS 11 No. 2550, fo. 227: ‘E lleuados alli los esperase el que los lleuase dies dias para, que pudiesen negoçiar su estado y ver sy los estaua bien quedar alli, o no porque se alli non quisiesen quedar, por otra yguala les lleuasen do quisiesen’. The duke’s role in the transaction is clear. It has all the signs of an agreement to transport deportees. 293 ‘Dies mil ultrajes e yniurias’, RGS 11 No. 2550, fo. 227. 294 The corregidor who received the order was Pedro Ortiz. See Ch. 7 below. On the same day the Crown answered Diego García, saying that his house in his home town would be returned to him. RGS 11 No. 2549, fo. 225. 295 On him see Ch. 7 below, the description of the returnees from Mombeltrán. 296 RGS 12 No. 1690, fo. 301: ‘en prendas de quatro reales’.

276

implementation of the edict

towns, and localities where the edict might be presented were ordered to assist them. Boccanegra could not retain the girl if these officers were convinced that Acuña’s complaint was just.297 The plight of the deportees who arrived in Arzila also apparently befell Rabbi Abraham ben Solomon Ardutiel, who passed through that city on his way to Fez.298 Vasco de Coutinho de Borba, the Portuguese governor of Arzila (1490–1501; 1515– 24) prevented the deportees from continuing on their way to Alcazar el-Kebir in Morocco.299 Nor were things any different for those who sought refuge in Larache. The Portuguese Pero Gomes, who was a ship’s purser (‘maestre de un navío’), addressed the Crown in the capacity of procurador for Pero Váez de Castilblanco, caballero, a native of Portugal.300 His ship, with a displacement of 60 tonnes, bound for Larache, was captured by a Basque pirate, Juan López de Marondo (or Narondo), who robbed the passengers, Jews who had passed through Portugal on their way to North Africa. He was imprisoned for this but then released. Another captain, Francisco Mellado, robbed the Jews of 300,000 mrs; Rodrigo de Dueñas was robbed of 60,000 mrs, and the captain also raped his daughter, and for this he was convicted. However, no punishment was inflicted. The Crown responded to Dueñas’s complaint, and on 4 February 1494 the corregidor was charged with summoning the parties for a just trial.301 Juan de Valderrama was appointed on 27 October 1492 to investigate an incident connected with the obligation of certain residents of Illescas to transfer some Jews to Fez and Tlemcen.302 Juan de Illescas complained to the Crown about the brothers Pero and Fernán López and their relatives and friends who resided there. He certainly had reasons for doing so. They had reached an agreement with certain Jewish communities (‘aljamas de los judios’) to transfer them and their property to their destination at the time of the expulsion. The Jews had agreed to pay a fare of 400 mrs for every person over the age of 8, and payment of 1 florin for children younger than that. They also obligated themselves to provide the deportees with writs of protection and defence from the Catholic Monarchs and the rulers of Fez and Tlemcen. They did not keep this obligation, thus causing the Jews damage in person and property, and contrived to collect 6,000 doblas castellanas from them. Among the deportees were several wealthy Jews (‘judios onbres ricos’) who gave them coins and silver (‘maravedis e plata’) and The edict was drafted by Cristóbal de Vitoria with the approbation of the council. See Sefer hakabalah, ed. A. Neubauer (Oxford, 1888), 113. 299 See H. Z. Hirschberg, A History of the Jews in North Africa (Leiden, 1974), i. 403 ff. 300 The Crown responded to Pero Gomes’s complaint and charged the Count de Cifuentes with investigating it. See RGS 10 No. 3084, fo. 64, dated 26 Nov. 1493. Pero Váez de Castilblanco was imprisoned for robbing Jews on their way into exile. On 12 Apr. 1494 the Crown ordered Juan de Silva, the Count de Cifuentes, and the asistente of Seville to see to his release so that he could defend himself. RGS 11 No. 1208, fo. 496. 301 See RGS 11 No. 103, fo. 95 and below, Ch. 7. 302 Juan de Valderrama was the corregidor of Madrid. There is a problem regarding the date of the order, as was noted by Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 476 n. 1. The date of 7 Oct. is written on the order, and it was issued in Barcelona. However, the Catholic Monarchs were in Zaragoza on that date and did not reach Barcelona until 27 Oct. See RGS 9 No. 3206, fo. 53, drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the council; Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 476–8. 297 298

implementation of the edict

277

other forbidden things so that they would remove them from the kingdom. The brothers also informed the guards in the port of Cartagena that these Jews were smuggling out money, with the intention that the Crown would give them the fourth part due to them for informing. The guards duly took the gold, silver, and other forbidden things that the Jews were trying to smuggle out, and they paid Pero and Fernán López the quarter that was due to them for informing. In the complainant’s opinion, the informants should have received no money, because it belonged to the Royal Treasury.303 The Crown took stern measures, ordering the accused brothers to be arrested and their property to be impounded, inventoried in the presence of an escríbano, and deposited with persons of trust. The defendants were to be brought, under arrest and at their own expense, to the royal court to be put on trial, and they were not to be released without explicit permission from the Crown.304 Bernaldino Tomás left for exile with his brother from Villafranca del Bierzo as a Jew. In Lisbon they boarded a ship, owned and sailed by a Basque named Pedro Sánchez; instead they were robbed. The royal court and the Crown answered their petition on 6 February 1494, instructing the corregidor and magistrates of Seville to ensure that their stolen property was returned. The mission of apprehending the captain was given to Juan de Benavides, the corregidor of Cádiz.305 Iñigo de Artieta, the captain-general of the fleet of Vizcaya, and other officers of the fleet robbed cloth from Jews who continued on their way from Portugal, after reaching it from Spain. An investigation conducted by the Count de Cifuentes, the asistente of Seville, revealed that in addition to the cloth that they had taken with them, those Jews, whose place of origin is unknown, also took gold, silver, and coined money as well as other objects forbidden to be exported. Iñigo de Artieta was prepared to have the value of the cloth he had stolen, which as contraband belonged to the Crown, deducted from the salary due him from the Crown. At the same time, he deposited with Juan de Fonseca, the Archbishop of Seville and a member of the Royal Council, 750 ducats in return for the cloth. The Crown ordered the members of the council and the oidores of the chamber, the alcaldes and the alguaciles, and the other magistrates of the royal court and the magistrates of the kingdom, to refrain from taking any legal step against Iñigo de Arieta or the other officers on the basis of the claims of the Jews whom he had robbed. Most probably they, or some of them, had returned and converted to Christianity, since the Crown’s order was issued on 20 December 1494. The Crown was therefore content Juan de Illescas himself was not a man of unimpeachable honesty: see Ch. 8 n. 368. They were give forty days to appear and three summons dates were set: thirty days for the first summons, another five for the second, a further five for the last; if they failed to appear, they would be tried in absentia. Juan de Valderrama was given twenty days to execute the order and a salary of 250 mrs per day; the escríbano was to receive 70 mrs per day. 305 See RGS 11 No. 221, fo. 162, published in Rodríguez Fernández, Provincia de León, 424 ff.; González Gallego, ‘Algunos datos’, 372. In Ciudade de León, ii. 157 ff., Rodríguez Fernández described how the deportees crossed the Portuguese border via Benavente, Ciudad Rodrigo, and Vilar, Valencia de Alcántara, Badajoz, and Elvas. See also below, n. 344. 303 304

278

implementation of the edict

with the payment made to Juan de Fonseca. This instruction was to be valid for them and for their heirs after them.306 The deportees from Castile also headed for two other southern ports, Puerto de Santa María and Cádiz. Andrés Bernáldez recounts that those deportees who arrived at the sea hoped for a miracle, ‘when they saw the sea, the men, women, old and young, broke into prayer and begged mercy from God, hoping to experience miracles from God, and that a way would be opened for them by sea. Having remained there for many days, and seen nothing but great misfortune besetting them, many of them wished they had never been born. Then they boarded twenty-five ships and vessels, under Captain Pedro Cabrón, who transported them to Oran.’307 In Oran the pirate Fragoso awaited them with his fleet. He was willing to take them to their destination for a payment of 10,000 ducats, and he would also defend them on their way. Rabbi Levi negotiated with him, but a storm arose and scattered the vessels. Some of them reached Arzila in ships belonging to Pedro Cabrón, and some arrived in Fez. However, seventeen ships reached Cartagena, and from there they continued to Málaga. In those ports many of Jews forsook their faith and community.308 This description is consistent with Jewish sources, such as the account by Rabbi Judah Hayat, the kabbalist, which are a reliable indication of the tribulations undergone by the deportees. He and his household, and with them 250 other people, left Lisbon for Italy in the winter of 1493.309 An epidemic broke out on board ship, and it was not permitted to anchor in any port. The ship wandered at sea for four months, and the passengers lived on ‘the bread of oppression and the water of grief’ (Isa. 30: 20). The ship was captured by Basque pirates, which accompanied it to Málaga. There it anchored across from the city, but the passengers were not permitted to debark. In any event, had they landed, they would have risked arrest and capital punishment for entering Spain. The ship remained at anchor across from Málaga for fifty days, and several municipal leaders and citizens visited it and entreated the passengers to convert.310 According to the account of Hayat, during a single day nearly a hundred people con306 See RGS 11 No. 4419, fo. 425, drafted according to orders from the king and queen by Álvarez de Toledo. The order states that the sanction for non-compliance is a fine of 10,000 mrs and loss of the Crown’s favour. 307 ‘Los que fueron a enbarcar por el puerto de Santa Maria e Cadiz, asi como vieron la mar davan muy grandes bozes e gritos, onbres e mugeres, grandes e chicos, con sus oraciones demandando a Dios misericordia, e pensavan ver algunas maravillas de Dios e que se les avia de abrir camino por la mar. E desque estuvieron alli muchos dias e non vieron sobre si sino mucha fortuna, algunos no quisieran ser nascidos, e ovieron de enbarcar en viente e cinco barcas e navios . . . e fue por capitan pedro Cabron, e tomaron la via de Oran’: Bernáldez, Memorias del reinado de los Reyes Católicos, 258–9; H. Sancho de Sopranis, ‘La judería del Puerto de Santa María de 1483–1492’, Sefarad, 13 (1953), 310–24 at 321. I quoted this description in Records of the Trials of the Spanish Inquisition in Ciudad Real, i. 139. 308 Andrés Bernáldez, Memorias, 259. He also presents the numbers of those who converted to Christianity: in Cartagena, 150 persons; in Málaga, 400. Rabbi Judah Hayat speaks of nearly 100 people who abandoned Judaism and of about fifty who died of hunger and disease in Málaga: Minh.at yehudah, perush lesefer ma’arekhet ha’elokut (Mantua, 1558), introduction. 309 These were exiles from Castile who passed through Portugal. Judging by the number of passengers, this was not a large ship, probably a carabela. 310 Málaga was conquered by Ferdinand and Isabella in 1487, and its Jews were taken as prisoners to the camp in Carmona, where they did not ransom themselves until 1489. See Beinart, ‘La Inquisición Española’.

implementation of the edict

279

verted, and another fifty, including his wife, died of hunger and disease. Altogether the ship was at sea for two months until the remaining refugees were permitted to depart, and at the end of their wanderings, they arrived in Fez.311 Rabbi Judah Hayat’s tribulations are significant for understanding the fate of many deportees. In the kingdom of Fez a Muslim originally from the same city in Spain falsely accused him of a crime, and he was imprisoned. After forty days in prison the Jews of Shershen ransomed him, and in return Rabbi Judah gave them nearly two hundred books which he had preserved during the expulsion. His troubles did not cease upon reaching the city of Fez. There he subsisted by ‘grinding grain in the house of an Ishmaelite with my two hands for the thinnest of thin slices of bread, that was not even fit for dogs, and at night my belly clung to the earth. And because of the great cold in the autumn, and because there was no blanket to keep off the cold, and also because there were no houses to take shelter in, we would dig ditches in the dung heap in the city and place our bodies there. Then we fulfilled the verse, “they that were brought up in scarlet embrace dunghills”’ (Lam. 4: 5). From North Africa, after endless misfortunes and difficulties, Hayat reached Naples. There, too, he met with adversity, and was seized by French soldiers.312 Only afterwards did he manage to reach Venice, dressed in sackcloth and absolutely penniless. The Sephardi Jews of that city who had arrived before him, and who knew his works and his former status in Spain, took care of him with love and mercy. He donated the remnant of his books to them. Rabbi Judah Hayat ultimately found refuge in the city of Mantua, and there he met Rabbi Joseph Yavetz, who took him in and assisted him, and apparently he found repose.313 To complete the picture of the fate of the exiles and their stalwart spirit in their wanderings, we shall add the description by Rabbi Solomon Ibn Verga in his Shevet yehudah.314 He also describes a plague that broke out on the ship, whose owners abandoned the passengers in an uninhabited place. Ibn Verga evokes the bitter fate of an anonymous exile, the head of a household, whose anonymity deepens his reproaches, making him seem to speak in the name of all the deportees: ‘Lord of the Universe! You have done much to make me forsake my religion, so let it be known faithfully, that despite those who dwell in heaven I am a Jew and will remain a Jew. And it makes no difference what you brought down upon me or will bring down upon me!’ In this short assertion, an anonymous Jew expressed the depth of the deportees’ faith and their determination.

v. implementation of the edict in sardinia and sicily The kingdom of Aragon conquered Sardinia in 1297, and the territorial expansion of this kingdom in southern Italy was one of the foundations of Aragonese policy in the 311 The deportees who arrived in the port of Badis (Vélez de la Gomera) were better off. Its ruler, Muley Mansur, received them graciously and permitted them to land in Fez. Rabbi Abraham ben Solomon Ardutiel speaks in praise of the ruler of Fez. See nn. 298–9 above, and cf. also Ibn Verga, Shevet yehudah, 122 ff. 312 The armies of King Charles VIII were in Naples between 22 Feb. and 20 May 1495. 313 He composed his interpretation of Sefer ma’arekhet ha’elokut in Mantua, at the request of Rabbi 314 Ibn Verga, Shevet yehudah, 122 (see n. 311 above). Joseph Yavetz.

280

implementation of the edict

Mediterranean. We know little about the life of the Jews in Sardinia, for the study of the history of the Jews there and in Sicily is still in its early stages.315 The Edict of Expulsion intended for the Jews of Sardinia is signed only by Ferdinand, although in all the royal documents both Ferdinand and Isabella appear in the intitulation, and both Sardinia and Sicily are included. The Edict of Expulsion from Sardinia was sent to the viceroy, the governor of the island, messir Iuan Dusay. It was signed and sent on 31 March 1492. On 6 July 1492 Ferdinand wrote to Dusay from Arevelo and rejected his request to extend the deadline for the departure of the Jews. The edict was promulgated on 28 September 1492. In a special order the vice-governor was ordered to declare the Crown’s ownership of the houses and property, both real and moveable, of the Jews, except for jewellery, silver, gold, coins, precious stones, silk brocade, and woollen and linen cloth. Everything was to be registered in the presence of a notary, after the payment of debts and of censales was settled. The remainder would remain in the possession of the Jews and be delivered to them. He was to do this within fifteen days. The Crown permitted the procurador of the Jews to appear before the vice-governor in all of his actions. It should be noted that this order is consistent with one issued to the kingdom of Aragon regarding the seizure of Jewish property to pay taxes that the Crown collected from the Jews of that state.

Cagliari The Edict of Expulsion from Sardinia was also prepared by the notary Juan de Coloma, who drafted the Edict of Expulsion from all of Spain. There were few Jewish settlements in Sardinia, and they were concentrated in the capital city of Cagliari, where seventy households lived, that is to say, about 350 people. Jews also lived in Sassari and in Alghero, which was an important port city with a connection to the Iberian peninsula, in the north-west of the island; however, we lack information about the Jewish settlements there at the time of the expulsion, mainly how many departed. Most likely the deportees went to Naples.316

Sicily Though the Edict of Expulsion from Sicily was also drafted on 31 March 1492, it was not promulgated until 18 June 1492. As early as 31 May 1492 the viceroy of Aragon, Fernando de Acuña, secretly wrote about the Edict of Expulsion to the leaders of Palermo, so they could make preparations and list all the Jewish property and mark their real property with the royal sign, as was done in Sardinia. On 9 June that viceroy 315 On the conquest of Sardinia, see Baer, Toledot, index; on the Jews there see C. Roth, The History of the Jews in Italy (Philadelphia, 1946), 262 ff.; Perani, ‘Appunti per la storia degli ebrei in Sardegna durante la dominazione aragonese’. 316 See Ch. 2 above; Perani, ‘Appunti’, 127. The delay in promulgating the edict can be explained by the extension given to the local Jews, and it cannot be known who instigated it. Perhaps there were local reasons for it. I am grateful to Professor M. Perani of Turin and to Professor R. Bonfil for their assistance in obtaining material on Sardinia. See E. Era, ‘Storia della Sardegna durante il regno di Ferdinando il Cattolico’, in Fernando el Católico e Italia (Zaragoza, 1954), 55 ff.; Conde, Aragón, 75–6. The information regarding the number of Jews in Cagliari dates from 23 Sept. 1492. The family of Nin de Carassona lived in Alghero; after the expulsion their house was used as a royal palace. Another order dating from 4 Jan. 1493 discusses the synagogue of the Jews of Cagliari. On the history of that community see G. Bedarida, ‘Ebrei di Sardegna’, La rassegna mensile di Israel, 11 (1936–7), 328–58, 442–3.

implementation of the edict

281

ordered it to be publicly proclaimed in Palermo that the Jews of the city were forbidden to depart without explicit permission from him.317 There, too, the method applied in Aragon and Sardinia was used regarding the debts and taxes to the government. In fact, the departure took place in January 1493, for until 12 January, the Jews were allowed to remain there. The Jews were permitted to leave after proving they had paid their debts to the Crown and agreed to deposit their property in their places of residence until an assessment could be made to cover their tax debts. At the time of the expulsion there were 5,000 Jews in Palermo and a similar number in Syracuse; in Trapani there were 3,000 Jews, in Marsala, 2,500; in Meana, 2,400; and in Sciacca approximately 2,000. These were not the only Jewish communities. There were also Jews in various villages. An edict of 17 July 1492, promising defence to Jews willing to convert to Christianity there, mentions twenty-eight Jewish communities. Rabbi Abraham Hayun reports in his letter to Rabbi Isaac de Pisa that a ship with 150 Jews from Palermo arrived in Naples in August 1492, showing that they did not wait until the last minute before leaving. Another ship arrived in Pisa from Palermo, and on its deck were 100 Jews from there.318 Unlike the Jews of Spain, they did not need large ships, and these vessels were apparently coastal cruisers. The Jews of Sicily also met a bad fate. Some were captured by pirates who demanded exorbitant ransoms.319 Naples was a temporary haven for the exiles from Spain and those of Sardinia and Sicily until the time came for their expulsion from there.

vi. navarre: asylum and expulsion As we have seen above, deportees from some of the cities of Aragon and Castile headed for Navarre.320 However, not all the Jews wished to go there, though it was close by. 317 Regarding the Edict of Expulsion see B. Lagumina and G. Lagumina, Codice diplomatico dei giudei di Sicilia, iii/1 (Palermo, 1895), 19–26. See pp. 7–9; the order forbidding the departure, p. 17. See other documents there regarding the exile of the Jews and their defence during the expulsion. On 3 July the governor issued an order defending the Jews (pp. 75–6). On 11 July the mayor of Palermo wrote to the viceroy about the damage that would be caused to the island because of the expulsion of the Jews (ibid.). On 17 July the viceroy ordered all the cities on the island to give defence to Jews who converted to Christianity (pp. 86–90). On 4 Aug. he circulated a letter that had arrived from the king, with his signature, dated 18 May 1492 in Granada, stating that Jews who converted to Christianity would be regarded as any Christian (pp. 113–15). Fernando de Acuña, the viceroy in Sicily, received detailed instructions about how to implement the Edict of Expulsion. That order was drafted by Juan de Coloma. On 26 July 1492 Fernando Miranda de Duero wrote to Acuña, giving him an extension of two months in implementing the Edict of Expulsion (Conde, Aragón, 152–4). He was ordered to prepare an exact reckoning of Jewish property. Conde, Aragón, 50, presents the list of places to which orders were sent to register Jewish property. The list is important for determining places of Jewish residence on the island. Twenty cities and towns are listed, and orders were also sent to the islands of Malta and Gozo. Recently a copy of the order in Palermo has been published. See R. Giuffrida, A. Sparti, and S. di Matteo, Fonti per la storia dell’espulsione degli ebrei dalla Sicilia (Palermo, 1992). 318 See Y. Hacker, ‘A Group of Letters about the Expulsion of the Jews from Spain and Sicily and on the Fate of the Exiles’ (Heb.), Perakim betoledot hah.evra hayehudit biyemei habeinayim (Jerusalem, 1980), 64–97, esp. 81 ff. 319 A. Milano, Storia degli ebrei in Italia (Turin, 1963), 179; Lagumina and Lagumina, Codice diplomatico, iii/1. 1–97. Ferrante I, king of Naples, permitted the entry of the deportees in an order issued on 8 Oct. 1492. See also Hacker, ‘A Group of Letters’, 83. 320 On Navarre see M. Kayserling, Geschichte der Juden in Navarra, den Baskenländern und auf den Balearen (Berlin, 1861), appendix L, 212–13, 516; S. W. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews,

282

implementation of the edict

Thus it happened that the Duke of Nájera, Pedro Manrique, tried to force the Jews of the town of Amusco to go to Navarre and settle in the town of Genevilla there, after paying their taxes and debts to him. The duke’s tax-farmers, Rabbi Yose Milano, his son Rabbi Solomon Milano, and Rabbi Yose Panigel, were sued to make them pay the duke. They did not comply and were arrested in Palencia, suggesting that they were on their way to Portugal. Their attorney, Solomon Isaac Mordehay, petitioned the Crown on their behalf on 30 June 1492. The duke reacted vigorously, confiscating the Milanos’ and Panigel’s property and forbidding the Christian residents to buy it from them. He also sued for payment of the castellanos tax for 1492 with a sum equal to that paid to the Hermandad by the Christian residents of the town. The tax-farmers lodged a petition against their imprisonment and against the requirement to make Genevilla their destination; in response, the Crown instructed Luis de Alcalá to investigate the problem of the debt for the farmed taxes, but it made no decision about the departure for Navarre. Most likely the duke had an interest in settling the Jews of Amusco near his estates, and he probably also owned property in Navarre. The Jews were given a royal command to go wherever they wished.The Crown’s intention regarding the departure of the Jews from the kingdoms of Castile and Aragon was clear.321 Some cities in Navarre expressed opposition to the entry of the Jews. One of those cities was Tafalla, whose authorities even considered sending a delegation to the king and queen of Navarre, Jean d’Albret and his wife, Catherine, in their capital of Pau in Béarn, in order to convince them to forbid the entry of Jews, and tried to persuade the authorities of Toledo to co-operate with them. On 25 May 1492 Gabriel de Avenas, a delegate from Toledo, went to the king of Navarre’s residence at Estella, to speak with him about this. However, he evidently rejected their position and sent them away. It seems that Toledo also sought to organize a uniform line of opposition from other cities in addition to Tafalla and Estella, namely Sangüesa, Pamplona, Olite. Notes in the royal account books from 2 and 9 June indicate the activity of the delegates from Toledo, Pedro Gómez and Martín de Mesquita, to persuade the cities of Navarre to oppose the entry of the Jews into the kingdom and to organize a delegation to the king in Pau. The Toledan authorities even managed to obtain a copy of the Edict of Expulsion and other edicts issued by Ferdinand and by Torquemada. In that manner they sought to convince the king and queen of Navarre to follow in the footsteps of Spain. On 24 June a delegation composed of Martín de Mesquita and Pascual de Magallón, a jurado in Toledo, left for Pau. No information is available regarding their stay there. They returned to Toledo on 14 July. The entry of the Jews into Navarre shows that their delegation was a failure. Despite local opposition the exiles moved xi. 242–3; J. N. Hillgarth, The Spanish Kingdoms (Oxford, 1978), ii. 564 ff.; M. A. Motis Dolader, ‘La emigración de judíos aragoneses a Navarra en las postrimerías del siglo XV’, Príncipe de Vana, 49 (1988), 537–51; B. R. Gampel, The Last Jews on Iberian Soil, Navarrese Jewry 1497–1498 (Berkeley, 1989), 89 ff.; Baer, Toledot, ii. 516. 321 Regarding the refusal of the Jews of Amusco to go to Navarre, see Archivo de la Chancillería, Pleitos civiles, F. Alonso c.540–7, fos. 17 ff. I am grateful to Professor F. Broner of the Hebrew University for assisting me in obtaining this document. On the Duke of Nájera see RGS 10 No. 126, fo. 173, dated 18 Jan. 1493, and also RGS 10 No. 513, fo. 132, dated 2 Mar. 1493. These documents relate to the city of Burgos.

implementation of the edict

283

away from settlements near the border and entered the cities of Navarre, where they rented dwellings.322 We do not know how many Jewish exiles took refuge in Navarre. The names of some of them are known; they came from both Aragon and Castile, neither of which was distant.323 Although there is general agreement that the number of those entering Navarre cannot be determined, Bernáldez estimates their number at about 2,000.324 A document issued in Barcelona on 8 March 1493, in which Ferdinand gave the Jews from Aragon who were in Navarre fifty days to pass through his kingdom to reach the Mediterranean ports, reveals both the fate of the exiles from Spain who went there and the policy adopted by Ferdinand towards Navarre, which he had clear intentions of occupying. The permission itself must be seen as a concession on his part, for Ferdinand and Isabella insisted on the principle of Spain without Jews, and any Jew present there, even for a short time, was subject to the death penalty. This order was issued in response to a request from Jews wishing to leave Navarre and pass through the kingdom of Aragon to a Mediterranean port and from there to continue their journey to a safe haven. On this occasion Ferdinand permitted the Jews departing with their wives and children to take minted coins with them, gold, silver, clothing, bedding, and they could be mounted on horses, mules, or other beasts of burden.325 This permission was for fifty days, from the border of Navarre until they boarded ships, which had not been allowed in 1492. During that period of time, they were not to be arrested, their departure was not to be prevented or delayed for any transgression or debt, no matter what. Those leaving Navarre were permitted to gather at Mallén on the border between 322 See Gampel, The Last Jews on Iberian Soil, 95 and 186 n. 26 for the agreement made by Bonafos Constantos of Soria regarding rental of a house in Cascante from a resident of the town, Juan Enrique de la Carra. 323 Ibid. 101, and 189 n. 41. Those who entered were: Astruc Carrillo and Meir Abenrrodija of Almazán (most Jews from this town went to Portugal; see above, on Ciudad Rodrigo); Jacob Benarraui of Calatayud; maestre Vidal; Samuel de Cort Namias; Esmel Abnarrabi; Mose Baço; Soli Gotyna; Mose de León, who returned and converted to Christianity, taking the name Joan Ferrizu (his wife also converted); Çulema Arruesi Mores of Aragon; Bonafos Constantos of Soria; Astruc of Agreda; Rabbi Abraham Benamias and his wife, Vida, of Cornajo (in Castile); Abraham Orbona of Tarazona. To these must be added Martín d’Exea of Jaca, who had settled in Sangüesa. On Jaca see Motis Dolader, Zaragoza, 540. On p. 541 he presents a map showing that, Sangüesa apart, Cascante, Tudela, and Cortes also absorbed refugees from Aragon. All the aforementioned men were certainly heads of households. 324 ‘De los que estavan en frontera de Navarra se metieron en Navarra dos mil animas’, Bernáldez, Memorias, 256; Gampel, The Last Jews on Iberian Soil, 105, compares the numbers of those entering Navarre to those entering Portugal. He estimates that between 1,700 and 1,800 people went to Navarre, though in his opinion the number cannot be determined, ibid. 106. On the numbers of deportees, see below. Gampel (pp. 101–2) examines the size of the communities of Navarre in general. This examination is difficult to reconcile in relation to the numbers of deportees who entered Navarre. On the sojourn of the Jews in Navarre see Yosef Hakohen, Sefer divrei hayamim lemalkhei tsarfat umalkhei beit ‘otman hatuger’ (Amsterdam, 1733), i, fo. 47a: ‘The king of Navarre did not expel them from his land, and many of the Jews of Aragon went there to dwell.’ See also Sefer emek habakhah, ed. K. Alemblad (Uppsala, 1981), 61–2. 325 ‘Dinero, oro, plata, joyas, ropas de vestir e de cama e con las cavalgaduras, azemiles e otras bestias e con todas las cosas que consigo levaren para que pueden e les sea liçito’, Motis Dolader, ‘Los judíos de Magallón’, 182, citing ACA, Real Cancillería Reg. 3647, fos. 154r–155v; see too de la Torre, Documentos, iv. 137–40. See also Gampel, The Last Jews on Iberian Soil, 106 ff.

284

implementation of the edict

Navarre and Aragon and remain there for no longer than thirty days from the date of their departure from Navarre. In the remaining twenty days they were to charter ships, and purchase food and other supplies necessary for them to sail down the Ebro river. All along their route they were permitted to stop over in settlements to buy food; but they were forbidden to stay overnight at any stopover. They were to buy food with their money at the price customarily paid by the residents of the places themselves. Escorts, if needed, would be provided in the places through which they passed at their own expense, and they were to hire them at a fair and decent price. The Jews were required to pay transit duties, peatges, leudas, pontages, barcajes, and other taxes, but they were not to exceed the amounts that Christians had to pay for passing through. If there was a delay, and they were required to remain in some place or another beyond the time allotted to them, or if they reached the port after the deadline set for them, the local residents would be required to make certain they could leave, and they had to supply food for them, to be paid for by the Jews, on condition that they did not settle. All those leaving, with the exception of nursing infants (‘de teta’), were to pay 2 ducats or a coin of that value per head (‘por cabeça’). The money would be collected by the treasurer Vicente de Bordalba, a resident of Zaragoza, or his procurador, who was also active in the Inquisition there. Anyone in possession of the writ would benefit from the permission. Luis Díaz, a resident of Sisamón, and Miguel Gotor were charged with executing this order. We do not know the composition of the group that left Navarre. The refugees from Spain who had taken refuge in Navarre were apparently joined by local Jews. Without doubt their departure in 1498,326 like the events in Portugal, must be viewed as the consequence of pressure from Spain. Thereafter the Iberian peninsula was ‘clean’ of Jews.

vii. the number of jews expelled The issue of the number of exiles is controversial. Various estimates were made during the generation of the expulsion. Some of these were made by Jews who had undergone the expulsion themselves, while others were made by gentiles. All these estimates must be checked against those for places regarding which the number of Jews who went into exile may be reliably calculated. Another indication of the total number of deportees may be found in the number of Jews who converted to Christianity and returned to Spain after the expulsion. Moreover, it should be noted that many people went uncounted because they died away in Portugal and elsewhere, on board ship, on the shore, and in abandoned and desert places where they were thrown by ships’ captains. Let us attempt to clarify the number of those departing in exile according to the 326 On the date, see Gampel, The Last Jews, 128. There is information from 1498 about the fate of the synagogues in the kingdom of Navarre. The synagogue of Cascante, which had apparently taken in exiles, was granted to the city by King Jean II Albret of Navarre and his queen, Catherine de Foix, so a church could be built in its place. See J. L. Lacave, ‘La judería de Cascante’, Sefarad, 50 (1990), 333. We do not know what happened to the synagogues elsewhere in the kingdom of Navarre.

implementation of the edict

285

sources in our possession. The question remains how these general estimates are to be regarded, whether they were based on impressions or whether they were made on some reliable basis. Here are the words of Don Isaac Abravanel, who personally underwent the expulsion and its tribulations: And in the 250th [sic] year the Lord aroused the spirit of the kings of Spain to expel from their land all the Jews, about 300,000 souls, so that all of them should leave from all sides of the West, and all of them should go towards the Land of Israel, not only the Jews but also the conversos, who had left the Torah, pass out and go there, and in this way they gather in the Holy Land.327

Those words were written a considerable time after the expulsion, and also mention the conversos as leaving with the deportees or joining them after the expulsion, and the number is doubtless an estimate. Later estimates of the total exaggerate and propose the inflated number of 400,000 or 420,000 people, even 170,000 heads of household, which would produce approximately 800,000 exiles, or 124,000 heads of household, which would come to about 600,000 people. These high estimates are clearly unfounded.328 The numbers of those who went to Portugal would appear to offer a sounder basis for estimating the overall number of exiles. According to Rabbi Abraham Zacut:329 But most of Castile entered Portugal because they could not enter the sea and hasten themselves, and they gave a tenth of all their wealth, plus one ducado for each soul, apart from three ducados for [permission] to pass through the states, and they also gave a quarter of all their wealth that they brought in, and some nearly a third. And even one who had no wealth at all paid a ransom for his soul of eight ducados, and if not, he would be imprisoned, and time would wear out and he would not finish counting. Into Portugal entered more than 150,000 souls, and of them there remained only a few from the plague, and some of them were imprisoned, and their sons were taken and sent abroad, and some of them converted from their faith in their great grief, until there came the year 257.330

In similar spirit an anonymous author wrote:331 And 120,000 of them entered the kingdom of Portugal by means of a compromise that was made between the king of Portugal and one notable named Don Bidal Bar Benviniste de la 327 Rabbi Isaac Abravanel, in his commentary on Isa. 43: 6. Cf. Ma’ayanei hayeshuah, Introduction, fos. 2a–3a; also his commentary on the Torah, Introduction to Exodus, fo. 1a; Zivh.ei pesah. (Constantinople, 1505), fos. 2a, 3b. see S. Bernfeld, Sefer hadema’ot (Berlin, 1924), ii. 199; and also Baer, Toledot, 551 n. 141. 328 Rabbi David Modena speaks of 600,000 exiles. See Marx, Studies in Jewish History and Booklore, 81, whose source is a manuscript in the collection of the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York, formerly MS Halberstam 476, fo. 93a–b. See Lea, A History of the Inquisition in Spain, i. 142. These estimates are based on sources from the 16th and 17th cc. It makes no sense to investigate these numbers, nor can one rely upon those presented by I. Loeb, ‘Le Nombre des Juifs de Castille et d’Espagne au moyen âge’, REJ 14 (1883), 161 ff., who claims that there were 165,000 exiles, 50,000 apostates, and 20,000 who died on the way, for a total of 235,000. The number of deportees is also discussed in J. Caro Baroja, Los judíos en la España moderna y contemporánea (Madrid, 1962), i. 176–89; Azcona, Isabel la Católica, 623 ff. discusses the number of Jews; he lists 216 communities in Castile, and estimates that there were about 200,000 Jews in 329 Sefer hayuh.asin hashalem, ed. Filipowsky, 227. Spain at the time of the expulsion. 330 Rabbi Abraham Zacut is referring to the fate of the exiles in 1497. 331 Marx, Studies in Jewish History and Booklore, 85–6.

286

implementation of the edict

Caballería and they paid one ducado for each soul and a quarter of the merchandise they brought there, and he gave them time to stay in his country for six months . . . Their number was not agreed upon. What I have heard after great investigation is that the highest number agreed upon was 50,000 households and some say 53,000.332

These Jewish sources must be compared with non-Jewish sources, the main one being Andrés Bernáldez, a curate (‘cura’) of Palacios:333 There left Castile and entered into Portugal with the permission of King Juan of Portugal the following: by Benavente left 3,000 or more who entered Portugal via Bragança; and via Zamora there left 30,000 for Miranda; those who left via Ciudad Rodrigo and Vilar, 25,000;334 15,000 who left and went via Valencia de Alcántara to Marvão; 12,000 who passed through Badajoz and entered Elvas. Those who were found near the border with Navarre passed over to there, and they were 2,000; those who lived near the border of Vizcaya boarded ships in Laredo; and from Medina de Pomar 300 households left; and in Caliz [Cádiz] 8,000 boarded ships from the area of Andalusia and Maestrazgo de Santiago.335

According to this passage, the total was between 95,500 and 105,000. To this he added another 300 households, that is, about 1,500 persons. Thus, according to Bernáldez, about 100,000 people left. The author of another chronicle, Alonso de Santa Cruz, who was influenced by the writing and historiographical method of Hernando del Pulgar, as he states in a letter to Charles V, produced the following numbers:336 It is certain that those who departed via Benavente so as to enter Portugal via Bragança were 23,000; those who left via Zamora for Miranda were 30,000; via Ciudad Rodrigo to Vilar, 35,000; via Valencia de Alcántara to Marvão in Portugal 15,000; via Badajoz to Elvas, 10,000. And those who were at the border of Navarre, up to 2,000, and those at the border of Viscaya boarded ships to go to Africa by sea; and those who were in Jerez and Medina Sidonia and in other places and boarded ships in Puerto de Santa María and Cádiz were 8,000.337 332 Isaac Ibn Farax writes of ‘more than forty thousand Jewish households’ (ibid. 101). Cf. Baer, Toledot, 333 551 n. 141. Bernáldez, Memorias, 256. 334 Ibid. According to another MS there were 35,000 people. The place is called Vilar Formoso today. 335 ‘Salieron de Castilla e entraron en Portogal, con consentimiento del rey don Juan de Portogal, los seguientes: Salieron por Benavente tres mil ánimas e más, que entraron en Portogal por Bergança; salieron por Çamora treinta mill ánimas a Miranda, que entraron en Portogal; salieron por Çibdad Rodrigo al Villar veinte a çinco mill ánimas; salieron por Valencia de Alcántara a Merván, quinçe mill animas; salieron por Badajoz a Elves diez mill ánimas. De los que estavan en frontera de Navarra se metieron en Navarra dos mill ánimas. De los que moravan en frontera de Vizcaya entraron por Laredo en la mar, e de los de Medina de Pomar e su tierra, trezientas casas. Entraron por Cáliz en la mar ocho mill ánimas de los de Andaluzia e del Maestrazgo de Santiago.’ Bernáldez, Memorias, 256. 336 Alonso de Santa Cruz, Crónica de los Reyes Católicos, ed. J. de la Mata Carriazo (Seville, 1951), i. 491–504. For his biography, see p. lv and cf. p. ccvii: ‘Yo he acabado la historia de los Reyes Católicos porque Hernando del Pulgar, su cronista, hizo su historia hasta el año de noventa y desde este tiempo hasta que el Rey Católico murió no teníamos escrituras, sino algunas memorias; e yo agora lo he acabado, año por año, como lo dexó Hernando del Pulgar, lo mejor que he podido.’ 337 ‘Y tuvose por cierto que salieron por Benavente para entrar por Bragança en Portugal veinte y tres mil; y los que salieron por Çamora para Miranda treinta mil; y por Ciudad Rodrigo para Villar treinta e cinco mil y por Ciudad Valencia de Alcantara para Mervan en Portugal quince mil; y por Badajoz a Elvas diez mil. Y los que estavan en la frontera de Navarra, que serían hasta dos mil, y los de la frontera de Vis-

implementation of the edict

287

According to his count, 123,000 Jewish exiles crossed the border into Portugal.338 Comparison of the numbers in the previous two lists makes it appear likely that Alonso de Santa Cruz was influenced by the list of Bernáldez, or else they both drew upon a third source. Alonso Barrantes Maldonado, another chronicler, offers the following numbers: Via Zamora alone 30,000 left for Miranda; and from Ciudad Rodrigo 25,000 left for Vilar; and from Valencia de Alcántara 15,000 left for Marvão; and from Badajoz 10,000 left for Elvas; and many other Jews left for Navarre and Laredo, Vizcaya, and Guipúzcoa to leave by sea, and also in Andalusia and the maestrazgo de Santiago they left via Sanlúcar and Puerto de Santa María and other places [and went] to Cartagena.339

Not only the numbers are important here, but also the points of exit from Castile and entry into Portugal. If we examine these numbers according to contemporary Portuguese sources, a picture emerges that is not substantially different. Damião de Góis estimates the number of those entering Portugal at 20,000 heads of household, who paid 8 cruzados per head (except for infants, who were exempt from payment).340 Accordingly, the number of those entering Portugal was 100,000 or more.341 caya, se fueron a embarcar a Laredo, para ir por mar a Africa. Y los que estavan en Xerex y Median Sidonia y en otros lugares por allí, se fueron a enbarcar al Purto de Santa Maria y a Cadiz, que serían ocho mil’: Santa Cruz, Crónica, 61. According to one document in Torre do Tombo, 11,000 Jews passed through Valencia de Alcántara. They settled in Castelo de Vide and Tomar. In Castelo de Vide remnants of buildings used by the Jews at that time are visible to this day. Those who passed through Ciudad Rodrigo settled in Guarda, Belmonte, Celorico de Beira, and in Trancoso. I am grateful to Mariano Martín Manuel of Hervás for sending me this information. 338 He lists the places in order from the north to the south, like the list in Bernáldez. The numbers presented by both of them are mainly similar. 339 ‘En Portogal entraron con consentimiento del rey don Juan muchos judios, unos por Benavente, otros por Bragança, e por sola Çamora salieron treynta mil animas a Miranda. E salieron por Cibdad Rodrigo al Villar veynte e çinco mil animas. E salieron por Valençia a Mervan quinze mil animas. E salieron por Badajoz a Yelves diez mil animas, e por la frontera de Navarra e por Laredo, Vizcaya, Guipuzcoa, salieron muchos judios por la mar. Ansimismo los de Andaluzia e del maestrazgo de Santiago salieron por Sanlucar e por el Puerto de Santa Maria e otros por Cartagena’, A. Barrantes Maldonado, Ilustraciones de la Casa de Niebla, ii (Memorial histórico español, colección de documentos, opúsculos y antigüedades, pub. for the Real Academia de la Historia; Madrid, 1857), 398. He, too, moves from north to south in naming the points of exit and entry. 340 Damião de Góis, Crónica do felicíssimo rei D. Manuel (Coimbra, 1949), 23. 341 There is no reason to present exaggerated numbers here, such as the 420,000 mentioned in Immanuel Aboab, Nomologia o Discursos legales (Amsterdam, 1629), 312, or the 800,000 claimed by A. Herculano, História da origem e estabelecimento da Inquisição de Portugal (Lisbon, 1975), 109; according to A. H. de Oliveira Marques, History of Portugal (New York and London), i. 211–13, 50,000 people entered Portugal, but only 600 families remained there. The contrary tendency to minimize the number of refugees entering Portugal is found in M.a J. Pimenta Ferro Tavares, Os judeus em Portugal no século XV (Lisbon, 1982), 255. She numbers only(!) 23,320 Jews who entered Portugal, of whom 20,000 reached Lisbon and Evora, and another 480 blacksmiths and tinsmiths. She emphasizes that the entry of the Jews in Portugal was a destabilizing factor (‘desestabilizador’) in relations between the Christian majority and the Jewish national minority. In this, too, she accepts the approach of Marques, History, 294–5. H. Kamen, ‘The Mediterranean and the Expulsion of Spanish Jews in 1492’, Past and Present, 119 (1988), 30–55 at 44, reaches the conclusion that no more than 30,000 Jews left Castile, and that the total leaving Spain was 40,000–50,000. It is pointless to engage in controversy here.

288

implementation of the edict

It might be possible to estimate the number of those entering Portugal according to the sums of money collected from them by the Portuguese Crown. The sums mentioned range from 8,390,220 réis to 26,356,957 réis.342 These figures are not divisible by 8 réis or cruzados per head; and quite a few Jews entered Portugal without paying the entry fee. But it must be asked whether these statistics, which refer primarily to the border crossing-points, included all those who left their dwelling places. Rodríguez Fernández tried to construct an estimate of the numbers, according to which 27,000 households left the province of León alone, and according to another source it was 45,000 families.343 Certainly there were far fewer Jews in the city of León itself.344 Another basic method, proposed by Suárez Fernández, is first to estimate the size of the communities, then to estimate how many Jews went into exile.345 He examined the framework constructed by Rabbi Jacob Aben Núñez in 1474 for the annual tax and compared it with the register of the castellanos tax imposed on the communities of Castile to finance the war in Granada.346 In this manner he also produced a detailed list of the communities that were on the tax rolls between 1474 and 1491. There were 216 Jewish communities in Castile required to pay the castellanos tax. Among these, according to Suárez Fernández, ten are to be regarded as large: Segovia, Toledo, Trujillo, Guadalajara, Ocaña, Almazán, Soria, Ávila, Zamora, and Murcia. However, without entering into an estimate of their size, for it is doubtful whether communities such as Trujillo or Ocaña were large, one thing is definite: the financial ability of these communities, as expressed in their ability to pay the tax, was greater than that of other communities. Rabbi Jacob Aben Núñez, the then court rabbi, assessed the communities for the purpose of taxation in 1474, on a different basis from his successor as court rabbi, Abraham Senior, who was called upon to finance the war in Granada. The latter’s demands were higher, perhaps beyond the communities’ ability to pay. This appears particularly likely since the examination of a single community over a number of war tax years shows increases and decreases in their tax assessments, for which Abraham Senior was responsible.347 The examination of several communities can assist us in estimating the number of deportees. Thus, for example, in San Martín de Valdeiglesias, there were 128 households (‘casas’), three named groups of houses that did not constitute a village, and another small house.348 In this village 240 Jewish households are known by name. 342 See Ferro Tavares, Os judeus em Portugal no século XV, 253–4. The first figure was presented by the treasurer of Evora, João Mendes Cicioso, the second by the chief tax-collector of the state, who had 343 received the money from the Jews of Castile, João Álvares de Almada. See below, n. 345. 344 See González Gallego, ‘Algunos datos’, 379. He speaks of 6,000 Jews in the city on the basis of the 345 Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 56–7. tax assessment. 346 The lists are presented on pp. 65 ff. and pp. 75–82. See also Cantera Burgos, ‘Los repartimientos’; 347 See also Ch. 8 below. Baer, JchS ii. 336. 348 F. Cantera Burgos, ‘Los judíos expulsos de San Martín de Valdeiglesias’, in Actas del primer Simposio de Estudios Sefardíes (Madrid, 1970), 23–32 (esp. 24–5). There were two communities in this town: the aljama mayor (greater) and the aljama chica (smaller). Towards the time of the expulsion there were men with the title of rabbi there. Most of the community earned its livelihood from agriculture. There were also some workers (‘obreros’), cobblers, builders of mud-brick walls (‘tapizadores’); some Jewish day-labourers. See ibid. 29. Buitrago, which is nearby, to the north of Madrid, outdid San Martín. There were two Jewish

implementation of the edict

289

Thus the number of Jews in this village exceeded 500! In comparison to this village, in 1479 there were 130 heads of households in the town of Talavera de la Reina. One year previously there had been 168 household, which was also their number in 1487. In the northern corner of the kingdom of León we can take the example of the village of Astorga. On 7 July 1490 the Jews of that village were required to make a payment of 386,850 mrs to ransom the Jewish prisoners of Málaga. This sum indicates not only the community’s financial strength but also the number of its members.349 In that province Isidor González Gallego listed twenty-eight Jewish communities.350 It cannot be assumed that the Jewish community of Toledo was a small one at the time of the expulsion. Pilar León Tello compiled a list of forty-eight families there whose houses and property were sold.351 In Ávila were 107 heads of household during the final eighteen years of Jewish residence in Spain, meaning that at the time of the expulsion no fewer than 535 Jews lived there, to whom must be added, as elsewhere, those without means who did not pay taxes.352 Thus it seems that each community was different in its numbers at the time of the expulsion, with respect both to those who departed and also to those who were willing to abandon Judaism. The question of where they lived, whether in cities or villages, after their conversion is a problem in its own right; the files of the Inquisition can tell these stories. Estimating the number of exiles who left the kingdom of Aragon is no less problematic than estimating those who were expelled from Castile. An indication of their numbers can be sought in the registration of private Jewish property by the notaries of various cities according to the orders of King Ferdinand as well as in the size of the payments they were required to make for escorts who were supposed to defend the Jews on their way to the ports of departure on the Mediterranean until they boarded ships.353 Manuel Serrano y Sanz, basing himself on a source from Barcelona, indicates neighbourhoods: one within the town walls and one outside them. Thirty families lived in the neighbourhood outside the walls, and another sixty families lived in the town, with Christian neighbours. There were two synagogues in the town, one in each neighbourhood. One of the Jews, Don Mose de Cuéllar, owned 105 fields of flax (‘linares’) and also fields that produced 500 fanegas of grain (a very large amount of land). He also posssessed fifty-five meadows for grazing (‘prados’), ten gardens (‘huertos’), more than twenty houses, and also herds and dairies. See Cantera Burgos and Carrete Parrondo, ‘La judería de Buitrago’. Many of the Jews in this town converted to Christianity. See Ch. 7 below and cf. eid., ‘La judería de Hita’; cf. F. Cantera Burgos, ‘La judería de Burgos’, Sefarad, 12 (1952), 59–104, esp. 96, 103. L. Huidobro y Serna, ‘La judería de Pancorbo (Burgos)’, Sefarad, 3 (1943), 155–66, lists fourteen small Jewish communities in the province of Burgos. The most important of these were Briviesca, Medina de Pomar, Miranda de Ebro, Pancorvo, in addition to Burgos itself. 349 In 1491 the community was required to pay the sum of 16,760 castellanos as a tax to finance the war in Granada (in 1489 the sum was 12,950 castellanos); in 1490 the town did not appear in the tax rolls. See Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 66; Cantera Burgos, ‘Juderías medievales de la provincia de León’, 95. 350 González Gallego, ‘Algunos datos’. The communities were the city of León, Laguna de Begillos, Villamañán, Valencia de Don Juan, Mansilla de las Mulas, Valderas, Benavides de Órbigo, Astorga, Palacios de la Valduerna, Barrios de Sala, Bembibre, Cacabelos, Villafranca del Bierzo, Valcárcel, Cea, Almanza, Berlanga, Castrocalbón, Grajal, La Mata, Pajares de los Oteros, Ponferrada, Pobladura, Sahagún, Villafáfila, and Villafañé. Not all of these communities were of significant size, and we do not have information about departure in exile from all of these places. See above in this chapter. 351 352 See León Tello, Toledo, i. 362–3. See ead., Ávila, 44–6. 353 See the description of the departure in exile above. The port of Cartagena was also used by those leaving from Castile.

290

implementation of the edict

that about 10,000 Jews left the region of Aragon,354 including 3,300 from Aragon itself. However, this is an estimate. Recently A. Durán Gudiol has written that the number of deportees from Huesca was no less than 450, who, as described above, went to the kingdom of Navarre via Ortilla.355 In contrast, F. Balaguer claims that between 500 and 600 Jews left there on 14 July 1492. This number accords with the determination of the community leaders, who were fully aware that some Jews would wish to convert to Christianity rather than leave in exile.356 Huesca is merely one example. According to the calculations of Hinojosa Montalvo, 7,500 people boarded ships in Sagunto, Tortosa, and Valencia.357 However, Motis Dolader argues that between 10,000 and 15,000 Jews left Aragon,358 and he estimates the number of those leaving the communities of Daroca, Arisa, Belchite, and Albarracín alone at between 611 and 983.359 If we seek to reckon the entire number of deportees based on the directions they went, we shall not go far wrong in stating that the total number of exiles was 200,000. They headed in several directions: west to Portugal, from which some continued to Arzila and Fez in North Africa; south, to the Castilian ports of Sanlúcar de Barrameda, Puerto de Santa María, Cádiz, and Cartagena (on the east coast of the peninsula), and from there to North Africa, including Tlemcen, Oran, and places beyond. From the Levant ports of Spain in the east, Tarragona, Ampulia-Tortosa, Sagunto, and Valencia they sailed east to Pisa and Naples (some also landed in Marseilles), to whom must be added the deportees from Sardinia and Sicily. Others went north or north-west to Navarre, receiving temporary refuge until 1498. With the migration of the exiles from Spain to the eastern shore of the Mediterranean, a new page in the history of the Ottoman Empire and the Land of Israel was opened. It is appropriate to conclude this discussion with a section from the lament of Rabbi Abraham Baqrat:360 And they all left, about two hundred thousand by foot, men and women and children, spread out over the mountains and the seas like a flock with no shepherd. And our enemy took pleasure in our grief, saying, these people have no Lord. And of that general number we arrived in the kingdom of Tlemcen with twelve thousand souls. And at that time there fell from the nation three thousand people, bodies dying from great worry.

This description joins the words of those who witnessed the liquidation of the Jewish settlement in Spain on the seventh day of Av, in the year 5252. Thus ended a period of open Jewish life that had lasted about 1,500 years after the first Jewish settlement on the Iberian peninsula. Serrano y Sanz, Orígenes, i, p. lxii. A. Durán Gudiol, La judería de Huesca (Zaragoza, 1984), 141. 356 F. Balaguer, ‘Notas sobre la población judía de Huesca en el siglo XV’, Sefarad, 45 (1985), 341–51, esp. 345. The Jews of Ayerbe, Alcalá de Gurrea, and Almudévar should be added to those of Huesca. 357 Hinojosa Montalvo, ‘Solidaridad judía’. See also n. 148 above. 358 M. A. Motis Dolader, Los judíos aragoneses (Zaragoza, 1989), 110. 359 Here is the detailed list of Motis Dolader: Épila, 163 (minimum), 271 (maximum); Daroca, 55 (min.), 140 (max.); Arisa, 170 (min.), 250 (max.); Belchite, 9 (min.), 12 (max.); Albarracín, 214 (min.), 310 (max.). See Los judíos aragoneses, 110. 360 See H. H. Ben-Sasson, ‘A Dirge on the Expulsion from Spain’ (Heb.), Tarbiz, 31 (1961/2), 59–71 at 63. 354 355

6

Smuggling oubtless the problem of saving property arose immediately after the publication of the Edict of Expulsion, according to which it was prohibited to remove D from the kingdom gold, silver, coins, and many other things, which were already forbidden and not specifically mentioned in the edict. This stringency exacerbated the plight of the exiles by expanding the existing restrictions on exporting jewels, horses, donkeys, and mules, grain, weapons, and gunpowder. Each prohibition had its own justification.1 For example, the grounds for forbidding the export of vehicles are clear: for if every household leaving by land took one vehicle, this would deal a severe blow to the national economy. Similarly, the prohibition against the export of weapons and gunpowder is understandable, for this threatened to increase the power of the Portuguese enemy. The same consideration applies to grain, a shortage of which might lead to famine in the kingdom. Relatively speaking, these prohibitions had little relevance for those who left by sea. The prohibition against the removal of gold, silver, jewels, and coined money was clearly meant to harm the deportees themselves, since it denied them any means of subsistence.2 The question arises in all its gravity: what then could the deportees take with them to secure a livelihood in the places where they planned to settle after leaving Spanish soil? They almost certainly took commodities with them in addition to objects and merchandise which they could sell and trade to make a living, such as textiles, silk, manuscripts, and household articles. They were also able to buy notes of exchange with their money, as we shall see below.3 Here we are concerned with those exiles who were found guilty of smuggling, mainly silver, gold, coins, and jewels—articles whose export from Spain was forbidden but which it was possible to smuggle out. Let us not forget that they needed resources on the way as well, to pay both the transit taxes and the entrance fee into Portugal.4 Anyone who liquidated his property for money found it 1 The prohibition against the export of horses, mules, and donkeys or other vehicles at the time of the expulsion was motivated by the severe shortage of horses and other means of transportation as a result of the war in Granada. Permission to remove them from the state would have dealt a severe blow to the economy. Moreover, as early as 1488 Ferdinand and Isabella forbade the export of artillery pieces, gunpowder, arrows, spears, muskets, shields, helmets, and all other military equipment. Clearly, of all these articles, gunpowder was the only one that the deportees were able to bring with them for sale in Portugal. The shortage of horses in the kingdom made it necessary for the nobility to ride on mules. See J. R. Hale, War and Society in Renaissance Europe 1450–1620 (Baltimore, 1985), 54, 226. 2 It should be noted that there was no central control over the amount of money in circulation in Spain. The kings of Spain used to grant permission to mint coins, and frequently this led to devaluation of the 3 See also Ch. 5 above. currency. 4 See ibid. regarding exit duties paid by the deportees in Ciudad Rodrigo.

292

smuggling

necessary, as noted, to take cash with him on the way, thereby running the risk of being robbed. Moreover, he had to make contact with a reliable smuggler to help him spirit his money across the borders of the kingdom. He could obtain assistance from a Jewish resident of the border city designated as a crossing-point for the deportees, someone who knew a smuggler and could help with the negotiations. This was not easy for Jews who came from cities and towns distant from the border and who did not know local residents. It must be emphasized that government officials and border guards were watching at the crossing-points, though it was possible to bribe the border guards themselves, as we shall see.5 Those who left the ports of the kingdom by ship for Portugal or North Africa were also able to smuggle out contraband. Here the action was limited to Jews from Ferrol, Villafranca del Bierzo, Ponte d’Eume, and Lisbon itself when the time came.6 The concrete details of departure determined the means of smuggling. It is important to determine when Ferdinand and Isabella took note of the smuggling and who called their attention to it. The Crown intended not only to punish the delinquents who removed their money and property from the state, when it laid its hand upon them. It also sought to punish those who advised and helped them smuggle valuables out of the country. The Crown had several means of obtaining the information necessary from informers and also from the appeals of those Jews who returned to Spain, converted to Christianity, and sought to recover the property they had sold their neighbours at half its value. These conversos wished to repurchase their property, sometimes even paying for improvements made to it. In their appeals to the government to compel the purchasers to return the property, the question certainly arose as to where they had obtained the money to pay for it. The places designated as border crossing-points for the exiles were a primary source of information, on receipt of which it was determined what steps should be taken against potential and actual smugglers, and what reward was to be given to informers about smuggling and smugglers. The punishment for smuggling was the confiscation of the property that the deportees had left behind when they came to redeem it; sometimes they were also arrested and imprisoned, as were those who helped the deportees by transporting contraband across the border. The first information about smuggling apparently came from the area of Badajoz. The Crown’s response on 13 May 1492, not two full weeks after the promulgation of the edict in Castile, shows not only that the Jews quickly arranged the transfer of money to Portugal, thus ensuring themselves a means of livelihood in their new place of settlement, but also that the Crown had to increase supervision of the border crossings to prevent smuggling. For that purpose the Catholic Monarchs needed reliable men to carry out their directives. These were appointed as investigators and prosecutors regarding Jewish property and the debts owed to them by Christian creditors, and part of their job was to investigate cases of smuggling. The Crown had to create See e.g. below for the accusations against Juan de Porras of Mérida. See Rodríguez Fernández, Provincia de León, 327–8. A document published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 513–14 (RGS 10 No. 1248, fo. 180, dated 13 May 1493), refers to smuggling by ship from La Coruña to North Africa. 5 6

smuggling

293

a whole network of investigators, who would act with the assistance of informers and collect the evidence necessary for the extensive seizure of property in the areas under their jurisdiction. This network of investigators was not established all at once, but rather grew and was constituted as need arose. As noted, investigation of activity at the crossing-point between Spain and Portugal became urgent. The first of the trusted officials sent for that purpose to the Portuguese border were Fernán Gómez and Fernán Suárez.7 Their initial inquiry was held in the home of the magistrate Gonzalo Fernández Gallego, on the basis of which they submitted a memorandum to the Crown.8 The crossing-points at Sahelices de los Gallegos and Puebla de Sanabria were centres of smuggling, with the complicity of the alcaldes and other residents; there were gaps in the investigation undertaken by Alonso de Arévalo in Ciudad Rodrigo that needed to be filled.9 They reported that the licenciado Francisco de Vargas,10 the corregidor of Ciudad Rodrigo, had levied over 90,000 mrs 17 The title of Fernán Suárez was ‘ofiçial de los libros de las pesquisas cuando se desterro a los judios’. On 30 Jan. 1496 he was ordered by the council to prepare a detailed report about the registry of transports into Portugal at the time of the expulsion. This report was to serve the prosecutor, Cristóbal de Ávila, in bringing the accused to trial before Juan Pérez de Meneses and Día Sánchez de Quesada, the corregidor of Salamanca. See RGS 13 No. 146, fo. 44. See too Table 6.1. 18 The memorandum begins: ‘Fernand Gomez e Fernand Suarez besamos las reales manos de vuestra alteza, la qual bien sabe como por su mandado avemos estado en casa del alcalde Gallego entendiendo en todas las pesquisas que se han fecho sobre la salida de los judios de sus reinos de que se han fecho libros de relaçion de culpados que fueron en sacar moneda e cosas vedadas’: AGS, Diversos de Castilla, Leg. 8, fo. 113. See Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 500–2, who attributes it to 1492 or 1493; also Rodríguez Fernández, Provincia de León, 422–4. If we compare this investigation with that conducted in Ciudad Rodrigo (see Ch. 5 above), we find that the petition of Fernán Gómez and Fernán Suárez was lodged after the appointment of Luis González de Sepúlveda and the alguacil Alonso de Arévalo to conduct the investigation there. The document implies that Fernán Gómez served as an informer; he therefore asked the Crown to fulfil the arrangements upset by Jerónimo Vaca and Count Alfonso. He had also obtained information from Portugal. He sought expenses, since he had been walking in misery (‘ando en sufrimiento’) for a year. Also see Carrete Parrondo, Provincia de Salamanca, 143. 19 ‘. . . ay mucha informaçion que por los dichos puertos se paso mucha cantidad de moneda a los judios que por alli pasaron por los alcaldes o otras personas de las dichas villas . . . muchas cosas non viieren bien declaradas en la pesquisa que fiso Alonso de Arevalo’; see Rodríguez Fernández, Provincia de León, ii. 37 and Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 500–1; also Carrete Parrondo, Provincia de Salamanca, 143. 10 On Vargas see Lunenfeld, Keepers, 203. On 6 Mar. 1493 he was ordered to deal with the petition of Alfonso Bocalán, a resident of Salamanca, regarding collection of a debt owed him by Rabbi Yuçe ibn Shoshan of Salamanca. The remainder of the debt, coming to 100 reales, would be paid by Antonio de Paz, a converso, with whom Rabbi Yuçe had left a promissory note: RGS 10 No. 563, fo. 116. Jaco de Medina of Ciudad Rodrigo sold Francisco de Vargas his house when he went into exile. When he came back, after conversion to Christianity, Vargas refused to return the house to him at the price he had paid for it. The Crown ordered the return of the house on 10 July 1493: RGS 10 No. 1876, fo. 118. On 30 Apr. 1494 a court decided in favour of Vargas in a prosecution brought against him by the prosecutor-general for 10,000 doblas in bribes received from Jews who had passed through Ciudad Rodrigo, after Vargas produced witnesses of his own and objections (‘tachas’) against the prosecution witnesses: RGS 11 No. 1553, fo. 364. For more details see below. He was probably close to the Crown and loyal to it. On 24 July 1494 he issued a judgment that [first name missing] de Mor was to pay 56,000 mrs out of a debt of 75,000 mrs owed to Lonbroso: RGS 11 No. 2488, fo. 82. Lonbroso had apparently returned after converting to Christianity. On 18 Sept. 1494 Vargas obtained a writ from the Crown exempting him from the alcabala tax for return of the house to Fernán Pérez, who apparently had returned and converted to Christianity: RGS 11 No. 2852, fo. 158. He had certainly purchased property from the exiles. See Ch. 5 above on the transit point in Ciudad Rodrigo.

294

smuggling

to which he had no right and extorted over 100,000 mrs in bribes for contraband smuggled into Portugal.11 Don Enrique, comendador of Castrotorafe, Count Alfonso and his servants, Don Juan Enríquez, lord of Fuente Aguinalde, and other prominent persons in Ciudad Rodrigo and Zamora were involved in smuggling, as were the alcalde de sacas Diego de Vera, Diego de Guzmán, and many others in Extremadura.12 They had all transferred business formerly owned by Jews to themselves, and in return had helped the departing Jews to smuggle out gold, silver, and coined money. The alcaide of Urueña, already mulcted of 850,000 mrs by Count Alfonso’s servants, had taken 1 m. mrs from Jews who had converted to Christianity, returned to Spain, and expressed their desire to serve the monarch.13 Let us now examine individual cases of smuggling.

Trujillo and the Southern Region From where they held court in Santa Fe, near Granada, on 13 May 1492, the date mentioned above, the Catholic Monarchs ordered Sancho de Paredes to conduct investigations in Cáceres, Trujillo, and nearby Arroyo del Puerco (today Arroyo de la Luz) and towns near Portugal. His task was to discover who had smuggled out forbidden articles to Portugal, and who were the accessories to this crime. He was also instructed to prosecute the offenders.14 We do not know whether the Catholic Monarchs had already decided to establish an entire network of investigators to deal with the matter of smuggling. His methods of operation and investigation apparently did not satisfy Diego de Vera, the alcalde de sacas in the diocese of Badajoz, who asked the Crown to limit his authority to overseeing the expulsion and preventing smuggling from Cáceres and its surroundings until the date of the Jews’ departure in exile.15 Paredes’ authority was duly limited; Vera’s was extended in a document dated 4 June 1492, permitting him to confiscate money taken from Jews by the corregidor of Valencia de Alcántara, Francisco de Jerez, when they passed through his city on their way into exile.16 In his letter of commission, in addition to the prohibition against the removal of silver, gold, and coined money, other items were mentioned which were not allowed 11 ‘El liçençiado Vargas tiene reçebidos de quartos que no le perteneçen mas de XC mil maravedis y pruevase que llevo de cohechos mas de C mil y pruevase que dos caminos a Portugal y ay yndiçios que paso mucho dinero’: Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 501. 12 ‘Otros muchos regidores e cavalleros de Çibdad Rodrigo e Çamora pasaron mucha moneda e oro e plata, lo qual esta provado. Diego de Vera, alcalde de sacas, e Diego de Gusman e otros muchos de Extremadura pasaron e consintieron pasar mucha moneda y oro e plata de judios’: Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 502. Diego de Vero’s title was ‘alcalde de las sacas del obispado de Badajoz y su comarca’. 13 ‘El alcaide de Urueña sin los DCCCL mil maravedis que pasava, lo qual le tomaron los criados del conde don Alfonso, ay ansi provança que paso otra ves I quento de maravedis, lo qual si vuestra alteza mandare se podra bien averiguar porque Ferrand Gomez dice que las personas cuyo era son convertidos e se ofreçen ser por servir a vuestra alteza de ir a traer entera provança dellos’: Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 501–2. See also Rodríguez Fernández, Provincia de León, ii. 37; Carrete Parrondo, Proceso inquisitorial, 143. 14 See RGS 9 No. 1582; Beinart, Trujillo, 230–7; also Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 402–3. 15 This was mentioned in a document dated 25 May 1492, RGS 9 No. 1895, fo. 214, and see Rodríguez Fernández, Provincia de León, ii. 36 ff. 16 See RGS 9 No. 2118, fo. 84, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 424–5, addressed to ‘Diego de Vera, comendador de Calçadilla, alcalde mayor de las sacas e cosas vedadas del obispado de Badajoz e maestrazgo de Alcantara’. See also below on Plasencia.

smuggling

295

to be removed from the kingdom. These were silver, vellón, coined money, flocks and herds, grain, barley, beasts of burden, gunpowder, weapons, and other things which it had long been forbidden to export according to law.17 Investigation of smuggling from Trujillo and its surroundings did not end here. On 30 October 1492 the monarchs appointed the comendador Francisco de León, a regidor of Valladolid, to investigate smuggling by Jews leaving for exile from Trujillo, Coria, and Badajoz. He was given sixty days to complete the investigation. The investigations that preceded this appointment had apparently not satisfied the Catholic Monarchs, and, as we shall see below, further investigation became necessary because acts of smuggling increased in frequency, and the agents who set out to investigate them had not managed to uproot the phenomenon. The appointment of additional investigators who were closely associated with the Crown and faithful to it also indicates the gravity of the problem in all its aspects.18 The comendador of Herrera and his brothers Álvaro de Hinojosa and Luis de Chávez were apparently partners in the smuggling from Trujillo. They assisted Abraham Cohen, a resident of Trujillo who went into exile. Pedro Maldonado, the magistrate for Jewish property in the bishoprics of Coria and Plasencia, was charged with examining witnesses and convening the parties in the investigation of smuggling from Trujillo. The results of his investigation are unknown.19 The Crown soon realized that Badajoz, albeit a transit point for the deportees, was not the only centre for smuggling into Portugal; on 6 September 1492 it decided to conduct an investigation into all the crossing-points. Rodrigo del Mercado was apparently one of the first to be appointed for that purpose. His authority was quite broad,20 for he quickly expanded the area of his investigation to include the archdiocese of Toledo, showing that the Crown realized that it was also necessary to investigate the Jews’ places of residence. On 10 December 1492 his appointment was extended for an additional sixty days, indicating that the two months the Crown had believed would be sufficient to complete the investigation everywhere had proved insufficient.21 He also 17 ‘Non saquen oro ni plata ni vellon ni moneda amonedada ni ganados ni trigo ni çeveda ni bestias nin polvora ni armas ni otras cosas contenidas en las dichas nuestras cartas.’ The order was drafted on orders from the Crown, by Fernán Álvarez de Toledo, the secretary of the Crown and of converso origin. 18 For the letter of appointment see RGS 9 No. 3214, fo. 32, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 478–9. See also Beinart, Trujillo, 243–4. This order was also drafted by Fernán Álvarez de Toledo on orders from the Crown. 19 Pedro Maldonado was involved in the confiscation of the property of the deportees. Among others, he impounded the home of Samuel Barzilai, a resident of Trujillo, and transferred ownership to Rodrigo Atalaya. See RGS 12 No. 3301, fo. 139, from Aug. 1495 (the day is missing). Abraham Cohen is mentioned in the testimony of Ali de Orellana, a Moor, who testified against Gonzalo Pérez Jarada. The latter negotiated with him regarding the preparation of an amulet for his children. Abraham Cohen testified on 15 Jan. 1490, emphasizing the Christian loyalty of Gonzalo Pérez, who used to visit the home of his father, David Cohen. See AHN, Inq. Toledo, Leg. 175 No. 1 (662), fo. 20r. See also Beinart, Trujillo, 334. Hinojosa, to whom Samuel Barzilai remained in debt (RGS 112 No. 3377, fo. 154, dated 7 Sept. 1495), was the brother of Gómez Fernando de Solís, the comendador of Herrera. Meir Barchellon sued Álvaro de Hinojosa for money. See RGS 7 No. 2703, fo. 287, dated 27 Aug. 1490, and see Beinart, Trujillo, 193–4. 20 He was the corregidor of Medina del Campo. See RGS 9 No. 2898, fo. 228. 21 The expenses of his investigation and maintenance were paid by the smugglers, that is, the Christians who helped the Jewish exiles to smuggle out their money. For the order, see Suárez Fernández, Documentos,

296

smuggling

acted as an investigator in Agreda,22 and as we shall see must be regarded as one of the most active agents in the investigation of smuggling.

Seville, Cádiz The general extent of the investigations is revealed by orders sent on 15 September 1492 to a number of trusted servants of the monarchy charged with this task.23 One was addressed to the bachiller Pero Díaz de la Torre, who was appointed to investigate in the archbishopric of Seville, the bishopric of Cádiz, and the towns of Lepe, Ayamonte, and Redondea de la Mar. Most likely his mission was to investigate acts of smuggling by sea.24 His authority was broad, and he was required to investigate not only what forbidden items had been smuggled out—gold, silver, jewels, coined money, and the rest—but also who had done the smuggling and what property they had left behind; who had helped them; and what they had left in the hands of those persons who had rendered them assistance or advice. Everyone with information was ordered to appear before him within a period unspecified in the document. Those who appeared before the deadline would receive a fifth of the value of the information. Regarding those who possessed information and failed to appear, he was to act against them and 496. See also RGS 9 No. 3518, fo. 92. The Crown renewed his letter of appointment on 4 Feb. 1493. Again he was given sixty days to conclude the investigation in the archdiocese of Toledo. This order was also drafted by Fernán Álvarez de Toledo with the approbation of the Crown. Cantera Burgos, ‘Juderías medievales de la provincia de Soria’, 452. The order sent to Toledo, that Rodrigo del Mercado should conduct an investigation, was published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 465–7, who at the end of the document presents a list of districts in the kingdom to which copies of the order was sent: Cartagena, as far as Vera; the kingdom of Granada as far as Gibraltar; the archbishopric of Seville and the bishopric of Cádiz, including Lepe, Ayamonte, and Redondela de la Mar; the boundary of the archbishopric of Seville and the bishopric of Badajoz as far as Badajoz city by land; the Sierra de Gata by way of Ciudad Rodrigo, Sahelis, and Ledesma as far as Zamora; from the near border of Zamora to the far border of the bishoprics of Zamora and León; the area beyond the bishopric of Galicia along the Portuguese border as far as Tui; the cities of Logroño, Calahorra, Alfaro, and Agreda; Burgos, Soria, Medina del Campo, and Segovia; the bishopric of Ávila (including Requena). 24 RGS 9 No. 2993, fo. 159, drafted by Fernán Álvarez de Toledo with the approbation of the king and queen. He drafted all the orders relating to this investigation. De la Torre and the escríbano who accompanied him on his business received a certain sum (not stated in the document) for expenses, which was to be supplied by the guilty parties. No date was fixed for the conclusion of the investigation. He was to bring those arrested to the place where the council was sitting, at their own expense. De la Torre was a prosecutor (‘procurador fiscal e promotor de la justiçia’) and a member of the Royal Council. The following details are known about him. On 27 July 1484 he was appointed to investigate the debasement of currency by certain Jews of Trujillo (RGS 3 No. 3093, fo. 35; Beinart, Trujillo, index). On 13 Feb. 1488 he lodged a claim in the council against Luis de Alcalá and Rabbi Meir Melamed. The council forbade them to conspire to prevent anyone beside themselves from bidding to become a tax-farmer for the monarchy; RGS 5 No. 2417, fo. 161. On 30 July 1490, together with Rodrigo Maldonado de Talavera and Juan Díaz de Alcocer, he was ordered to serve as a judge in the suit of Rabbi Meir Melamed against the tax-collectors of the Hermandad (RGS 7 No. 2417, fo. 70). On 15 May 1492, together with Alcocer, he gave judgment that Juan de Illescas should pay the albaquía to Meir Melamed (RGS 9 No. 1687, fo. 601; cf. Ch. 8 at n. 368). On 15 Sept. 1492 he was appointed to investigate smuggling from the archdiocese of Seville (see above); on 3 Dec. 1494 he was appointed to adjudicate the claim of Rodrigo de la Puerta, a resident of Madrid, against Gómez Gillen of Toledo (the treasurer of the Hermandad) and Fernán Núñez Coronel, who demanded 13,000 mrs from Puerta for 1487 (RGS 11 No. 4715, fo. 337). On 14 Apr. 1495 he and the licenciado Gallego were ordered to respond to the petition of Alonso de Castro de Espanoche regarding confiscated property and the accusation that he had smuggled money to Portugal (RGS 12 No. 1866, fo. 342). 22 23

smuggling

297

their property, and to impose upon them the same punishments he imposed on the smugglers and their accomplices. To put an end to smuggling, the Crown declared it punishable by confiscation of the guilty parties’ property, whether or not they had actually carried out their intention. Naturally the injured parties appealed to the authorities, so an appeals court was attached to the Royal Council. It consisted of the licenciado Gonzalo Sánchez de Castro, who is referred to in most of the documents as ‘the licenciado Castro’; Gonzalo Fernández Gallego, referred to as the licenciado Gallego; and the licenciado Luis de Polanco, referred to as the licenciado Polanco.25 Gallego seems to have been one of the most active officials dealing with smuggling, for as early as 1493 he submitted a memorandum to the Crown about deportees who were smuggling out silver, gold, coined money, and other contraband. In a document dated 30 December 1493 we read of actions taken by the Crown in response to this memorandum.26 It authorized Juan de Soria, the secretary of the Crown Prince Juan, to deal with the problem and impound debts that the Jews leaving in exile had left in the hands of Christian creditors for collection.27 He was also authorized to confiscate property and deposit it with reliable persons. He was to report to the Crown regarding the confiscations. Perhaps he was an investigating magistrate whose authority was not restricted geographically. Thus his appointment does not indicate that those appointed as investigators, magistrates, and administrators were not dependable. On the contrary, they were extremely severe, though they did not deny themselves benefits from the positions to which they had been appointed. Together with the corregidores and asistentes, they were made responsible for the areas under their jurisdiction by the executive order. Their judicial counterpart was the appeals court mentioned above, which had chief authority to deal with pleas concerning the misdeeds of those who investigated the extent of smuggling and carried out confiscations. The corregidores and asistentes made use of all the executive bodies in their cities. This entire apparatus was mobilized to prevent smuggling and punish smugglers. On 26 February 1493 the first instructions regarding the treatment of smugglers were issued; they were reiterated on 6 March of that year.28

Astorga, León, Oviedo A warning regarding smuggling and a report on it were submitted to the Crown by the magistrate Enciso, who tried cases of smuggling in the districts of Astorga, León, and Oviedo. Most likely he was also referring to smuggling into Navarre, the other 25 In one document Pedro de Mercadal is listed as the judge: RGS 12 No. 1671, fo. 161, dated 7 Apr. 1495. On them see de la Soterraña and Postigo, Cancillería, 169. 26 See RGS 10 No. 3267, fo. 25, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 529–30: ‘sobre el paso e salida de los judios de los dichos nuestros reynos e de los bienes e debdas que dexaron en ellos que pertenesçen a nos por aver sacado dellos dinero e plata e joyas e moneda amonedada e otras cosas de las vedadas e defendidas por nos e por las leyes de los dichos nuestros reynos’. 27 As early as 1495 he was active in investigating smuggling and impounding smugglers’ property. See RGS 12 No. 4059, fo. 105, dated 23 Nov. 1495, and cf. below. 28 ‘Las cartas que sobre las debdas de los judios por vos abemos mandado dar, fechas a veynte e seys dias del mes de hebrero e la çedula que sobre la forma de haser justiçia sobre las dichas debdas vos escriuimos, dadas a seys dias de março deste presente año e en logares en ello contenidos atento el thenor e forma dellas, llamadas e oydas las partes’. This formula appears in a line of the document.

298

smuggling

neighbouring country. We do not know the date of his report, but judging by its contents, it was submitted between 6 September 1492 and 31 August 1493. His task was to determine which property in the area of his jurisdiction belonged to the Crown after the Jews’ departure; he might have been referring mainly to Jewish communal property. He reported to the Crown on the acts of the Countess of Luna in Laguna de Negrillos.29 He also reported on assistance given to Jews by caballeros, undoubtedly for payment, in smuggling. He lacked the authority to have these accomplices arrested and punished. He asked the Crown to appoint an alguacil to assist in seizing them and mentioned a resident of Argüello, a relative of someone engaged in this.30

Soria An inexhaustible source of information on smuggling, as mentioned above, were the Jews who left for exile, converted to Christianity, and then returned to their places of residence. These people asked for the restoration of their property, which they had sold at less than half its value, and were required to pay for improvements. These returning conversos based their claim on an order of the Crown from 10 November 1492, which permitted the return of the exiles on condition that they converted at one of the border crossing-points and produced a certificate of conversion.31 When they returned with money, they were suspect regarding its source. In this manner the task of restoring property was sometimes given to the investigative magistrates in the district or to the corregidores and asistentes; for instance, on 22 March 1493 the Catholic Monarchs appointed Pedro García de Cotes,32 the corregidor of Burgos, to seize the property of Abraham Bienveniste de Calahorra, a resident of Soria, and with it the promissory notes that he had sold as a creditor to Christians when he went into exile.33 He was ordered to draw up an inventory of the property and debts in the presence of a notary public and to deposit it for safekeeping in the monastery of San Juan until the Crown should determine how to treat the property. This Abraham Bienveniste might have been one of those who had returned to his city after conversion to Christianity.34 On Jewish communal property see Ch. 3 above. ‘Yten los culpados que hallo en dar favor o aver pasado cosas vedadas destos reygnos son cavalleros que yo no podria prender andando tan solo y porque siempre estan a reguarda de mi, y si uno prendiese no podria aver lugar para mas, y aun cumplirme ya guardar mi persona segund la tierra donde soy, asi porque los mas son de señorios como los otros son de las montañas, en espeçial uno que es muy culpado que vive en Arguello y pariente mayor, y paresçeme que yo podria condepnallos como juez o que de aca fuese alguazil para los prender, pues ha de ser a su costa, o como vuestra alteza mandare.’ See Suárez Fernández, Docu31 mentos, 498–500. See Ch. 7 below. 32 On Pedro García de Cotes as corregidor see Lunenfeld, Keepers, 200, and index. For his actions in the service of the Crown in connection with the expulsion see Appendix. 33 His house, which was in the municipal citadel, is mentioned in a document dated 16 June 1487 which was given by Pedro Fernández de Velasco to the magistrates of the city. His house adjoined that of Rabbi Jacob Gaon, a resident of Valencia de Don Juan: RGS 5 No. 590, fo. 40. It appears that the two can be identified. He deposited a great deal of property with Alonso de Sahagún as well as notes for the collection of debts. The Crown ordered the confiscation of that property and instructed García de Cotes to execute this directive. RGS 10 No. 751, fo. 275 of 22 Mar. 1493. Perhaps he sold to Andrés Cabeça, a resident of Hinojosa de la Sierra, four mules and one criança and collected interest payments from him. Cabeça pleaded against the confiscation of his purchase by the supervisor of the property of Jews there who had smuggled money out of the state. The supervisor was Fernán Gómez de la Cueva: RGS 11 No. 2768, fo. 295, dated 7 Sept. 1494. 34 See RGS 10 No. 751, fo. 276, dated 22 Mar. 1493. The order was drafted with the approbation of the Royal Council by Fernán Álvarez de Toledo, the secretary of the monarchs. 29 30

smuggling

299

We do not know what caused the Crown to instruct Fernán Gómez de la Cueva on 2 May 1494 to serve as an investigator. His title was ‘magistrate for the property of Jews who smuggled coin from the kingdom’.35 Perhaps Cotes had too many investigations to conduct, although de la Cueva was involved in the investigation against Abraham Bienveniste de Calahorra, the resident of Soria. Investigations conducted earlier revealed that silver, gold, coins, and other contraband had been smuggled out of the city of Soria, the towns and villages in the diocese of Osma, Agreda, Cornago, and their districts, and the domains of the Count of Aguilar and the Count de Monteagudo. The Jews who had departed from those places had left behind promissory notes from Christians, which they had sold to Christian creditors. García de Herrera, a contino of the royal house, was sent to conduct an investigation and inquiry into the property left by Jews. These were the notes that had been sold to Christian creditors. Another examiner of events there was also a magistrate, the licenciado Gonzalo Fernández Gallego. On the basis of their investigations, the Crown ordered the confiscation of property. De la Cueva enjoyed extensive authority that also included the areas of the realengos y abadengos, the señoríos, the lands controlled by the military orders, the behetrías (with the exception of the town of Aranda and its surroundings), the area of the merindad of Santo Domingo de Silos, and the lands of the Count of Aranda, the Count of Coruña, and the Count of Santisteban. This implies that someone else was sent there to conduct the investigations. De la Cueva was instructed to seize the promissory notes and to confiscate private and communal property in the name of the Crown. The confiscation of private property was intended as a measure against returned conversos, whereas the property of Jews who had not returned was to be confiscated from those now in possession of it. The property was to be sold at auction to the highest bidder.36 We learn of another episode concerning the smuggling of gold, silver, and other contraband from the appeal of King Manuel of Portugal to the Spanish Crown. Simuel Naçi, Don Meir Bienveniste, Samuel Bienveniste, Don Meir Bienveniste de Calahorra, and Doña García his wife, who was Bienveniste’s mother, were accused of smuggling. On 23 October 1495 the task of investigation was imposed upon the licenciado Illescas, a member of the Royal Council. He was given thirty days to investigate the appeal, and assisted by a procurador for the accused and by the king of Portugal’s secretary, Estêvão Vaz. The appointment of a procurador for the Jewish defendants suggests that they had been prosecuted and acquitted in the court of the Portuguese Crown for their involvement in some business. This might also be an indication of 35 See RGS 11 No. 1661, fo. 449. On 7 Sept. 1494 he was ordered to deal with the petition of Andrés Cabeza, a resident of Hinojosa de la Sierra, regarding the confiscation of four mules and one cría which he had bought from Bienveniste de Calahorra, a resident of Soria. See n. 33 above. Starting from 30 Apr. 1495 Cueva was responsible for the investigation of smuggling from Soria and the diocese of Osma. In this order the Crown instructed him to collect the debts of Bienveniste de Calahorra for the benefit of the Royal Treasury as a punishment for smuggling. See RGS 12 No. 1967, fo. 392. On 28 July he refused to respond to the demand of Antón Fernández de Morales, a resident of Soria, for payment of 20,000 mrs owed him by Bienveniste. The Crown ordered the corregidor, Diego de Salmerón, to investigate the complaint: RGS 12 No. 2940, fo. 235. 36 He was to hold the public auction in the presence of a notary who would record all the details of the sale at every stage. The order was drafted by Fernán Álvarez de Toledo, the secretary of the monarchs, with the approbation of licenciado Gallego. See RGS 11 No. 1661, fo. 449.

300

smuggling

the importance of the appeal, for an order was drafted by Fernán Álvarez de Toledo, the secretary of the Spanish monarchs, upon direct orders from them.37

Almazán Important testimony about smuggling from Soria and nearby Almazán is found in a complaint lodged by Juan Fernández Alegre.38 He complained to the appeals court about his former son-in-law, Alonso Rodríguez, with whom he had gone into exile and then returned as a convert to Christianity and settled in Soria. With him were Antonio Furtado and Rodrigo Ome, residents of Almazán. They, too, were apparently among the exiles who had returned and converted. The son-in-law, Alonso Rodríguez, had stolen the permits to enter Portugal from his father-in-law as well as the receipts for the entry fees. According to an edict of the king of Portugal, anyone who could not produce these documents was liable to confiscation of his property, one-third of which would go to the informer. Alegre’s property, which was valued at 4,000 ducats, was confiscated. When the queen of Portugal learnt of this, she ordered that Alegre should recover his property, and the informers’ reward was reduced to 50 golden cruzados for their expenses. The Spanish Crown, to whom the complaint was addressed, assigned the mission to the licenciado Gonzalo Sánchez de Castro, the judge of the royal court, who headed the appeals court regarding Jewish property. The judge ordered the arrest of all three men and had them brought to the royal court to hear their replies. This task was given to Antón de Morales, the alguacil of the Crown, who was ordered to bring them before the audiencia. The alcaide of the royal prison was to keep them in confinement, and their property was to be confiscated.39

Ciudad Rodrigo In their investigation in Ciudad Rodrigo, before the arrival of Alonso de Arévalo, Fernán Gómez and Fernán Suárez, had reported that the corregidor Francisco de Vargas had taken bribes from the Jews totalling 190,000 mrs.40 Vargas was transferred from his position in Ciudad Rodrigo to serve as corregidor in Salamanca, allowing us to draw an inference about his conduct. A suit against him was lodged by the royal prosecutor before messir Ponce and the licenciado Gonzalo Fernández Gallego, who were responsible for the departure of the Jews into exile and the removal of their property from the kingdom. It was alleged that the value of the goods smuggled reached 50,000 doblas, and that he had taken another 10,000 doblas for himself. The injury to the Crown was See RGS 12 No. 3826, fo. 206. His name in the document appears as ‘Juan Fernandes de Toledo Alegre’, which is undoubtedly a scribal error. See RGS 12 No. 1050, fo. 534, dated 4 Mar. 1495. 39 If they were not to be found at home, the alguacil was required to leave a summons in their homes for their wives, children, or neighbours, ordering them to appear in court within thirty days. The summons stipulated three intervals of ten days, the third being final. Failure to appear would be regarded as rebellion against the Crown, and they would be tried in absentia. The alguacil was given fifteen days to execute the order and expenses of 200 mrs a day from the property of those summoned to trial. The corregidores, the councils, and the alcaldes were ordered to help the alguacil. The penalty was loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. The order was drafted by Antonio de Almendares with the approbation of the magis40 See above, n. 11. trate de Castro. See RGS 12 No. 1050, fo. 534. 37 38

smuggling

301

therefore grave. However, the magistrates who examined the complaint and the evidence reached the conclusion that the prosecutor had not proved his case and cleared Vargas of all blame regarding the passage of the Jews. His guarantors were released from all obligations, both those who had worked with him in his position as corregidor in Ciudad Rodrigo and also those who were produced after the suit was lodged against him.41 Diego del Águila, who was in charge of collecting various taxes—the diezmo or tithe, the portazgo, and the portazguillo, which was collected for entry into the city— was accused of assisting the Jews who passed through Ciudad Rodrigo, in addition to collecting the transit duties from them.42 He had received the appointment as a favour and privilege from Enrique IV in 1465. This transit tax was imposed on all the merchants and agents (‘mercaderes y recueros’) who passed through the city with their merchandise, within the framework of the alcaldía de sacas. In addition to this privilege, he was also the chief alcaide of the alcázar y fortaleza of the city. Without doubt he was counted as one of the Crown’s loyal servants, and he remained in his post and position in the border region, where battles took place between the army of Ferdinand and Isabella and that of the Portuguese king Afonso V and his allies the Spanish rebels who opposed the Catholic Monarchs and supported the claim of Juana ‘la Beltraneja’ to be the daughter and heir of Enrique IV. News of Diego del Águila’s actions and conduct reached the Crown, which appointed two investigators: the alguacil Alonso de Arévalo and Luis González de Sepúlveda were ordered to set out for Ciudad Rodrigo to investigate.43 These two investigators reached Ciudad Rodrigo on 25 October 1492 and immediately began their work. However, Diego de Águila’s attorney, Juan de Salazar, managed to detach the question of smuggling of which his client was accused from that of the collection of transit taxes, and to resist both of them.44 The extent of smuggling through Ciudad Rodrigo may be inferred from the Crown’s order to Andrés Martínez, an official notary there, to collect evidence and send it to the Royal Council regarding the claim of Pedro de Espinosa, who appeared as procurador on behalf of Martín Gutiérrez, appealing against the fine imposed by Álvaro de Costa of Medina del Campo and Pedro de La Bastide of Segovia (the Crown prosecutor for merchandise and contraband exported via Ciudad Rodrigo to Portugal). Martín Gutiérrez, a resident of Salamanca, was a moneychanger who frequently crossed the border into Portugal at Ciudad Rodrigo, taking money with him with no 41 The magistrates imposed the expenses for the trial upon the two parties. The verdict was transmitted to the Royal Council, to the oidores, the alcaldes, the alguaciles of the court and the chamber, and also to all the corregidores, asistentes, alcaldes, alguaciles, merinos, and other magistrates and officials. See RGS 11 No. 1553, fo. 364, drafted by the protonotary and secretary to the monarchs, Felipe Clemente; published in part in Carrete Parrondo, Provincia de Salamanca, 75–6. See also n. 39 above. 42 He had contracted to collect the portazguillo tax from the local church in 1492. On this subject see Ch. 5 above, also for the details of the investigation against him. 43 The document, comprising 35 folios, is in the archive of the Duke of Frías. See León Tello, Archivo de los Duques de Frías, i. 394, no. 2380. Luis González de Sepúlveda was a contino in the royal household. On 13 July 1493, together with Lope de Villareal, another contino in the royal household, he was ordered to go to Badajoz and the maestrazgo of Alcántara to investigate acts of smuggling to Portugal committed by the Jews. Their appointment was for five months. RGS 10 No. 1910, fo. 230. 44 On the departure into exile and the transit dues see Ch. 5 above.

302

smuggling

intention of smuggling. He requested that the charge against him should be struck out,45 but he was accused of smuggling out gold and silver at the time of the expulsion, and rumours of this were rife in the city.46 The nature of his business suggests that he could have helped in smuggling out gold, silver, and coins into Portugal. He claimed that the judge’s own hands were not clean, and asked to have another judge appointed to adjudicate his case with the participation of a colleague. The two together would rule on his complaint. The Crown accepted Martín Gutiérrez’s argument and ordered the annulment of the fine, instructing Día Sánchez de Quesada, the corregidor of Salamanca, and with him Dr Diego de Burgos, to adjudicate the complaint.47 The petition of Martín Gutiérrez had a further consequence, for by 11 August 1495 the judges had not yet heard his arguments. We find that on that day they were ordered to collect testimony not only in Salamanca but also elsewhere in the kingdom, and to send it to the council together with the testimony of Gutiérrez. They were also authorized to go to Portugal and collect testimony on the acts of smuggling of which Gutiérrez was accused. There, too, the investigation was to be made in the presence of a notary who would record it and also of a local magistrate.48 The seriousness of the investigation is evident, especially in light of the instruction to investigate in Portugal. This appears to be a sign of judicial co-operation between Spain and Portugal. The Royal Council again inquired into the account books and smuggling activities of Martín Gutiérrez the moneychanger in an order issued on 30 January 1496. Cristóbal Dávila de Villanueva, the prosecutor for Jewish property in the diocese of Salamanca and the abbacy of Medina del Campo petitioned the Crown and its council regarding the suit of Fernán Pérez de Meneses against Martín Gutiérrez, which remained unresolved before Día Sánchez de Quesada, the corregidor of Salamanca, and with him Dr de Villasandino, who served as catedrático de estudio in Salamanca. The Crown ordered Martín Gutiérrez to present his account books and the letters of exchange (‘letras de cambío’) that had been issued for the purpose of making payments in Portugal. The matter was laid before Fernán Suárez for his opinion.49 The results of 45 The parties were required to appear before the Royal Council within four days. The notary was instructed to send a fair copy of the testimony, made at the expense of the petitioner. The sanction for noncompliance was loss of favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. The order was prepared with the approbation of the council by Juan Sánchez de Ceinos on 20 Aug. 1492: RGS 9 No. 2721, fo. 217. 46 This fact emerges from an order issued by the Crown on 22 Feb. 1495 to Fernán Pérez de Meneses, a magistrate and prosecutor for Jewish property in the diocese of Salamanca. Fernán Pérez de Meneses seized the property of Martín Gutiérrez without being authorized to do so, and he also impounded his account books (‘libros e escripturas’). The confiscation took place while Martín Gutiérrez was absent from his home, and his wife was ordered to inform her husband that he must appear within three days and stand trial, or else a fine of 10,000 mrs would be imposed upon him. See RGS 12 No. 798, fo. 454. 47 On Día Sánchez de Quesada see below, on smuggling from Segovia. Diego de Burgos was a catedrático de estudio. The order was drafted with the approbation of the Crown Council by Juan de la Parra. The sanction for non-compliance was loss of favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. 48 The addressee is not named in this order, issued on the basis of a demand made by the aforementioned Fernán Pérez de Meneses. See RGS 12 No. 3114, fo. 236. The order was drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of members of the Royal Council. The investigators were given several days for their work, without detailing their apportionment. The expenses would be covered by Meneses. 49 On him see below. He was connected with the heads of the investigation in Ciudad Rodrigo. His title was ‘Ofiçial de los libros de las pesquisas que por nuestro mandado los nuestros pesquisidores hisieron’.

smuggling

303

the inquiry were to be transmitted to the prosecutor and to Martín Gutiérrez to enter a plea.50 This case provides information regarding the methods of inquiry and the practice of registering bills of exchange in the monarchy.

Miranda de Castañar Francisco Núñez of Miranda de Castañar was the son of Salamon Amigo, who on going into exile was supposed to deposit with Andrés Núñez of Ciudad Rodrigo 86 silver marks, which Francisco Núñez, who did not go into exile, was to receive. Salamon Amigo was accused of smuggling, and therefore Francisco Núñez was summoned to transfer the money to the Royal Treasury and property to the receiver of property in the kingdom. On this matter a suit was pending against him on the part of Diego de Ayala and his escort (‘acompañante’) Alonso Gutiérrez. Juan de Olivares, the receiver of property in the diocese of Ciudad Rodrigo, was included in the lawsuit.51 Francisco Núñez claimed that his father had never smuggled anything, and that he should not have to lose his property and be punished for an offence that had not been committed. Even assuming that his father had committed a crime, he should not be punished for his father’s misdeeds. He maintained that when his father had married his mother, Doña Urosol, he had received a dowry (‘arras’) of 60,000 mrs, against which he promised to give his wife 70,000 mrs. This sum had doubled and trebled during their marriage, and his parents’ property came to be worth approximately 1 m. maravedís. Of this sum at least 500,000 mrs belonged to his mother. This was in addition to the dowry she had brought to his father and the wedding presents she had received at the time of the marriage.52 His mother had passed away four years before the expulsion, and he was recognized as the heir to his mother’s estate and its owner. Moreover, his father’s property had been mortgaged to cover the dowry and the legacy from his mother, and therefore he was entitled to receive it. Witnesses were produced, and their testimony was published in accordance with the customary judicial procedures. It was decided that Francisco Núñez had fully proved his claim by his witnesses, also regarding the marriage contract between his parents. In addition, he proved that he had converted before the expulsion, and that his mother had 50 See RGS 13 No. 146, fo. 14. The order was drafted by Juan Ramírez with the approbation of the Royal Council. 51 See RGS 13 No. 1368, fo. 115, of 1 Aug. 1496, drafted with the approbation of the council by Antonio de Almendares. Juan de Olivares was a partner in a suit against Fernando Sobrino (see below), a resident of the city, for assisting in smuggling while the Jews of the city were expelled. See RGS 13 No. 1482, fo. 105, dated 22 Oct. 1496. Olivares, ‘reçeptor de bienes y deudas que los judios expulsados dejaron en el obispado de Çiudad Rodrigo’, worked together with Ayala, ‘juez pesquisidor de los bienes que dexaron los judios en el obispado de Çiudad Rodrigo’. In May (the day is missing) 1495 Ayala ruled regarding a debt owed by Juan Flores to Yuçe del Aran for 21,400 mrs. Flores appealed to the judges of the royal court, who ordered a stay of proceedings and the transfer of the case to their jurisdiction. Alonso Gutiérrez was a partner in these actions. He was appointed as the associate (‘acompañado’) in the claim that Juan de Olivares was the agent (‘criado’) of Diego de Ayala. Thus he was appointed at the request of Francisco Núñez. 52 His father gave his mother a present known among the Jews as matala, which certainly refers to a wedding present. The note recording the gift was in Portugal, where his father, Salamon Amigo, had gone into exile. Therefore his plea was sent to the judiciary in Portugal (‘judiçias del reino’) in order to obtain the note and to exhibit it to the court in Spain. Indeed it was obtained and delivered to its destination. The father therefore co-operated with his son. See Ch. 5 above.

304

smuggling

died four years before it. In the course of his suit against Andrés Núñez, who had apparently not given him the money, he was ordered to appear before the magistrates of the royal court and to remain there until the conclusion of the judicial proceedings and the rendering of a verdict.53 On this occasion, the prosecutor Pedro Díaz de la Torre had been supposed to plead in the name of the Crown, but since he did not appear in court, the judges administered the oath to Francisco Núñez and made him sign a statement. He affirmed that he had received the sum of 400,000 mrs on his mother’s death, as well as various possessions, but that he had not received the 86 marks mentioned above. He had also received a silver vase weighing 4½ marks and another 200 mrs. Based on these arguments the court also acquitted him in respect of the money that had not been transferred to him and ordered Diego de Ayala to give it to him.54 Fernando Sobrino, a resident of Ciudad Rodrigo, was charged with smuggling out gold, silver, and coined money, and with aiding and abetting Jews to smuggling this and other contraband. The prosecutor Diego de Ayala and his assistant, Alonso Gutiérrez, demanded that he should be punished with the confiscation of his property; Ayala even pressed to have him tortured until he confessed the truth. Sobrino appealed to the magistrates of the royal court, who decided to reopen his trial and ordered that the details of the investigation should be given to Pero Díaz de la Torre, the Crown prosecutor. Sobrino was asked, among other things, whether he had accompanied a Jew named Rara(?) and his wife on their way to Portugal, and whether he had received 10,000 mrs from them for his trouble, or if not that sum what sum he had received, and whether he had supplied the Jew maestre Jacob a pack mule (‘mula de sylla’) to transport his possessions, and whether he had promised to bring the mule to Portugal. He was also interrogated whether he had transferred for Juan Luis, a resident of Gallegos, ‘money and other things that he found in loaves of bread that the Jews had thrown away at the time of crossing’.55 At that session the magistrates of the royal court determined how the witnesses were to be examined. The results of Sobrino’s interrogation were to be presented to the magistrates. This order was issued on 22 August 1496 and delivered for execution to the corregidor of Ciudad Rodrigo, to Diego de Ayala, the prosecutor for Jewish property and debts there, and also to Alonso de Colmenares, the judge and prosecutor for special cases.56 53 The sanction for non-compliance with the order was a fine of 10,000 mrs payable to the treasury, and he would be regarded as admitting the accusation. 54 The court waived reimbursement for expenses. Francisco Núñez received a writ of execution. The order repeated the instruction to return what had been confiscated, and if the money was not returned, the local magistrates would seize moveable property. The sanction for non-compliance was loss of favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. He could appeal to the judges of the royal court within fifteen days. The order was drafted by Antonio de Almendares with the approbation of the magistrate Gonzalo Sánchez de Castro. The chief justice and the alcalde of the court and also the corregidores, the alcaldes, and the other magistrates of Ciudad Rodrigo, and the prosecutor and receiver of property of Ciudad Rodrigo were required to execute the order: RGS 13 No. 1368, fo. 115, dated 1 Aug. 1496. 55 ‘Çierta plata e cosas que el hallaua en los panes e lo auian echado alli los judios al tienpo del dicho paso’, RGS 13 No. 1482, fo. 105. 56 The sanction for non-compliance was loss of favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. There was a possibility of appealing within fifteen days. The order was drafted by Antonio de Almendares, with the approbation of the magistrate Gonzalo Sánchez de Castro.

smuggling

305

The tension caused by smuggling in this border district was undoubtedly very great, and, as we shall see, co-operation between those going into exile and the smugglers was extensive.

Zamora Zamora was close to the Portuguese border and in consequence a centre of smuggling. Yuda Corcos, the son of Abraham Corcos, a resident of Zamora, having gone into exile in Portugal, decided to convert and return to his city. At the time of the expulsion, together with a group of deportees, he had taken out ‘sums of money, gold, silver, jewels and other things that it was forbidden to remove from the kingdom’.57 In order to return, he addressed the Crown and asked in advance for a writ of protection and defence for himself, his wife, and his children. He also asked to recover the property and businesses (‘hazienda’) he had owned in Zamora, where he had sold his house and all his assets. He wished to buy back the property at the price that had been paid to him, with additional payment for improvements. This petition to the Crown was certainly made through an intermediary, but we do not know who he was or how he came from Portugal to the seat of the Crown and the Royal Council. The Crown responded to his petition on 3 July 1493 and expressed willingness to forgive him and his family for smuggling. The grant of the writ and pardon seems to have been widely publicized and could serve to encourage others to convert to Christianity and return to Spain, the deportees’ place of origin. The Crown made the granting of protection conditional upon conversion at one of the border crossing-points, Badajoz, Ciudad Rodrigo, or Zamora. The conversion was to be performed in the presence of the bishop or his provisor, the corregidor, and the alcalde or alcaldes of those cities. If the baptism had taken place in Portugal, the converts were to bring a baptismal certificate with them. The Crown forbade any injury to them or to their property. The corregidor and magistrates of Zamora were to convene the purchasers of their property and make certain that it was returned to them after completion of the repurchase. However, the Crown claimed one specific thing for itself: debts that the creditor had not collected from Christian debtors. This seizure was executed because of the crime of smuggling. Large sums of money had probably been owed to this wealthy family.58 On 2 May 1494 the Crown instructed Pedro de Maluenda, the corregidor of Zamora, to investigate the extent of smuggling through his city.59 Enjoying absolute authority, 57 ‘Algunas quantias de maravedis y oro y plata y joyas y otras cosas vedadas e defendidas por nuestras cartas y por las leyes dellas’, RGS 10 No. 1760, fo. 52, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 520–1. See Ladero Quesada, ‘Apuntes’, 48 (1988), 50. 58 The sanction for non-compliance was loss of favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs payable to the Royal Treasury; a summons to plead before the Crown Council within fifteen days. The order was drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the Crown. 59 On him see Lunenfeld, Keepers, 218, where he is called Sancho, and below, Appendix. The sanction in the order of 2 May 1494 (RGS 11 No. 1662, fo. 442) was loss of favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs payable to the Royal Treasury. The heads of the councils, the regidores, the caballeros, escuderos, the officials, and the ‘good men’ were to help him. The order was drafted by Fernán Álvarez de Toledo with the approbation of the Crown, as (in consultation with the licenciado Gallego) was another order issued on that day requiring Alonso de Tordesillas to act to carry out the investigation described above and submit a report, neatly written

306

smuggling

he was expected to clarify not only who had smuggled and what had been smuggled, but also who had assisted the exiles and what property and debts the deportees had left behind; who owed them money, and what public property of the congregation and its societies (‘de aljamas como de confradias’) remained and had not been transferred to Christians. A lien was to be placed on all such property, which was to be deposited with dependable men, who would retain it openly (‘de manifiesto’). A lien was also placed upon Jewish property that had been transferred to Christians for safekeeping or in the guise of gifts (‘donaçiones symuladas’). Investigation of the debts was to be detailed, so as to clarify the kind of debts they were, whether they were true debts, and whether interest had been added; who had bought the promissory notes with the intention of making profits; what were the due dates, and whether they were for a long term. It became clear to the Crown that previous inquiries had failed to be completed because ‘many witnesses did not return to the kingdom before the time by which he was to finish the investigation’.60 There were additional obstacles to passing on the findings to the licenciado Gonzalo Fernández Gallego, who had been ordered to write a report about it. On the basis of a memorandum prepared by Gallego it was clear that many Jews in Zamora, Toro, and the towns and villages of the diocese had smuggled out coins, gold, silver, and other contraband, and had left much property behind in those places as well as debts that they had not collected. Gallego and Alonso de Tordesillas both signed the report. The latter was the Crown’s repostero de camas and receiver of property, and thus was authorized to receive the property and promissory notes. The Crown was not satisfied and decided to conduct another investigation in order to impose a punishment for smuggling. Pedro de Maluenda was charged with this investigation in the diocese of Zamora and the towns and villages nearby, and also in the city of Toro and all its areas and the ‘realengos e abadengos e hordenes e betrias [sic]’. He was also authorized to arrest those found guilty of smuggling and to confiscate their property and send them, under arrest, to the royal court for trial by its magistrates. Those who had to be arrested were apparently Jews who had returned and converted to Christianity. He was also required to transfer the money and ownership of the property and debts and other articles that the Crown had ordered to be seized. In addition, he was authorized to summon witnesses to testify before him and to issue interim and final verdicts. Anyone with information was required to appear before him at the dates determined for them, if they lived within 8 leagues of the place of the investigation. At the same time the Crown ordered that people who converted to Christianity and returned to the kingdom were not to be arrested, their property was not to be seized, and liens were not to be placed on debts owed to them if they were accused of smuggling coins, gold, silver, and other contraband out of the kingdom. This also applied to possessions which they took with them when they left for exile. Nor were those who returned with them from exile to be arrested. Only people actually found and bound (‘libro cosydo’), so that it should be impossible to change any of the contents. See RGS 11 No. 1663, fo. 452. 60 ‘Porque muchos de los testigos de quien se auia de saber la verdad no heran venidos a nuestros reynos e antes que veniesen se cunplio el termino que les dimos para las faser’, RGS 11 No. 1663, fo. 452.

smuggling

307

guilty of smuggling out their property, as it was when they went into exile, were to be seized. In another document that was issued on the same date, Maluenda was authorized to auction confiscated property to the highest bidder in the presence of a notary. The purchasers would receive a bill of sale and other certificates needed to prove their ownership. The extent of the investigation with which the corregidor was charged and of his authority shows the gravity with which the Crown viewed smuggling as an injury to the kingdom. A late document from Zamora, dated 13 June 1497, shows that the Catholic Monarchs pardoned Rabbi Abraham Valencia for smuggling out silver, gold, and coins and other contraband and permitted him to return from Miranda do Douro in Portugal, where he had settled. After his conversion to Christianity he took the name Fernando de Valencia, and for the sake of returning he agreed to forfeit to the Crown the property he had left behind in Zamora when he went into exile. The Crown agreed to his request and ordered the men of the kingdom, cities, towns, and places of settlement not to harm him. Without doubt the Crown derived considerable benefit from the return of this converso.61 Rabbi Abraham Valencia might have been one of those forced to convert in Portugal at that time.

Medina del Campo Within the framework of these investigations, the petition of Cristóbal de Ávila is interesting. He was appointed as prosecutor in the abbacy of Medina del Campo and the diocese of Salamanca.62 He complained that since he was required to go from place to place in order to collect testimony about smuggling, he could not be present at the trial regarding the complaint lodged before Fernando Pérez de Meneses. The Crown agreed with the opinion of the magistrate, the licenciado Castro (González Sánchez), who permitted it to appoint substitutes as needed, and he would confer authority upon them and they would appear in his name. The investigators of smuggling had a great deal of work, and the date of the document before us, 28 January 1496, shows the difficulty of investigation and the long time that was needed for it.63

Calahorra, Salinillas The expulsion to Portugal of Jacob Abenamias, a resident of Salinillas, can serve as an example of the complexity of the inquests. Jacob Abenamias had lent money to the 61 The order was drafted by Fernando de Zafra, a secretary of the monarchs, with the approbation of the Royal Council. Regarding Don Álvaro, Rodrigo, and Pedro see RGS 14 No. 1556, fo. 249. The sanction was loss of favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. See M. F. Ladero Quesada, ‘Apuntes’, 48 (1988), 51. 62 Fernán Pérez de Meneses decided in favour of Cristóbal de Ávila against Cristóbal Becerril. Becerril was required to pay the Crown 6,000 mrs from a debt that Isaac Abenaçan owed to him. The claim was for 9,000 mrs in return for 9 moyos of wine (1 moyo ⫽ 2,322 litres). See RGS 11 No. 3187, fo. 467, dated 9 Oct. 1494. Fernán Pérez de Meneses also decided in favour of Cristóbal de Ávila against María del Mercado, the widow of Sancho Díaz, regidor of Medina del Campo. Her son Francisco Díaz appealed against the decision, which was for a payment to María del Mercado of 14,000 mrs owed by a Jewish woman named Çenha when she went into exile, and he obtained its cancellation. See RGS 11 No. 3188, fo. 583, dated 9 Oct. 1494. Cristóbal de Ávila served as regidor in Medina del Campo. 63 See RGS 12 No. 136, fo. 33. The order was drafted with the approbation of the magistrate of the royal court.

308

smuggling

monastery of Santa María de la Real de Herrera in the province of Calahorra. Juan de Cenicero (Çenizero), the abbot of the monastery, addressed the Crown on its behalf, claiming that the loan had been for usurious interest, which at the time of the expulsion he demanded that Abenamias should return to the monastery. Moreover, Abenamias was accused of smuggling out jewels, gold, silver, and coins. The court appointed a custodian for the property that Abenamias had left behind. The Crown levied a fine of 50,000 mrs. against it, which was the amount of the interest he had taken from the monastery, with the addition of expenses. The property was sold at public auction, which brought in only 30,000 mrs. After the verdict and the outcome of the sale were published, Diego de Ayo, a resident of Salinas (Salinillas), went to Portugal to meet Abenamias, who had apparently deposited his assets with him. The two agreed that Ayo should file suit against the monastery. However, Abbot Juan also addressed the Crown on behalf of his house; the Crown accepted his petition, confirming the decision of the magistrates of the town in the monastery’s favour because Abenamias had smuggled contraband out of Spain. This sum was mortgaged to the benefit of the monastery, and the supervisor of Jewish property was forbidden to touch Abenamias’s assets.64 The Crown’s reasons for finding in the monastery’s favour are entirely clear. Its decision referred to two infractions committed by Abenamias: the loan for usurious interest, to which it related with extreme gravity; and the smuggling of contraband out of Spain. It was easy to seize property that had been left by Jews in the hands of reliable Christians in many places after the expulsion.

Aguilar de Campoo A case was tried in the royal court before its magistrates, the licenciado Gonzalo Fernández Gallego and the licenciado Luis de Polanco, between the prosecutor for Jewish property, Alonso del Castillo and Beatriz Díaz,65 the widow of Lorenzo Díaz, residents of Aguilar de Campoo. It is not known how long this trial lasted. Beatriz Díaz and her late husband were accused by the prosecutor of smuggling contraband out of the kingdom, implying that they had left for exile, converted to Christianity, and returned to Spain. The prosecution claimed that, while they were Jews, they had smuggled out much gold, silver, precious stones, pearls, and other contraband, and also advised others and helped them to smuggle. Therefore they deserved all the punishments imposed for crimes of that nature, with loss of their property, including their residence. In her defence Beatriz Díaz argued that she was poor and unable to hire a letrado and attorney (‘procurador de pobres’) to defend her. She absolutely denied the accusation. She and 64 The order was drafted by Juan de la Parra, upon instructions from the Crown. See RGS 12 No. 3752, fo. 5, dated 12 Nov. 1494. 65 Alonso del Castillo was appointed on 28 May 1492 to see that the Jews of Belorado, Briviesca, and Sereso paid their debts and the fees for tax-farming for Juan de Ortega, the Bishop of Almeria, and a member of the Royal Council. See RGS 9 No. 1935, fo. 453. On 22 May he was instructed to arrange the exchange of debts between the Jews of Aguilar de Campoo and other places. See RGS 9 No. 1796, fo. 341. His main activities were in Calahorra. See also RGS 13 No. 1419, fo. 178, dated 10 Aug. 1496. This document relates to Laguardia in the north and the confiscation of property from people who owed money to Jewish creditors.

Table 6.1 Persons appointed to investigate smuggling Place

Name

Description of function

Date of appointment or first reference

Document

Segovia

Lesmes de Mazuelo active with his son Francisco de Mazuelo

pesquisidor de los bienes de los judíos que pasaron moneda fuera de nuestros reynos; receptor de los bienes que fueron de los judíos de la ciudad de Segovia y su obispado

4 Sept. 1494

RGS 11 No. 2709, fo. 181

4 Dec. 1494 7 Nov. 1495

RGS 11 No. 4185, fo. 161 RGS 12 No. 3956, fo. 185

Soria, Agreda, Osma, diocese of Cornago, condados of Aguilar and Monteagudo

Fernán Gómez de la Cueva Ruy Gutiérrez de Escalante García de Herrera García de Cotes

juez de los bienes de los judíos que pasaron moneda de los reinos (Gómez de la Cueva served as an informer regarding smuggling, left with the exiles, then converted and returned)

7 Sept. 1494 30 Apr. 1495 3 Dec. 1494 24 Dec. 1494 2 May 1494 5 May 1492

RGS 11 No. 2768, fo. 295 RGS 12 No. 1967, fo. 392 RGS11 No. 4166, fo. 234 RGS 11 No. 3427, fo. 967 RGS 11 No. 1661, fo. 449 RGS 9 No. 1464, fo. 573

Toledo with district and archdiocese, Medina del Campo, Salamanca

Rodrigo del Mercado, corregidor of Medina del Campo

juez de los bienes e debdas que dexaron los judíos en el arzobispado de Toledo

already active in 1493 28 Sept. 1494 6 Sept. 1492

RGS 11 No. 2961, fo. 353 RGS 9 No. 2898, fo. 228

juez comisario para en las casas e faziendas tocantes a los judíos

9 Oct. 1494

RGS 11 No. 3187, fo. 467

juez pesquisidor de los bienes e debdas que dexaron los judíos

7 Aug. 1495

RGS 12 No. 3078, fo. 146

nuestro promotor de los bienes e debdas de los judíos en el obispado de Salamanca e Medina del Campo

28 Jan. 1496

RGS 13 No. 136, fo. 33

Salamanca, Medina del Fernando Pérez de Meneses, Campo regidor active on behalf of Meir Melamed and Abraham Senior in Llerena along with his father, Diego Pérez de Meneses, and served as their agent; he was also active after they converted to Christianity. See Hacienda, Leg. 1 No. 72, fo. 2 , 8 Oct. 1492; Hacienda, Leg. 1 No. 73, fo. 1 , 12 Oct. 1492 (Cristóbal de Ávila) r

r

Table 6.1 (cont.) Place

Name

Description of function

Date of appointment Document or first reference

Murcia

Antonio de Andújar

comendador juez e executor en la çibdat de Murcia, dado e diputado en las cosas e faziendas tocantes al paso de los judíos que se fueron fuera de nuestros reynos

20 Oct. 1494

RGS 11 No. 3364, fo. 92

Zamora and diocese

Pedro de Maldonado

corregidor

24 Oct. 1494

RGS 11 No. 3427, fo. 567

Palencia and diocese

Pedro de Maluenda

juez en obispado de los bienes de los judíos

25 Oct. 1494 25 Oct. 1495

RGS 11 No. 3450, fo. 356 RGS 12 No. 2393, fo. 347

Burgos

Barnaldino de Lerma Alonso del Castillo García de Cotes

corregidor

31 Oct. 1494 10 Jan. 1497 5 May 1492

RGS 11 No. 3562, fo. 4 RGS 14 No. 85, fo. 113 RGS 9 No. 1464, fo. 573

Osma, diocese

bachiller Diego de Salmeron Alonso de Castillo

juez pesquisidor de los bienes de los judíos

17 Nov. 1494 16 Dec. 1494 16 Feb. 1495

RGS 11 No. 3847, fo. 218 RGS 11 No. 4376, fo. 384 RGS 12 No. 680, fo. 492

Castile

Juan de Soria

juez pesquisidor en la provincia de Castilla de los bienes e debdas

27 Nov. 1494

RGS 11 No. 4027, fo. 289

Badajoz

[unnamed]

que los judíos dexaron en nuestros reynos al 23 Nov. 1495 tiempo que dellos salieron

RGS 12 No. 4059, fo. 105

Sigüenza, diocese

Lope de Vera

juez de los bienes del obispado de Sigüenza

5 Dec. 1495

RGS 11 No. 4256, fo. 123

Ávila

Alonso de Castillo

jues de los bienes que dexaron los judíos

6 Dec. 1494

RGS 11 No. 4216, fo. 6

Calahorra

Gonzalo Sanchez de Castro Fernán Gómez

juez pasquisidor de los bienes y deudas que fueron de los judíos

10 Aug. 1496

RGS 13 No. 1419, fo. 178

Ciudad Rodrigo

Fernán Gómez Sancho de Paredes Pedro Maldonado Pedro Suárez de San Pedro

juez

6 Mar. 1493

RGS 10 No. 563, fo. 116 Diversos de Castilla, Leg. 8, fo. 113

13 May 1492

RGS 9 No. 1582, fo. 289

Trujillo, Arroyo del Puerco, Cáceres, Plasencia

Día Sánchez de Quesada

contino

[?] Aug. 1495 27 Nov. 1492

RGS 12 No. 3301, fo. 139 RGS 9 No. 3427, fo. 221

Ávila, Cuéllar

Sebastián de Lobatón

17 Dec. 1492

RGS 9 No. 3548, fo. 115

1498

RGS I–1498, fo. 154

Talavera de la Reina, Puente del Arzobispo

Note : Since investigative activities sometimes overlapped, this table includes the names of men for whom these investigations formed only a part of their duties.

312

smuggling

her husband had taken with them into exile only ‘certificates of exchange such as are common in our kingdom and neighbouring kingdoms’.66 However, she did not succeed in transferring those notes, because they were robbed on the way before leaving the kingdom, and what was taken were the goods which it was permitted to remove without fear of punishment and violating a prohibition. She further claimed that the prosecutor was accusing only her, while he should also make a claim against her husband.67 She had not advised or abetted anyone in smuggling. In other words, if anyone gave advice and assistance, it could only have been her late husband. She only asked to have her house restored to her and that she be paid the service fees that had been collected from the tenants who lived in the house.68 The magistrates of the appellate court decided in her favour: on 10 January 1497 they ruled that the prosecution had not proved its case, completely cleared her of the charge, and exempted her (but also the prosecution) from paying of costs. There is no doubt that her case was pending for a long time, and her property was not returned within the period stipulated by the Crown, which was four years from the granting of permission to return to Spain for the purpose of conversion on 10 November 1492. This widow and her late husband were probably not the only people in this predicament.69

Segovia In Segovia it took a long time to deal with the accusation of smuggling against the Galfon family. Upon converting to Christianity, Jacob Galfon changed his name to Pero Suárez de la Concha; in his submission to the Crown, he claimed to have brought a large group of Jews with him to convert. They included his sons Levi and Abraham, who called themselves Cristóbal and Fernán Suárez, and his son-in-law maestre Jacob, who took the name of maestre Juan Zurujano. The Crown granted an order for the their protection and instructed that their property should be returned.70 However, after he left, an investigation was opened against members of the family for smuggling out gold, silver, coins, and other forbidden items. They were apprehensive that they would be put on trial for smuggling, but assumed that if they returned the money they had smuggled out of the country when leaving for exile, the Crown would agree to pardon them. Indeed, the Crown was prepared to pardon them for the crime of smuggling, on condition that their property remained under attachment, along with the debts they 66 ‘Çedula de cambio, segund e como en nuestros reynos e en los comarcanos diz que se acostunbra faser’, RGS 14 No. 85, fo. 113, issued in Burgos, 10 Jan. 1497. 67 Therefore he probably died after they returned and converted to Christianity. 68 ‘La posesion de unas casas e en los alquiles enbargados’, RGS 14 No. 85, fo. 113. 69 See RGS 11 No. 220, fo. 162. On the same day Cristóbal de Vitoria also drafted a second order to the asistente of Seville, to all the asistentes and alcaldes to respond to Bernaldino’s petition, RGS 11 No. 221, fo. 168. On the same day he was also ordered to respond to the complaint of Rodrigo de Dueñas, a resident of Mombeltrán, against the shipowner Francisco Mellado, who robbed him of 100,000 mrs and raped his daughter. See RGS 11 No. 103, fo. 95. This judgment was not executed, and the Crown ordered the corregidor to summon the parties for litigation. See also Cantera Burgos, ‘Juderías medievales de la provincia de León’, 152–4. See also Ch. 5 above. 70 See RGS 9 No. 3371, fo. 26, dated 20 Nov. 1492, which was only ten days after the royal order was issued opening the borders of the kingdom to Jews who wished to return after conversion to Christianity. On this see Ch. 7 below. See RGS 10 No. 903, fo. 211, dated 3 Sept. 1493; cf. Ch. 4 above.

smuggling

313

were owed by Christians, until the Crown should determine how to dispose of it. They were permitted to retain everything they had brought back with them from Portugal, evidently on the assumption that they had left property behind them in Segovia worth more than the contraband they had taken with them. The Crown’s instructions to the magistrates of the royal court, the corregidores, and the other office-holders in the kingdom on 18 April 1493 reveal that the family also owned property in places other than Segovia.71 An order issued on 7 November 1494 indicates that the trial of the Galfon family for smuggling was pending before the Crown court. Pedro Suárez de la Concha ( Jacob Galfon) possessed documents given him by Lesmes de Mazuelo, the corregidor of Segovia and the Crown’s receiver of property in the diocese, stating that certain of his assets, including debts owed to him, had been confiscated for the benefit of the Royal Treasury on account of gold, silver, and coins smuggled out when the the family left the kingdom. Pedro Suárez argued to the magistrates of the kingdom that these writs of confiscation were invalid, because he had not smuggled out anything. However, the state prosecutor, Juan González de la Reina of Segovia, averred that Suárez had indeed smuggled out contraband, and was therefore liable for punishment. The Crown appeals court permitted each side to produce witnesses and to present evidence, but no date was set. To this end Mazuelo and the resident magistrate were instructed to summon and question witnesses;72 they were to determine the origin of the information about smuggling and, if it was a rumour, to disclose whom they had heard it from. They were to follow the same procedure in collecting other evidence, in order to establish the facts.73 In November (the day is missing) 1494 the Crown instructed the corregidores, the resident magistrates, and the other judges of Segovia, Salamanca, Ciudad Rodrigo, and the other towns and settlements, that Pedro Suárez’s witnesses, who were dispersed among the various cities, towns, and settlements, were to be examined by the magistrates in their respective places of residence. Pedro Suárez was to produce an interrogatory and give it to the notaries, who would record the evidence in detail; this was to be transmitted to Pedro Suárez, who would present it to the magistrates of the council.74 We do not know the result of this investigation. Pedro’s son Fernando Suárez, formerly Abraham Galfon, was involved in enticing Alonso Ramírez, a resident of Herrera. Juan Ramírez served as an informer to the Crown regarding the property of Jews and their acts of smuggling. In one incident, 71 The sanction was loss of favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. See RGS 10 No. 974, fo. 21, drafted by Juan de la Parra, and cf. RGS 10 No. 2575, fo. 257 (20 Sept. 1493); RGS 10 No. 2665, fo. 266 (10 Oct. 1493). See also Ch. 7 below. Jacob Galfon was known as a lender of money at interest. 72 His other title was ‘Reçeptor de bienes que fueron de los judios’ (see RGS 12 No. 3956, fo. 185), but according to a documented dated 4 Sept. 1494 he was ‘Pesquisidor de los bienes de los judios que pasaron moneda fuera de nuestros reinos’, RGS 11 No. 2709, fo. 181. Sometimes the same person filled these two functions at the same time. See Appendix. 73 See RGS 11 No. 3706, fo. 273. The sanction was loss of favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. The order was drafted by Antonio de Almendares, a notary of the chamber, with the approbation of the magistrates Castro, Gallego, and Polanco. 74 See RGS 11 No. 4128, fo. 270. The sanction was a fine of 10,000 mrs. The name of the scribe who drafted the order is missing, as is that of the member of the council who authorized it.

314

smuggling

Nicolás Beltrán was involved in smuggling 4,000 ducats. Alonso Ramírez arrived in Barcelona for the purpose of transmitting information, and there he met Fernando Suárez, who offered to deliver that information to the Crown, for he enjoyed good relations with Juan de Soria,75 the secretary of the Crown Prince Don Juan, who was charged with the task of gathering information on smuggling. The two would split the 800 ducats they were to receive for the information. They apparently did enter into a partnership, but Fernando Suárez, who received the grant, did not pay the part due to Juan Ramírez. Therefore Juan Ramírez filed suit against him and lodged a claim before the council. The two parties were summoned to produce witnesses to be examined according to an interrogatory regarding the source of their information about the smuggling, and the results of the investigation would be presented to the court with jurisdiction over the property of the Jews. On 23 November 1495 the Crown ordered the corregidores, the acting corregidores, the alcaldes, and the other magistrates of the cities, towns, and settlements in the diocese of Segovia, Sigüenza, Osma, Calahorra, Ávila, and Agreda, from which those involved in smuggling had apparently departed, to investigate witnesses.76 The government spared no effort to ascertain the extent of smuggling. Nicolás Beltrán, who arrived from Portugal, brought information with him about smuggling. His reward for the information was one-fifth of the value of the property or money which could be confiscated. The amount smuggled in the case at hand was considerable. Fernando de Piña lodged a plea before the Crown in his own name and that of his brothers Gonzalo, Diego, Álvaro, and one whose name is left blank, and their sister María. He sought to receive half the property of their father, Abraham Lumbroso, who had died as a Jew a year before the expulsion. The children had gone to Portugal with their mother. After returning and converting to Christianity, they were charged with smuggling out silver and gold and other contraband. The Crown had testimony regarding smuggling in which their mother had been involved. Because of their mother, who was responsible for the family, they had been included in the accusation for smuggling. But, they argued, since Abraham had died before the expulsion, his property should not have been confiscated, and therefore they deserved half of their legacy. Thus their mother inherited the other half of the estate, from which the remainder was to be confiscated. The Crown Council recognized the validity of this plea, and on 3 October 1494 it ordered Lesmes de Mazuelo to investigate the matter and reach a decision.77 How he decided is unknown. On Juan de Soria see above and also RGS 10 No. 3267, fo. 25, dated 20 Dec. 1493. See RGS 12 No. 4059, fo. 105. The order was drafted by Juan de Almendares with the approbation of the magistrate Gonzalo Sánchez de Castro, the appeals judge for matters pertaining to the deportees. He was the chief justice of a panel also including Gallego and Luis de Polenco. 77 See RGS 11 No. 3073, fo. 453, drafted by Luis del Castillo with the approbation of the council. Fernando de Piña, as the heir of Abraham Lumbroso, his father, also requested the return of taxes that his father had paid in 1489 for the war in Granada. He presented a receipt from Juan Álvarez in his possession. The Crown’s response to his request was given on 30 Apr. 1516. On this see A. Prieto Cantero, Casa y descargos de los Reyes Católicos (Valladolid, 1969), 507, fo. 398. Abraham Lumbroso had lent 15,000 mrs to 75 76

smuggling

315

Coca Pero Gómez of Coca, whose name as a Jew had been David Taçarte or Tagarte, went into exile and smuggled silver, coins, and other contraband into Portugal. When he returned and converted to Christianity, he asked the Crown to treat him mercifully, professing willingness to return what he had removed from the kingdom. On 24 August 1493 the Crown agreed to pardon him for the crime of smuggling, on condition that he return the same amount of money, gold, and coins, and other contraband that he had smuggled out. However, all the other property known to have been his and that had remained in the country, as well as other property that might prove to have been his, and debts owed to him by Christians, would be confiscated to the Royal Treasury. This pardon and compromise show that Pero Gómez was a very wealthy man.78 We do not know whether it is possible to identify this David Taçarte with Don David Taçarte, a ‘good man’ (‘ome bueno’) in the community of Segovia, to whom on 29 October 1491 Rodrigo Álvarez Maldonado delivered the order segregating the housing of the city’s Jews.79 David Taçarte was a professional stocking-maker (‘calçetero’);80 he also traded in cattle and lent money at interest.

Ávila Similarly Arnate Chacón, a resident of Ávila who had gone into exile as a Jew, transferred his money and property, worth about 55,000 mrs, to his son. They were robbed under colour of confiscation by Álvar Páez of Berrueco and Juan Chiquito of Vilbesal, acting in concert with the local magistrates and the alcalde. When he returned, they promised him they would return the money that they had impounded, but they failed Lazaro Bohordo and Antón Muñoz. Pledges were given for this loan. The two men paid their debt but did not redeem the pledges, which remained in the creditor’s possession. His wife and children sold the promissory note to a Christian who demanded the payment of interest from the borrowers, as if it were the debt. On 24 Dec. 1492 the Crown ordered the corregidor of Segovia to respond to the petition, and if the words of the plaintiffs were correct, to return their pledges to them. RGS 9 No. 3602, fo. 83. Abraham Lumbroso submitted a complaint to the Crown against Mose Nájera, who served as his business manager (‘fator’) for collecting money and obligations and departing without returning the money. The Crown responded to his petition and on 2 Mar. 1486 instructed the corregidor Día Sánchez de Quesada to adjudicate the complaint. RGS 4 No. 2489, fo. 118. The Crown’s answer to the place named Muñoveros in the district of Segovia is mentioned regarding a loan in which Lumbroso was a partner, for the sum of 50,000 mrs. The local council claimed that the debt was for interest that it had paid. See RGS 12 No. 592, fo. 422. The Crown’s response was dated 13 Feb. 1495. These are clearly transactions from before the expulsion. 78 The Crown ordered the magistrates of the royal court, the corregidores, the alguaciles, and the alcaldes to prevent injury to Pero Gómez by imposing a penalty of loss of favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. The order was prepared by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of Dr de Alcocer, the Chancellor, and Dr de Oropesa, members of the council. 79 See F. Fita, BRAH 11 (1887), 271. His house served as a border house for the Jewish quarter. See ibid. 277. 80 On this see Asenjo González, Segovia, 326 n. 198; also RGS 9 No. 2521, fo. 176. On 21 July 1492 the corregidor was ordered to act against him for the usurious interest he had taken from Pedro de la Cruz, a resident of Losa, which is near Segovia. He had sold him bulls and cows at a price higher than their value, and he had also sold mules to Pedro’s brother Alonso for an excessive price. This had occurred in 1481. Pedro de la Cruz complained to the Crown, which ordered justice done for the plaintiff. David Taçarte had apparently transferred the debt to Samuel Saragossa, a resident of Segovia.

316

smuggling

to keep their promise. He could not bring them to court in his city of Ávila, for he feared that justice would not be done. The Crown saw fit to respond to his plea because of the doubtful nature of the matter, for no act of smuggling had taken place, but there had merely been such an intention. Therefore on 30 October 1493 the corregidor was instructed to see that the money was returned to its owner,81 even though the plaintiff had gone into exile and there were grounds for suspecting him of smuggling.

Cuéllar Día Sánchez de Quesada, the corregidor of Segovia, sent Ponce de Cabrera to the town of Cuéllar to investigate acts of smuggling committed by its former Jewish residents, and debts they had left behind that were not owed by Christians.82 He arrested two Jews who had returned and converted to Christianity, placing a lien on their property,83 and transferred them to Segovia, claiming that they had smuggled coins out of the kingdom. For this action the Duke of Albuquerque, a member of the Royal Council, lodged a complaint against him for causing damage to himself and his vassals. In response, on 25 July 1493 the Crown ordered Quesada to free the prisoners without delay and to remove the lien from their property, unless they had been arrested for some other reason, in which case he was to transfer them to the royal court, where they would be tried.84

Toledo The investigator of smuggling in Toledo and its archdiocese was Rodrigo del Mercado, who was appointed on 6 September 1492. He was given the widest authority to arrest smugglers and their accomplices, to register Jewish property transferred to Christians, and the like.85 He certainly acted with vigour; however, nobody appealed against his decisions. On 2 May 1494 he was instructed to discover how the promissory notes of Christians were sold by their Jewish creditors when they went into exile, and who bought them. The Crown assumed that the Jews in question expected to return to Spain from Portugal, but the time allotted for interrogating the witnesses had passed.86 It follows that this deadline was distinct from the permission given to Jews who wished to convert to Christianity and return. 81 The sanction stipulated was loss of favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. It was drafted with the approbation of the council of Castile by Fernando de Cisneros. RGS 10 No. 2883, fo. 222, and see above p. 256. 82 According to the law of the Cortes of 1480, Día Sánchez de Quesada was appointed to serve as a magistrate and executor for the property of Jews who had gone into exile; he was requested to present guarantees to the Crown for his property on 12 Dec. 1493. His title was ‘juez ejecutor de los bienes y haziendas que los judios dejaron al salir de España’. Apparently he did not deposit the guarantees, and therefore a complaint against him was lodged with the Crown by the council and the ‘good men’ of Segovia. 83 The confiscation of debts owed to Jews by non-Christian debtors was an important tool in the Crown’s hands. This confiscation was also mentioned in an order issued to Juan Pérez Coronel on 26 June 1493. See RGS 10 No. 1690, fo. 129. See also Ch. 8 below on the sons of Fernán Pérez Coronel. 84 See RGS 10 No. 1687, fo. 135, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 517–18. 85 See RGS 59 No. 2898, fo. 228. On 10 Dec. 1492 his appointment was extended for sixty days in order to complete the investigation. See RGS 9 No. 3518, fo. 92. The expenses of his mission were to be covered by those guilty of smuggling, that is to say, the Christians who helped the Jews who went into exile. In 1499 he was still investigating Jewish property in Guadalajara. See Baer, JchS ii. 433. 86 ‘Porque muchos testigos de quien se avia de saber la verdad non eran venidos a nuestros reynos e antes que veniesen se conplio el termino que les dimos para les faser’. See RGS 11 No. 1664, fo. 453.

smuggling

317

He was supposed to transmit the details of the investigation to Gonzalo Fernández Gallego. Gallego pointed out in his memorandum to the Crown that many Jews who had formerly been residents of Toledo and of cities, towns, and settlements in the region of its archdiocese (excluding the city of Guadalajara and the towns and settlements in its arcedianazgo) were guilty of smuggling coins, silver, and gold and other contraband out of the archdiocese, and were also guilty of transferring property and debts to Christian residents for collection.87 However, the Crown restricted the arrest of those who returned and converted to Christianity and ordered him to prevent the seizure of property from the returnees; only those guilty of smuggling would be arrested, and the property they left behind would be confiscated. The heads of the councils, magistrates, regidores, cavalleros, escuderos, clerks, and ‘good men’ were instructed to assist him.88 On the same day, 2 May 1494, Diego de Osas was also instructed to investigate the acts of smuggling committed by the deportees from Toledo, perhaps because of the burden of work placed upon Rodrigo del Mercado, and Diego de Osas enjoyed similar authority.89 The purchase of bills of exchange, in which the Genoese merchants who lived in Spain played a considerable part, was not regarded as smuggling money out of the kingdom; indeed, the payments were arranged as part of the settlement of debts for loans extended by the Genoese to the Crown. Thus it happened that the bachiller Pero Díaz de la Torre, the magistrate and commissioner for the affairs and property left behind by Jews who had gone into exile, confiscated the sum of 1,050,000 (‘un quento e çinquenta mil’) mrs from Alfonso de Castro de Espanache, a merchant resident in Toledo. This money had been in Seville in the possession of Jerónimo Risaldi,90 who was supposed to receive 4,120 ducats for arranging payment in Lisbon with maestre Nesy Bienveniste, on the basis of credit from Sancho de Toledo. Alfonso de Castro, who was a converso or else had either converted to Christianity shortly before the expulsion or returned to Spain and converted, was to give it to Nesy Bienveniste in May 1492 at the fair of Medina del Campo, before Bienveniste went into exile, and to receive it in Lisbon from Sancho de Toledo. According to this arrangement, Jerónimo Risaldi received the sum of 4,120 mrs in Seville, as partial payment of an obligation that came to 4,000 ducats per year, in order to pay it to Bernardo Pinelo. However, 87 The results of this investigation were transmitted to Diego Osas, the repostero and receiver of property for the Crown. They also emerge from a second order issued on 2 May 1494 (RGS 11 No. 1665, fo. 454). Rodrigo del Mercado impounded the sum of 53,240 mrs for the benefit of Osas. This money had been left by the brothers Samuel and Abraham Abençada, the mayordomo of the Cardinal of Spain. Gómez Fernández de la Cámara appealed against this act, and the Crown ordered Del Mercado to restore the status quo ante in favour of Gómez Fernández. See RGS 11 No. 3334, fo. 195, dated 17 Oct. 1494. Fernández de la Cámara lodged an appeal against the claim of Osas against Gonzalo Fernández de Toledo, a textile merchant (‘trapero’), resident in Ocaña, regarding a debt of 19,000 mrs. The Crown ordered a retrial. See RGS 11 No. 3335, fo. 555. On 8 May 1495 he was ordered to see that houses and annuities (‘censos’) in Toledo were transferred to Rodrigo de Mansilla there. See RGS 12 No. 2090, fo. 5. 88 The sanction was loss of favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. An appeal had to be lodged within fifteen days. The order was drafted by Fernán Álvarez de Toledo, a secretary of the monarchs, with the approbation of Gallego. See RGS 11 No. 1664, fo. 453. 89 This order, too, was drafted by Fernán Álvarez de Toledo with the approbation of Gallego. See RGS 90 11 No. 1665, fo. 454. Judging by his name, he was from Genoa.

318

smuggling

Alfonso de Castro took the money for himself, and when Pero Díaz de la Torre had placed a lien on the money in Seville, claimed that the money was his, that it had no connection at all with Nesy Bienveniste, and that it was the latter whose property should be confiscated. In the arrangements for payment Nesy Bienveniste was supposed to receive 5,016,020 mrs, of which he received only 4,985,451. The outstanding debt to Nesy Bienveniste was therefore 130,554 mrs, and this was, therefore, the sum deposited with Geronimo Risaldi. Alfonso de Castro argued that the money belonged to him, and he also argued that he had served the Crown, for the money had remained in the kingdom, unlike the practice of Jews who removed money from the kingdom, nor like ‘the way many Jews took in looking for methods of removing money in special manners’.91 Since this was an instance of the settlement of debts by means of bills of exchange, and not of smuggling, Alfonso de Castro asked for the removal of the lien upon his property and the freeing of his property. For his part he was willing to produce guarantors and securities that should be available to bachiller Pero Díaz de la Torre. The Crown saw fit to accept his request, and on 14 April 1495 ordered bachiller Pero Díaz de la Torre and the magistrate, the licenciado Gallego, to see that justice was done by summoning both parties.92 We thus see how much authority was exercised by the officials responsible for the property left by the Jews who had gone into exile and by the investigators of smuggling appointed in the kingdom of Castile.

Torrelaguna As Jews, Fernando de Sosa of Torrelaguna, and with him Pablo de Sosa of Pedraza de la Sierra, had received the sum of 455,000 mrs from certain Jews, apparently to be smuggled into Portugal. This sum also included Pablo de Sosa’s own money. He went to Portugal, but on the way lost a mule whose value was more than 3,000 mrs. Of that amount he received 1,125 cruzados in Lisbon. So as not to carry the money he deposited it with a Jewish resident of Lisbon, who was to transfer it to the town of Çelorico in Portugal, for which Sosa was bound, since his wife was there. However, some time later the couple decided to convert to Christianity in Portugal and return to Pedraza de la Sierra. Fernando de Sosa asked Pablo de Sosa to return his share of the money, which was 17,000 mrs, as well as of the profit they had made, and to cover his expenses. Pablo refused; Fernando sued, but fearing that Pablo’s prominence would bias the judges, petitioned to have the case heard before the Royal Council. This was granted; on 13 April 1493 Día Sánchez de Quesada was instructed to adjudicate this petition.93 By its nature the act of smuggling led to fraud, and it was not in vain that the matter was entrusted to the corregidor himself. 91 ‘E los quales contias dis que el dicho Alfonso de Castro nos syruio porque de los dichos judios no sacasen las dichas contias de maravedis fuera de nuestros reynos, come dis que lo hisieron otros muchos judios buscando formas e maneras esquisytas’. See RGS 12 No. 1866, fo. 342. 92 The order was drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the Royal Council. 93 See RGS 10 No. 936, fo. 177. The order was drafted by Fernando de Cisneros with the approbation of the council. The sanction for non-compliance was loss of favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. Día Sánchez de Quesada was regarded as a confidant of the Catholic Monarchs, and he served as corregidor in a series of cities. On him see Lunenfeld, Keepers, 97, 101–2. He was suspected of taking bribes and illegal confiscation. Some actions in which he was involved are listed in the Appendix.

smuggling

319

Another resident of Torrelaguna, Antonio de Cifuentes, was hired by the Jew Mose de Belhorado and his sons to transfer textiles and other property to Portugal for them on their pack animals. It was agreed among them that he would be paid a daily wage. Cifuentes brought the merchandise to Salices, unloaded it, and returned home. He did not know what was contained in the merchandise he transported, and therefore he was not aware that he had smuggled gold, silver, coins, and other contraband into Portugal. Rodrigo del Mercado confiscated 112 reales from him and a silver vessel, and also placed a lien upon his property. In addition, he was put in prison. On 22 February 1495 the Crown ordered Del Mercado to free Cifuentes and examine his claim that he was unable to tell from the wrappings what had been given him to transport, which was not inconceivable; meanwhile he was to lift the lien on his property, and return what had been confiscated from him.94 Rabbi Mose Abenpex and his wife were alleged to have smuggled gold and silver and other contraband out of the kingdom, as were Yuça Morano and Rabbi Abraham Çalama; all had left behind them in Torrelaguna debts owed them by Christians. Rabbi Çalama converted to Christianity, returned to Torrelaguna, and demanded the return of property and payment of the debts that Christians owed him. Abraham Çalama is mentioned by his Christian name, maestre Enrique, showing that he served as a physician. His property had been given to Juan de Vitoria, a resident of Madrid, for his service to the Crown. The magistrates of the royal court were given full authority to deal with the case and adjudicate it without delay.95 The order was issued on 7 May 1495.

Algete Alleging that acts of smuggling had been committed, Rodrigo del Mercado, the corregidor of Medina del Campo, confiscated the property of the Arragel family: Symuel, Jaco, Mose, and Jamila, formerly the wife of Yuça. They were all residents of the town of Algete, in the region of Guadalajara.96 The family, which was very wealthy, went into exile and left behind considerable property, including vineyards and wineries. The Crown agreed that all of this property should be under the custody of Alonso Díaz de Pastrana, on condition that he should produce guarantors and securities for the property. If he could not, the property should be entrusted to some affluent person. We do not know whether they returned or whether this was an excuse for Rodrigo del Mercado to take over this property, and not merely because of his loyalty to the Crown. The fate of Jaco Arragel is known to us because of the permission to return to Spain given by the Catholic Monarchs to the conversos of Portugal on 20 March 1498, 94 The order was drafted by Luis del Castillo with the approbation of the council. See RGS 12 No. 822, fo. 453. 95 See E. Cantera Montenegro, ‘Judíos de Torrelaguna (Madrid) a fines del siglo XV’, AIEM 19 (1982), 427–44 at 430 (no. 5), 434 (no. 21), 439 (no. 42). 96 ‘Symuel Arragel e Jaco e Mose Arrageles e de Jamila, muger que fue de Yuça Arragel, vezinos de Algete’: see RGS 10 No. 1283, fo. 166, issued on 16 May 1493. It is published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 514–16. The order was drafted by Felipe Clemente, protonotary and secretary of the monarchs, with the approbation of the Royal Council.

320

smuggling

after King Manuel expelled the Jews who had come from Spain. Arragel died in Portugal, and his heirs were forced to convert during the persecutions of 1497. They then returned to Spain and demanded of Pedro de la Peña, a resident of Talamanca, that he should return their father’s property. Pedro de la Peña asked the Crown to deny this request, for he had owned the property for six years, and improved it with his hard work. The Crown accepted his petition and forbade the magistrates of the kingdom to return the property, although orders had been issued to the returnees entitling them to it.97

Ocaña In the town of Ocaña, Juan de Alcalá, a resident of Madrid and the chief tax-collector in that province, having bought the house of a Jew named Yose, found that it had been granted by the Crown to Martín Cuello, a canon in the town, and to his relatives (‘primos’) and had already been transferred to the new owners. The grounds of the confiscation were the smuggling of silver, gold, and coined money to Portugal. However, Juan de Alcalá argued that Yose had not gone to Portugal, but to Cartagena, certainly with the intention of going to the East, and hence could not be accused of smuggling; moreover, he had sold him the house before he departed, on the basis of the permission granted to the Jews by the Crown to sell their property as they wished. To prove his claim he presented the bill of sale, which was acknowledged as a valid document, to Rodrigo del Mercado. It was found that the action of the local magistrates and the alguacil in transferring the house to Martín Cuello was illegal and exceeded their authority. However, Martín Cuello petitioned the Crown Council, claiming that the sale had been fraudulent, that Yose had indeed smuggled silver and other contraband out of the country, that a fictitious sale was invalid. In pleading before the council, Juan de Alcalá succeeded in proving his case, and ownership of the house was restored to him. However, Martín Cuello was permitted to continue gathering evidence to back his claim.98 The route taken and the distance between Ocaña and Cartagena apparently helped Juan de Alcalá to prove his ownership of the house, though the accusation of smuggling was not withdrawn.

Talavera de la Reina and Puente del Arzobispo Long after the expulsion, on 30 January 1498, Sebastián de Lobatón was appointed to investigate acts of smuggling committed by Jews who had departed from Talavera de la Reina, Puente del Arzobispo, and their environs.99 This certainly referred to smuggling by land into Portugal. Many exiles managed to return after converting to Christianity voluntarily, or after being forced to convert in the Portuguese persecutions of 1497, and once more the Crown became interested in ascertaining the extent of smuggling of gold, silver, coins, and other contraband from the kingdom, and identifying those 97 See RGS 15 No. 815, fo. 80, drafted by Juan Ramírez with the approbation of the council. See also Ch. 7 below. 98 See RGS 12 No. 932, fo. 556, dated 28 Feb. 1495, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council. 99 Sebastián de Lobatón served as a resident magistrate in Ciudad Real from 1488 to 1492 and in Medina del Campo and Olmeda in 1492. See Lunenfeld, Keepers, 96. According to Lunenfeld, he had the title of licenciado, although in the present document he is called a bachiller. See RGS 15 No. 186, fo. 154.

smuggling

321

who had assisted in the offence. Lobatón’s authority was plenary and comprehensive: he was permitted to investigate and gather information from the members of the local councils, the corregidores, caballeros, escuderos, ‘good men’, and the like in any possible case.100 Once the information had been collected, he was to appoint a prosecutor who would bring to trial those accused of smuggling, judge them in accordance with the fuero for interim and final decisions, and upon conviction confiscate their property and sell it by public auction.101 The question arising here concerns the date of his appointment as an investigator, 30 January 1498, rather than the appointment itself. Nearly six years had passed since the expulsion, and the matter of smuggling was known in the kingdom: it was more or less a daily occurrence. Perhaps the date is specifically connected to the return of the exiles, to the conditions of their life after their return, and to the purchase of their houses and businesses at the price for which they had sold them, plus the cost of improvements. However, we must bear in mind the benefit derived by the Royal Treasury from these confiscations. After completing his investigation of smuggling in Talavera and Puente del Arzobispo, on 20 March 1498 Lobatón was authorized to conduct a similar investigation in the dioceses of Plasencia, Coria, and Badajoz, the province of León, and the maestrazgos of Santiago and Alcántara; that is to say, the whole of south-western Castile.102 An order issued by the Crown on 2 May 1498 is indicative of his methods and their severity.103 On that day Gonzalo de Alcaraz was sent by the Crown to his areas of jurisdiction;104 the two were ordered to investigate the decisions and judgments that had been made regarding smuggling. Lobatón’s severity, even towards the poor, proved so excessive that they were unable to pay the heavy fines and penalties. Thus the Crown understood that he had gone too far, with dubious benefit for itself, and realized that there was nothing to confiscate from Christians who had helped smuggle gold, silver, coins, and other contraband into Portugal. It therefore decided to content itself with fines, which were to be guaranteed by freezing assets belonging to those involved in smuggling until they had finished paying what was levied from them, under the supervision of reliable men in the locality.

Torre de Mormojón Acts of smuggling by a resident of Torre de Mormojón, Simuel Agay, are mentioned in a document concerning his son Diego Gómez del Castillo.105 The father went into 100 His salary and that of the notary were to be covered by these sales. His salary was set at 230 mrs a day, and the notary’s at 70 mrs a day. This was for a period of thirty days. See RGS 15 No. 186, fo. 154. 101 The order was drafted by Gaspar de Grisio, a secretary of the king and queen, with the approbation of the licenciado Zapata on 30 Jan. 1498. 102 He was given four months and his salary was the same as it had been in Talavera (see above, n. 100). The penalty for non-compliance with the order was loss of favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. See RGS 14 No. 813, fo. 504, drafted by Gaspar de Grisio, with the approbation of the Royal Council. See below regarding the situation in Palencia and its vicinity. 103 The order was drafted by Gaspar de Grisio, with the approbation of the licenciado Zapata. See RGS 15 No. 1252, fo. 162. 104 The order specifies Talavera, Puente del Arzobispo, the dioceses of Palencia, Coria, and Badajoz, the city of Ciudad Rodrigo, the province of León, and the maestrazgo of Alcántara. 105 On him see Ch. 7 below. He was a resident of Medina de Rioseco. See also Ch. 4 above.

322

smuggling

exile and was found guilty of smuggling out silver and other forbidden items. He left property in the town, which the Crown probably confiscated. The son returned as a convert to Christianity, and in 1495–6 served as the tax-collector in the town of Covarrubias. Having suffered the confiscation by Francisco Arias of 150,000 mrs, apparently in connection with the claim against his father, he obtained an order from the Crown for the return of 72,000 mrs, to be deposited with a trustworthy magistrate and regidor from Covarrubias until the Crown should reach a decision on the matter. This order was issued on 24 July 1498 with the approbation of the alcalde Gonzalo Sánchez de Castro.106

Plasencia The proximity of Extremadura to the Portuguese border encouraged smuggling. On 27 November 1492 the Crown instructed the comendador Pedro Suárez de San Pedro, a contino of the royal house, to collect 45,000 mrs in Plasencia from debts that the Jews had sold to Christians.107 This order recites that he had been appointed to investigate the extent to which the Jews had smuggled gold, silver, and coins into Portugal.108 We do not know when he was charged with this task, but his jurisdiction was surely not restricted to Plasencia and its diocese in Extremadura as specified in the document. A resident of Plasencia, Don Meir, who returned and converted to Christianity, taking the name of Juan Gutiérrez, had smuggled out gold, silver, coins, and other forbidden items. Fearing on his return lest the Crown should confiscate his property, he sought a pardon on the grounds that he had returned everything he had smuggled to Castile. Indeed, on 31 March 1493 the Crown saw fit to pardon him and determined that he was not to be punished for smuggling. However, the debts he had left behind were to be impounded until the Crown should decide what to do with them. Thus Don Meir apparently remained a wealthy man after returning to his city and converting to Christianity. He probably did not stay long in Portugal.109 106 See RGS 15 No. 1825, fo. 86. This order, drafted by Antonio de Almendares, incorporates another one issued two days earlier, drafted by Gaspar de Grisio. 107 See RGS 9 No. 3427, fo. 221, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 491–2. The order was drafted by Fernán Álvarez de Toledo, a secretary of the monarchs, according to their instructions. 108 ‘Bien sabedes como por nuestro mandado teneys cargo de haser çierta pesquisa en la çibdad de Plasençia e su obispado quien e quales personas fueron culpantes por aver sacado e fecho sacar de nuestros reynos oro e plata e moneda amonedada e otros cosas vedadas de los judios que nos mandamos salir de los dichos nuestros reynos’, RGS 9 No. 3427, fo. 221. 109 See RGS 10 No. 865, fo. 65, drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the Royal Council. This did not prevent Gutiérrez from obtaining on 11 Oct. 1494 an order from the Crown to Pedro Maldonado, the ‘juez pesquizidor en el obispado de Plasencia y Coria’ (see Appendix for activities in which he was involved between 1494 and 1496). When he left for exile he sold his house to a Christian named Polo, a resident of Valladolid, for 13,000 mrs, exempt from the alcabala tax (‘horro de alcauala’), on condition that if he returned within a year, he would receive the house on the same terms on which he sold it. When he returned, the purchaser refused to return the house to him. Gutiérrez also mentioned promissory notes that he had deposited with the racienero Pedro de Villalobos for the collection of debts and payment of tercia. The Crown responded: see RGS 11 No. 3209, fo. 489, drafted by Cristóbal de Vitoria with the approbation of the council.

smuggling

323

Abadía A resident of Abadía who had gone into exile as a Jew returned as a Christian under the name Juan Rodríguez de Castro. At his departure he was accused of smuggling out gold, silver, and other contraband; his property, along with that of his wife and children, who also returned and converted to Christianity, was confiscated by Pedro de Maldonado, the magistrate and prosecutor for Jewish property and debts in the diocese of Plasencia and Coria. In his petition to the Crown, Juan Rodríguez claimed that he was without any livelihood and asked for mercy. The Crown saw fit to respond to him by virtue of his past services and those which he would render to the Crown. Most likely he had also rendered those services to Don Juan de Zúñiga, maestre and caballero of the order of Alcántara, who also recommended to the Crown that mercy should be shown to the petitioner. The Crown forgave him for the acts of smuggling he had committed while a Jew, and rescinded his punishment: on 15 September 1495 Maldonado was ordered to return the confiscated property, and Juan Rodríguez was permitted to make use of it and of the property of his wife and sons as his own, with full freedom to alienate it.110

Valencia de Alcántara A group of documents informs us about an extensive smuggling affair involving a royal official and local residents. The episode certainly began immediately after the first wave of exiles sought the assistance of Juan de Porras, a resident of Mérida. Not until 5 February 1495 did the Crown send an order to de Herrera (first name missing), to the escríbano Pedro de Ávila, and to Rodrigo Dasa (a blank space follows the name), residents of Alcántara.111 The document refers to a trial pending in the tribunal of the royal court, where the prosecutor, the licenciado de Romani, had brought charges against Porras,112 and also against the acting alcalde de sacas in the city of Valencia de Alcántara, Diego de Vera,113 whom he accused of smuggling and assisting Jews in smuggling in 1492, 1493, and 1494. The exiles, who had gone to Portugal, had removed 110 See RGS 12 No. 3456, fo. 220. The sanction for non-compliance was loss of favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. The document was drafted on orders of the Crown; the draftsman’s name is missing, but he was probably Fernán Álvarez de Toledo. 111 See RGS 12 No. 456, fo. 105. 112 On 28 Aug. 1496 licenciado de Romani sued Pedro Palomeco, the bachiller Diego Villasyega, the bachiller Robada, and the cobbler Pedro Sánchez, residents of Salamanca, for seizing buildings that had belonged to the Jewish community: RGS 13 No. 1482, fo. 104. He and a group of magistrates, Alonso de Salamanca, Diego Mejía, and Rodrigo de la Barrera, had robbed Mose Nahim of Badajoz near the city, when he was on his way back from the fair in Medina el Campo. They were condemned to death for this, and the merchandise they had stolen was returned. The Crown, with the approbation of the council, ordered Álvaro de Tavira, the acting corregidor of Badajoz, to carry out the verdict, which dated from 11 Jan. 1492. See RGS 9 No. 56, fo. 143. The verdict was apparently not executed. Regarding complaints against Maldonado see above, n. 110, and also a document from August (day missing) 1496. That order, issued to Pedro Maldonado, states that Porras was accused of smuggling. Pedro Maldonado was instructed to transmit information to the Crown Council. RGS 13 No. 1541, fo. 97. 113 See above for an account of Trujillo. Also see RGS 12 No. 4092, fo. 77 (day missing) Nov. 1495. RGS 13 No. 1541, fo. 97, (day missing) Aug. 1496.

324

smuggling

jewels, gold, silver, and coined money, grain, and gunpowder (‘salitre’), and other contraband. He had received bribes (‘dádivas’) from them. A verdict had already been issued for his transgressions, but the prosecutor wished to present further witnesses, who were ordered to appear before the Crown court within fifteen days and to testify about what was known to them. The men mentioned in the order were to see that they appeared; the witnesses would receive a daily recompense of 200 mrs, to come from the fines collected by Porras, which he in turn imposed on the residents of the town.114 A royal order issued on 11 April 1495115 contains the names of the witnesses whom Romani produced: Martín Rey; Pedro Rey; Juan Rey; Alonso Rey; Fernando, known as el tuerto, ‘christiano e convertido’; Diego, a convert, the son of Bartolomé García; Fernando de Llerena, ‘guarda convertido’—all of whom were residents of Valencia de Alcántara. Other witnesses were also summoned: Diego Amarillo, a convert, resident in Ávila; Diego López, a convert resident in Béjar del Castañar; and Miguel Hernández, a resident of Plasencia. Thus an entire group was involved in smuggling and in helping the Jews leave for exile.116 At the end of November 1495 (the date is missing), an order was issued to the corregidor and magistrates of Ávila and Béjar del Castañar as well as the other cities, towns, and settlements of the kingdom regarding the appearance of additional witnesses whom the prosecutor wished to summon. These witnesses, two of whom are named in the summons but had not appeared, were: from Ávila, Diego Amarillo, Francisco de Braga, and Diego de Peña; from Béjar, the weaver Alonso González, Juan López, and Diego López. All the witnesses were conversos who had been personally summoned to appear in the past but had not appeared to testify before the magistrates of the royal court, and were therefore accused of insubordination. The prosecutor sought to have them summoned again and to impose the punishments that they deserved. The summons obliged the corregidores and magistrates to see that they appeared before the judges, and the witnesses were required to produce guarantees that they would do so, on pain of being arrested and brought at their expense to testify before the judges, who would decide what was to be done to them.117 This was not the end of the affair. In August 1496 (the day is missing) Pedro de Maldonado was ordered to take care of Romani’s prosecution against Porras. This order repeats the accusation of major acts of smuggling involving large amounts of money, 114 The sanction for non-compliance with the order was quite severe: loss of the Crown’s favour, loss of positions, and a fine of 25,000 mrs payable to the Royal Treasury. RGS 13 No. 1541, fo. 97. The name of the scribe who drafted the order is missing, as well as the body which issued it, though it was certainly with 115 See RGS 12 No. 1798, fo. 430. the approbation of the council. 116 This order repeats accusations of smuggling as mentioned above. In addition, it mentions bribery (‘dadivas’) as well as interest (‘ynterese’) which Juan de Porras received, probably a certain percentage of the value of the contraband (RGS 12 No. 1798, fo. 430). The summoning of witnesses was also connected with severe penalties. They were to appear within twelve days, and their expenses would be paid upon their appearance before the court. If they failed to appear they would lose favour and be subject to a fine of 20,000 mrs. The order was drafted by Nicolás Gómez, escríbano de cámara of the Crown, with the approbation of the judges, the licenciados Gonzalo Fernández Gallego, Luis de Polanco, and Pedro de Mercado (who was also the escríbano of the prison). 117 The name of the man who drafted the order is missing, as is that of the body which issued it. See RGS 12 No. 4092, fo. 77.

smuggling

325

jewels, silver, and gold, and other contraband,118 and emphasizes the great frauds for which he had been convicted. Maldonado was ordered to transmit the evidence to the council.119 We do not know how the affair ended, but there is no doubt that this important source is instructive regarding the extent of smuggling and the involvement of various men in it, including those who held office in border areas and helped the deportees save a remnant of their property.

Badajoz As we have seen, the location of Badajoz near the Portuguese border made it a natural locus for smuggling. In June, apparently 27 June 1492, the monarchs appointed the knight commander of the royal house Francisco de León to investigate smuggling from this city to Portugal. He did not manage to complete the investigation, and on 16 August 1492 the king and queen extended his appointment by fifty days to allow him to finish the inquiry in Badajoz and the maestrazgo of Alcántara.120 Investigations conducted in that region led the Crown, on 13 July 1493, to instruct Luis González de Sepúlveda and Lope de Villarreal, a contino of the royal house,121 to go to the border area in the diocese of Badajoz, the maestrazgo of Alcántara, and other places to investigate directly the extent of smuggling.122 Those responsible for the permanent transit points had helped Jews who had crossed the border there to smuggle out gold and other contraband, and continued, in pursuance of illicit agreements, to help them, once they were in Portugal, to smuggle out further amounts of money.123 The appointment of these two emissaries was for five months, with full authority; the extended time which they were ordered to spend in that broad border region shows how rife smuggling was, for such appointments usually lasted sixty days, and only in a few places were they extended for an additional sixty days. The Crown’s agents were ordered to determine not only who were the active smugglers but also what had been smuggled and what was the value of the contraband.124 However, the Crown was apparently not content with this appointment: on 30 December 1493 Juan de Soria, the secretary of the Crown Prince Don Juan,125 was 118 ‘Muchas contias de maravedis e joyas e plata e oro e otras muchas cosas vedadas’, RGS 13 No. 1541, fo. 97. 119 The sanctions stipulated were loss of favour and positions in the kingdom and a fine of 10,000 mrs. The exact date of the order is missing, as are the names of the scribe and the body that issued it. 120 The order provides him with a salary, though no amount is mentioned. See RGS 9 No. 2706, fo. 157, drafted by Fernán Álvarez de Toledo, the secretary of the king and queen. A draft of the order is extant in the handwriting of Fernán Álvarez. 121 Lope de Villarreal was ordered to cover the expenses of the witnesses whom the prosecutor of the royal court, the licenciado Diego de Romani, produced against Juan de Porras, who was accused of smuggling from that region. RGS 12 No. 456, fo. 105 (5 Feb. 1495). 122 See RGS 10 No. 1910, fo. 230, published by Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 523–4. 123 ‘Grandes quantias de maravedis’. 124 They were to give the Crown a detailed report on the results of their investigation. The order was drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the magistrate Gonzalo Fernández Gallego, who was very active in trying cases of smuggling. 125 On him see above and also nn. 24–5. See also RGS 12 No. 4059, fo. 105, dated 23 Nov. 1495.

326

smuggling

also ordered to investigate the extent of smuggling in the region.126 He was authorized to confiscate property and uncollected debts left behind by the Jews. These were all were to be transferred to Crown ownership. The Crown depended upon the memorandum on smuggling submitted by Gonzalo Fernández Gallego. Later Soria’s authority was extended over the entire country, owing to his proven reliability. He was to deposit the impounded assets with dependable men until the Crown should decide what to do with the large amounts of confiscated property. Persons in possession of information about smuggling were also required to appear before him and reveal what was known to them.

Mérida Without doubt the Jews of Mérida who went into exile via Badajoz could make use of smugglers to remove their money. This was the case with Isaque Aben Anco, a merchant who smuggled out coin and other contraband, as was reported to the Crown by Juan Núñez, who was resident there. Isaque Aben Anco left a house and grounds in Mérida, ‘in the new street entering the Jewish quarter near the square’.127 Juan Núñez asked the Crown to give him the house and grounds; the Crown agreed to this as recompense for certain missions that he had performed for it. The house and grounds were granted to him and his heirs after him in perpetuity, and he was permitted to do what he wished with them. The Crown also ordered Rodrigo Manrique, the governor of the province of León, the magistrates, and the corregidor of Badajoz, Alonso Enríquez, to make certain that Juan Núñez was not injured; Manrique was to remove all impediments to the transfer of that property to his ownership.128 We do not know what services Juan Núñez had done to merit this grant.129

Galicia Above we have mentioned smuggling by sea. Though it was relatively easy to depart for exile by sea, the dangers were many because of piracy and robbery by the ships’ captains and crew. Obviously, in order to leave Spain by sea, the exiles had to make their way to the ports and join convoys of departing Jews who lived in the port cities. Marcos Alonso, a resident of La Coruña, informed the Crown about acts of smuggling committed by Ysaque, a silversmith (‘platero’), also of La Coruña, who had re126 ‘Sobre el paso e salida de los judios de los dichos nuestros reynos e de los bienes e debdas que dexaron en ellos que pertenesçen a nos por aver sacado dellos dinero e plata e joyas e moneda amonedada e otras cosas de las vedadas e defendidas por las leyes de los dichos nuestros reynos’. 127 ‘En la calle nueva para entrar e la juderya çerca de la plaça’, RGS 11 No. 2441, fo. 13. 128 All the Jewish property remaining in Andalusia was under his supervision, as was found in that part of the province of León. On 16 May 1494 he was ordered by the Crown to deal with the petition of Alonso Álvarez, a resident of Llerena, against Yose de Avila, a resident of Llerena who had fled and settled in Villanueva de Barcarrota, which belonged to Fernán Gómez de Solis. See RGS 11 No. 1891, fo. 225. On 10 May 1498 he is mentioned in an order regarding the investigation and trial of Jews who had gone into exile and smuggled out money and other contraband. This touched upon the return of those Jews resident in Zafra who had gone into exile, converted to Christianity, and returned. See RGS 15 No. 1380, fo. 161. The document was sent to Sebastián de Lobatón, the magistrate and prosecutor in Talavera de la Reina. 129 Issued on 20 July 1494, drafted by Juan de la Parra on instructions of the king and queen.

smuggling

327

moved coins, gold, silver, pearls, and other valuables worth 2,500,000 mrs.130 These acts of smuggling had taken place with the knowledge of the alcabala farmers in the city, and two large silver ingots remained in their hands.131 Marcos had seen these with his own eyes. Clearly Ysaque the silversmith was rich enough to reach an agreement with the tax-farmers. He and other Jews left Spain for Africa on a ship owned by the merchant Juan de San Juan, a resident of La Coruña. Similarly other sea captains transported Jews from Villafranca del Bierzo, Ferrol, and Ponte d’Eume to Lisbon. The corregidor and others knew about the smuggling from Marcos Alonso’s memorandum to the licenciado Gonzalo Fernández Gallego, the magistrate of the royal court and the comendador de la Parra, the monarchs’ secretary. The gravity of the offence led the monarchs on 13 May 1493 to instruct Luis Niño, known as ‘maestrescuela de Jahen’, a member of the council, to investigate it with recourse to Marcos Alonso, who had supplied the information to the Crown.132 His authority was extensive and included permission to confiscate the property of those involved in smuggling and to deposit it with dependable local residents. Alonso’s information should probably not be seen as a unique case, since a regular shipping lane was active between the ports of northern Spain and Lisbon. The owners and captains of the ships were Basques, Portuguese, and Genoese.133 Jews also sailed from Cádiz to Lisbon. On 4 February 1494 Juan de Benavides, the corregidor of Cádiz, was instructed to investigate the petition of Bernadino Tomás, a resident of Villafranca del Bierzo, in his own and his brother’s name. They had gone into exile in Lisbon with the intention of taking ship there for Naples, but been robbed by the shipowner, the Basque Pedro Sánchez; they demanded the return of what he had stolen from them. Complaints about sea captains were many, and the investigation of the corregidor did not resolve the problem of the robbery, though it did open the way to the investigation of smuggling. ✻

The foregoing accounts of smuggling primarily express the deportees’ concern for their future when they left Spain for an unknown fate. Under the difficult conditions of the expulsion, with the loss of their livelihoods and means of support, and the dreadful cruelty that accompanied their departure into exile, their separation from places where they and their ancestors had lived for centuries, can anyone blame them for the illegal means they employed to ensure their future existence? The stories presented above, of those who were caught smuggling out their property, and the accounts of those who returned and submitted to the conditions of return and converted to Christianity, begging for mercy and grace for themselves and their property so they 130 ‘Moneda e oro e plata e perlas e otras cosas de valor en quantia de dos quentos e medio de maravedis’. See RGS 10 No. 1248, fo. 180, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 513–14, and also in Rodriguez Fernández, Provincia de León, ii. 421–2. 131 ‘Quedaron a los dichos arrendadores dos pastas de plata grandes’, RGS 10 No. 1248, fo. 180. 132 See RGS 10 No. 1248, fo. 180. The investigator was permitted to impose sanctions on anyone with information about smuggling. The order was drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of licenciado 133 On the part played in the expulsion by the Genoese, see Ch. 5 above. Gallego.

328

smuggling

could begin anew where they had lived before the expulsion or somewhere nearby, show the predicament of people with no alternative. These are stories of trials and tribulations, and the defeat of the exiles’ hope of building a new life in the kingdom of Portugal, where they sought a safe haven for themselves and their households.

7

Return and Conversion t cannot be determined exactly when exiles who had managed to find a place to settle in Portugal began to consider returning to their places of origin in ISpain. They knew that return was possible only following conversion to Christianity, and that returning to Spain raised problems regarding property that had been left behind. For example, members of some families agreed to convert to Christianity and return, while other members of those families had remained in Spain and property had been deposited with them. In many instances, property had been sold by the deportees for less than half its value, and the returnees wished to recover it.1 How would the residents who had remained in place respond to the returnees, and how would they receive them? These are only a few of the issues. In many instances the parents of deportees died after reaching Portugal, for the conditions there caused considerable mortality, and then, in their despair, the children sought to return to their former place of residence, where they hoped to rehabilitate themselves. As Rabbi Abraham the son of Rabbi Solomon Halevy Bakarat eloquently lamented: ‘and they wearied of bearing their burden, and countless numbers returned to the kingdom of Castile and forfeited their honour. And this happened to those of them who went to the kingdom of Portugal and to those who came to the kingdom of Fez.’2 Moreover, the returnees were people of property who wished to take up the life they had led before going into exile, though now in Christian guise. Certainly the proximity of Portugal to Spain also encouraged them to return, for far fewer of those who went by sea to North Africa returned, and those who went to the East did not return at all. We do not know when they began seeking ways of returning to Spain. The Edict of Expulsion stated explicitly that those who returned would be condemned to death. An opportunity for return was created by the decree of the king and queen issued in Barcelona on 10 November 1492 in favour of three physicians, whose names are written on the back: maestre Lope, a physician; Rabbi Yose the son of Rabbi Jacob, the physician of Enrique IV; and also the physician Be[ ]r son of Yom Tov, a resident of Madrid. The distance between Barcelona and Portugal shows that the request was made a considerable time before the order was signed. Mention of the names of the cities of Zamora and others indicates the route by which it was sent. The decree reads: 1 The formula of this type of document is almost fixed and reads either ‘menos de la mitad del preçio’ or ‘a menos preçio de mitad’. See the detailed accounts of the sales below. 2 On return and conversion and the attitude of Jewish sources to return see Ben-Sasson, ‘The Generation of the Exiles from Spain on Itself’, esp. n. 67.

330

return and conversion

Don Ferdinand and Doña Isabella etc. . . . to all the corregidores, asistentes, magistrate, alguaciles, and other judges of the city of Zamora and of all the other cities, towns, and places of residence in our kingdoms and under our dominion, and to everyone to whom this edict shall be shown, as signed by a notary, blessings and grace. Let it be known to you that on the part of certain Jews who are present in the kingdom of Portugal, who departed from our kingdoms and dominion according to the edict that we proclaimed, a petition has been presented to us, saying that they have merited the light of the Holy Spirit, after they recognized the error in which they are situated, and it is their wish to return to our kingdoms in order to convert to the holy religion, to remain and die in it as Catholic Christians. And in their petition they addressed and requested that grace be done to them, so that they might enter our kingdoms, and we might grant them a writ of protection and defence, so that they might come in security and freedom, they, their children, and their wives, and their property. And because it is their wish to live and dwell in those places where they had lived when they were Jews, we order that their houses and their moveable and immoveable property that they sold and left behind should be returned to them by those who possess them, if they pay the same price in mrs as that for which they sold it, and that they should add for improvement [mejoramiento] that has been carried out on the property, or as the thing shall be according to the extent of our favour. As we have seen that this matter will be of service to the Lord and to the glory of our holy Catholic faith, we favour it, and we so instruct and grant this order. And according to it we take under our royal protection and defence all Jews and Jewesses who wish to come to our kingdom and dominions, and this [on condition] that they shall have previously converted to Christianity in Ciudad Rodrigo, or in the kingdom of Portugal, or in the first settlement [to which they come] in our kingdoms, that is to say: those who went to Portugal via Badajoz shall return and convert to Christianity in Badajoz; those who left via Ciudad Rodrigo shall return and convert to Christianity in Ciudad Rodrigo; and those who left via Zamora shall return and convert to Christianity in Zamora. And in each of these cities where they convert to Christianity, they shall be baptized in the presence of the bishop or his provisor, the corregidor, or magistrates of that city, and they shall bring with them an authentic affidavit of how they were baptized as stated above. Those who converted to Christianity in Portugal shall bring an affidavit and declaration that they wish to enter our kingdoms, so that we can be certain how those Jews became Christians, and that there shall be no fraud or pretence. And we extend our protection to all those Jews who are present in the kingdom of Portugal and wish to convert to Christianity in that kingdom, that they may come to these cities, to every one of them, so that they may enjoy what was stated in this our decree, but not in any other place. And to those who come and bring their property with them, we promise in the name of all people, be they of whatsoever religion, estate, or condition, rank, or authority of any kind, that no harm, damage, or injury shall be done to them or to their property against the law and without any reason, as this is forbidden. And we order you, our judges and every one of you in your localities and the area of your jurisdiction, that you must observe and maintain and see to it that all the things stated in this order of protection and defence are observed and maintained, for those Jews who shall come to our kingdom and become Christians and who possess affidavits to that effect, as noted above. And you shall not act against what is stated in our decree, and you shall not consent that it be acted against at any time or in any form. And we also order that every time you may be requested by those Jews who converted to Christianity, as noted, you shall summon before you the people to whom they sold their houses and property when they left our kingdoms, and you shall verify what was the price for

return and conversion

331

which they sold [the property], and after [the returnees] have paid the price with the addition of the cost of improvements to the property, you shall make certain that the property is returned to them, so that they can live in their houses and enjoy their property without any impediment, since it is our grace and will that this should be done. And if anyone owes them money, see to it that it is paid to the creditors according to law, only if there is no debt for interest and other obligations that the laws of the kingdom command that they shall not be paid. And neither these nor others shall you implement, under penalty of loss of favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs payable to the royal treasury. Issued in the city of Barcelona, 10 November 1492. I, the king. I, the queen. I, Juan de la Parra, secretary to the king and queen, wrote as I was ordered. Comendador mayor Rodrigo de Ulloa,3 as agreed. Rodriques doctor. Drafted with the approbation of Rodrigo de Ulloa.4

Clearly we may infer from this order that the initiative was taken by a group of deportees living in Portugal who found an attorney who could petition the royal court and request that the order be given with the approbation of the king and queen. Most likely these were the first harbingers of those who made up their mind to return, and that they were the physicians mentioned above. The demand for the return of those who had ‘seen the light’ and wished to live in the Catholic faith, which they would accept upon their return, is consistent with the response of the Crown, which sought to glorify the Catholic religion, and it must be seen in the structure of the document as part of the narratio which explains the reason for issuing the order, its justification, and its religious purpose. Only afterwards were the conditions for their return stated: conversion in Portugal or in the first town they reached after crossing the border into Spain, and, preferably, at the crossing-point by which they had left Spain: Ciudad Rodrigo, Badajoz, or Zamora.5 Also the Jews who were in Portugal and wished to convert to Christianity had to cross the border at those three points. Most likely the purpose of this directive was for supervision, for it is generally agreed that a list was kept of those who crossed through the border cities, and information was also gathered about them. The conversion and baptism had to take place in the presence of the bishop or his provisor and the heads of the local government. In practical terms, the order determined the manner in which the property of those who returned and converted to Christianity would be received. It mentioned just one method: payment according to the price received by those who departed at the time of the sale,6 with the addition of reimbursement for improvements in the property made by the buyers. This also applied to the collection of debts owed by Christians to creditors who returned from exile.7 Hence protection and defence were to be accorded to the returnees by order of the 3 See de la Soterraña and Postigo, Cancillería, 230 ff. He served as the chief accountant: Rumeu de Armas, Nueva luz, 33–4. He died in 1494. 4 See RGS 9 No. 3284, fo. 40, as published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 487–9; however, he omitted the text on the dorse. For the complete version of the permission to return see A. de la Torre and L. Suárez Fernández, Documentos referentes a las relaciones con Portugal durante el reinado de los Reyes Católicos (Valladolid, 1960), ii. 406–8. The order was issued in Barcelona; we do not know who served as an intermediary in obtaining it. 5 See Ch. 5 above, especially regarding passage through Ciudad Rodrigo. 6 See below regarding changes in the method of returning property. 7 On complications regarding debts see Ch. 4 above.

332

return and conversion

Crown to those who held office in the kingdom and to all the inhabitants of any religion whatsoever (this doubtless referred to Muslims) that no harm should be done to them, under penalty of loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs to anyone injuring the returnees. In our opinion, although there is no formal connection between those who received this edict of ‘return and conversion’ and those who received permission to return on 20 November 1492, it seems likely that the breakthrough described above served as a precedent for another group of Jews who returned and converted to Christianity, the Segovia group, headed by Jaco Galfon. When he became involved in a lawsuit before the authorities, he claimed to his credit that he had persuaded a group of exiles to return with him and convert to Christianity.8 The edict of ‘return and conversion’ is not limited in time, and for this very reason it is to be viewed as a response to specific pleas. It was later to become the foundation of domestic social and economic policy in the kingdom with relation also to the Christian population, which had bought property from those leaving for exile. By systematically determining the path of return to Spain, the express prohibition of the return of Jews as Jews was upheld, as well as the entry of any Jews at all into Spain, as we shall see below. In this spirit, Ferdinand and Isabella issued a second order on 30 April 1493, referring to exiles who crossed the border from neighbouring Navarre. This edict referred to exiles who crossed the border from neighbouring Navarre. The preamble of that order precisely repeated the wording of that of 10 November 1492, cited above. The second order was also drafted with the approbation of the monarchs by their secretary Juan de Parra.9 However, it includes an important addition, which reads as follows: that some of those who have already converted to Christianity and do not dare to return to our kingdoms. And those who returned with the idea of leaving once again for other kingdoms because they are worried and fearful of being molested and personally injured, and that their property will also be harmed, for they have been threatened and accused of having removed forbidden items from the kingdom, crimes committed when they were Jews.10 18 A copy of the order of 10 Nov. 1492 was attached to the writ of protection granted to Jaco Galfon (on whom see Ch. 6 above) and the group that came with him: see RGS 9 No. 3371, fo. 26. The order also appears in RGS 10 No. 903, fo. 211, dated 3 Apr. 1493. Galfon claimed to have also convinced his relations —the children of Guiomar de Toledo (the wife of Pero López, a physician), María de Toledo, and Fernando Álvarez—to convert to Christianity and return. He himself returned with his sons Levi Galfon (Cristóbal Suárez) and Abraham Galon (Fernando Suárez), his daughter Gemila, and his son-in-law maestre Juan (whose name as a Jew had been Jacob Çurujano). See RGS 10 No. 974, fo. 21, dated 18 Apr. 1493. See the account of the returnees to Segovia below. The order concerning him was also issued in Barcelona, which means that the petition reached there before the order permitting him to return was signed. That permission to return, dated 20 Nov. 1492, mentions the name of Rodrigo de Ulloa. 19 Juan de la Parra drafted many royal decrees connected with the activity of the council of the kingdom regarding the Jews who returned and the problems of their property. On him, see de la Soterraña and Postigo, Cancillería, 230. 10 ‘E algunos dellos eran ya convertidos e non osavan boluer a estos nuestros reynos. E algunos de los que son bueltos estan con yntençion de yr a bevir a otros reynos porque se reçeleuan e temian que serian fatigados e enojados en sus personas e fasiendas por razon que les amenazarian aver sacado algunas cosas vedadas del reyno e aver fecho algunos ynsultos en los tienpos que fueron judios’, see RGS 10 No. 2023, fo. 51. The order was issued on instructions of the king and queen, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 526–7.

return and conversion

333

This order was also addressed to the heads of the cities and local government and certainly it is the result of the experience that the authorities had acquired from the numbers of those seeking to return.11 This order is not different in other respects, though it lacks the list of border cities through which those who wished to return were required to pass and convert to Christianity. The return to Spain required further conditions, which were duly added in 1494 (or perhaps as early as 1493). Their purpose was to benefit those who had bought property from Jews who had gone into exile. One condition was the time-limit for return and conversion and for the returnees’ repurchase of their property. The grace period was four years, most likely from the date when the edict was first promulgated, that is to say, 10 November 1492. Thus the term was supposed to end in November 1496, though, as we shall see, the date was not strictly adhered to.12 A second condition was that the purchaser of a Jewish exile’s property should not have sold any of his own property to pay for it; but since such purchases were usually for half the true value, the Christian bought at a profit and put his livelihood on a firm footing. Clearly the regime sought to prevent the loss of assets by the purchasers of Jewish property, the development of a vicious cycle of property transfers, lawsuits, and local tensions, as well as the decrease in value of assets that were involved in purchase and sale.13 Conversely, the Crown permitted the Christian purchaser to add to the price that he had paid in 1492 to reach its full value at the time of the expulsion and so to retain what he had purchased from the Jew who went into exile. For his part, a Jew who had gone into exile and then returned as a convert to Christianity would receive the full value of his property in this manner, and, by combining the two payments that he had received (the original sum at the time of the sale plus that obtained during the renewed negotiations over the property), he could purchase other property and begin a new life. However, to do so he had to return the money he had removed from the kingdom, either by smuggling it out or by redeeming a bill of exchange purchased from Genoese merchants when he left for exile, and that money must have retained its value. The returning purchaser ran the risk of being accused of smuggling coin out of the kingdom. Moreover, it should also be recalled that certain returnees had left behind debts and promissory notes owed by Christians. They may also have sold these at a discount and sought to buy them back at that low price. These were the financial resources available to the returnees for repurchase of their property. Certainly the arrangements were not always to the benefit of the returnees, and one must seek the particular conditions of each instance and evaluate the skill in litigation of each attorney who addressed the Crown in the name of a returning converso and asked for grace. The lawsuits over property ownership often lasted for years, and their outcome may not be known to us. Property was attached for one reason or another, and it frequently happened that the returnees were cheated by representatives of the government in the cities and towns to which they returned.14 See Table 7.1. See e.g. the document, RGS 11 No. 1632, fo. 309, issued in April (day missing) 1494; see the description of those who returned to Medina del Campo. 13 14 See e.g. below on Huete in 1494. See e.g. below on Zara. 11 12

334

return and conversion

The forced conversions imposed on the exiles from Spain and the Jews of Portugal in 1497 also changed relations between the Spainsh converts and their country of origin. Without doubt the forced conversion put an end to their life as Jews. In addition to the other disasters that had befallen the exiles since they were forced to leave their native cities, their homes, and their property, they suffered in Portugal from want of subsistence, illness, and great mortality. One document issued and signed in Alcalá de Henares on 20 March 1498 says that ‘the king of Portugal, prince of Castile, León, Aragon, Sicily, and Granada, etc., our beloved son, ordered the expulsion from his kingdom of the Jews who had left our kingdom and were found in his kingdom’,15 and since it was the intention of the king and queen of Spain, his future parents-inlaw, to glorify their religion, they agreed to open the gates to the returnees, who had nowhere to go. Without doubt this refers to the Edict of Expulsion issued by King Manuel, and which stipulated the terms of his marriage to Isabella, the Crown Princess of Spain.16 Exploiting the condition that had developed in Portugal, which is a tale of woe in its own right, the monarchs of Spain stated that those who returned and converted to Christianity could receive their property, even though the four-year grace period had passed. This order was addressed to the Royal Council, the oidores of the royal audiencia, the alcaldes, the alguaciles of the royal court, and the royal chamber, and all the secular and ecclesiastical authorities of all the cities, towns, and settlements. Without doubt this order gave instructions on the treatment of the returnees.17 The second order, which was issued on the same day, 20 March 1498, in Alcalá de Henares, and which was also addressed to the members of the council and the other leaders of the kingdom, presents an additional reason for the desire to return to Spain on the part of those who converted to Christianity in Portugal: ‘the danger that they do not wish to take upon themselves in crossing the sea or for any other reason’,18 preferring to convert and return to Spain. Consequently the Crown renewed the orders that had been issued regarding those who returned and converted. One representative example is sufficient: Pedro de la Peña of Talamanca de Jarrama petitioned the Crown on the basis of this order that the heir of Jaco Arragel, a resident of Algete, should not be permitted to inherit his property after the passage of six years during which he (de 15 See RGS 15 No. 811, fo. 379. The order was drafted by Gaspar de Grizio, a secretary of the king and queen, with the approbation of the council of the kingdom: ‘E que agora nos somos ynformados que despues que el serenisimo rey de Portugal, prinçipe de Castilla, de Leon, de Aragon, de Seçilia, de Granada etç., nuestro muy amado fijo mando echar de su reyno los judios que el auia algunos de los dichos judios que se fueron de nuestros reynos e estauan en el suyo consternydos de la neçesydad que temen de no tener a donde se yr.’ This certainly was written after the betrothal with Isabella, the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella. 16 The Edict of Expulsion was signed in Muga on 5 Dec. 1496, and the deportees were given ten months to depart. For the edict see Amador de los Ríos, Historia social, política y religiosa de los judíos de España y Portugal, 1009–10. On events in Portugal after the Edict of Expulsion was made into an edict of forced conversion see Tishby, Meshih.iyut. 17 Regarding the numbers of returnees see the orders issued in 1497 and afterwards and also Table 7.1. 18 RGS 15 No. 815, fo. 80: ‘Por non se poner en peligro e de pasar la mar o por otra rason’. Drafted by Juan Ramírez, the notary of the chamber (‘escríbano de cámara’), with the approbation of the Council of the Realm, and issued on 20 Mar. 1498. This order is an addition to that prepared by Gaspár de Grizio, secretary of the king and queen.

return and conversion

335

la Peña) had improved, developed, and enlarged it. Now Arragel’s heirs and kindred had returned from Portugal and were burdening him with their suits for this property, which was not theirs. They based their suits on the new edicts regarding the return of conversos. The Crown responded to his appeal and ordered that, notwithstanding the directives that had been issued, they would not apply to Pedro de la Peña.19 On 5 September 1499 the Crown again forbade the return of Jews to Spain and imposed the death penalty upon returnees, unless they declared in advance their intention of converting to Christianity and returning to Spain for this purpose. It justified this order by claiming that Jews were returning to Spain, even though they were forbidden to do so at any time, and some had even been condemned for doing so.20 Those who returned claimed that ‘they were not among those who had been expelled from the kingdom, and the prohibition did not apply to them, for they came from other kingdoms. After they were caught and arrested, they claimed that it was their wish to become Christians, and there was doubt regarding the punishment which they merited.’21 In the renewed edict the Catholic Monarchs forbade both the entry of these people and the return of those expelled (‘echados’) from Spain: any Jew who entered was to be executed, even if he claimed that he had come for the purpose of conversion to Christianity, unless he declared in advance before a notary and witnesses in the first settlement that he reached in Spain. Only to these would entry be permitted.22 However, the returnees faced adversity, and they needed not only protection in order to buy back their property, but also special defence. We learn this from an order issued on 27 October 1493 by the Catholic Monarchs on behalf of the conversos of Cuenca, Osma, and Sigüenza, demanding that they should be treated decently. The order was addressed to the corregidores of the cities of those dioceses, for the returnees had complained to the Crown against the local residents, who had called them by the pejorative terms of ‘judios e tornadizos’, meaning ‘Jews and turncoats’, or Jews who had betrayed their people and their faith. Things reached such a pitch that they feared to leave their houses, as did their servants, and also to return to their former dwelling-places. The magistrates to whom they complained did arrest the people guilty of these offences, but they were soon released. They continued to threaten the returnees and did them severe harm. The Crown’s order stated that the corregidores must proclaim in all the public squares and places where it was customary to make proclamations, and in the presence of a notary, that it was forbidden to revile the returnees. The punishment to be imposed upon transgressors was to be serious.23 Ibid., and see Ch. 6 above (Algete). ‘E los mandamos que non tornasen a ellos en ningun tienpo so pena que si en ellos fuesen tomados muriesen por ello, lo qual se puso ansi en obra’. The document: RGS IX-1499 (unfoliated), published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 534–5; González Gallego, ‘Algunos datos’, 405. 21 ‘Que ellos non fueron de los que fueron echados dellos e que no se estiende a ellos la dicha nuestra carta por ser de regnos estraños, e despues que estan presos diz que dizen que quieren ser christianos, e vosotros o algunos de vos teneys alguna dubda sobre lo suso dicho e de la pena que los tales meresçen’, RGS IX-1499 (unfoliated). 22 The order was drafted by Miguel Pérez Dialmazan, the secretary, who lived in Granada, where the order was drafted with the approbation of the licenciado Zapata. 23 RGS 10 No. 2862, fo. 146, drafted by Cristóbal de Vitoria, the notary of the chamber, with the approbation of the Royal Council. 19 20

336

return and conversion

This order was not the only one of its kind. On 26 March 1495 the Catholic Monarchs issued an order to the magistrates of Alcalá de Henares and every person to whom the order might be shown, in response to the request of returned conversos who complained that the local residents had injured, robbed, and murdered them. These local residents had persuaded a monk to preach against them, provoking riots so that the local residents could rob and kill the ‘judios e tornadizos’.24 The local residents threatened them, whereas they, who were good and believing Christians, behaved properly and did the good deeds that Christians are required to do.25 As noted, the Crown instructed these magistrates to investigate and determine who was injuring the petitioners; they were to arrest the culprits and to summon both parties (that is to say, the victims as well) and to punish those guilty according to law. They were to make certain that henceforth the conversos were not called ‘judios e tornadizos’. The magistrates had the authority to impose punishments in the name of the Crown.26 The picture emerging here shows the Crown’s sensitivity to the idea of the return of the deportees to their places of residence, while it had to cope with the conflict between the deportees’ desire to return to their homes and the local residents’ treatment of them. ✻

Not only did conversion and return raise problems of faith, but attention must also be given to the conditions of life of those who had gone into exile, where they were able to settle, and how they supported themselves.27 They were concentrated in the cities and towns near the border between Spain and Portugal; their attempt to rebuild their lives is attested by the effort to establish a synagogue in Gouveia.28 As mentioned earlier most of those exiled to Portugal were permitted to reside for eight months. Many of them probably intended to proceed to North Africa, as we shall see below, and as emerges from the hardships that befell them at the hands of Christian sea captains and pirates. The troubles that beset them in Portugal may be exemplified by the case of Juan Fernández Alegre, formerly of Toledo. As we saw in Chapter 6, the king of Portugal issued an order stating that anyone who could not produce his entry permit and a receipt for his entry fee would suffer confiscation of his property, one-third going to the person who denounced him.29 Alegre’s son-in-law, Alonso Rodríguez, a convert now living in Soria, joined with two residents of Almazán in denouncing him to King Manuel for not possessing those documents, which he himself had stolen. The 24 ‘A fyn de poner escandalo en el pueblo para que los roben e maten, diz que han fecho e ynduzido a un frayre que ponian en esa dicha villa que diga en los sermones que fase muchas cosas feas e ynormes contra ellos y que ha puesto muchos alborotos, de manera que los llaman judios e tornadizos’, RGS 12 No. 1472, 25 ‘Que no sean vltrajados sobre lo suso dicho’, RGS 12 No. 1472, fo. 173. fo. 173. 26 ‘Y otrosy mandamos que no consyntades que de aqui adelante los llaman judios ni tornadizos, so las penas que de nuestra parte pusieredes’, RGS 12 No. 1472, fo. 173. The order was drafted by Bartolomé Ruiz de Castañedo, escríbano de cámara, with the approbation of the members of the council. 27 28 See Ch. 5 above. See Rodrigues, ‘A inscrição hebraica de Gouveia’, and also see Ch. 5 above. 29 See Ch. 6 n. 38.

return and conversion

337

father-in-law’s property, worth 4,000 gold ducats, was confiscated; the informers received their promised third. This action was revenge against Juan Fernández for refusing to marry his second daughter to Alonso Rodríguez after his wife (another daughter) died in Portugal. When the queen of Portugal learnt what had happened, she ordered the return of Juan Fernández’s property, while the informers were to be paid only 50 cruzados each to cover their expenses. However, when called upon to return their share, they claimed that it had been transferred to Spain. After the confiscation, Juan Fernández had converted to Christianity and returned to Spain. He requested, as a special favour from the Crown, that his former son-inlaw and his two friends should return what they had taken from him. On 4 March 1495 the Crown placed this task in the hands of a member of the special appeals court which dealt with such matters, the licenciado Gonzalo Sánchez de Castro. He proposed that the three accused should be brought to the royal court under arrest to make their case; the Crown accordingly sent the alguacil Antón de Morales to Soria and Almazán (and any other place that might be necessary) to implement the order and bring the defendants to court.30 The Crown chose not to consider the question how Alegre had removed his 4,000 ducats from Spain. While we do not know the outcome of this trial, this example of the problems of remaining in Portugal, returning to Spain and converting, and the building of a new life is instructive in itself. Who were the people who returned and converted to Christianity and sought to rehabilitate their lives in their former places of residence? Some were women who were widowed in Portugal, sons and daughters of parents who had died, and people whom the hardships of life had brought to compromise the faith of their fathers and to convert, thus cutting themselves off from their past. We do not know how many of them later resumed the observance of the Jewish religion in secret and joined the community of crypto-Jews in Spain. Those who were reconciled to their conversion still had to solve the problem of learning the elements of the Catholic religion. The local clergy was available to train them. None of these matters is mentioned in the documents before us, though they certainly find expression in the files of the Inquisition. The story of these converts is one of disappointment with the world that they encountered. They hoped to rebuild their lives in their former places of residence, where their ancestors had dwelt for generation upon generation, and where the tissue of their lives had been woven. Those who returned had one principal objective: to save what they could of the property they had left in Spain and to rebuild the lives of their households. Every individual who returned and converted to Christianity had his own problems in his locality.31 A detailed discussion of return and conversion follows.

30 The alguacil was charged with confiscating the property. If they were not found in their residences, a summons was to be delivered to their wives, children, and neighbours stating that they were to appear within thirty days; three dates at ten-day intervals were specified. 31 A description of their return to Spain will be presented below following the chronological order of the Crown’s responses, town by town. Similarly the pace of return will emerge.

return and conversion

338

i. return and conversion among the jews of castile Burgos, 22 August 1492 The appeal of Fernando Bravo, a resident of Burgos, for the Crown’s protection regarding the purchase of property from a returned converso was one of the first signs of future problems. Before going into exile, Abraham Gormesano had sold his property to Bravo, and a bill of sale had been drawn up by a notary from Atienza, Gonzalo de Funes. However, now that Gormesano had returned and taken the name of Pero Martínez, Bravo began to be apprehensive lest he should demand what he had sold when he went into exile. He asked the notary for the bills of sale, but the notary refused to supply them. The Crown responded to him on 22 August 1492 and ordered the notary to deliver the bills of sale to Fernando Bravo, under penalty of 10,000 mrs if he refused.32

Alfaro, 21 September 1492 As a Jew Juan Garces had gone into exile, most likely to nearby Navarre. When he returned, intending to convert to Christianity, he was arrested by border guards as a Jew who had returned in violation of the Crown’s prohibition. He petitioned the Crown for release, claiming that he had not only intended to convert to Christianity but had indeed done so, as indicated by his Christian name. On 21 September 1492 the Crown instructed Juan de Ribera, a member of the Council of the Kingdom and a captain-general of the border with Navarre and the asistente of Alfaro to investigate the complaint, but until the inquiry was complete Garces was to remain in prison.33 Apparently the Council of the Kingdom and the Crown were not convinced that he was telling the truth.

Segovia, 20 November 1492 As we have seen, Jaco Galfon and his family were among the first to seek permission to return to their native city of Segovia, which was granted on 20 November 1492.34 This family’s return doubtless impressed the entire city and its surrounding area, for they had been deeply involved in the daily life of the Jews of Segovia and had many connections with Christian residents of the city and its vicinity. After converting to Christianity and returning to Segovia, Jaco Galfon was known as Pero Suárez de la Concha. He claimed the merit of having convinced a large group of Jews to return to Spain and convert.35 Once permission was granted to the ‘Galfon group’, the rate of conversion and return to that city seems to have increased.36 But at the end of February 1494 the See RGS 9 No. 2739, drafted by Juan Sánchez de Ceinos with the approbation of the council. See RGS 9 No. 3054, fo. 152, drafted by Alonso del Mármol, published in Suárez Fernández, Docu34 mentos, 469–70. See above, n. 8, and also Chs. 4 and 6. 35 See RGS 10 No. 903, fo. 211, issued on 3 Apr. 1493. It may have been he who obtained permission to return for them. R. Meir, their father, died before the expulsion. See above, n. 8, and below on Ávila. 36 See the document from 18 Apr. 1493 (RGS 10 No. 974, fo. 21), which mentions the accusation of smuggling against members of the Galfon family, above Ch. 6 n. 71. 32 33

return and conversion

339

Catholic Monarchs commanded the corregidor of Segovia, Día Sánchez de Quesada, or his alcalde to respond to the petition of Pero Gómez de Artiaga.37 The latter, in his own name and in that of his mother, appealed to the Crown and claimed that they had converted to Christianity at the time of the expulsion, whereas his brother had gone into exile. They had sold a house and courtyard and several measures (‘arrançadas’) of a vineyard and lands that they had owned in Graçiella and Hortigosa in the district of the city of Segovia to Gil Sánchez, canon of Segovia, for 55,000 mrs. To another resident of the city, Sancho Ramírez, they had sold four buildings and a field (‘plado’ —sic) for 35,000 mrs. Pero Gómez de Artiaga and his mother discovered that they had been cheated, having sold their property at less than half its value. They were willing to buy the property back and forgo a third of it, presumably the portion belonging to the brother who had remained in Portugal. However, the buyers refused their request. The order issued by the Crown, with the approbation of the council, stated that the corregidor or his alcalde was to investigate the conditions of the sale and ascertain whether there had been fraud or the agreement had been made with mutual trust; then he was to arrange the return of the property on the basis that the vendors should pay the price they had received for it plus a fee for improvements, and without taking into account the usufruct and income that the buyers had derived from it.38 This order marked the beginning of a solution to the complex problems of ownership, as we shall see below. Another man who returned to Segovia was Jaco Falcón, who had sold his property in Juarros to a Christian named Diego de Riofrío. When Falcón tried to recover this property, Riofrío argued before the local authorities that great damage would be caused him if it was taken from him. A claim of this type was certainly one of the signs of opposition on the part of those who had bought Jewish property at bargain prices. The Crown saw fit to charge Día Sánchez de Quesada with conducting the investigation on 7 March 1494. He was to convene the parties to hear their claims and adjudicate them.39 Perhaps the aforementioned Jaco Falcón is to be identified with a man who was called Gómez Falcón after his conversion to Christianity. He was the son of Mose Zarco, who had gone into exile. This family of exiles also included a brother, Graviel Falcón, and a sister, Beatriz Gómez. This family’s property included ‘a house and vineyards, grain fields, and two more houses in the city and an annual fixed income that they received from a tannery’.40 This document dates from March 1494 (the day is 37 See RGS 11 No. 537, fo. 243. The document lacks the date of issuing the order. On Día Sánchez de Quesada see Ch. 6 and the Appendix. 38 The order was drafted by Luis del Castillo, the escríbano of the Crown, with the approbation of the council; it decreed that the arrangement must be final, and that neither party should have a reason to address the Crown again. 39 See RGS 11 No. 657, fo. 294. The order is addressed to the corregidor and to any magistrate in Segovia who might be appointed in the future. The order was drafted by Cristobál de Vitoria with the approbation of the council. The sanction stipulated was loss of favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs, with the possibility of appealing within fifteen days of the date of the summons. 40 ‘Unas casas e viñas e unas tierras de pan lleuar, e asy mismo vendio en la çibdad (de Segovia) dos pares de casas e çierto çenso ynfitiosy que tenia en unas tenerias’. RGS 11 No. 1006, fo. 220. Drafted by Luis del Castillo with the approbation of the council. The agricultural property was in a place named Moçonçillo.

340

return and conversion

missing), close in time to the instructions issued to Quesada, assisting us in establishing the link among the siblings who returned, while their father remained in exile in Portugal. Pero Baes (Báez), a resident of Segovia, after returning to Spain and converting to Christianity, claimed before the Crown that he had initially intended to convert and not to go into exile, but in order to convince his wife and children to convert to Christianity he had gone to Portugal. He owned eight buildings in Guadalajara, which he used to lease. He had not sold them, nor had he made any arrangement to transfer them, because he intended to return to his home. After convincing his wife and children to convert to Christianity, they all returned to their native city of Segovia. During their absence Antonio de Mendoza had seized their homes. He was the neighbour of Pero Baes, and in that capacity he ordered the razing of those buildings and the planting of a garden and courtyard (‘huerta e corral’) in their place. Since Mendoza was the brother of the Duke of Infantado, a vassal of the king, Pero Baes was unable to obtain a fair hearing in the place where the property was situated; he therefore petitioned the Crown, for an order that the houses should be rebuilt, or Mendoza should pay him for them. On 20 March 1494 the Crown ordered the restoration of the buildings to their former condition and to the ownership of Pero Baes, or payment in lieu; it was acknowledged that Pero Baes had not wished to go into exile, but that his only intention had been to accompany the members of his household and return them to Spain as Christians. However, we cannot know how he would have acted without the permission to return granted by the Crown. His willingness to accompany his family and suffer the tribulations of the journey and of the sojourn in Portugal thus appeared to be a Christian act for the sake of converting them to Christianity. Most likely he also had property in Segovia, judging by the number of buildings that he owned in Guadalajara. The Crown permitted Mendoza to respond, without stipulating within how many days, but sternly warned him that if he did not, the suit would be heard in his absence.41

Cuéllar, 8 January 1493 Among the exiles from this town were four brothers, Francisco and Fernando Sánchez de la Cueva, Rabbi Simon, and Alonso de Cuéllar. Only Rabbi Simon remained in Portugal. The other three brothers, whose Jewish names are unknown to us, returned 41 RGS 11 No. 867, fo. 356, drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the council. The sanctions stipulated were loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. Mendoza tried to take over the property of the Jews of Guadalajara. At the time of the expulsion he bought the home of Yose Serrano, in the San Gil neighbourhood, for 10,000 mrs; it adjoined his own substantial house, which on the opposite side adjoined the church of La Piedad and on its two other sides it was bounded by city streets. Alleging that Serrano had smuggled silver, gold, coin, and other contraband out of the kingdom, he requested that the house be granted to him in perpetuity; the Crown in addition granted him for services rendered 40,000 mrs from debts owed by Christians to Serrano. This grant was made on 5 July 1494: see RGS 11 No. 2234, fo. 8. He also took one-third of the synagogue of the Toledan Jews in Guadalajara from the monastery of San Antolín; the Crown, which had granted the synagogue to the monastery for the purpose of establishing a shelter for the sick, ordered him to return the part he had taken to the monastery, but permitted him to appeal before Cristóbal de Toro, the corregidor of Madrid, who was to decide on the matter within sixty days. See RGS 10 No. 954, fo. 238, dated 16 Apr. 1493. See also Chs. 3 and 6 above regarding Jewish communal property and smuggling by Fernando de Piña, formerly Lumbroso.

return and conversion

341

to Spain and converted to Christianity. At the time of the expulsion, Rabbi Simon sold their house, including the courtyard. While a Jew, Francisco Sánchez de la Cueva had farmed the tercia and alcabala taxes in Cuéllar. When Francisco Sánchez and Fernando Gómez returned, the heirs of the Duke of Albuquerque sued Francisco Sánchez for a debt remaining to them from taxes. He appealed to the Crown for permission to collect debts owed to him by Christians so that he could pay his own debt to the heirs of the duke. Nevertheless, when he left for exile, he had transferred debts owed to him by Christians to the duke’s mayordomo, after deducting the interest that had accumulated. That is to say, he sought to collect those debts without interest. The Crown responded to this appeal on 8 January 1493 and ordered that he be given a fair hearing.42 The date of the Crown’s response shows that the two brothers returned in late 1492. Fernando Gómez de la Cueva demanded the house and courtyard that Rabbi Simon had sold when they went into exile. He claimed that the property had been sold without consulting the other brothers. Here, too, the Crown responded and ordered Día Sánchez de Quesada, the corregidor of Segovia, to examine this claim and adjudicate it.43 The order was issued on 28 February 1493. Some time later, on 6 March 1493, he obtained an order requiring the purchasers of the property to return it for the same price they had paid when the owners had gone into exile, with the addition of compensation for improvement of the soil.44 Francisco de la Cueva and another brother, Alonso de Cuéllar, obtained an order for the return of a house, vineyards, and property that they had sold for 9,000 mrs. They were answered on 16 April 1494. The property was to be restored for the same price they had received, plus compensation for improvement.45 Fernando Gómez del Castillo appears to have been connected with the authorities, for on 2 May 1494 he was ordered to provide information about acts of smuggling committed by Jews who had gone into exile from Soria and its district. He was also instructed to ascertain what property they had left behind in the diocese of Osma, the towns of Agreda, Cornago, and their regions, and all the areas under the dominion of the Count of Aguilar and the Count of Montelagudo.46

Toledo, 9 January 1493 The petition of Cardinal Pedro González de Mendoza informs us about an exceptional case of conversion and return. He was the head of the church in Spain and related to the royal family and the Crown, and his appeal was on behalf of the physician Çague (Isaac) Abucar (or Abuacar), who had gone into exile in Portugal. He and his wife See RGS 10 No. 37, fo. 248, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 502–4; the order was drafted by Fernando de Cisneros, escríbano de cámara with the approbation of the council. 43 See RGS 10 No. 489, fo. 120. The name of the scribe who drafted the order is missing, as is the body which approved it. 44 The order was addressed to the magistrates of Cuéllar, RGS 10 No. 555, fo. 1, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 508–9. It was drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the Royal Council. 45 See RGS 11 No. 1266, fo. 334, drafted by Alonso del Castillo, escríbano de cámara with the approbation of the council. His full name was Juan Alonso del Castillo. 46 See RGS 11 No. 1661, fo. 449, and also Ch. 6 above. 42

342

return and conversion

converted to Christianity there, and they intended to return to their native city together with a group of Jews who shared that intention.47 They wished to buy back their property at the price for which they had sold it, adding compensation for improvement and increase in value. What is exceptional in the cardinal’s appeal was the request that the physician should be permitted to retain his books in Hebrew and Arabic, which he had certainly taken with him into exile.48 The petitioner even specified the type of books which the physician sought permission to retain in his home: ‘they would not be books about the religion of Moses and not books of exegesis or glosses on books, that they would not touch upon the law of Moses, from which people could learn without any effort’.49 The Crown acceded to this request and on 9 January 1493 he was permitted to return, and with him all the Jews he might bring with him, on condition that they convert to Christianity in Portugal or ‘in the first Christian place in our kingdoms, or that they bring with them a certificate attesting [to their conversion] so that they could freely enter our kingdoms, to be and live in them’.50 In addition the Crown permitted him to keep books in his house on all sciences in Hebrew and Arabic, on condition that they were not ‘books of the Talmud or Bible or other books of the Law of Moses’.51 The Crown also ordered that anyone who had bought property from these deportees at the time of the expulsion would be required to return it to them at the price they had paid for it, with the addition of improvements and expenses, provided that they returned within ‘three months from the date of issue of this order’.52 The closeness of the time when the order was issued to that of the authorization to return, which was granted in Barcelona on 10 November 1492, with its validity restricted to three months, shows that the Crown was interested in the return of the entire group. Most likely, in this manner the Crown also sought to encourage the return of others who had gone into exile and were willing to accept its condition, namely conversion. The order also commands all the dukes, counts, marquesses, and prominent men (‘ricos omes’), the heads of orders, of monasteries, comendadores, vicecomendadores, asistentes, alcaldes, alguaciles, clerks, and good men in all the cities and places of settlement to obey it.53 47 The order does not specify which city they wished to return to. Judging by the cardinal’s request, it could have been Toledo or Guadalajara. On him see below. 48 ‘Qualesquier libros en aravigo e ebraico que quesiesen’, RGS 10 No. 38, fo. 52, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 504–5, with an error regarding the date appearing at the head of the regestum. 49 ‘Que no fuesen libros de la Ley mosaica ni de glosas y comentas sobre ella ni que en cosa alguna toquen a la Ley mosaica e que pueden estudiar en ellos sin pena alguna’, RGS 10 No. 38, fo. 52. 50 ‘O en el primer lugar de christianos donde entraren en nuestros reynos o trayendo fe e testimonio dello para que puedan venir libremente a estos nuestros reynos e estar e bevir en ellos’, RGS 10 No. 38, fo. 52. 51 ‘Otrosy les damos liçençia e facultad que puedan tener en casa qualquier libros de todas sçiençias en ebraico e en aravigo con tanto que no sean libros de Talmud ni Brivia ni otros libros de la Ley Musayca’, RGS 10 No. 38, fo. 52. 52 ‘Lo qual mandamos que le faga e cunpla tanto que vengan fasta tres meses primeros siguientes contados desde el dia de la data desta nestra carta’, RGS 10 No. 38, fo. 52. 53 The sanctions stipulated for non-compliance were loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs payable to the Royal Treasury. The order was drafted with the approbation of the king and queen by Fernán Álvarez de Toledo, their secretary. On him see Rumeu de Armas, Nueva luz, 28 ff., 87.

return and conversion

343

Çaque Abuacar’s involvement in community life is shown in a tacha submitted against him by Juana García, the wife of the bachiller Alonso de Medina, a resident of Guadalajara, which received a hearing in 1492–3. García claimed that Abuacar was her bitter enemy and that he had also spoken out against the church.54 Upon ratifying the transfer of the property of the Jewish community of Guadalajara he had received an annual income of 3,077 mrs from a row of buildings that had belonged to it.55 He appears to have settled in Guadalajara, though he could still have enjoyed income from this city and resided elsewhere. Acceptance of this request unquestionably indicates the severe problem that arose in the kingdom following the departure of physicians and surgeons into exile. The Crown and the heads of cities and towns were interested in facilitating their return to Spain after converting to Christianity. This was true even though there were quite a few physicians in Spain at that time, both new conversos and the descendants of physicians forced to convert during the various persecutions that had taken place since 1391.56 Pedro de Madrid, a resident of Toledo, the son of Huda Palache and Doña Clara,57 was present in Aragon at the time the Jews were expelled. He converted there. His stepmother, Doña Gemila, sold his parents’ house, which was his by inheritance, and went into exile.58 Pedro petitioned the Crown for justice, consisting in the return of the property to him as the heir. The purchaser was Martín Alonso de Villarreal, who expressed apprehension because Pedro de Madrid had claimed half the house, alleging that it belonged to him. The Crown responded to Pedro’s appeal and on 25 April 1494 transferred the case to the judge for Jewish property in Toledo, who was to appoint another magistrate and together with him adjudicate the petition.59 The father of Juan Francolin sold a house, an inn, and a winery (‘bodega’) to Francisco Dávalos. Other property was sold to other residents. His son returned to his city of Toledo after converting to Christianity and addressed the buyer, Davalos, and the other buyers, asking for the return of the property and assets that he had sold on the conditions under which they had been sold, with the ordinary additions for improvement and expenses. However, the buyers refused to return the property, which they had acquired for less than half its value. Juan Francolin’s father seems to have been a man of considerable wealth. The Crown saw fit to transfer the suit for the property See AHN, Inq. Toledo, Leg. 150 No. 8 (291), fo. 28r–v. See Baer, JchS ii. 517 and also 432. See Baer, JchS ii. 432–3. The document dates from 1499 and refers to an order of Rodrigo de Mercado, the magistrate and Crown prosecutor. On Mercado see Ch. 6 above. 56 See e.g. on Madrid: Cantera Burgos, ‘Las juderías medievales en el País Vasco’, 283–5, in the description of the actions of the physician bachiller Lorenço Solis, who was accepted as a physician on 3 Feb. 1492. He was preceded in the post by Rabbi Jacob and his son Rabbi Oçe. Rabbi Jacob helped the Portuguese in the war against Ferdinand and Isabella. Six Jewish physicians who were active in Madrid went into exile and then returned and converted to Christianity. On Murcia see the studies by Torres Fontes, also RGS 9 No. 2693, fo. 182, dated 14 Aug. 1492. 57 The parents died. See RGS 11 No. 1481, fo. 350, drafted by Cristóbal de Vitoria. Abraham Palache’s uncle also died. His mother had died before his father, who had remarried. In the document from Nov. 1494 (the day is missing) his father’s name is listed as Yuça Palache, RGS 11 No. 4130, fo. 510, drafted by 58 Francisco de Badajoz, escríbano de cámara. See in the document, RGS 11 No. 4130, fo. 510. 59 On Rodrigo de Mercado see Ch. 6 above. 54 55

344

return and conversion

on 21 October 1494 to the corregidor of Toledo, Pedro del Castillo, or to the resident magistrate, so that the claimant might have a fair hearing.60 Among those returning to Toledo was the family of Samuel Abulafia, who had been a tax-farmer as a Jew. After his conversion he took the name of Diego Gómez de Toledo, and in 1499 he returned to his city. Most likely he was among those who was forced to convert in Portugal in 1497. His brother-in-law, a silversmith and jeweller (‘joyero’), also converted and took the name of Hernán Núñez. Another relative also converted, a jeweller named Geronimo Serrano. Samuel Abulafia’s first contact with the Inquisition, as Diego Gómez, took place in 1510. Someone informed against him, and he was arrested. After fourteen months in prison he was set free after being condemned to repent in public with the ‘abjuratio de levi’. He was arrested again in 1534, and in his statement he reported that he had converted to Christianity in Portugal in a place named Borba (near Estremoz, in the archdiocese of Evora). His wife, who was known as Lucrecia Gómez, and his two sons also converted. One son was named Iñigo López, and the other, Alvaro Gómez. Another man who converted with him was the physician Abulafi (sic), who was the son of Diego and Paloma Abulafi, both of whom had died as Jews. From the trial we learn that he had been well accepted in the Christian society of Toledo. He must have emerged unscathed, since he was buried in the parish of Santo Tomé.61

Huete, 19 March 1493 Mari, the wife of Juan Gómez, was the daughter of Ysaque Taimiz and had gone into exile with him. They returned to Spain and converted to Christianity; when some time later Taimiz died, Mari petitioned the Crown for permission to repurchase her father’s property, being the sole heir, for the same sum that he had received when he sold it, since the new owners refused to comply with her request. On 19 March 1493 the Crown instructed the corregidor, Sancho de Frías, to ensure that she received a fair hearing.62 Juan Fránquez (Franques) had gone into exile and returned as a convert to Christianity. He registered a complaint against his relatives. At the time of the expulsion, his two brothers, Meir and Jaco de Pareja, along with several other Jews, including Abraham Gavizon, who took the name of Alfonso Carrillo after his conversion, and another cousin, Rodrigo Carrillo, had all seized his property, which was worth about 30,000 mrs. They retained this property, and although Juan Fránquez, the legal heir, demanded its return, they absolutely refused to comply. He therefore applied for a 60 RGS 11 No. 3385, fo. 519, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the Crown. On him see also Ch. 6 above. 61 A will is extant, dating from 7 Apr. 1534, describing his commercial activity. See J. Gómez-Menor Fuentes, ‘Un judío converso de 1498: Diego Gómez de Toledo (Semuel Abolafia) y su proceso inquisitorial’, Sefarad, 33 (1973), 45–110. 62 RGS 10 No. 690, fo. 226, drafted by Alonso del Mármol, escríbano de cámara (one of the most important notaries of the royal chamber), with the approbation of the council; mentioned at Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 509. The sanction for non-compliance was a fine of 10,000 mrs, with a right of appeal within fifteen days. Sancho de Frías was a corregidor in 1493–5. See Lunenfeld, Keepers, 207. Some of his other activities are listed in the Appendix.

return and conversion

345

court ruling. On 20 March 1494 the Crown instructed the licenciado Sancho de Frías to investigate the matter and adjudicate it.63 A singular document dated 25 October 1493 describes an entire group, most likely a single family, who had gone into exile and returned to convert to Christianity, the women with their husbands and family members: Juana de Quirós, daughter of Isaiah Ibn Meir64 and wife of Pedro de León; the daughters of Yose Ibn Meir, who were married to Pedro de Soria and Francisco Martínez; Leonor, daughter of Meir Gaveso (no doubt an error for ‘Gavizon’) and wife of Álvaro de Carrillo; and Miguel Sánchez de Ribillo, brother-in-law of Abraham Serrano. Having all sold their property, which included vineyards, fields, and lands, for less than half its value, after their conversion they requested the right to purchase it back at the price paid for it. Their petition was accepted by the Crown, which ordered the corregidor to convene the buyers and sellers and decide justly in the matter.65 This, however, was not the end of the group’s troubles. Miguel Sánchez addressed the Crown regarding the property of his sister, who was married to Menahem de Estella. Before going into exile, the couple had sold a house, vineyards, and lands for less than half of their value. Miguel Sánchez claimed that he, as the only relative, was entitled to buy back that property at the price that his brother-in-law and sister had received from the purchaser, a Christian resident of Huete, when they went into exile. (We do not know whether his sister and brother-in-law had died or remained in exile, in their first place of settlement or elsewhere.) The Crown responded on 31 May 1494 and ordered the corregidor, the licenciado Sancho de Frias, to summon the new owner and the would-be repurchaser and ascertain whether the property had been sold for less than its value. However, repurchase was made conditional on the new owner’s not having sold other property of his own in order to pay for it, for if that was the case, and he sold back what he had bought from Menahem de Estella and his wife, he himself would be made destitute, unless he managed in turn to recover his own property. Without doubt this provision resulted from a claim advanced by the purchasers of the exiles’ property. Thus a kind of vicious circle was created here, without any satisfactory solution. If the parties came to an agreement, Miguel Sánchez was to pay for improvements made to the property and to add payments for repairs (‘reparos’) made in it.66 Donça Manrique, the uncle of Juan Ramírez, and some of Manrique’s daughters, and also Abraham Manrique, his son-in-law, and Jaco and David de Pareja, Juan Ramírez’s brothers-in-law, had sold buildings, land, and vineyards at the time of the expulsion for less than half their value. Juan Ramírez converted to Christianity and returned from Portugal, and as their common relative sought to purchase their property at the price they had received before they went into exile. Regarding this family as well the Crown agreed on 31 May 1494 to the transfer of title, on condition that the purchasers at the time of the expulsion had not sold their own property in order to buy 63 64 65 66

RGS 11 No. 875, fo. 435, drafted with the approbation of the council by Alonso del Mármol. Or granddaughter: the document states that her grandfather gave her his property. RGS 10 No. 2805, fo. 27, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council. RGS 11 No. 2070, fo. 70, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council.

346

return and conversion

that of the Manrique family. If those purchasers agreed, Juan Ramírez was instructed to add payment for improvements that had been made in the property.67 These two transfers of property indicate concern that property abandoned at the time of exile should stay in the hands of the family that returned and converted to Christianity, or in the hands of a relative who considered himself eligible to inherit or purchase the property. At the time of the expulsion, Paloma, the daughter of Álvar Núñez de Mendoza, sold some property belonging to her in Loranca to her father’s brother David Cohen for 24,000 mrs, which she claimed was a fraudulent price. The Crown responded to her petition; in November 1494 (day missing), the corregidor was instructed to ascertain whether her claims were true and to see that justice was done by arranging the return of the property.68

Gumiel del Mercado, 22 March 1493 The petition of Diego Sánchez, a resident of Gumiel del Mercado who had gone into exile and then returned and converted to Christianity, is unusual in that he sought to recover the dowry he had given his daughter when she married Mose Jen of Coruña del Conde. This dowry was worth 30,000 mrs; it included clothing, household utensils, furniture, and money that the bride had brought with her.69 Diego Sánchez and his daughter had converted and returned to Spain; Mose Jen had died as a Jew in Portugal, but his converso brother Fernando had returned to Spain and seized the property. Father and daughter demanded the return of 45,000 mrs, the current value of the dowry; they requested an order for a hearing from the Crown and the appointment of a reliable man to read the document, that is to say, the Jewish marriage contract in the daughter’s possession to confirm the nuptial arrangements between her and Mose Jen. To adjudicate the matter, on 22 March 1493 the Crown appointed the bachiller Alfonso de Torres of Aranda de Duero on account of his faith and loyalty to the Crown. He was ordered to summon the parties and to reach a decision with full authority.70 RGS 11 No. 2068, fo. 385, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council. RGS 11 No. 4119, fo. 408, drafted by Luis del Castillo with the approbation of the council. Additional information about Álvar Núñez de Mendoza, who apparently went into exile, is supplied by other documents. In July 1494 (day missing) he obtained an order from the Crown to institute legal proceedings for the return of documents seized or stolen from him by Diego López de Madrid during his imprisonment for a debt of 215,000 mrs; after the confiscation of his property, he asked for the sum owed to be reduced to 150,000. On 10 Feb. 1495 the Crown ordered an investigation of the matter. See RGS 12 No. 529, fo. 152. From another document, dated 14 Apr. 1495, we learn that Álvar Núñez was the owner of the Huete synagogue of the Jews of Huete, which he had built. He also owned dwellings in the citadel, and while a Jew he had served as tutor to the children of the Count of Lemos, Juan de Osorio. The alcaide of the prison and the corregidor had worked in collusion and sold the synagogue and the dwellings while Álvar Núñez was imprisoned. His complaint was directed against the licenciado de Sahagún. He requested that justice be done to him for all of these wrongs. The Crown charged the corregidor with seeing to this. In his plea, he said that he had been imprisoned ‘because he was a Jew’ (‘porque era judío’). See RGS 12 No. 1875, fo. 419. 69 ‘Treynta mil maravedis en axuar e en dineros e los reçibio realmente en su poder’, RGS 10 No. 761, fo. 299, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 509–10. ‘Axuar’ or ‘ajuar’ is a common term regarding dowries and included clothing, household utensils, and furniture that the bride brought with her to her husband’s house. 70 The sanction for non-compliance was loss of favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. The order was drafted by Sancho Ruiz del Cuero, the secretary of the king and queen, with the approbation of the council. Alfonso 67 68

return and conversion

347

Medina del Campo, 22 June 1493 A physician named maestre Enrique was among the Jews expelled from Medina del Campo. He returned to his native city after converting and asked for an order to restore his house and the property he had sold at a low price. He was willing to add payment for improvements to the price that he had received. On 22 June 1493 the Crown instructed the corregidor of Medina del Campo, then Pérez de Baradas, to deal with the appeal and see that the property was returned with no delay. Most likely the physician’s social status helped him obtain a quick response.71 When Isabel Pérez went into exile with her husband, in the haste of their departure (‘presta partyda’) they sold a house and garden, and a cherry orchard whose size was ‘eighty feet’, to Andrés de Cola and Diego Ferrero of Medina del Campo for less than half their value. She returned alone, apparently because her husband had died, and sought the return of her property at the price her husband had received for it. However, the purchasers refused to answer her. She clearly had the means to buy it back. The alcaldes and the magistrates of the town were ordered in April 1494 (day missing) to convene the parties and see that the property was returned for the price that her husband had received for it. However, a condition was set like that for return and conversion, that the property should be repurchased within four years of the initial departure from Spain.72 Most likely, maestre Pablo, the municipal physician of Medina del Campo, was also one of those who returned from Portugal. He threatened to leave the city if his salary was not paid, though he claimed that he was fond of the place. In the name of the city Juan Ortíz, procurador of the governing caballeros, and Juan Pérez, procurador of the ‘good men’, addressed the Crown, stating that they were pleased with maestre Pablo’s work and proposing to pay his salary from income and property (‘proprios e rentas’) of the city. Their petition was discussed in the council, and on 2 September 1494 it was decided with the approbation of the Crown to order the magistrates and regidores of Medina del Campo to pay a salary of 3,000 mrs, on the customary condition that he treat poor patients. In this order the Crown sought to express its consideration of the conditions in Medina del Campo.73 Ysaque Abenaçan, who had gone into exile as a Jew, then returned as a convert to Christianity with the name Gutierre de Medina. As we learn from the document, he owned a vineyard, an inn, and a winery. He left nine kegs (2,322 litres) of wine, a considerable quantity, with Cristóbal Beçerril, who seems also to have owned a winery.74 de Torres filled a series of posts in implementing the expulsion: see the Appendix. He also dealt with various suits of the de Soto family against residents of Gumiel del Mercado regarding tax debts, RGS 9 No. 1512, fo. 331. He was also active in the collection of the debts of the Jews of Gumiel de Hizán, RGS 9 No. 1850, fo. 525 (23 May 1492). This was a complaint that was lodged against him. See also Ch. 5 above. RGS 10 No. 1668, fo. 88, drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the Royal Council. RGS 11 No. 1632, fo. 309. The sanction for non-compliance was loss of favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. The order was drafted with the approbation of the council by Alonso del Mármol. 73 RGS 11 No. 2670, fo. 32, drafted with the approbation of the council by Bartolomé Ruiz de Castañeda. The sanction for non-compliance was loss of favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. 74 ‘Nuevo moyos de vino’; a moyo equalled sixteen cantaros, or 258 litres; thus, as noted, he left a total of 2,322 litres. See RGS 11 No. 3187, fo. 467, drafted by Andrés de Herrera, escríbano de cámara. 71 72

348

return and conversion

He took the wine for himself, and when Medina sued him for 9,000 mrs, Fernando Pérez de Meneses, a resident and regidor of Medina del Campo, and the magistratecommissioner for Jewish businesses, decided that he had to pay only 6,000 mrs,75 and not to Medina but to Cristóbal de Ávila, royal receiver of property. This was because Medina might have smuggled contraband out of the country when he went into exile.76 Beçerril’s attorney, Rodrigo de Calderón, also of Medina del Campo, appealed to the ‘Appellate Judges in Matters Touching upon the Jews’, who on 9 October 1494 ordered the case to be transferred to them.77 Three brothers, Lope, Rodrigo, and Fernando Díaz, residents of Medina del Campo, converted to Christianity while still living in their native city, whereas their wives went into exile. Their children also left, taking their property with them to Portugal. The brothers decided to follow their wives in order to convince them to convert to Christianity and return their families to their homes in Medina del Campo. The brothers left their obligations and also debts owed to them under the guard and authority (‘en guarda e poder’) of Alonso Ruiz de la Cámara and Pero Núñez Coronel, residents of Medina del Campo. These debts amounted to 27,000 mrs and derived from a transaction, so far unknown to us, between Rodrigo Díaz and a Jew named Horcanos, a moneychanger, who was also a resident of Medina del Campo. The brothers managed to convince their families that they should all return to Medina del Campo, but while they were in Portugal, Fernando Pérez de Meneses, the magistratecommissioner for Jewish property in the diocese of Salamanca and in Medina del Campo,78 ordered Alonso Ruiz de Cámara and Pero Núñez Coronel to transfer their money, obligations, and property to him. Rodrigo Díaz was then accused of smuggling a mule into Portugal. In their appeal the brothers claimed that their property had been 75 Fernando (or Fernán) Pérez de Meneses was the son of Diego Pérez de Meneses or Miases of Llerena. On 12 Oct. 1492 he appeared before the judge Alfonso Ramírez, who was hearing evidence on the sale of property in Puebla de Sancho Pérez, in the maestrazgo of the order of Santiago. See Hacienda, leg. 1 No. 73, fo. 14. On 3 Nov. 1494 he served as the magistrate-commissioner for Jewish property in the diocese of Salamanca and in Medina del Campo. He was ordered to hear the brothers’ complaint again. See RGS 11 No. 3612, fo. 279. On Diego Pérez de Meneses and his connections with Abraham Senior see Ch. 8 below. 76 In a document dated 28 Jan. 1496 Cristóbal de Ávila is described as ‘Nuestro promotor fiscal de los bienes e debdas de los judios en el obispado de Salamanca e abadia de Medina’. In this capacity he appeared as the prosecutor for Jewish property and the debts of those who had gone into exile, which is why Beçerril’s debt would have been paid to him. See RGS 13 No. 136, fo. 33. This document permits him to appoint assistants to help him in this job. 77 ‘Los alcaldes de la nuestra casa e corte, nuestros jueses de apelaçion dados e diputados por nos en las dichas cosas tocantes a los dichos judios’; see RGS 13 No. 136, fo. 33. Cristóbal Beçerril was given fifteen days to appear again, at three intervals (the first was of six days; the second two were each three days). Rodrigo de Calderón was permitted to appear in the name of his client, and if he did not appear, the appeal would be judged in absentia. The sanction stipulated was loss of favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs to the treasury. Another decision by Fernando Pérez de Meneses in favour of Cristóbal de Ávila related to the claim of 14,000 mrs that the Jewess Doña Çenha had ceded to Sancho Díaz before going into exile. This appeal, lodged by Francisco Díaz as the procurador of María de Mercado, widow of the regidor Sancho Díaz, was transferred to the appellate judges. See RGS 11 No. 3188, fo. 583, dated 9 Oct. 1494, drafted by Andrés de Herrera with the approbation of the magistrates and the licenciados Gonzalo Sánchez de Castro, Gonzalo Fernández Gallego, and Luis de Polanco. The summons and sanctions here were the same as those stipulated in the former decision. 78 On him see n. 75 above. He was active in Llerena on behalf of Abraham Senior. See Ch. 8 below.

return and conversion

349

confiscated because of animosity towards them, while Rodrigo Díaz returned the mule, which he had found in the possession of a resident of the city from Castile. On 3 December 1494 the Crown sent for a report of case; after due consideration Pérez de Meneses was ordered to adjudicate the complaint without delay.79

Ledesma, 27 June 1493 Among the Jews who returned to Ledesma after converting was Enrique de la Cueva. Before the expulsion, Lope de Sosa of Salamanca had placed a lien on his assets, claiming to have sold him certain property and not been properly paid. He demanded 50,000 mrs from him, which, having no alternative, Enrique paid. Similarly other residents sued him for large sums of money and placed further liens on his assets. Because he was in a hurry to depart, and the time available for departure was short, he paid what was demanded. On returning from Portugal he besought the Crown for justice, that is to say, the lifting of the liens and the return of his money. On 27 June 1493 the Crown instructed Onorato de Mendoza, the corregidor of Salamanca, to investigate the complaint by convening the parties.80 Most likely this was not a case of fraude de usura. However, the problem was not resolved. On 30 April 1494 Enrique obtained an order from the Crown to the corregidores, alcaldes, and other magistrates of Ledesma regarding the recovery of his house, lands, and other property that he had sold at less than half their value when he went into exile. They were to be returned to him on condition that the buyers had not sold their own property in order to buy his. The buyers would retain the usufruct and income that they had received from the property while it was in their possession. He was also required to add the cost of improvements to the property and expenses related to it.81

Castrojeriz, 1 July 1493 Diego Martínez de Santiago of Castrojeriz had been known as Yuça Vidal while he was a Jew. A short time before the expulsion he had apparently bought real estate comprising pasture and arable from Christians, Juan [ ] and Juan Alvarez, in Villamorón and Villazán. Proper bills of sale had been drawn up for the transactions, and he had treated the property as his own. He went into exile and then returned as a convert to Christianity. Most likely he had sold the property before leaving Spain, but fearing an attempt to prevent him from recovering his possessions, he petitioned the Crown and requested the order under discussion. On 1 July 1493 the Crown instructed the magistrates of Villadiego to investigate the complaints and ascertain whether they were well grounded. He was to see that no injury was done to Diego Martínez de Santiago.82 See RGS 11 No. 3612, fo. 279, drafted by Cristóbal de Vitoria with the approbation of the council. RGS 10 No. 1700, fo. 243, drafted with the approbation of the council by Alonso del Mármol. The sanction for non-compliance was loss of favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs payable to the Royal Treasury. Onorato de Mendoza was instructed on 6 July 1492 to implement the agreement he had reached with the community of Salamanca regarding debts from interest on loans settled between creditors and debtors. RGS 9 No. 2406, fo. 100, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 449. 81 RGS 11 No. 1563, fo. 396, drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the council. On the expulsion this secretary of the Catholic Monarchs wrote: ‘Al tienpo que nos mandamos hechar fuera destos reynos los judios’; cf. Ch. 4 n. 39, Ch. 8 n. 406. 82 RGS 10 No. 1752, fo. 356, drafted with the approbation of the council by Sancho Ruiz del Cuero. The sanction for non-compliance was loss of favour and a fine of 20,000 mrs for public works and buildings 79 80

350

return and conversion

This Yuça Vidal had lent money at interest; he had also been a merchant, and was involved in transactions in Castrojeriz and in Villadiego and Candemuño. On 11 August 1492 the Crown responded to him and ordered the appointment of magistrates or notables in those localities to investigate the debts owed to him by Christians, and to make certain they were paid to him. For he, as a Christian, had waived all usurious interest and liens.83 His son Juan Martínez, also a convert to Christianity, had property in Frómista and Piña, which he had inherited from his great-grandfather (‘bisabuelo’), Yose Tubi, who had gone to Portugal and died there. Diego Martínez claimed this land because he had married Leviçia, the daughter of Jacob Tubi (the granddaughter of Yose Tubi). Therefore he sought to dispossess his son. Here, too, the local magistrates were instructed on 11 August 1492 to conduct an investigation.84 From the two documents described above we find that Diego Martínez was one of the first to return to Castrojeriz, that he was wealthy, and that he was involved in the life of the surrounding areas.

Guadalajara, 4 July 1493 Juana García, the wife of the bachiller Alonso de Medina, a resident of Guadalajara, had claims upon property in the Jewish quarter of that city. At the time of the 1480 segregation their home, which was some distance from the neighbourhood, had been appraised at 180,000 mrs, and Rodrigo de Arenas, who was then the head of the monastery of San Bartolomé de la Lupiana,85 had arranged that the new owner should pay 110,000 mrs, the residue being paid at 6⅔ per cent a year.86 The house was large enough for two families to be living in it at the time, those of Judah Bienveniste and Isaac Alfandari, who both went into exile.87 In order not to delay the departure of the Jews from the country at the time of the expulsion, the Crown at their request ordered that, in all contracts for the sale of buildings to Jews, if payment had not been completed, they should be cancelled, and the Christians would return any part-payments that the Jews had made. Despite this arrangement, Juana García and her husband lost income, because many buildings, including their house, had not been returned to the Christian sellers after the refunds, but had passed into the possession of the city magistrates in their capacity as custodians of property. As a consequence, she and her husband had suffered great damage; they requested an official cancellation of their sale and payment of their share of the income from the wrongly confiscated property. On 4 that the Crown ordered to be constructed in Granada. His name might have been Diego Muñoz (or Núñez), as there is some confusion regarding the names in the document. RGS 9 No. 2670, fo. 197, drafted by Sancho Ruiz del Cuero with the approbation of the council. RGS 9 No. 2672, fo. 202, drafted by Sancho Ruiz del Cuero. See also Ch. 4 n. 283. 85 On the segregation of dwellings see H. Beinart, ‘The Dwellings of Jews in Spain in the Fifteenth Century and the Decree of Segregation’ (Heb.), Zion 51 (1981), 61–85. 86 ‘A çenso de quinse mil maravedis el millar’, see RGS 10 No. 1788, fo. 226. A document from August 1493 (day missing) mentions the sum of 220,000 mrs, half of it expenses for repairs. See B. Bennassar, De nuevo sobre censos e inversiones en la España de los siglos XVI y XVII (Valladolid, 1989), 79 ff. 87 On them see Baer, JchS ii. 433, 518 ff.; Meir ibn Aroio also lived in the house, and he, too, went into exile (RGS 11 No. 3175, fo. 498). 83 84

return and conversion

351

July 1493 the Crown ordered the magistrates of the city to convene the parties and decide between them.88 Regarding this petition certain details are clarified by a document dated August 1493 (day missing), requiring the corregidores, asistentes, alcaldes, alguaciles, and other magistrates of Guadalajara and other localities, and also the prosecutors who had been appointed to pursue the claims for Jewish property, to deal with the matter of Juana’s property.89 With the money that she and her husband had received at the time of the segregation, they had apparently bought a house in the former Jewish quarter, and they moved into it. According to the conditions of settlement at the time of the Expulsion, they were supposed to receive their former property, but at that time she and her husband were absent from Guadalajara, being in Astorias de Santillana, and information about the permission granted by the Crown to cancel the exchange of houses did not reach them. Later Rodrigo del Mercado, the prosecuting magistrate for Jewish property in the archdiocese of Toledo, seized the house and placed a lien on it, claiming that it was Jewish-owned, with the result that they had to pay him the amount of money they had received for it. In order to remain in the house, they sold their business (‘otra fasienda’) and paid Del Mercado with the proceeds. This payment impoverished them, and they addressed the Crown and asked permission to cease paying the remainder of the sum for the house and also that they should be paid an annual income, as they had received in past years, from the house. Indeed the Crown accepted their position and ordered that they were to be paid their set annual income until it reached the amount that had been paid for the house, which was 220,000 mrs. However, additional details emerge in another document dated 9 October 1494.90 Their house, which was situated in the San Gil neighbourhood, was seized by Bernaldino Suárez de Mendoza, the Count of Coruña. Bernaldino Suárez failed to observe the legal decision that restored the house to its owners. Their plea was answered by the Crown, which ordered the count to appear before the council and the Crown within six days and to present his arguments. Juana García was the daughter of one Diego García; she was tried in a court of the Inquisition in Toledo in 1492–3. In her trial she succeeded in refuting much testimony and in proving that the Jews hated her, including those who had bought her house. She had certainly converted to Christianity even before 1480. She was acquitted following purgation by oath.91 The details of this case show how many were the complications with respect to Jewish property, which the returnees wished to recover, and how great was the desire to seize property and retain it on the part of private citizens and of royal and municipal officers, reflecting a state of catch-as-catch-can. Abraham Alfandari, perhaps a relation of the aforementioned Isaac Alfandari, went into exile with his daughter Violanta and her husband García Álvarez. He had owned a great deal of property in Iriépal near Guadalajara, including a house, an inn, a winery, 88 Drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council. The sanctions stipulated were loss of royal favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs to the treasury. 89 See RGS 10 No. 2345, fo. 62, drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the council. 90 See RGS 11 No. 3175, fo. 498, drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the council. 91 Baer, JchS ii. 519: ‘Purgaçion con su proprio juramento’. The verdict was delivered on 1 Apr. 1493.

352

return and conversion

an olive-grove, vineyards, and gardens. He sold all this property to the hidalgo Hernán Beltrán de Guzmán of Guadalajara for 55,000 mrs.92 Alfandari and his family must have returned quite early, for on 2 August 1492 the magistrate Diego de Rueda of Guadalajara ordered the purchaser to sell the property, but he refused. The magistrate imposed a fine of 50,000 mrs on him, but refrained from arresting him and seizing his property at the request of the council of Iriépal, where Hernán Beltrán had considerable influence. The Crown, however, appointed an officer to arrange the transfer of the property to its owner.93 After the deaths of Alfandari and Violanta, García Álvarez claimed the property in the name of his daughter, also called Violanta, who was the legal heiress, at the price which Alfandari had received for it when he went into exile. On 20 March 1494 the Crown ordered the magistrates of Guadalajara and of Alcalá de Henares to investigate the claim. If indeed García Alvarez was telling the truth, they were to ensure that the property was restored to the younger Violanta at the price Alfandari had received;94 García Alvarez should bear the cost of repurchase because he was ‘her legal father as manager of her affairs’.95 However, the repurchase did not take place, because the buyers of the property had important connections in Guadalajara, and García Álvarez failed to obtain justice there. Again he requested the appointment of a trustworthy man to assess the property; if it should be proved that Abraham Alfandari had received less than half of its value, he undertook to pay the balance. He also requested the Crown to order the bachiller Diego de Medina, who had received two houses from Alfandari in trust, to collect the rent from them and pay him an annual income from it. Here, too, the Crown instructed the magistrates of Guadalajara to investigate.96 We do not know how they ruled. Yuda Creçiente, his wife, and his father-in-law all went into exile and transferred their property to a resident of Sotomayor and residents of other places at under half its value. They arranged fictitious sales (‘ventas symuladas’) for a sum not discernible in the document and an additional 10,000 mrs, more or less. They received the money and went into exile, but their son-in-law Diego de Ayala converted to Christianity before the deadline for departure. He later went to Portugal and came back with his wife Elvira and her brother Pedro de Guadalajara, who had both also converted. All three asked the purchasers to return the property, but were put off. The Crown responded to their appeal on 23 September 1494 by ordering the alcaldes of Guadalajara and the other magistrates of the city to permit them to buy back the property at the price Yuda Creçiente had received at the time.97 92 Hernán Baltrán de Guzmán was one of twenty-one residents of Guadalajara who obtained, on 3 Apr. 1495, an order regarding the covering of a loan that the Crown ordered to be covered for the Count de Coruña for 22,000 mrs from income from the butchers of the Jewish community. See RGS 12 No. 1612, fo. 75 and also Ch. 3 above. See RGS 9 No. 2890, fo. 13, dated August (day missing) [1492]; Cantera Burgos and Carrete Parrondo, Sefarad, 34 (1974), 377–8. 93 See RGS 9 No. 2840, fo. 13. Hernán Baltrán was ordered to pay the taxes owed by Alfandari to the council of Iriépal for the property from the time it had passed to his ownership. See RGS 9 No. 2595, fo. 197, July 1492 (day missing); Cantera Burgos and Carrete Parrondo, Sefarad, 34 (1974), 377. 94 See RGS 11 No. 881, fo. 336, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council. 95 ‘Su padre legitimo como administrador suyo’: RGS 11 No. 2059, fo. 78, of 30 May 1494. 96 The order was drafted by Cristóbal de Vitoria with the approbation of the council. 97 See RGS 11 No. 2984, fo. 143, drafted by Cristóbal de Vitoria with the approbation of the council.

return and conversion

353

Francisco García was a very wealthy man in Guadalajara and its vicinity. He sold a house to María, the widow of Juan Garido, for 8,000 mrs, and another house to a man named Argüello for 2,000 mrs;98 he sold a vineyard to Pero Yáñez for 7,600 mrs in Paso de Pedrosa; he sold another vineyard to Juan Reglado for 500 reales; he sold arable land (‘de pan llevar’) to Juan Talvo for 1,000 mrs in Paso del Campo. All the buyers were residents of Guadalajara. The total value of the land sold, at a fair estimate, was 100,000 mrs.99 Having returned and converted, he sought to recover the property from the buyers, expressing his willingness to pay for improvements; they all refused. He sued Juan Reglado, but justice was not done. He therefore requested the appointment of assessors, architects, and builders to appraise the properties he had sold, and deposited the sum of 8,000 mrs with a third party to buy back the house he had sold to María, the widow of Juan Garido. On 4 October 1494 the Crown responded to him and ordered the magistrate of Guadalajara to see that justice was done.100 He does not seem to have sued for the house he had sold to Argüello, presumably, judging by the price he had received, because its value was not great. Perhaps he did not see fit to ask for its return, especially after noting Argüello’s poverty. Gabriel Fernández, who had gone into exile as a Jew, sold his house to Juan de Madrid, a crossbowman (‘ballestero’), for 2,700 mrs, although it was worth five times as much. When he returned as a convert to Christianity, he demanded the return of the house at the price he had received for it, or, alternatively, the payment of the difference between its value at the time he went into exile and the price he had received. He appealed to the magistrates, who replied that they had to hear both parties; the matter was postponed for a long time, even though he had received a summons from the magistrate of the city to appear before him within nine days. Because of his apprehensions, Gabriel Fernández addressed the Crown, for Juan de Madrid was a wealthy man, he had a large kindred, and he enjoyed close relations with the licenciado de la Plaza. Fernández, who was not a man of means, lacked the power to contend with him. He requested the Crown to appoint two expert architects and masons or two officials expert in building matters to appraise the house. On 4 October 1494 the magistrates of the city were instructed to convene the parties and adjudicate their dispute.101 At the time of the expulsion, the hosier (‘calcetero’) Pedro de Frías owned four buildings and several vineyards, which he sold for less than half their value. After he converted to Christianity, he returned to his native city and asked the buyers to return what he had sold to them, but they refused to comply. The Crown answered his petition on 28 November 1494 and ordered the magistrates of the Hermandad in Guadalajara to ascertain whether his claim was true. If it was, the buyers were to complete payment for the property at its full price at the time of the expulsion. Otherwise they were to return the property to him at the price at which they had bought it, and Pedro de Frías was to pay for any improvements that had been made, provided the arrangement was made within the four-year limit set for the recovery of residential property. Evidently 198 199 100 101

He paid only 50 reales. See RGS 11 No. 3093, fo. 351. The sale of the properties are attested in RGS 11 No. 3081, fo. 192. The two orders were drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council. RGS 11 No. 3078, fo. 594, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council.

354

return and conversion

considerable time passed between the departure in exile, the return and conversion of the deportees, and the recovery of their property.102 Before going into exile, Jerónimo de Guadalajara sold his house for less than half its value to Alonso de Carigas. Because Carigas was an attendant (‘criado’) in the home of the Duke of Infantado, he did not dare ask him to return his house, and therefore he petitioned the Crown directly. He also lodged an additional petition before the Crown on behalf of his two brothers, who had gone into exile with him and sold their houses as well as a leather tannery, all at less than half their value. The purchaser of this property was Juan de Segura, a house-painter (‘pintor’), who refused to return the property to him at the price that he had paid for it. The Crown responded to these two petitions on 7 February 1495, ordering the magistrates of Guadalajara to convene the parties and decide the case so that Juan de Guadalajara should have no further reason to address the Crown.103 The problem of the departure in exile of Antonio de León, a resident of Guadalajara, was more complex, and claims regarding his property date to the time of the segregation of housing in Guadalajara in 1480. At that time he was forced to leave his home. For lack of an alternative, so he avers, he rented a dwelling from Farax de Medina, a Moor, who served as an accountant with the Count of Coruña. The rent was 1,500 mrs annually, at a time when ordinary rentals did not exceed 200 mrs. In addition he was forced to spend 6,000 or 7,000 mrs on repairs; in consequence he felt himself utterly lost (‘muy perdido’). In his petition, lodged after his return as a convert to Christianity, he based his claim on the monarchs’ order cancelling contracts between Jews and Christians or Muslims, and also on the permanent arrangements defined as censos. The order had been issued so as to avoid any disturbance or delay in the departure of the Jews in exile. He had gone into exile, after returning the house, repaired and improved, to Don Farax de Medina, but now he had come back to his native city.104 Farax claimed that Antonio de León was required to take out a new lease. Therefore Antonio de León addressed the Crown and asked that Don Farax de Medina should be ordered to pay him for the repairs and improvements. This petition seemed reasonable to the council and the Crown; on 28 February 1495 they instructed the magistrates of Guadalajara to convene the parties, and after examining the Crown orders regarding arrangements for the expulsion to issue a fair judgment so that the plaintiff would have no further cause to address the Crown.105 The instructions to the magistrates of Guadalajara to carry out a renewed examination of the Crown’s orders raises doubt as to whether those judges were well informed about the situation. The problem of Alonso Núñez, a resident of Guadalajara, was connected with Lope de Torres. Alonso had given a power of attorney to sell his house to his brother, who was apparently a converso and therefore did not go into exile, or less probably departed later than Alonso. Lope de Torres bought the house for less than half its value. Alonso Núñez returned from exile in Portugal after converting to Christianity, and asked the purchaser 102 103 104 105

RGS 11 No. 4065, fo. 485, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council. RGS 12 No. 477, fo. 263, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council. RGS 12 No. 934, fo. 519, ‘A esta dicha çibdad donde dixo que hera su naturaleza’. The order was drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council.

return and conversion

355

of the house to return it to him for the price he had paid; when Torres refused, he addressed the Crown, which responded to him on 19 March 1495 by ordering Rodrigo del Mercado to ascertain whether the plaintiff’s claim was correct, and if it was to make the purchaser agree either to return the house for the price paid for it, or else to pay Alonso Núñez the balance of its full value as assessed at the time of the sale.106 At that time Lope de Torres was involved in another petition to the Crown lodged by a group of residents of Guadalajara against an order issued on 8 March 1495 in favour of the Count of Coruña, who had received the sum of 22,000 mrs in income against a loan to the Crown.107 This sum was supposed to be paid to him from the butcher’s shops of the Jewish community. The residents of Guadalajara had not been consulted in this matter, for they had paid in full for the butcher’s shops and the buildings they were in at the time of the expulsion. The Crown accepted this appeal, and on 3 April 1495 ordered Del Mercado to postpone action until the arguments of both sides could be heard.108 This account shows not only that many Jews converted to Christianity and returned to Guadalajara, but also that various complexities and difficulties arose with the reabsorption of the returnees into the life of the city.109

Ciudad Rodrigo, 10 July 1493 Before leaving Ciudad Rodrigo for Portugal, Jaco de Medina sold his house to the licenciado Francisco de Vargas, who was the corregidor of the city at that time.110 When he converted, changing his name to Fernán Pérez, Vargas refused to return the house to him, despite the claim that it had been sold for less than half its value. On 10 July 1493 the Crown responded to Fernán Pérez’s petition and ordered the house to be restored to him at the price for which it was sold, plus the cost of improvements.111 Francisco de Vargas obeyed the Crown’s order, as we learn from his appeal to the Crown with a request for exemption from payment of the alcabala tax on the house, which was demanded by Diego Gallego, the farmer of the tax. He claimed that he had not sold the house but merely returned it to its previous owners. The Crown excused RGS 12 No. 1366, fo. 240, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council. The following residents were in this group: Hernán Beltrán de Guzmán, Fernando de Ávila, Gonzalo de Aranda, Antonio Calderón, Gonzalo de Covarrubias, Luis de Hermosa, Hernando de Orozco, Antonio Pérez de Sotomayor, Luis Pérez de Castilla, Diego Porçel, Alonso de Tárrega, Fernando de Toledo (a barber). 108 RGS 12 No. 1612, fo. 75, and see Ch. 3 above. 109 Cantera Burgos and Carrete Parrondo, Sefarad, 34 (1974), 313–70, present a list of the Jews of Guadalajara who went into exile and returned and converted to Christianity. They are: Luis Álvarez, Pedro de Frías, Alvira García, Francisco García, Isabel García, Juan García, Alonso García el Blanco, Pedro García Torillo, Diego Hurtado (as a Jew his name had been Mose Alfandari), Gaspar López, Diego López de Perea, Diego López de Queros, licenciado and physician Luis, Francisco Magaña, Diego de Medina, Antonio Melandres, Guiomar Melandres, Isbael Melandres, Mayor Melandres, Salvador Melandres, Pedro Monje, Diego Núñez, Bernardino Overo, Beatriz de Farides, Pedro de Pastrana, Peralejo (known as Isaac Alfandari as a Jew), Diego de Quirós, Diego Ribera, Francisco Suárez, Francisco Suárez el viejo and his son Luis, María de Uceda. Some of them converted to Christianity before departing from Spain, but most of them did so in Portugal and returned to Guadalajara. For details about them see Cantera Burgos and Carrete 110 On him see Ch. 6 above. Parrondo, loc. cit. 111 RGS 10 No. 1876, fo. 118, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council. 106 107

356

return and conversion

him from payment. However, we do not know whether Fernán Pérez was required to pay the tax, or whether he, too, was exempted from it.112 In another order dated 26 October 1493 the corregidor himself and several of the municipal magistrates were instructed to return the house of Rodrigo Arias Maldonado, a resident of the city who had gone into exile in Portugal with his wife and family. He had sold the house for less than half its value, and the buyer refused to return it to him under the same conditions as it was sold. The Crown’s order was clear: to return the house to the seller who had returned from exile, with the addition of payment for improvements, without any need for holding a hearing on the matter.113

Logroño, 10 July 1493 Juan de Montemayor the elder (‘el viejo’) and his sons Juan Alonso and Bernaldino, and apparently also Iñigo and maestre Francisco, a physician, were members of a single family, all of whom went into exile having sold the many buildings they owned in the city and district of Logroño, as well as vineyards, fields, mills, and other property, at a low price. They apparently went to Navarre, which is close to Logroño, and then returned and converted to Christianity; they now sought to buy back their property at the same price. The Crown agreed to this on 10 July 1493 and determined that they had to add payments for improvements that had been made in the property.114 We learn about this family from a later document, an order to Juan de Ribera, a member of the Royal Council,115 and the asistente or his substitute in the city. As early as 1490 Juan de Montemayor the younger, along with his brother Bernaldino, had contracted to collect the alcabala taxes paid in the city for a period of five years. At the time of the expulsion, although only two years of the contract had passed, they had paid what they had obligated themselves to pay for the five years, and they received confirmation of this from the chief tax commissioner in the presence of a notary. When they returned and converted to Christianity, they were asked to pay the tax again, and in this they suffered injury. On 15 July 1493 the Crown responded to their petition and ordered the return of what they had paid for the three remaining years of their contract, that is to say, the years after 1492.116 Juan de Montemayor sold their house to Fernando de Soria. When he returned as a convert to Christianity, he reached a settlement with the buyer for its return with additional payment for improvements, and Fernando de Soria was asked to pay the 112 RGS 11 No. 2852, fo. 158, issued on 18 Sept. 1494 and drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council. 113 The order was drafted by Fernán Álvarez de Toledo, the faithful secretary of the monarchs, who was himself a converso. See RGS 10 No. 2823, fo. 34. Prepared with the approbation of the council. 114 RGS 10 No. 1877, fo. 177, drafted by Alonso de Mármol with the approbation of the council. The property consisted of ‘muchas casa e viñas e heredades de tierras e molinos e otros bienes rayzes’. The asistente of Logroño or his substitute was ordered to see to their return. The document was published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 522–3. 115 On Juan de Rivera or Ribera, the corregidor of Guipozcoa and captain-general of the Navarrese border, corregidor of Calahorra, asistente of Logroño, Santo Domingo, and Alfaro (the title of asistente is parallel to that of corregidor), see Appendix; also Lunenfeld, Keepers, 208. 116 RGS 10 No. 1929, fo. 183. Judging by the handwriting, the scribe who drafted the order was probably Alonso del Mármol, though his name is missing on it.

return and conversion

357

alcabala tax on the transaction. The city council also demanded a fee for the transfer of the property and its mediation (‘corredurías’) in the transaction. In the opinion of the claimant, Montemayor, no transaction had taken place, rather merely an exchange of owners. Moreover, the fee for transfer of the property had been paid at the time of the first sale, when they went into exile. On 18 July 1493 the Crown responded to his request for a refund of the mediation fee, and it ordered that the tax-farmers should retain the first sum, which had been paid when the sale was contracted between Juan de Montemayor and Fernando de Soria.117

Santa Olalla, 13 July 1493 Francisco de Madrid, a resident of Ávila, addressed the council which was administering the expulsion and the property of the deportees. He claimed that his mother, whose name is not known, had sold a one-year-old vineyard (‘majuelo’), which had belonged to his father before he married his mother. In return for the vineyard, which was worth 10,000 mrs, he had received a donkey worth 300 mrs; the house, which was worth 100,000 mrs, had been sold for 10,500 mrs to Juan Maldonado, a resident of Santa Olalla. The head of the family had apparently died before the expulsion, and the family business had remained in the mother’s hands. The description of this sale supports the account of Andrés Bernáldez in his chronicle: ‘that [the deportees] gave a house in return for a donkey and a vineyard in return for a piece of cloth or tapestry, because they could not take out gold and silver’.118 Francisco de Madrid, who had returned and converted to Christianity, argued that his mother had no right to sell that property, because he was the legal heir. He asked the buyers to restore the property to him. They refused to comply, on various pretexts. Therefore he requested the intervention of the Crown. With the approbation of the council, on 13 July 1493 the Crown ordered the corregidor and magistrates of Santa Olalla to convene the parties without delay and to see that justice was done for the claimant. The Crown’s order contained a severe warning that if those who were ordered to take care of this were negligent in their duties, the Crown would treat them as it treated those who violated its orders and failed to obey their sovereigns.119

Villar and Urueña, 9 August 1493 Diego Alonso, a resident of Villar, and Pero López, a resident of Urueña, went into exile and sold their houses. The former sold his house to Juan Gómez and received 7,700 mrs for it; the latter sold his house to Juan López. The two buyers were residents of Urueña. Pero López’s house had been worth 200,000 mrs, but when he asked for its return, it had fallen to 100,000 mrs. The buyers of the houses refused to return them unless they paid an additional 90 reales per house. At the time of the sale, the buyers had agreed with the sellers that if they returned, meaning, if they converted to 117 RGS 10 No. 1945, fo. 89, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the Crown. The sanctions for non-compliance were loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. 118 Bernáldez, Memorias del reinado de los Reyos Católicos (Madrid, 1962), 255–6. 119 RGS 10 No. 1919, fo. 286, drafted by Juan Sánchez de Ceinos with the approbation of the council. The order mentioned sanctions of a fine of 10,000 mrs for non-compliance. Published by Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 525–6.

358

return and conversion

Christianity before Easter (‘Pascua de Resurrecçion’), their houses would be restored to them for the price at which they had been sold. When the two arrived and claimed their houses, the buyers refused to comply with the agreement, claiming that they had not returned before Easter, as had been stipulated between them, even though the returnees had paid the additional 90 reales. The Crown’s approach was expressed in an order sent to the two buyers on 9 August 1493: they must return the houses for the price they had paid for them, and they were also required to return the extra payment of 90 reales which they had received, for the Crown viewed it as interest. However, they were permitted to appeal within sixty days, during which time they must appear before the council of Castile and León. Otherwise only the claimants’ arguments would be heard.120

Plasencia and district, 10 August 1493 Many Jews from Plasencia returned there from Portugal as converts to Christianity, and sought to recover their property. One of the first appeals for the return of property was that of a group of deportees composed of Diego Pérez, Iñigo López, Diego Ruiz, Fernán Gutiérrez, and Vasco Chamiço (or Chamigo).121 They converted in late 1492 or early 1493 and returned to their native city. Before going into exile, they had sold their houses, vineyards, lands, and property to Christians, whom they were prepared on returning to pay these buyers the price they had received for their property with additional payment for improvements, labour, and additional construction (‘mejoramientos e lauores e hedifiçios’). The buyers rejected the offer with empty pretexts. The Crown accepted the appeal and on 10 August 1493 ordered the corregidor, Antonio de Cornejo, to see that the property was restored in the spirit of the returnees’ petition.122 Before going into exile, Mayr Berruga of Malpartida near Plasencia sold farm animals and a house to Alonso Sánchez, a resident of that place, and to his brother Pero Mateos. The buyers were unable to pay the amount that Mayr Berruga asked, so 120 RGS 10 No. 2102, fo. 202. Drafted by Fernando de Cisneros with the approbation of the council. The sanction stipulated was loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. 121 We possess additional information about some of those who belonged to this group: Diego Pérez, the partner of Iñigo López in leasing two buildings in Plasencia for a fixed annual payment. They sold the lease to Francisco de Tamayo. Pedro Maldonado confiscated the right to that income if they returned within three years. The appeals court before which they appealed regarding the confiscation annulled Maldonado’s decision in favour of Tamayo. See RGS 11 No. 3416, fo. 561, dated 23 Oct. 1494. Vasco Chamiço (or Chamigo) was previously named Mose Cohen, and he is apparently to be identified with the alcabala taxfarmer for houses in the localities of don Millán and la Serradilla. See E. C. de Santos Canalejo, El siglo XV en Plasencia y su tierra (Cáceres, n.d.), 197. When he went into exile, he left behind debts that Christians owed him and also some buildings. The value of his property came to about 44,000 mrs. Juan Pérez Coronel was instructed on 26 June 1493 to collect this sum and use it to repair the alcázar of Segovia. See RGS 10 No. 1690, fo. 129. After he returned and converted to Christianity, he lodged claims against a number of residents of Malpartida who owed him money, which they had been ordered to pay Coronel. The sum to be collected was 10,000 mrs. See RGS 12 No. 4093, of November 1495 (day missing). In this matter on 30 Apr. 1496 a second order was issued in favour of Coronel for the purpose of the alcázar of Segovia. He was required to cover the sum of 946 mrs for Coronel’s procurador Alfonso de Sahagún. See RGS 12 No. 678, fo. 154, and also Ch. 8, at n. 401. 122 RGS 10 No. 2139, fo. 164, drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the council. Antonio de Cornejo is mentioned as the corregidor in the years 1493–4; see Lunenfeld, Keepers, 212, and the Appendix.

return and conversion

359

he agreed to part with them at a low price. When he returned after converting to Christianity, the two brothers were afraid they would be required to pay the remaining sum for the animals, in accordance with the bill of sale, in which a price double their value had been registered. Hence the claim of Mayr Berruga was certainly a demand for interest. Moreover, it is possible that most or all of the animals had been slaughtered or died. Thus the two buyers had justified apprehension regarding Mayr Berruga’s claim. The Crown took note of their plight, and on 13 March 1494 charged Cornejo to treat them in accordance with the instructions of 26 February 1493, and to see that justice was done for them. Clearly the Crown and the council viewed their claim as well founded and one which could be connected with debts.123 Important information about the return and conversion emerges from an appeal to the Crown by the council, the magistrates (alcaldes), the regidores, and the ‘good men’ of Cabezuela. Antonio de Cornejo was ordered to see that an order issued on 18 March 1494 was carried out.124 When the local Jews went into exile, they sold their houses and vineyards to Christian buyers, who for their part sold their own property in order to buy them. About fifty people or heads of household involved in various businesses returned and demanded the return of their property,125 though their names are not mentioned in the documents in our possession. Among them were people whose families had lived for generations on land belonging to the Duke de Béjar. These returnees wished to retrieve their property, presenting an order from the Crown stating that the property was to be returned to the former owners at the price they had received for it when they went into exile, with compensation for improvements. The local council petitioned the Crown against this order. The Crown accepted the position of the council and on 18 November 1494 it ordered the corregidor of Plasencia to produce the order that the returnees had produced before the council so that it could ascertain the veracity of the claims and decide how to act. Meanwhile the corregidor was to refrain from taking any step against the purchasers of that property.126 The council’s suspicion of the order is peculiar, for in taking this position it supported the opposition of the local authority of Cabezuela to the return of the exiles to their former place of residence. Moreover, demand for the return of the property to its former owners was clearly the reason for confusion regarding the number of returnees and the extent of their claims. 123 RGS 11 No. 776, fo. 341, drafted by Luis de Castillo with the approbation of the council. The sanctions for non-compliance were loss of favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs payable to the Royal Treasury. The parties were to appear before the corregidores within fifteen days. For the version of 26 Feb. see Cadiñandos Bardeci, ‘Judería y morería’, 276–9. This is the copy sent to the corregidor of Burgos, García de Cotes. It is mentioned in the payment arrangements for debts and transactions with concealed interest. This order is repeated many times in the instructions of the Crown and the council. 124 RGS 11 No. 834, fo. 445. The name of the scribe who drafted the order is missing, as is the name of the authorizing body. 125 Below the document states that there were 150 inhabitants. The number cannot be determined, though there were certainly fifty inhabitants or heads of household. 126 The sanction for non-compliance was loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. The returnees had the right to appeal within fourteen days.

360

return and conversion

Some deportees returned to another place within the district of Plasencia. After converting to Christianity, they wished to recover the property they had sold at a low price. On 7 May 1494 the corregidor Cornejo was ordered to respond to the petition of Martín Gómez, his brothers, Francisco and Alonso Gómez, and the nephew (‘sobrino’) of one of them. They were from Losar and had sold land and vineyards and much other property, and they wished to have their claim arbitrated.127 Miriam Álvarez of Losar, the widow of Salamon Zobre, conducted a protracted lawsuit for their property and income. They had been citizens of Valverde on the lands of the Count of Nieva, and had gone into exile, returned, and converted; a short time afterward the husband died.128 When they had been about to go into exile, Francisco de la Rúa, the Crown’s accountant, had demanded a sum of money on account of taxes farmed over a year and eight months. Juan Gómez de la Fuente had apparently been a partner in the transaction as well; he had promised to cover the sum by collecting taxes that Salamon Zobre had not managed to collect. Zobre had paid him 5,000 mrs; not being satisfied with this, he took two houses that had belonged to them, which he sold for 5,800 mrs, whereas they were worth 20,000 mrs. In her claim against de la Rúa, the widow demanded the return of the houses and the money that she claimed her husband had paid him. He put her off with various delaying tactics, causing her severe damage. On 6 July 1494 the Crown responded to her and instructed Cornejo to convene the parties and evaluate her claim.129 On that very day, she obtained another order from the Crown, addressed to three residents of Valverde: Luis de la Peña, Martín Nieto, and Pedro Álvar, of whom the first had taken the house and settled in it, the second the vineyard, and the third the income that he had enjoyed from his partnership with Salamon Zobre. When she approached them, they denied her claims on various pretexts. The Crown responded to her and ordered those who had taken the property to return it to her; Pedro Álvar was required to disburse Salamon Zobre’s share in the income from farming and collecting taxes.130 However, the Crown permitted them to appeal against the order before the oidores of the audiencia to which she had taken her case; this permission was based on the decisions of the Cortes of 1480. The appellants were given fifteen days to appear bearing the evidence and information necessary for a legal hearing, or else they could send their attorneys in their place.131 On 7(?) July the widow obtained an order instructing the corregidor Antonio Cornejo to respond to another claim that she had lodged against the Count of Nieva for 4,300 mrs that her husband had paid to the late count, his father, before going into exile, which the new count had demanded over again. After she refused to pay it, he seized her property.132 RGS 11 No. 1747, fo. 287, drafted by Luis del Castillo with the approbation of the council. This fact emerges from a document dated 7(?) July 1494. See RGS 11 No. 2270, fo. 392. 129 RGS 11 No. 2250, fo. 193, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council. 130 RGS 11 No. 2251, fo. 194, drafted by Alonso del Mármol. The sanction for non-compliance was loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs payable to the treasury. Here she is called Mari Alvarez, and her home misspelt ‘Solar’. 131 The summons to appear stipulates three dates, the first being within nine days, and each of the others refers to a three-day extension. If they failed to appear, the suit would be decided in their absence. 132 RGS 11 No. 2270, fo. 392, drafted by Luis del Castillo with the approbation of the council. 127 128

return and conversion

361

It would appear that her claims were not resolved, for on 28 April 1496 the corregidor was once more ordered to see to them.133 She wished to recover the houses that had been taken from her and sold by the young count for a debt from the farming of certain incomes totalling 330,000 mrs. She also demanded return of income and salary for her husband’s work in collecting taxes.134 It cannot be known how this suit was resolved. On 16 July the Crown responded to the appeal of Pedro de Plasencia, who had been named Samuel Alegre as a Jew. Before going into exile he had sold a leather-tanning business to a Moor named Ali de Valencia for less than half its value. When he returned he sought to have the business returned to him for the price he had got for it. But the Crown ordered Cornejo to ascertain whether the transaction had been made within the four years provided by the instructions governing the return of Jews, their conversion, and restoration of their property. Pedro was required to pay the Moor for repairs and for additional buildings, unless the latter was willing to pay the full value of the property at the time of its sale. If they did not agree upon a price, Ali was required to return the property to its former owners.135 Juan de Vargas, who had gone into exile with his wife, had enjoyed a fixed income all his life from a house belonging to the church. He sold that income to Francisco Tamayo. He sold another house to Rodrigo de Vargas. During the negotiations the buyers had agreed with the seller that if he returned to Plasencia within three years, the house and the income from the church house would be returned to him on the same terms as he had sold it. He decided to return from Portugal with his wife, his nine children, and a maid (‘moça’) who had been his household servant. However, when he asked the buyers to return his property, they refused. His appeal to the corregidor brought no result. On 8 October 1494 the Catholic Monarchs ordered Pedro Maldonado, one of the magistrates for Jewish property,136 to see that the property was restored to him.137 A few days later, on 14 October 1494, Juan de Vargas obtained an order to the corregidor of Plasencia and to Cristóbal Donado, another magistrate for Jewish property in the diocese of Plasencia, to deal with his claim. Upon going into exile, he had sold one of his houses to Alonso, a wool-carder (‘cardador’) and resident of Malpartida in the district of Plasencia and under its jurisdiction, for 5,000 mrs, exempt from the alcabala tax (‘horras de alcauala’), on condition that he leave two wooden awnings in the house.138 The purchaser remained in debt to him for 1,800 mrs, which the magistrate for Jewish property demanded for the Royal Treasury, claiming that the house belonged to the Crown. The two recipients of the order were instructed to see that This might refer to Francisco de Herrera. See Lunenfeld, The Keepers, 212. See RGS 12 No. 642, fo. 90, drafted by Bartolomé Ruiz de Castañeda with the approbation of the council. 135 RGS 11 No. 2372, fo. 364, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council. The sanctions stipulated were loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs payable to the Royal Treasury. Arguments could be placed before the council within fifteen days. 136 On him see Ch. 6 above, and the Appendix. 137 RGS 11 No. 3148, fo. 493, drafted by Cristóbal de Vitoria with the approbation of the council. 138 ‘Una cobredura en las dichas casas en la delantera y otro tanto en la trasya de la dicha casa’. 133 134

362

return and conversion

Juan de Vargas received a fair hearing and that he should have no reason to petition the Crown again.139 The conditions for the preservation of the house suggest that he had intended to return and convert. Yuçe Caças or Casas went into exile with his family. He died in Portugal, but his widow returned and converted to Christianity, taking the name Elvira González. Their son was baptized too, and received the name Gutierre de Paz. When they went into exile, they had sold their property for less than half its value, because the deadline for departure was pressing.140 Gutierre addressed the Crown as the heir, in his own name and that of his mother, asking for the return of the property from the buyers, since they had refused to restore it. On 9 October 1494 the Crown responded to him and instructed the corregidor to solve the problem by convening the parties and hearing their claims.141 At that time Gutierre de Paz was engaged to accompany Antonio de Fonseca, the maestresala of the Crown, on an embassy to France. Fonseca advised him to postpone dealing with the property until their return from France, assuring him that he would not lose his property in the interim. Therefore, when he returned, he addressed the Crown and asked for the restoration of his property and that of his mother. On 13 October 1494 the Crown instructed the corregidor of Plasencia present or future, and with him the local magistrates, to see to it that the property was returned. Gutierre was to pay for improvements and expenses occasioned to the buyers while they were in possession. This was on condition that the buyers had not sold their own property in order to buy that of the petitioner or his parents.142 Though he had found a place in the service of Antonio de Fonseca, the Crown imposed conditions for the return of the property. An appeal lodged by Diego de Plasencia, acting as procurador of the mayordomo Juan Fernández, a resident of Plasencia, to the judges of the royal court, who were responsible for Jewish property and debts, might also be connected to a Jew who went into exile and returned after converting to Christianity. The judges of the royal court served as a tribunal of appeal against a decision of Pedro Maldonado, who had required Juan Fernández to pay ‘forty-one ingots of metal [gold or silver], twenty-two measures of iron, twenty-and-a-half reales, and two doblas [gold coins], and one pure casting’.143 Though one cannot know, it doubtful whether this was a case of smuggling. Perhaps Juan Fernández had been involved in a legitimate transaction. In the opinion of the appellant, the verdict was not just; he asked the Crown to order the magistrates not to implement the decision, or, alternatively, to suspend it. The request was granted by the judges of the royal court and the Crown; in November 1494 (day missing) they ordered the immediate cessation of judicial proceedings and the transfer 139 Drafted by Bartolomé Ruiz de Castañeda. The sanction stipulated was loss of favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. 140 ‘Por ser tan breve la partida’. RGS 11 No. 3185, fo. 313. Cf. Ch. 4 n. 159. 141 The order was drafted by Luis del Castillo with the approbation of the council. 142 RGS 11 No. 3561, fo. 327, drafted by Felipe, pronotary and secretary to the king and queen, with the approbation of the council. 143 ‘E quarenta e un barras e veynte e dos fijuelas de hierro e en veynte reales e medio e dos doblas e vn casto’, RGS 11 No. 4141, fo. 508.

return and conversion

363

of the case to the royal court. The claimant was required to appear before them within twelve days, failing which the trial would proceed in his absence.144 Solution of the problem itself was also difficult because a man with the high status of mayordomo was involved. Perhaps this Juan Fernández is the man of that name who remained in debt to Mose Cohen, who had gone into exile. The debt came to 13,000 mrs, but Fernández was the owner of several houses. The Crown then instructed Juan Pérez de Coronel to collect the sum and to use it for repairs of the alcázar in Segovia.145 The tailor Ruy González of Plasencia had sold two houses that he owned in the city before going into exile. The purchaser was Valasco de Villalobos, who paid 15,250 mrs for them. After returning and converting to Christianity, he sought to recover the property for the price he had received for it, which was far less than half its value. The buyer refused to part with it, although he had demanded it within the four years allocated by the Crown. He lodged a complaint with the corregidor Francisco de Vargas, but deliberations before the resident magistrate were of no avail, for neither man was willing to issue a verdict against the buyer. Thus great damage was caused to González. The Crown answered his petition to the Crown on 29 August 1497, requiring the corregidor and the resident magistrate to deal with the case without delay.146

Talavera de la Reina and Navamorcuende, 24 August 1493 Three brothers resident in Talavera de la Reina who had owned property in the nearby village of Navamorcuende addressed the Crown regarding their property. The three were Francisco Gómez de Santa Fe, Juan Gómez de Santa Fe, and Pedro Gómez de Santa Fe. They had returned from Portugal after ‘seeing the light’, as stated by their spokesman, Francisco Gómez. They declared that they were willing to add payment for improvements and expenses laid out by the purchasers of their property. Because they anticipated that the purchasers would refuse, they addressed the Crown and requested an order in that spirit. The Crown issued the order for them on 24 August 1493, with the justification that ‘they had converted to Christianity’,147 and it instructed the corregidor of Talavera and its magistrates, as well as the magistrates of the town of Navamorcuende, to see that their request was fulfilled.148

Abadía, 1 October 1493 This settlement was in the district of Plasencia.149 Before going into exile, two local residents, Rodrigo de Villalobos and Alvaro de Veros, sold two vineyards in a place named Los Barriales for less than half their value. The buyer was Ruiz de Mena, the mayordomo of the council and a certified escríbano of the city of Plasencia. After con144 Drafted by Andrés de Herrera, escríbano de cámara, and issued on the authority of the magistrates: the licenciados Gonzalo Sánchez de Castro, Gonzalo Fernández Gallego, and Luis de Polenco. 145 RGS 10 No. 1690, fo. 129, issued on 26 June 1493. See Ch. 8 below. 146 RGS 14 No. 2067, fo. 75, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council. They were ordered to issue an interim decision within six days, and a final decision within twenty days. 147 ‘Por se aver tornado christianos’, see RGS 10 No. 2791, fo. 67. 148 The sanctions stipulated were loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. The order was drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the council. 149 See Ch. 6 above regarding the accusation for smuggling against a resident of this place, Rodrigo de Castro.

364

return and conversion

verting to Christianity and returning, the sellers asked him to sell the vineyards back to them at the price they had received. However, he refused to comply with their demand. They petitioned the Crown, which responded to them on 1 October 1495 and ordered the corregidor of Plasencia, Francisco de Vargas, to collect information about the value of the vineyards and to summon the parties for a hearing.150 If indeed they had been sold for less than half their value, the purchaser would be required to return the vineyards at the price he had paid or else to make a supplementary payment reflecting their full value at the time the edict had been promulgated, provided the petition for the return of the property had been lodged within four years of the plaintiffs’ departure, return, and conversion.151

Fuentidueña and Peñafiel, 19 October 1493 Juan Suárez and Francisco Núñez, residents of Fuentidueña, in the province of Segovia, went into exile in Portugal, whence they returned and converted to Christianity. On 19 October 1493 the Crown responded to their petition and instructed the magistrates of the town and those of Peñafiel, that if the plaintiffs had owned property, it should be returned at the price received for it when the plaintiffs went into exile. The plaintiffs were to add payment to the purchasers for improvements and expenses.152

Badajoz, 26 October 1493 As a crossing-point into Portugal, Badajoz saw quite a few acts of smuggling.153 Orders for the return of property were issued for those who returned to this city in late 1493. On 26 October the corregidor, Gonzalo Fernández del Castillo, was ordered to respond to the petition of Alonso García, a resident of the city, and to see to the return of his property, which he had sold when he went into exile, for the price he had received plus compensation for improvements and expenses.154 150 His full name was Francisco Pérez de Vargas. On him see Lunenfeld, Keepers, 212. Below are some details about him: on 7 May 1495 he was ordered by the council and the Crown to see that Pedro Maldonado, the magistrate for Jewish property, was satisfied with the salary he received from the Crown and ceased collecting money from the people against whom he issued verdicts and confiscations, imposing other charges on them and collecting expenses from them. He was to return to them what he had taken. See RGS 12 No. 2087, fo. 330. In July 1495 (day missing) he was ordered to examine the complaint of Doña María de Carvajal and her daughter Doña Leonor de Salazar against Juan Pérez Coronel. Cristóbal Pizarro, a resident of Trujillo, appeared in their name. See RGS 12 No. 3014, fo. 439. On 29 August 1497 a suit between Velasco de Villalobos, a resident of Plasencia, and Ruy González of Plasencia was heard before him. The matter involved houses that Velasco de Villalobos had bought from Ruy González when the latter went into exile. He refrained from executing the verdict. See RGS 14 No. 2067, fo. 75. 151 RGS 12 No. 3599, fo. 147, drafted by Juan Ramírez with the approbation of the council. 152 RGS 10 No. 2746, fo. 35, drafted by Cristóbal de Vitoria and Juan de la Parra. The sanctions stipulated were: loss of the monarchs’ favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. In 1491, in the town of Fuentidueña together with the town of Lagunillas, the taxes paid for the needs of the war in Granada came to 9,320 castellanos. See Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 67. At one place in the document Juan Suárez is registered 153 See Ch. 6 above. as Fernando. 154 RGS 10 No. 2822, fo. 32, drafted by Juan de la Coloma with the approbation of the council. The sanctions stipulated were loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. On Juan de la Coloma, see Azcona, Isabel la Católica, 328. On the bachiller Gonzalo Fernández del Castillo, see Lunenfeld, Keepers, 198. On 20 Mar. 1492 he was ordered by the Crown to reconsider Medina Sánchez’s complaint that he had sold part of her property (a house); RGS 9 No. 864, fo. 426. On 13 Apr. 1492 he (or his successor) was

return and conversion

365

However, a second order, issued by the Crown on the same day (26 October 1493), mentions the man who was about to be appointed as corregidor of Badajoz, or the resident magistrate. García Ruiz, a resident of Badajoz, complained that at the time of the expulsion he had been in prison because he had not paid his debts. His house had been sold for 3,000 mrs, which was a fraudulent price, to Juan Díaz, shearer (‘tondidor’), although it was worth 20,000 mrs or more. The sale had been made by the corregidor, Gonzalo Fernández del Castillo, who had meanwhile died. García Ruiz had managed to go into exile, but having later returned and converted to Christianity, he wished to buy back his house at the price for which it had been sold, but the purchaser refused to part with it. In the council responsible for the property of the exiles it was decided that the corregidor was to investigate the claim, and if indeed the sale had been fraudulent, the house was to be returned to García Ruiz at the price he had received for it. If the buyer, Juan Díaz, wished to retain the house, he was to make up the price to the full value.155 García Ruiz had another complaint against the local church.156 It received certain income (‘çiertos çensos’) from it, and for this reason the corregidor and local magistrate refrained from considering his rights to the house as they had previously been ordered to do (on 26 October 1493). Nevertheless, on 18 March 1495 he obtained an order addressed to the corregidor of Badajoz or its magistrate to investigate the complaint against the local church, which claimed a right to the house.157 We learn more about García Ruiz from an order issued by the Crown and the council against him on 20 September 1495, on the basis of a request from Jorge Mejía, a member of the mesta council, for using threats to collect the servicio and montazgo taxes from shepherds and the owners of flocks. The Crown ordered him to appear before the magistrate of the royal court within thirty days; otherwise he would be judged in absentia. For the purpose of the trial he was ordered to cover Mejía’s expenses, amounting to 200 mrs a day.158 This order also indicates that García Ruiz’s Jewish name had been Mose Nahon; he might be the merchant Mose Nahim who had bought goods at the fair of Medina del Campo and was robbed on his way back to Badajoz. The robbers were Juan de instructed to investigate the order that had been issued in favour of the brothers Yuçe and Samuel Molcho. See RGS 9 No. 1167, fo. 149. On 19 June 1493 he received an announcement from the Crown that henceforth the salary of a corregidor would be 200 mrs a day, a total of 72,000 mrs a year, and no longer 300 mrs (RGS 9 No. 1641, fo. 101) as it had been when the Jewish community was paying the additional third (see Ch. 5 n. 19). He died about the time that he received the order to respond to Alonso García’s petition. RGS 10 No. 2824, fo. 57, drafted by Juan de Coloma with the approbation of the council. This order mentions half a house. See RGS 12 No. 1342, fo. 336. 157 Luis del Castillo drafted the order, which does not speak of sanctions. The corregidor was Alonso Enríquez. See Lunenfeld, Keepers, 199. 158 RGS 12 No. 3541, fo. 90, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council and given to Sancho de Vera, contino at the royal court. Jorge Mejía was to go to Badajoz or other places, seize the defendant, and bring him under arrest at the latter’s expense to the place where the magistrates of the royal court were sitting; the summons mentions three dates for appearance, at ten-day intervals. Only when Ruiz was brought before the magistrates would he learn about the charges against him, to which he would have to respond. The Crown and the council ordered the corregidores, asistentes, alcaldes, alguaciles, merinos, and magistrates to assist Mejía. 155 156

366

return and conversion

Porras of Mérida, and Alonso de Salamanca, Diego Mejía, and Rodrigo de la Barrera, residents of Cáceres. The robbers had been condemned to death in absentia by the Crown magistrates, but they had not been caught.159

Aguilar de Campoo, 26 October 1493 Gabriel Gómez and his mother-in-law Violante, residents of Aguilar de Campoo, had sold their property before going into exile and then returned and converted to Christianity. They approached the purchasers and demanded the return of their property at the price they had received for it. The buyers refused, and thus severe damage was caused the plaintiffs. On 26 October 1493 the magistrates of the town were ordered to respond to them and to see to the return of the property at the original price, with the addition of compensation for improvements and expenses.160

Torrelobatón, 26 October 1493 Torrelobatón, to the west of Valladolid and the north of Tordesillas, had a considerable number of deportees who returned after converting to Christianity and claimed their property. On 26 October 1493 María Rodríguez, a resident who had returned from Portugal, obtained a response to her claim. The magistrates of the town were ordered to see that her property was restored to her for the price she had received, with the addition on her part of compensation for improvements and expenses.161 On that very day the same magistrates were also ordered to respond to the petition of Juan de Santiago, Gabriel de Santiago, Alonso Ramírez, and Francisco de la Torre.162 They had gone into exile in Portugal and returned to their home town after converting. The residents who had bought their property refused to respond to them, although it was proposed to them that the returnees would pay for improvements and expenses. The order clearly determined: return of the property for the price that had been paid for it with the addition of compensation for improvements and expenses, but without any superfluous payments. Francisco de [la] Torre, who had been called Mose Gastón as a Jew, had sold his house to Martín Sánchez, who was undeterred by the court order, but himself addressed the Crown, asserting that he had paid good money for the house, and had no desire to relinquish it. On 15 February 1494 the Crown instructed the magistrates of the town to act according to the orders of 26 February and 6 March 1493. That is to say, they were to ascertain whether the transaction had included fraude de usura and to adjudicate the petition.163 On 15 February 1494 another order was addressed to the magistrates of Torrelobatón. Juan Pérez de Medina had bought houses at the time of the expulsion from 159 RGS 12 No. 56, fo. 43, issued on 11 Jan. 1492 with the approbation of the Royal Council, which discussed the punishment of the robbers. On the misdeeds of Juan de Porras see Ch. 6 above. 160 RGS 10 No. 2825, fo. 36, drafted by Juan de Coloma with the approbation of the council. 161 RGS 10 No. 2826, fo. 37, drafted by Juan de Coloma with the approbation of the council. 162 RGS 11 No. 2827, fo. 38, drafted by Juan de Coloma with the approbation of the council. On Francisco de la Torre see below. 163 RGS 11 No. 431, fo. 344, drafted by Bartolomé Ruiz de Castañeda with the approbation of the council. The sanction stipulated was a fine of 10,000 mrs.

return and conversion

367

several Jews who went to Portugal and remained there.164 They ultimately converted to Christianity and returned. They claimed their property, basing their claim on an order they had received from the Crown. However, in order to purchase that property Juan Pérez had sold some of his own property, and restoring the original situation would cause him severe damage. Therefore he requested the intervention of the Crown, which responded to him and ordered the magistrates of the town to ascertain whether he had indeed sold property in order to buy that of the Jews who had returned. If the result of their inquiry were positive, they should not consider the Crown order obtained by the returnees, but uphold the purchaser in his claim of ownership. A similar claim was lodged by Diego de la Frecha and his sister Beatriz González. They had bought houses, land, pastures, and other property from some Jews, and they had paid for the full value of that property. The exiles who returned after conversion to Christianity demanded the property with false claims. According to the appellants, if the council had only known how much the buyers had paid for the property, it would not have issued orders permitting its recovery. Therefore they requested that the Crown should cancel the orders that the returnees had presented to them, which in their opinion were counterfeit. The Crown accepted their claim and on 5 March 1494 ordered the magistrates of the town to investigate the petition and the orders, and if the petitioners were telling the truth, they were not to permit the returnees to recover their property.165 In contrast, Gimon González and maestre Fernando, residents of Torrelobatón who had sold their property to several Christian residents and gone into exile, received a positive response from the Crown. They had converted to Christianity and returned; when they asked the buyers of their property to sell it back to them, the buyers refused under various pretexts. On 22 March 1494 the local magistrates were instructed to ascertain whether the purchasers of the Jews’ property had sold property of their own and moved into the houses they had bought; if not, the magistrates were to see that the two returnees could buy back their property at the price they had received for it, with the addition of compensation for improvements and repairs. After payment was made, the magistrates were to make certain that the property was indeed transferred to the claimants.166 Juan García, a resident of the town, lodged an appeal against deprivation of the house he had bought at the time of the expulsion from a local Jew named Carlón, who had gone into exile. In order to buy the house, he had sold his own house as well as arable land (‘tierra de pan leuar’). Carlón returned and took the name of Maldonado after his conversion. He produced a Crown order, according to which he was permitted to pay the price he had received when he sold the house. The magistrates accepted 164 RGS 11 No. 440, fo. 72, ‘E que estouieron alla harto tienpo’. The order was drafted by Cristóbal de Vitoria with the approbation of the council. The sanctions stipulated were loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. 165 RGS 11 No. 600, fo. 188, drafted by Bartolomé Ruiz de Castañeda with the approbation of the council. The sanctions stipulated were loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. 166 RGS 11 No. 927, fo. 380. The name of the scribe is missing, but it states that he was a secretary of the king and queen. The sanctions stipulated were loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs payable to the treasury, with the possibility of appeal within fifteen days in the royal court.

368

return and conversion

Carlón-Maldonado’s arguments and refused to hear García’s claim. Thus he had been ruined without having his case heard and without being paid for improvements to the property. He was therefore injured severely and requested proper compensation and payment for improvements to the house. The Crown responded to him and ordered the magistrates of the city, on 28 July 1494, to convene the parties, hear their claims, and adjudicate their dispute.167 The story of Beatriz Ribera returns us to the time of the expulsion from Andalusia in 1483. She had owned a house in the Jewish quarter of Seville, known as Santa María la Blanca; one side bordered Rodrigo de Ávila’s house, the other faced the central street. Having been among those expelled,168 she had apparently settled in Torrelobatón, intending to dispose of her property in Seville, as other people of her status had done.169 She later converted to Christianity and returned to Seville, where she found the heirs of Don Pedro de Zúñiga had seized the house. She asked the Crown for justice. On 23 October 1494, with the approbation of the council, the Crown referred the case to Juan de Silva, Count of Cifuentes, alférez mayor, and a member of the Royal Council, who was the asistente (that is to say, the corregidor) of Seville. He was instructed to convene the parties and hear their arguments so that Beatriz de Ribera should have no reason for petitioning the Crown again.

León, 26 October 1493 García and Diego de Ordaz went into exile in Portugal after selling their property. In Portugal they converted to Christianity and returned to their home city. They asked the purchasers of their property to sell it back for what they had paid for it, plus compensation for improvements and expenses, but the buyers refused. On 26 October 1493 the Crown responded to them and instructed the corregidor of León and the resident magistrate of the city to see that their property was returned to them after they paid for improvements and expenses, in addition to the price they had received for the property.170 Most likely these returnees were not alone. León was a former kingdom, and the city of León had an important Jewish community. There was certainly some basis for 167 RGS 11 No. 2547, fo. 289, drafted by Bartolomé Ruiz de Castañeda with the approbation of the council. The sanctions stipulated were loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. 168 RGS 11 No. 3399, fo. 182, drafted by Francisco de Badajoz with the approbation of the council. It recites ‘que al tiempo que los ynquisidores del arçobispado desa dicha çibdad por nuestro mandamiento fisieron salir los judios que en el dicho arçobispado avia fuera del ella era una dellos’. 169 ‘Para disponer dellos como otras personas de su calidad fizieron’, RGS 11 No. 3399, fo. 182. 170 RGS 10 No. 2828, fo. 39, drafted by Juan de Coloma with the approbation of the council. See too González Gallego, ‘Algunos datos’, 405–7; Cantera Burgos, ‘Juderías medievales de la provincia de León’, 122–31; Rodríguez Fernández, Provincia de León, 42 ff. and also the document there, pp. 429–32. AGS, Papeles de Estado, Leg. 1–2, fo. 208. The order was issued on 20 Mar. 1510 and is relatively late for the return of deportees. Cf. there the memorandum of Tristán de León of c.1534 regarding the penetration of deportees and their children in León. The Countess of Luna, who owned property in León, Astorga, and Oviedo, had problems of returning property to deportees who had come back to areas under her jurisdiction. She sent the magistrate Encisco to argue her case before the Crown. It appears that there was a considerable movement of conversion and return. She restored property to the returnees in the amount of 300,000 mrs, according to the report of the magistrate to the Crown. She claimed she had suffered great damage. See Cantera Burgos, ‘Juderías medievales’, 107 ff.

return and conversion

369

the order issued by King Ferdinand to the provisors of the diocese of León to offer instruction and guidance in the tenets of Christianity for those who had converted and returned there. The Crown’s instruction was motivated by its concern for the souls and consciences of those who returned to the diocese; it was quite proper that this concern should have been shown to all those who converted to Christianity and returned to their former places of residence in Spain.

Puente del Arzobispo, 26 October 1493 This town had a considerable number of returnees from Portugal who sought to buy back their property from its purchasers. The first group of returnees, heads of families, obtained an order addressed to Gómez de Arévalo, the chief magistrate of the town,171 on 26 October 1493, instructing him to deal with their petition. The members of the group were: Diego de Silvera, Rodrigo Nieto, Fernando de Alcázar (who was known as Solomon Adaroque when he was a Jew), Enrique de la Torre, Juan Díaz, Juan de Torre. When these people returned to Spain after converting to Christianity and sought to recover their property, they declared they were willing to pay back what they had received for it with the addition of compensation for improvement and expenses. The Crown accepted their view and ordered the magistrate to implement their proposal.172 This order was accompanied by another one, also addressed to the magistrates of the kingdom and its corregidores. The claimants were afraid of two Christian residents: Beltrán Dorador and Cristóbal Ruiz, their men, their relatives, their servants, and their dependents, as well as the rest of the caballeros, because they had threatened their lives and property, saying they would kill or injure them, because of their desire to recover what had been theirs in the past. Thus it can be stated that the returnees were not desired in their former places or residence. The Crown ordered the herald to proclaim in all the usual places that it took these returnees under its protection, ordering the punishment of anyone who harmed them with the full severity of the law.173 This did not solve the problem. In February 1494 (day missing), Enrique de la Torre obtained an order relating to the recovery of the house in the neighbourhood of the town hospital that he and his wife had sold when going into exile for lest than half its value; they had received a fixed annual income from it. Enrique converted and returned, whereas his wife remained a Jew in Portugal. The purchaser claimed that he had sold it to the mayordomo of the hospital, who in turn sold the house for its full value. Enrique claimed that he could not repurchase the house at this price. The Crown ordered Gómez de Arévalo to convene the parties and resolve the case so that Enrique de la Torre should have no cause to petition the Crown again.174 Diego de Silvera, another member of the group, and his brother had owned three pairs of houses, which gave them a permanent fixed annual income from the town hospital. When they returned from Portugal after converting to Christianity, they In the order mentioned below, n. 174, his title is ‘alcalde de las torres’. The order was drafted by Juan de Coloma with the approbation of council. 173 RGS 10 No. 2829, fo. 33, drafted by Juan de Coloma with the approbation of the council. The punishment for transgressors would be that imposed upon those who rebel against the king and queen and their natural lords. 174 RGS 11 No. 528, fo. 345. The name of the scribe and the approving body are missing. 171 172

370

return and conversion

found that they had been grossly underpaid for their houses, for they had received less than half of their value. When they sought to repurchase them, they were told that some had been resold. Their problem was thus the same as Enrique de la Torre’s. In their case too, on 21 April 1494 the Crown ordered the magistrates of the town to discover what had happened and come to a decision in accordance with the standard directives of the kingdom.175 Bárbara González lodged her petition before Solomon Adaroque, or Fernando de Alcázar, who was also a member of the group. She had bought his house, for which he had received an annual income from the hospitals of the city. Afraid that he would sue her for the house, she asked the Crown for a writ of protection, so that she could not be sued to return the house without being able to claim her rights. On 9 October 1494 the Crown responded to her and ordered the magistrates of the city to accept her claims because she had bought the house and its rights without any fraud.176 Consequently it seems likely that she purchased the rights from someone else. For another member, Rodrigo Nieto, light is cast on his departure by a petition to the Crown lodged by Antón Rodríguez, a tailor, and his sister Francisca, Nieto’s wife. He apparently died, for the petition states that she was a resident of Campillo. They had gone to Portugal with their parents, and, as usual, before departing had sold their property for less than half its value. They returned and converted to Christianity, but their parents remained in Portugal. As the heirs they wished to repurchase their property from the buyers, who refused to respond. On 3 November 1494 the magistrates of the town of Villafranca de la Puente del Arzobispo were ordered to verify the claim that they were indeed the heirs. Only after that had been ascertained were they to summon the purchasers and offer them the possibility of adding to the purchase price and paying the full value of the property, which would make them the owners. If they did not agree to this arrangement, they were to return the family’s property for the price they had paid when they went into exile, with the addition of compensation for improvements and expenses.177 We saw above how Solomon Adaroque, or Fernando (or Hernando) de Alcazar, had been forced to contend for ownership of his home. In addition to this house, he had also sold the rest of his property for a price less than half of its value. When he returned to his home town, after conversion to Christianity, he sought to recover his property, but the buyers refused to part with it. On the basis of his petition to the Crown, the alcaldes of the town of Villafranca del Puente de Arzobispo were instructed to ascertain whether his claim was justified and if so to propose to the purchasers that they should either pay the full price of the property or else permit Fernando de Alcazar to buy it back, with additional payment for improvements and expenses, at the price he had been paid when he went into exile. This was on condition that the buyers had not sold their own property in order to buy that which Fernando de Alcazar had offered them when he went into exile.178 RGS 11 No. 1382, fo. 345 (sic), drafted by Luis del Castillo with the approbation of the council. RGS 11 No. 3171, fo. 110, drafted by Luis del Castillo with the approbation of the council. Also see below. 177 RGS 11 No. 3615, fo. 215, drafted by Cristóbal de Vitoria with the approbation of the council. 178 RGS 11 No. 3878, fo. 216, drafted by Cristóbal de Vitoria with the approbation of the council. 175 176

return and conversion

371

María de (family name missing) addressed the Crown and claimed that when she had gone into exile, she had sold a shop and a place of residence for less than half of their value to the town hospitals. She had received 4,250 mrs for them. After converting and returning, she approached the administrator of the hospitals for the return of the apartment and shop in exchange for the price she had been paid for them, but she was refused. In her petition she emphasized that she was a Christian and that great injury had been caused her. On 20 December 1494 the Crown responded to her and ordered the magistrates of the town to summon the parties, on condition that her claims were true, and to see that the buyers paid her the full value of the property, or else permitted her to buy it back with additional payment for improvements and repairs. They were to accept this arrangement if her departure, return, and demand to purchase the property occurred within the four years allowed by the Crown for these procedures.179 The description of this group of returnees, all residents of the same town, and their struggle to recover their property and income, is a faithful image of developments at that time there and elsewhere, and it is evidence of the dependence of this group for its subsistence on income from buildings that were occupied by the town hospitals, as well as the opposition of the local population to the return of the deportees, even after they had converted.

Saldaña (Plasencia), 6 November 1493 We do not know when maestre Alonso, the town physician, converted to Christianity and returned to this town, on the estate of the Duke de Infantado, Don Iñigo López de Mendoza. However, the duke acknowledged his services in the past and those he was likely to render in the future and granted him property that he had probably owned in the town but left before departure. This assumption finds support in the date of the grant: 6 November 1493, some fifteen months after the close of the expulsion. The property that he had owned as a Jew was returned to him under the ordinary conditions after he paid the purchasers of the property the price that he had received for it, with additional compensation for improvements and expenses. He was also exempted from any taxes.180

Unknown place, 6 February 1494 An order was sent from the Crown on 6 February 1494 to the corregidor of Cádiz, Juan de Benavides. This indicates the importance of the city, both as a point from which Jews went into exile and through which they returned to Spain and converted.181 Bernaldino Tomás and his brother went into exile by an unknown route and reached 179 RGS 11 No. 4439, fo. 359, drafted by Cristóbal de Vitoria with the approbation of the council, published in León Tello, Toledo, i. 620–1. 180 AHN, Osuna, Leg. 3248, published in León Tello, Palencia, 915. 181 For the order see RGS 11 No. 220, fo. 162, drafted by Cristóbal de Vitoria with the approbation of the council. On that very day a second order was sent to the asistente of Seville and all the asistentes and alcaldes to deal with the complaint of Bernaldino Tomás and respond to him. See RGS 11 No. 221, fo. 168. On 4 Feb. 1494 Benavides was ordered to deal with the complaint of Rodrigo de Dueñas of Mombeltrán against Francisco Mellado. See n. 185 below, and see below on Cádiz.

372

return and conversion

Lisbon, intending to board a ship bound for Naples; however, the captain Pedro Sánchez, a Basque, robbed them of everything they owned. The two brothers converted to Christianity and returned, asking the Crown for an order compelling Sánchez to return what he had stolen from them. The Crown ordered the corregidor to deal with this complaint promptly by convening the parties. He was to decide in a manner such that the brothers should have no further reason to address the Crown. Another order dated 15 February 1494 is a writ of protection and defence granted by the Catholic Monarchs to Fernando Vázquez de Sosa so that he could come from Portugal and spend time in Spain. He had departed for exile as a Jew and left behind debts owed him by Christians. The order forbade the magistrates of the kingdom to arrest him or confiscate his clothes, mule, or horse, and permitted him to remain in the kingdom for forty days.182 We do not know whether he remained in Castile after returning; perhaps he had been known to the Crown while still a Jew and offered it his services, which might explain why he was answered in this fashion. Certainly this order was meant to encourage the return of other deportees and their conversion to Christianity.

Oñate, 10 February 1494 Lope de Vaquedano, a resident of this town in the Léniz and Álava valley, addressed the Crown in his own name and that of his wife, María de Ysasua, who he claimed owned property in the town that her parents, Doña Vida and maestre Yuda, and her brother, Abraham Aviñones, had found various pretexts for not transferring to her. An order from the Crown dated 10 February 1494 leaves it unclear whether the claim was that the property had belonged to her while still a Jew, and that she had converted, or married a gentile, before the expulsion, or that she had gone into exile and then returned and converted, either alone or with her husband, whereas the rest of her family continued to live in exile in Portugal or Navarre. In any event, this petition shows that Jews went into exile even from this remote place. The Crown’s order explicitly instructed the magistrate of Oñate to convene the parties, hear their arguments, and ensure that the plaintiffs had no further reason to bring suit about the matter again.183

Mombeltrán, 18 February 1494 Many deportees returned to this town, which lies on the road from Ávila to Arenas de San Pedro, near the latter. They had gone to Portugal, and some of them intended to continue on their way to a safe haven. On 18 February 1494 a group of nine men who had gone into exile with their families obtained an order from the Crown regarding their property.184 The members of the group were Rodrigo de Dueñas,185 Pero González RGS 11 No. 407, fo. 212, drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the king and queen. RGS 11 No. 281, fo. 221, drafted by Cristóbal de Vitoria with the approbation of the council. 184 RGS 11 No. 461, fo. 234, drafted by Cristóbal de Vitoria with the approbation of the council. 185 He went into exile via Cádiz and intended to board the ship of Captain Francisco Mellado. This captain stole 300,000 mrs from the Jews who were about to depart on his ship, and from Dueñas himself he stole 60,000 mrs and also raped his daughter. Mellado was condemned to death, but the sentence was never carried out, and Dueñas addressed the Crown, asking for justice. He did so after converting to Christianity and returning. The Crown ordered the corregidor of Cádiz to convene the parties and see that justice was done. The entire group might have departed in the same way. See RGS 11 No. 103, fo. 95, dated 4 Feb. 1494. 182 183

return and conversion

373

the younger, Ambrosio López,186 Bartolomé Sánchez del Valle, Bartolomé Navarro, Pedro del Colmenar, Bartolomé the son of Bartolomé Sánchez, Alonso García del Colmenar, and Alonso López. All addressed the Crown after returning to their home town and sought to recover their property, which they had sold for less than its value. The Crown acknowledged their claims and ordered the corregidor and the magistrates of the town to give them fair treatment without delay once the truth of the claims was established. However, this instruction was apparently never carried out. On 15 March 1494 the corregidor and magistrates of Mombeltrán were again ordered to respond to the petition of Rodrigo de Dueñas.187 This order specifies the manner in which the petition was to be treated: if the residents who had bought the property had not sold their own property in order to pay Dueñas, he was to pay them the sum he had received with additional compensation for improvements and expenses. ‘Then the property shall be returned to him, but he must agree that the income that the purchasers received from his property while it was in their possession shall remain theirs.’188 On 25 April 1494 an order was issued similar to that addressed to the corregidor and magistrates of the town regarding the return of property to the entire group mentioned above, together with Ambrosio del Colmenar, under the same conditions that were established in the order given to Dueñas on 15 March.189 Juan Gómez de la Torre lodged a different sort of petition. Having gone into exile from the village of Valverde, returned, and converted to Christianity, he wished to settle in Mombeltrán.190 At the time of his going went into exile, Fernando de la Cruz, the protégé and servant (‘criado’) of the Count of Nieva, had announced that the local residents were forbidden to purchase property from the Jews, despite the permission granted by the Crown.191 This meant that property could not be sold, and whoever did sell had to pay a third of the price to Fernando de la Cruz. Thus Gómez de la Torre had paid him 8,000 mrs of the proceeds of the sale of his property, which must have been 24,000 mrs. If like the other returnees he had been forced to sell at under half price, he must have owned considerable property in his home town. He requested the Crown to instruct Fernando de la Cruz to return the money he had received from him; the Crown responded by issuing an order on 20 April 1494 to the magistrates of Valverde, telling them to review the petition without delay. If the magistrates did not act, the Crown would take steps against them as against anyone violating royal decrees.192 The local magistrates seem to have been in no hurry to implement the order of the Crown. On 12 November 1494 de la Torre, by that time a resident of Mombeltrán. obtained an order to the licenciado Antonio Cornejo, the corregidor of Plasencia.193 He is also called ‘the younger’ (‘el moço’) in the document of 25 Apr. 1494 (see n. 189). See RGS 11 No. 753, fo. 358, drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the council. This document, in addition to mentioning his house, also lists lands. 188 ‘Con tanto que los rentos y rentas que las dichas heredades queden e sean e para las personas que las conpraron’. 189 See RGS 11 No. 1452, fo. 395, drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the council. 190 On deportees who left Valverde and returned to settle in a place named Luzar, see the account of 191 those who returned to Plasencia above. See Ch. 5 n. 23. 192 See RGS 11 No. 1375, fo. 174, drafted by Luis del Castillo with the approbation of the council. 193 Cf. n. 122. 186 187

374

return and conversion

From this order we learn that after he had sold his own and his mother’s property to various neighbours in his home town, the Count of Nieva’s steward, Fernando de la Rúa, had alleged the prohibition against purchasing from the Jews and taken the sum of 8,000 mrs from him.194 Although he was ordered to return this sum, the local magistrates showed him favouritism and did nothing. One of the purchasers, Juan de la Fuente, had paid 13,000 mrs, more or less, for a house worth 50,000 mrs not counting its appurtenances. To avoid litigation, he added 10,000 mrs to the sum paid, but even so the amount offered came to less than half the value of the property. The Crown’s intervention bore fruit, and the corregidor of Plasencia was ordered to see that he received a fair hearing.195 On 2 April 1495 the Crown responded to Alonso Díaz and Francisco González (or García), residents of the town who had left it for exile as Jews, having sold certain property to Christian residents. They converted to Christianity, returned, and asked the purchasers to return the property, which had been sold for less than half its value. On that day the magistrates of the town of Mombeltrán were instructed to convene the parties and ascertain whether the returnees’ claims were correct. If so, they were to see that the purchasers either made an additional payment to cover the full value of the property at the time of its sale, or allowed the sellers to recover the property in return for the sum they had received at the time, plus compensation for improvements and repairs. Again, this was on condition that the buyers had not sold anything of their own in order to buy the property offered by the deportees.196 On the same day, 2 April 1495, Bernaldino, another resident of the city, was also answered. He had sold property for his mother before their departure in exile for less than half of its value. His mother remained in Portugal, but he returned and converted to Christianity. He addressed the Crown to recover the property that his mother had sold at the price she had received for it, and which he was willing to pay. He claimed that he was the legal heir,197 implying that his mother had died in Portugal. The instructions to the magistrates of the town stated that they were to convene the parties without delay and adjudicate his plea so as to give him no reason to petition the Crown again.198 A reliable description of the tribulations undergone by the deportees can be found in the story of the hardships of Alonso Díaz de Acuña and his wife, residents of Mombeltrán. They and their children had left in exile with the intention of going to North Africa. When they reached Arzila, they realized how bereft they were, and therefore they decided to return to their homes after converting to Christianity. In Gibraltar a man named Boccanegra made them leave their daughter in his service as a pledge in return for a loan of no more than 4 reales.199 Alonso Díaz de Acuña asked the favour of the Crown for the return of their daughter, which on 8 April 1495 instructed the appropriate authorities to enforce the father’s claims if found just.200 Probably the same man as the Francisco de la Rúa mentioned above. RGS 11 No. 3774, fo. 235, drafted by Luis del Castillo with the approbation of the council. 196 RGS 12 No. 1593, fo. 239, drafted by Cristóbal de Vitoria with the approbation of the council. 197 ‘Yjo legimo universal’, see RGS 12 No. 1594, fo. 240. 198 Ibid., drafted by Cristóbal de Vitoria with the approbation of the council. The sanctions stipulated 199 were loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. See Ch. 5 nn. 296–7. 200 In that case Boccanegra would be compelled to free the daughter once he had been repaid his 4 reales, with no right of refusal. 194 195

return and conversion

375

Berlanga, 11 March 1494 Beatriz González married Ysaque Abenate, a resident of Berlanga and the son of Luis de (obscured by stain) in the home of her father, Don Lisa (sic), according to Jewish ritual. Her father gave her a dowry of 60,000 mrs, which were delivered to her husband. She possessed documents (‘estrumentos’) testifying to this, and her husband produced Don Luis de (obscured by stain) as a guarantor of the dowry. All went into exile, and the husband died. Beatriz González returned to Spain and converted to Christianity, but the legacy remained in the possession of her father-in-law, who refused to give it back to her. This implies that he, too, converted to Christianity. He was ordered to appear before the oidores of the audiencia in Valladolid within thirty days. His attorney could appear in his place, but if he did not the hearing would proceed without him.201

Coca, 8 March 1494202 Diego Martínez, before going into exile, had owned a town house, a saffron field, a vineyard, and other land. Having returned and converted to Christianity, on being rebuffed by purchasers when he reclaimed his property, he addressed the Crown, which on 8 March 1494 ordered the alcaldes and magistrates of the town to determine the truth of his claim to have sold his estate at less than half its value. If it was true, either the buyers must increase the purchase price to the full value of the property at the time of its sale, or Diego Martínez could repurchase at the price he had received plus compensation for improvements and expenses. The magistrates were to reach a decision such that the appellant would have no cause to petition the Crown again.203 Information about the raising of saffron by a Jew is in itself exceptional.

Vélez, Tarancón, and Belinchón, 18 March 1494 Two sisters, Elvira Díaz, the wife of Diego López Gallego, and Brigida de Villena, wife of Diego de Villena, went into exile together with Huda Açaban, the wife of Salamon Aben Habibi, and their brother, Menahem Açaban. Their aunt, Doña Vellida, also left with them, as did their first cousin (‘prima hermana’), the wife of Rabbi Judah Cominete. The brothers of these two women sold a great deal of property which they owned in Vélez, Tarancón, and Belinchón. This property included houses, vineyards, and lands and was sold at less than half its value to Christians and Moors living in those places. The two sisters returned and converted to Christianity. They claimed the property as the sole heirs, indicating that the rest of the family had died. The buyers refused to return the property, and therefore the sisters addressed the Crown. On 18 March 1494 it instructed Pedro Horozco, the merino of Villa Fermosa and governor of the province of Castile to enable the two women to purchase that property for the price that had been paid to the deportees at the time of the expulsion.204 201 RGS 11 No. 703, fo. 324, drafted by Alonso del Castillo with the approbation of the council. He was summoned to appear within thirty days; three dates were specified, at respective intervals of twenty, five, 202 See also Ch. 6 above. and five days. 203 RGS 11 No. 679, fo. 434, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council. 204 No conditions were stipulated for the return of the property. See RGS 11 No. 825, fo. 270, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council.

376

return and conversion

Another resident of Vélez was maestre Alonso de León, a physician who apparently went into exile and sold a house that he had owned in a place near Vélez named Cunadares(?). The house was sold to Cristóbal, a metal smelter (‘fundador’), for 2,000 mrs. After returning and converting to Christianity he sought to recover the house, but the buyer refused. On 26 November 1494 the Crown responded to his petition and instructed the magistrates of the town to summon the parties and determine whether the price of the property was fraudulent and it had been sold for less than half its value. If so, they were to see that the house was returned to its former owner so that the plaintiff should have no further reason to petition the Crown.205

Santa Cruz, 18 March 1494 A group of residents of this place went into exile as Jews. Their names, after their subsequent return and conversion to Christianity, were Juan Bautista de Santa Cruz, his son Cristóbal de Santa Cruz, Juan de Cámara, his wife, Beatriz de Paredes, and their daughter Isabel. Before their departure, they had sold houses, vineyards, fields, olivegroves, and saffron fields that they owned in Santa Cruz and in Corral de Almaguer, all acquired by their own efforts and at their own expense, for far less than their value. They returned impoverished and asked the purchasers to return the property, but their request was refused. In their despair, they addressed the Crown, asking for an order to return the property for the price they had received for it. On 18 March 1494 the Crown instructed the magistrates of these two towns to respond to the petition. First they were to ascertain the truth of the claim, and if it was true, they were to see that the petitioners received just treatment, so that they should have no further reason to petition the Crown.206

Trujillo, 16 April 1494 Juan de Chávez addressed the Crown in his own name and that of his brother and sister, Diego and María de Chávez. They had gone into exile in Portugal from Trujillo, selling two houses they had owned in the city square and being cheated of over half their value through selling in haste because they were in a hurry to leave the country. They returned, converted to Christianity, and sought to buy back the houses at the price they had received with additional payment for improvements.207 On 16 April 1494 the Crown responded and instructed the corregidor of Trujillo to see that the houses were returned, after ascertaining whether there indeed had been fraud in their sale, and whether the appeal had been made within the four years allotted for that procedure.208 Later in that month (the day is missing), the brothers Diego Alonso and Juan Alonso de Bovilleja were answered in similar spirit. They too had sold their houses and vineSee RGS 11 No. 3966, fo. 402, drafted by Luis del Castillo with the approbation of the council. RGS 11 No. 821, fo. 473, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council. The sanctions stipulated were loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. An appeal could be lodged within fifteen days from the date of the order’s issue. See also the account of the return of exiles to the 207 RGS 11 No. 1271, fo. 298. See Beinart, Trujillo, 259. town of Corral de Almaguer. 208 The order was drafted by Alonso del Castillo with the approbation of the council. In the shorter version the sanctions were at the discretion of the corregidor. See Lunenfeld, Keepers, 217. 205 206

return and conversion

377

yards in haste before departing, in consequence being cheated out of far more than half their value; on their return and conversion they sought them, offering to add compensation for improvements. The Crown instructed the corregidor of the city to deal with this petition and to convene the parties, on condition that the entire procedure should take place within the four years allotted for it, from the time of their departure to the repurchase of the property.209

Elche, 18 April 1494 Luis Pérez, a resident of Elche near Talamanca, had been deprived of his house in the village square when the Crown ordered the segregation of housing in 1480; the house he had been given in exchange was worth less than half of the other, which for fourteen or fifteen years was owned by Juan Martínez Pulgaro. Pérez went into exile, returned, and converted; being now a Christian, he wished to recover his original house, for which he was prepared to pay the proper price plus compensation for improvements made by Pulgaro. The magistrates of Talamanca were instructed on 18 April 1494 to convene the parties and decide their case in a manner such that Juan Pérez should have no further cause to petition the Crown.210

Sepúlveda, 17 May 1494 Although the following case does not concern the recovery of property sold under duress at an unfair price, it does concern a Jew who returned to Spain, converted, and sought to recover property seized for another reason. Pero Laínez, a resident of Sepúlveda, had gone into exile, but (he claimed) with the intention of converting, which he had done. His property had been placed under a lien in consequence of a smuggling charge, which he denied, asking the Crown to remove the lien that had been placed on his property. The Crown ordered this claim to be examined and was convinced that neither he nor anyone else on his behalf had smuggled out of the kingdom coin, gold, silver, or other contraband. Rather, he had provided a service to the Crown by reporting on the Jews’ passage.211 His petition to the Crown was found acceptable and approved. The Crown instructed the magistrates of the royal court to remove the lien from his property and from the debts owed to him by Christians, and it ordered them to return his property. The corregidores and magistrates of Segovia, Aranda, and Sepúlveda, and the other magistrates of the kingdom, were instructed to help enforce this order and to impose punishments on those who failed to obey it.212

Oropesa, 17 May 1494 The family of Menachem Navarro went into exile from this town. The father, Menachem, had been active in the service of the Count of Oropesa, whom he served as 209 RGS 11 No. 1608, fo. 210, drafted by Alonso del Castillo with the approbation of the council. Gonzalo del Campo appeared in their name and petitioned the Crown. See Beinart, Trujillo, 259–60. 210 RGS 11 No. 1331, fo. 276, drafted by Cristóbal de Vitoria with the approbation of the council. 211 Cámara de Castilla, Cédulas. Lib. 1, fos. 34v–35r, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 532–3: ‘Aviendo consideraçion de çierto serviçio que el dicho Pero Laynes nos fiso en çierta escriptura que ante nos presento çerca del paso de los dichos judios, tovimoslo por bien’. 212 The draftsman’s name is missing. The sanctions stipulated were loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs.

378

return and conversion

tax-collector; he had managed to collect a sum exceeding 1 m. mrs,213 and the count had not even paid his travel expenses, nor yet the 60,000 mrs due him for arranging public auctions (‘ciertas pujas’) for the count’s benefit, even during the lifetime of his mother. In 1491 the count had sold his father’s tax contract. Menachem Navarro settled all his accounts and debts and paid the count before going into exile. However, before he paid, the alcalde of Oropesa, Gómez Dávila, had executed an order for the public sale of his house and other assets. When he appealed, the alcalde refused to accept the appeal, and thus grave damage had been done to Navarro and his family. Before going into exile they sought to sell the remainder of their real property and promissory notes from Christians, in accordance with the Crown decree, but the Count of Oropesa had proclaimed that no one should purchase the promissory notes nor could they collect debts owed to them.214 After leaving for exile, Menachem’s sons Gómez and Rodrigo converted to Christianity and returned to their home town. They addressed the Crown in their own name and that of three of their other brothers, all of whom requested the restoration of their property.215 Their father had died in Portugal, and they were the sole heirs. Meanwhile, the Count of Oropesa had favoured two of his servants (criados) by granting most of the young men’s property to them, claiming that their father owed him several debts. The heirs also requested permission to collect debts that Christians still owed to their late father and asked that the notary should show them all the documents he had drafted regarding Menahem’s property. This request was discussed in the council, and with its approbation the Crown wrote to the count that if the claim proved justified he was to see that the property was restored to the sons, that they received a fair hearing, and that they had no further reason to petition the Crown. However, only after they had approached the count again, and a writ of protection and defence had been sent to him, did he present his claims before the council. All the documents were referred to the bachiller Gutierre de Trejo, ‘the commissioner and chief alcalde of the lands of don Fernando Alvarez de Toledo, the Count of Oropesa’,216 whom the Crown and council on 17 May 1494 instructed to convene the parties, hear their arguments, adjudicate the dispute, and issue first an interim and then a final judgment. The parties’ claims were to be recorded in writing by the town notary, Sancho López.217

Valladolid, 26 May 1494 Diego de Cáceres of Valladolid went into exile leaving a house behind him that he had neither sold nor entrusted to anyone. Having returned and converted, he found RGS 11 No. 1905, fo. 118, ‘Vn cuento e tantas maravedis’. The count’s name was Fernando Álvarez de Toledo. He confiscated property that the exile Abraham Pa[stain] had left to his converso son Juan Martín, including three houses, two vineyards, and assets valued at 70,000 mrs in the town of Jarandilla. On 5 Mar. 1493 the Crown ordered him to return the property to the son, who had not gone into exile, under penalty of loss of royal favour and a fine of 20,000 mrs. The count was permitted to appeal within ten days. See RGS 10 No. 550, fo. 367. See also below, on Jarandilla. 215 They converted to Christianity a few days (‘a pocos dias’) after departing. See RGS 11 No. 1905, fo. 118, published in León Tello, Toledo, i. 613 ff. 216 ‘Comisario y alcalde mayor de la tierra de don Fernando Alvares de Toledo, conde de Oropesa’, ibid. 217 Drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council. The sanctions stipulated were loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. 213 214

return and conversion

379

that the house had been seized by Toribio Rubio without authority or cause; his demand for its return was rejected. On 26 May 1494 the Crown instructed the alcaldes and magistrates of Valladolid to see that the house was returned to Diego de Cáceres.218

Málaga and Llerena, 18 July 1494 We cannot know whether Israel Yndepetral of Málaga is the same man as Israel Gabriel (or Gabriel Israel), a translator who served Ferdinand during the conquest of Málaga. Israel Yndepetral went into exile, and after returning and converting to Christianity he took the name Hernando (or Fernando) de Sosa and settled in Llerena. Along with Francisco de Carmona, a resident of Seville (who might also have been a converso), he owed money to Diego de Santesteban, a resident of Málaga. The case went to arbitration before Antón de Herrera of Madrid, who ruled that the two must pay their debt within forty days. However, the debtors failed to comply. Santesteban lodged a complaint before the council and argued that the decision had the force of a legal judgment. The council and the Crown accepted his position, and on 10 July 1494 the magistrates of the chamber, the corregidores, the alcaldes, the alguaciles, and other magistrates of the kingdom were instructed to implement the ruling.219 This claim persisted in an order issued by the Crown on 8 October 1494 requiring Fernando de Sosa to pay his debt and forbidding the magistrates to extend the date of payment beyond forty days.220 On 13 November 1494 Fernando de Sosa obtained a writ of protection and defence against his creditors so that they could not arrest him or confiscate his property. There is no doubt that this translator received special treatment from the Crown.

Jarandilla, 17 July 1494 A resident of this town, not far from Plasencia, Juan Martínez Pajón, or Tajón, lodged a petition before the Crown regarding the property of his father, Abraham Pajón, or Tajón. Juan Martínez had already converted to Christianity at the time of the expulsion. Before leaving Spain, his father, being angry with him for that reason, gave away a house, businesses, and another 500 mrs in property to García de Paz of Valverde. He thus disinherited his son before departing in exile and dying in Portugal. After his death Juan Martínez demanded the property from García de Paz, claiming that his father had caused him damage. Faced with a refusal, he petitioned the Crown for an 218 RGS 11 No. 2008, fo. 73. Drafted by Bartolomé Ruiz de Castañeda with the approbation of the council. The sanctions stipulated were loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. 219 RGS 11 No. 2304, fo. 386, drafted by Luis del Castillo with the approbation of the council. 220 RGS 11 No. 3139, fo. 295, drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the council. This order is included in another document on the same matter issued on 13 Nov. 1494. See RGS 11 No. 3800, fo. 376, drafted by Luis del Castillo with the approbation of the council. The writ of 13 Nov. 1494 was also addressed to Francisco de Carmona, who may therefore have stood surety for that debt, and to Alfonso Galanis, a resident of Seville. The corregidor of Almería was ordered at that time, and with him all the other corregidores, to see that this order was executed. Regarding the departure from Vélez-Málaga, it should be noted that in one instance Jews deposited 100 ducats with a Moor named Aben Cornixa. Perhaps they intended to return and collect it from him. The Moor transferred the money to Pedro de Rojas, a contino of the king. Bartolomé Vaca, a public escríbano in Vélez-Málaga, was also involved in this affair, which the king forgave as done without criminal intent. See RGS 11 No. 1526, fo. 415, issued on 29 Apr. 1494 and drafted by Juan de la Parra.

380

return and conversion

order to the chief alcalde and the alcaldes of Jarandilla, instructing them to deal with his request. García de Paz claimed that Abraham Tajón had given him the property because he owed him money. On 17 July 1494 the Crown ordered those magistrates to ascertain whether this claim was true and to resolve the matter in accordance with their findings.221

Villafranca de la Puente, 24 July 1494 Francisco Sánchez, a resident of this town, obtained two orders from the Crown on 24 July 1494.222 From them we learn that his father died in about 1489, and that he and his mother went into exile. At that time she sold a house and other property for less than half their value. He later converted, returned, and sought to recover the property, claiming that he had the right to it as the heir. For his part he was willing to pay the price his mother had received.223 The Crown made recovery of the property conditional on his having lodged the petition for its return within the four years allotted for return and recovery of property, and as an additional condition it determined that the buyers were not to have sold their own property in order to buy that of Francisco Sánchez’s mother. He had to satisfy these conditions and also to add payment for improvements. The instruction was addressed to the magistrates of Valverde.

La Fuente del Maestre, 29 July 1494 The Jewish residents of this town in the province of León on the maestrazgo of the order of Santiago underwent many tribulations when they went into exile. Some of those departing decided to leave by sea; among them were Diego García and his wife, their children, their household, and others. As we saw in Chapter 5, the Duke de Medina Sidonia enticed them with a promise of ‘honour and grace’ on to a ship commanded by a villainous captain called Andino.224 Diego García and his family converted to Christianity, and upon their return to Spain they asked Andino to restore what he had taken from them twenty-five months earlier. More than two years had passed since he had returned and converted, but his demand was refused. Hence he asked for an order from the Crown instructing Andino to return what he had taken from him while on board. The Crown agreed to this, and on 29 July 1494 it ordered the corregidor of Carmona,225 or the resident magistrate in the town, to summon the parties and issue a decision such that Diego García should have no further reason to complain to the Crown.226 On that day, 29 July 1494, the Crown responded to another petition lodged by Diego García regarding the return of a house that he had sold to a resident of the town of La Fuente del Maestre for less than half its value. The buyer refused to return it. The Crown instructed the magistrates of the village to convene the parties for a hear221 RGS 11 No. 2378, fo. 190, drafted by Luis del Castillo with the approbation of the council; see also the account concerning Oropesa and n. 214 above. 222 RGS 11 No. 2495, fo. 384, drafted by Bartolomé Ruiz de Castañeda with the approbation of the 223 RGS 11 No. 2496, fo. 291. council; RGS 11 No. 2496, fo. 291, draftsman unknown. 224 225 See Ch. 5 at nn. 292–4. His name was Pedro Ortiz; see Lunenfeld, Keepers, 201. 226 See RGS 11 No. 2550, fo. 227, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of members of the Royal Council comprising: Don Alvaro; Don Juan de Castilla; Dr ‘Johannes’; Dr ‘Antonius’; Dr ‘Philippus’.

return and conversion

381

ing, and after determining the value of the house, and how much Diego García had received for it, they were to see that it was returned, so that neither side should have reason to petition the Crown again.227

Torrelaguna, 22 September 1494228 Five residents of this town bought various property at the time of the expulsion: Pero Fernández de Campavillo, a priest; Fernand Martínez de Sylvestre; Benito Fernández de Torremocha; Antón Díaz de Ríos; and Juan Aguado. They predicated their purchase on the order stating that the Jews were permitted to sell their property as they wished, and they believed that this purchase was secure for all time, since the Jews expelled from Spain would never return. In this manner they had bought vineyards from Rabbi Ley (Levy), and for this purpose they had sold their own property at less than its value (‘malbarataron sus haziendas’). However, Rabbi Ley converted to Christianity and was now known as maestre Alonso Avenida. His wife also converted, and the couple returned in the summer of 1493.229 Some members of the group of buyers voluntarily addressed the returnees and offered them the vineyards for the price they had paid for them; this offer was refused because of the poor condition of the vineyards. The buyers subsequently made improvements. Then maestre Alonso’s wife addressed the vicario of the town and demanded the return of the vineyards, declaring that she was willing to pay the price her husband had received for them; presumably her husband had died in the interim. These buyers, aggrieved that she sought to benefit from their labour, sought an order from the Crown that the vineyards should remain in their possession and not be restored to the returnees. On 22 September 1494 the Crown responded to this petition and ordered the town magistrates to summon the parties and adjudicate their dispute in such a manner that they should have no further reason to address the Crown.230 An extraordinary incident, which must be seen as a phenomenon of those times, concerned a resident of the town, Rabbi Abraham Çalama, who had gone into exile in Portugal and from there proceeded to North Africa. His daughter Paloma married a Jew there. Abraham Çalama, his wife, and his daughter then returned to Spain and converted to Christianity. Abraham took the name maestre Enrique. However, his sonin-law refused to return with them. Once they returned to their home city, Enrique married his daughter off again, this time to one Juan de Medina, in the city of Guadalupe. When her first husband learnt of this, he returned from North Africa, converted to Christianity, and took the name Juan de Soria. He demanded the return of his wife, but Juan de Medina fled, taking Paloma with him. Juan de Soria then addressed the vicario of Alcalá de Henares, who ordered Juan de Medina to return to his place of residence. However, he was not to be found. Therefore Juan de Soria demanded the return of his wife, or else permission to marry another woman in her place. He also asked to have Juan de Medina excommunicated, but the vicario refused. Juan de 227 RGS 11 No. 2549, fo. 225, drafted by Bartolomé Ruiz de Castañeda with the approbation of the council. See also Ch. 5 above regarding the tribulations of the deportees from Castile who left by sea. 228 See Ch. 6 above. 229 This emerges from the response of the Crown to the magistrates of Torrelaguna of 22 Sept. 1494. 230 Neither the scribe nor the authorizing body is named. See RGS 11 No. 2887, fo. 327.

382

return and conversion

Soria asked the Crown to find a solution to his problem. On 14 May 1495, the vicario was ordered to hold a hearing and see that Juan de Soria had no further reason to address the Crown. We do not know whether his wife returned to him, or whether the Crown permitted him to marry another woman in her place.231 But without doubt the tangle of canon law that the vicario was required to unravel is symptomatic of the conditions of those times.

Uclés, 23 September 1494 The Crown responded to two petitions, close to each other in time, lodged by Jews who left this town, on the maestrazgo of the order of Santiago, and then returned and converted to Christianity. The first concerned maestre Alonso de León, who had gone into exile, and owing to the short time accorded to the Jews to leave the kingdom sold his property to certain local residents for less than half its value. When he returned and converted to Christianity, he offered them the sale price, but they refused. On 23 September 1494 the Crown ordered the magistrates of Uclés to hear the parties and decide the case in such a manner that maestre Alonso should have no further reason to address the Crown.232 The second case involved Diego López, who, wishing to go into exile with the Jews of the town, had sold his house for less than half its value. He converted to Christianity and returned. When he asked the buyer of his house to return it to him for the price he had paid, his demand was rejected on various pretexts. In this case as well, on 13 October 1494 the magistrates of Uclés were ordered to respond to the petition by convening the parties and issuing a judicial decision.233

Aillón, 27 September 1494 Francisco López de Aillón went into exile, having with his father-in-law’s authorization sold three houses and other property for less than half their value. When he returned and converted to Christianity he addressed the buyers, but they refused to return his property. Therefore he petitioned the Crown, which responded to him on 27 September 1494, ordering the corregidor and town magistrates to obtain agreement between the buyers and the seller according to the accepted arrangement: either the buyers must pay the difference in price between what they had paid for the property and its true value at the time of its purchase, or they must return it to Francisco López de Aillón at the price they had paid for it, though he must add compensation for improvements made while the property was in their hands.234

Colmenar, 3 October 1494 A woman from Colmenar (now Colmenar Viejo), María García, informed the Crown that she and her husband had pawned a silver chain (‘vn sartal de plata’) worth 70 231 See RGS 12 No. 2222, fo. 271, drafted with the approbation of the council by Alonso del Mármol. See also Cantera Montenegro, ‘Judíos de Torrelaguna (Madrid) a fines del siglo XV’, 434 (no. 21); id., ‘Judíos de Torrelaguna: Retorno de algunos expulsados entre 1493 y 1495’, Sefarad, 39 (1979), 333–46. 232 RGS 11 No. 2899, fo. 236, drafted by Luis del Castillo with the approbation of the council. 233 RGS 11 No. 3247, fo. 152, drafted by Luis del Castillo with the approbation of the council. 234 RGS 11 No. 2956, fo. 86, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council.

return and conversion

383

reales with Doña Rica, who had gone into exile and then returned and converted to Christianity. She had not responded to María García’s attempt to redeem the chain and kept putting her off upon various pretexts. Hence María García petitioned the Crown, which issued an order to the magistrates of Manzanares on 3 October 1494, instructing them to see that the pledge was returned to María García.235 Another resident of that town, Pero González, had sold his property in Colmenar and Ocaña for much less than half its value to various people before going into exile. He converted to Christianity and returned to his home town, asking the purchasers to allow him to buy back his property. His claim that he was a Christian was of no avail. On 18 November 1494 the Crown instructed Alonso Téllez, the governor of the Castilian province of the order,236 to investigate the complaint and, after the investigation, to propose the standard solution to the parties: either supplementary payment of the full value of the property at the time it was sold or allowing Pero González to buy it back for the price he had received, with the addition of compensation for improvements and repairs.237

Avilés, 13 October 1494 A resident of this port city, Adam López, had gone into exile and sold his house to one of the residents, whose name is not mentioned in the document, for less than half its value. He returned and converted to Christianity, but the buyer refused to sell the house back to him. On 13 October 1494 the Crown responded to his petition and instructed the alcaldes of the town to summon the two parties and hear the case without delay.238

Puebla de Montalbán, 21 October 1494 Ruy González, a resident of this town, had gone into exile as a Jew, selling his house and other property for less than half their value. He returned and converted to Christianity and demanded that the buyers should sell the property back to him for the price they had paid, but they refused. On 21 October 1494 the Crown instructed the local magistrates to ascertain whether his claim was true, and had been lodged within the four-year period allotted for petitions of this kind. If so, the purchasers were to make up the price they had paid for the property to its full value when sold, or else return the house and other property to him, and he, Ruy González, was to pay them the amount he had received plus compensation for improvements and expenses.239 The property of another Jew who had gone into exile, maestre Alonso the physician, was listed in greater detail. He sold a garden, a dovecote, and other properties at less 235 RGS 11 No. 3077, fo. 591, drafted by Cristóbal de Vitoria with the approbation of the council. The document is dated 3 Sept., but it contains a marginal note setting the date at 3 Oct. 236 On 12 Nov. 1494 he was ordered by the Crown to see that the property was returned to Juan de Cardenas, a resident of Chinchón. The property had been sold by his father, Yose Abenadaui, a resident of Ocaña. See RGS 11 No. 2766, fo. 205. He was a member of the well-known Téllez Girón family. Similarly investigation of the matter of Pero González was placed in the hands of the magistrates of Colmenar de Oreja. See RGS 11 No. 3888, fo. 364. 237 The order was drafted by Cristóbal de Vitoria with the approbation of the council. 238 RGS 11 No. 3241, fo. 411, drafted by Luis del Castillo with the approbation of the council. 239 RGS 11 No. 3375, fo. 244, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council. The sanctions stipulated were loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs.

384

return and conversion

than half their value. When he approached the purchasers after returning and converting to Christianity, they refused to sell it back to him. The Crown responded to his petition on 21 October 1494 and instructed the alcaldes and other magistrates of the city that if his claim was justified, and his petition had been lodged within the four-year period allotted for settling property claims, the buyers must make additional payment to the full value of the property at the time of sale, or else permit him to buy it back at the price he had received, plus payment for improvements and expenses.240

Escalona, 21 October 1494 A resident of this town in the Toledo district, Rodrigo de Jerez, addressed the Crown and asked for the return of his house and other property, which he had sold for less than half its value when he went into exile. He returned and converted to Christianity, but the buyers refused to sell it back. The Crown responded to him on 21 October 1494 and ordered the magistrates of the town to summon the parties and ascertain the truth of the claim. If it was upheld, they were to act in the usual way, either enforcing purchase of the property at its full value or permitting Rodrigo de Jerez to buy the property back from them at the price they had paid him, with additional payment for improvements and expenses. This was all on condition that the settlement took place within the four-year limit.241

San Martín de Valdeiglesias, 23 October 1494 Abraham Gabizon, a resident of Guadalajara, was the tax-collector for the Duke of Infantado.242 He converted to Christianity before the expulsion and purchased property from the deportees.243 After his conversion he took the name Fernán de la Vega. His brother, whose Jewish name is unknown, and his sister Reina went into exile in Portugal; Reina sold a house, vineyards, and other property that they owned in Uceda for a low price, far less than the property was worth. Reina, her husband, and their children died in Portugal; her brother returned and converted, taking the name Juan Pérez de la Vega. The two brothers, being the sole heirs, requested an order from the Crown to the purchasers of the property, requiring them to sell it back for the price they had paid. On 23 October 1494 the Crown instructed the magistrates of Uceda to convene the litigants and see that the property was resold, apparently under the ordinary conditions, for the order does not specify them.244 Ysaque Arrouas, also of San Martín de Valdeiglesias, went into exile. He had owned a large and well-equipped apiary in Cadalso;245 a resident of that town, the glass-blower RGS 11 No. 3384, fo. 560, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council. RGS 11 No. 3387, fo. 433, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council. 242 On him see F. Cantera Burgos, ‘La judería de San Martín de Valdeiglesias’, 229, 263–7. In the document presented on p. 267 he is listed as a resident of Guadalajara. In 1480 he lived in Manzanares. See Baer, JchS ii. 518; Cantera Burgos and Carrete Parrondo, Sefarad, 32 (1972), 15. According to Cantera Burgos, ‘La judería’, 225, the town had more than a thousand residents at the time of the expulsion, 243 including seventy Jewish households. Ibid. 234. 244 RGS 11 No. 3414, fo. 246, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council. See also Cantera Burgos and Carrete Parrondo, Sefarad, 34 (1974), 311, 338. 245 ‘Tenia e poseya vn asyento de colmenar con su construcçion e quatro colmenas e con fasta treynta corchos e sus cobijas e solares e barrenones’. See RGS 11 No. 4188, fo. 269, and also Cantera Burgos, ‘La judería de San Martín de Valdeiglesias’, 255 and appendix (IV, §72). 240 241

return and conversion

385

Alonso Gómez, seized the hives, including the honey and the wax, even before the owner went into exile. Under pressure of time, Arrouas was forced to sell him the hives for less than half their value: he received 5,500 mrs plus another 310 mrs to be paid in alcabala on the transaction. After converting to Christianity and returning to his home town as Fernán Gómez, he demanded an additional payment from the buyer for the beehives and the equipment; Alonso Gómez refused. On 4 December 1494 the Crown responded to the plaintiff and ordered the magistrates of Cadalso to require Alonso Gómez to pay the full price for the beehives, according to their value at the time that Fernán Gómez went into exile, or else to sell them back to Fernán Gómez for the amount he had paid. This was on condition that four years had not passed, the period stipulated for return and repurchase of property, and that the plaintiff ’s claims were true.246

Zamora, 24 October 1494 On 24 October 1494 the Crown ordered the magistrate for Jewish property in Zamora to respond to the petition of Juan Maldonado regarding the property of his father, Pedro, which had been seized because it was involved in some fraud of which the details are unknown. Juan managed to persuade the Royal Council that his mother’s estate had also been confiscated, and that he was the rightful heir. We do not know what led the Crown to respond to this petition. Most likely they had gone into exile and returned and converted to Christianity, which is why the son’s petition was presented so late. His mother (and perhaps also his father) had died.247 This plea had further consequences. A document dated 23 August 1497 shows that the Crown ordered the corregidor of Zamora, Pedro Maluenda,248 to deal with a dispute between Juan Maldonado and Alonso de Tordesillas, the repostero de camas of the Crown, and the receiver of the property of Jews expelled from Zamora, regarding the property of Juan Maldonado, which was held by Alonso de Tordesillas. Apparently, because of postponements, Juan Maldonado had not managed to realize his right to the property, and the Crown intervened to put an end to the delay.249

Alcalá de Henares, 28 November 1494 Before going into exile, Inés Díaz, a resident of Alcalá de Henares, sold a house, vineyards, and lands that she owned in the city, receiving less than half their value. She returned after converting to Christianity and asked the buyers to return the property to her for the price they had paid her for it, but they refused. On 28 October 1494 the Crown instructed the magistrates of Torrelaguna to ascertain whether her claims were true, and if so, to summon the parties for a hearing. They were to see that the purchasers paid her the full price of the property at the time of the sale, or that she paid RGS 11 No. 4188, fo. 269, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council. RGS 11 No. 3247, fo. 567, drafted by Luis del Castillo with the approbation of the council. 248 His name is listed as Pedro Maldonado, which is a scribal error, because below Pedro Maldonado is mentioned as the father of Juan Maldonado. See RGS 14 No. 2015, fo. 157. 249 The corregidor was to issue an interim judgment within six days, and if the state of the case allowed a final judgment with twenty days. The sanction stipulated was a fine of 10,000 mrs for delaying the trial (‘costas del pleyto retardado’). 246 247

386

return and conversion

them the price she had received, with additions for improvements and expenses. This was to be done if her departure, return, and petition had taken place within the four years stipulated for this process.250 Maestre Enrique owned property and promissory notes for various debts in Torrelaguna and elsewhere. He sought to sell them, for he intended to go to Portugal and convince his wife and children, who had gone into exile, to convert to Christianity and return. He was successful, and they returned to Alcalá de Henares. He wished to recover the property and collect the debts, but at that time Juan de Vitoria appeared, the protégé (‘criado’) of the Cardinal of Spain, claiming that the cardinal’s provisor, Juan de León, had seized the property with the permission of Rodrigo del Mercado on the basis of information received and given it to him as a gift, arguing that Enrique had smuggled money (‘moneda’) into Portugal when he went there. Enrique claimed that the information could be proved false by examining the registers at the border crossings, where those who passed through were listed with their property. Alleging that Juan de Vitoria was harassing him by demanding that he appear before the bachiller de Medina, acting commissioner on behalf of Juan de León, even though Juan de León had no authority to grant property to anyone, he appealed to the Crown to order Juan de Vitoria to desist and to the bachiller to cease judicial proceedings against him. On 26 November 1494 the Crown instructed the corregidores, asistentes, alcaldes, alguaciles, merinos, and the other magistrates of Torrelaguna and the magistrates of the kingdom and the Crown possessions to investigate these claims by summoning the parties and to decide the case so that maestre Enrique had no further cause to petition the Crown.251 From this petition we learn that registers of persons and property were kept at the border; they have not come down to us. Francisco López, also of Alcalá de Henares, addressed the Crown with a request to return a shop and room that had belonged to his father, Yose Abenaçan, formerly a resident of Torrelaguna, who before going to Portugal had paid an annual sum (‘tributo’) for their use to the beatas of Santa Liberada. When Abenaçan did not return (he died in Portugal), they transferred the shop to the returned converso Francisco Núñez. Francisco López, having returned and converted, asked the vicario of the convent, Pedro de Frias, for the return of the shop and room, which he claimed by right as the sole heir, offering to pay the fixed rent to the beatas. Nevertheless, he was refused. His petition to the Crown was accepted by the council, which on 16 December 1494 ordered the magistrates of Alcalá de Henares to convene the parties and reach a decision such that Francisco López should have no excuse to address the Crown again.252 Francisca, the wife of Juan del Castillo, a resident of Alcalá de Henares, had been married to Ysaque Tarfon when she was a Jew, and borne him two sons. Before the expulsion, her husband had sold a house to Juan Sertrapo and Pedro García for less than half its true value, which was 10,000 mrs, and a vineyard worth the same amount to a man named Moradillo in exchange for two donkeys. Her husband and one of RGS 11 No. 4188, fo. 269, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council. RGS 11 No. 4105, fo. 455, the names of the scribe and the authorizing body are missing. 252 RGS 11 No. 4361, fo. 119, drafted by Bartolomé Ruiz de Castañeda with the approbation of the council. See also Cantera Montenegro, ‘Judíos de Torrelaguna (Madrid) a fines del siglo XV’, 430 (no. 4). 250 251

return and conversion

387

their sons died in Portugal, and her second son returned to Spain with her. Both of them converted to Christianity; but the second son also died. She, as the heir, had addressed the purchasers and asked them to return the property, especially as she had remarried. When they refused, she petitioned the Crown. The Crown’s order was directed to the magistrates (‘alcaldes hordinarios’) of Alcalá de Henares on 13 January 1495. They were instructed to convene the parties and examine them, and afterwards to adjudicate her plea without delay.253

Cobeña, 30 October 1494 Fernando de Aillón, a resident of Cobeña, went into exile with his father, who had sold three houses and other property, and apparently died in Portugal, whereas he converted to Christianity and returned to his home town, seeking to recover the property that his father had sold for less than half its value. The buyers refused to return it, causing him severe damage. In response, on 30 October 1494 the Crown instructed the corregidor and magistrate of the town of Aillón to convene the parties without delay, and after ascertaining whose claim was justified, to adjudicate the case fairly, so that there was no further reason to petition the Crown.254

Almazán, 17 November 1494 The departure of the Jews of Almazán is treated at length in Chapter 5 above. Among them was a man known after his conversion and return as García de Santa Cruz. Before leaving he had sold Christians promissory notes for debts for merchandise owed him by Christians. When he returned he addressed the purchasers of these notes, seeking to recover them at the price he had been paid for them; they refused to pay. Meanwhile he issued new promissory notes to all those to whom he owed money. His debts came to 60,000 mrs, apparently reflecting accrued interest. At his petition, on 17 October 1494 the Crown ordered the corregidor of Soria, the bachiller Diego de Salmerón, to deal with the matter.255 At that time it was found that Pedro de Mazuelo, the magistrate for Jewish property in the diocese of Cuenca and Sigüenza, had placed a lien on the debts that Christians owed him and on his income from textiles, grain, and wool, on charges of smuggling money and other contraband out of the kingdom that he denied to no avail. He therefore addressed the Crown and asked to have the lien removed and be granted to collect his debts, in accordance with Salmerón’s actions. The Crown referred his petition to Pedro de Mazuelo on 30 April 1496, who together with the alcalde mayor of Almazán, if he held the title of letrado was to examine Diego de Salmerón’s judgment and decide 253 RGS 12 No. 107, fo. 344, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council. See also above, on Torrelaguna. 254 RGS 11 No. 3548, fo. 389, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council. 255 RGS 11 No. 3847, fo. 218, drafted by Bartolomé Ruiz de Castañeda with the approbation of the council. According to this order, Salmerón was responsible for Jewish property in the diocese of Osma; he was permitted to gather information about these debts from various sources. On 28 July 1495 he was ordered to respond to the petition of Antón Fernández de Morales, in a suit for 20,000 mrs which Rabbi Bienveniste de Calahorra still owed him, and which Goméz de la Cueva refused to transfer to him. See RGS 12 No. 2940, fo. 325.

388

return and conversion

in such manner that Diego de Santa Cruz should have no further cause to petition the Crown.256

Novés, 25 November 1494 Juan de Talavera went into exile, selling a house before his departure, as well as a vineyard and an olive-grove, to Pero Díaz, a resident of Garciatún. He received only 800 mrs, though their value was 5,000 mrs. He was supposed to receive the remainder later, apparently before leaving Spain; however, he did not receive it before going into exile. Later he changed his mind, converted to Christianity, and returned, seeking to refund the amount he had received from the buyer with the intention of recovering his property. Meanwhile the magistrate of Cardiel, Diego Alonso, had determined that the transaction between the parties had become cosa juzgada, so that Pero Díaz owned the property and Juan de Talavera had lost it. Pero Álvarez Çaço (Zazo) of Talavera addressed the Crown as Juan de Talavera’s attorney, asking that justice be done for his client. On 25 November 1494 the Crown commanded the magistrates of Cardiel to see that he was not deprived of his property, but that the council’s decision must be conditional upon ascertaining whether the earlier decision of the magistrate was in fact cosa juzgada.257 On that very day, Juan de Talavera’s client had received an ‘order upon an order’ (‘sobrecarta’), according to which he was to retain his rights to the property.258 However, this did not resolve the case, and, since Diego Alonso was forbidden to deal with the complaint, the trial was transferred to the appeals court.

Mula (Soria), November 1494 (day missing) Diego Rodríguez de Peñalver, a resident of Mula, had a suit regarding property pending with Alonso Carreño, the receiver of Jewish property in Murcia. Most likely he was a Jew who had gone into exile and then returned after converting, and his property had been seized by the receiver of property according to an order from Antonio de Anduba, the magistrate for adjudicating matters pertaining to Jewish property. Diego de Peñalver appealed against the decision, and both parties were required to produce witnesses and arguments within nine days. The appellant argued that his witnesses were not in the city where the trial was to be held before the royal court, and he could not produce them; he therefore requested the appointment of officials to deal with the appeal. The Crown agreed to this and accepted his claim. In November 1494 (day missing) it ordered Pero Gómez de Setubar, the corregidor of Murcia, or its alcalde, to swear in the plaintiff’s witnesses upon the Cross and interrogate them each separately. The 256 RGS 13 No. 149, fo. 132. Drafted by Juan Ramírez with the approbation of the Bishop of Astorga and Drs de Alcocer and Villalón, and licenciado de Pedrosa. The sanctions stipulated were loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. 257 RGS 11 No. 3991, fo. 119, drafted by Francisco de Badajoz with the approbation of the council. 258 RGS 11 No. 3992, fo. 71, drafted by Francisco de Badajoz with the approbation of the council: ‘Para que las justiçias de Cardiel y todas la çiudades, villas, etç, guarden una sentençia pronunçiada a favor del judio converso Juan de Talavera, veçino de Novés, a fin que le devuelvan los bienes vendidos a bajo preçio al tienpo de su salida del reino pagando el lo conçertado entonçes y las mejoras’, see in the catalogue; RGS 11 No. 640.

return and conversion

389

testimony would be delivered to the judges of the royal court, who would adjudicate the appeal.259

Miranda de Castañar, 11 December 1494 260 Tomás López and his wife went into exile. Before their departure, his wife sold three vineyards for 300 reales all told, though each was worth 150 reales, to a resident of the town, Nuño González; he even took the grapes, which had not yet been harvested. At that time she was under arrest for no justifiable cause. When the couple returned to Spain and converted to Christianity, Tomás López demanded the vineyards from the buyer, offering him the price received with additional compensation for improvements. However, the buyer refused under various pretexts, and Tomás López regarded himself as suffering severe injury. The Crown was prepared to give him a fair hearing; on 11 December 1494 it ordered the magistrates of the town to convene the parties and decide in such a way that Tomás López should have no further cause to address the Crown again.261 The same Tomás López had apparently purchased a vineyard and a house a considerable time before the expulsion from Francisco Pérez, a resident of Cepeda. Because of a debt the house and vineyard were seized by the brothers Alonso and Diego López, residents of Gonilla, a village of Montemayor. Tomás López apparently sued to recover that property as well. In addition, Pérez’s daughter María sought to cancel the seizure of the vineyard, claiming that she had paid the debt. She lodged a claim against Alonso and Diego López, alleging that they had owed money to Francisco Pérez that she, as his heir, should receive, and that this was not a matter of a debt to Jews. Tomás López denied the suspicion against him of smuggling contraband, silver, gold, or coins when he went into exile, which would entail forfeiting his property and the debts owed to him by Christians. On 5 January 1497 the Crown responded to him with the approbation of the magistrates of the royal court, instructing the magistrate and prosecutor regarding Jewish property of Salamanca to investigate the claim.262 Similarly, the magistrate was to ascertain whether Alonso and Diego López owed the money for which the lien had been imposed on their assets, and because of which Tomás López and his wife María were unable to benefit from them. If indeed this was Jewish property, why had the magistrate seized them? In addition, he was to ascertain whether Tomás López was guilty of smuggling, and whether the Crown had granted his property to the Countess of Miranda and her son the count. In this manner the magistrates who had authorized the order apparently sought to investigate a series of measures that had been taken against Tomás López and his wife. The widow García of Miranda had Christian peasants from Sotoserraro and El Alberca, on the lands of the village of Granadilla. They owed her a total of 9,000 mrs, 259 RGS 11 No. 4122, fo. 260. The names of the scribe and the authorizing body are missing. The sanctions stipulated were loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 20,000 mrs. It was permitted to convene the 260 See also Ch. 6 above. sides within fifteen days. 261 RGS 11 No. 4283, fo. 125. Drafted by Bartolomé Ruiz de Castañeda with the approbation of the council. 262 RGS 14 No. 43, fo. 206, drafted by Francisco de Paredes with the approbation of licenciados Gonzalo Fernández Gallego and Luis de Polenco.

390

return and conversion

undoubtedly from loans. She herself had gone into exile, then returned and converted to Christianity. Most likely she returned soon after she had departed.263 She based her claim before the council on the order issued by the Crown in Barcelona, according to which those who had returned recently and converted to Christianity were to be permitted to collect liquid debts and real debts that were not interest-bearing.264 She also possessed an order to this effect against the corregidor of Granadilla. However, Fernán Pérez de Meneses, the magistrate and prosecutor for Jewish property and debts, forbade the payment of the debts to her, claiming that she had smuggled contraband out of the kingdom,265 which she denied. Her petition was answered on 7 August 1495 by the council, after she bound herself to provide assurance that the debts were liquid and true debts.266

Alcaraz, 28 January 1495 Yuça, a resident of this village, had gone into exile and sold his house, which was near the synagogue.267 On returning and converting with the name of Diego de Alcaraz, he found that a Christian weaver whose name is missing was living in his house. He asked him to return the house, but the Christian argued that he had received it from the village council for use as a dwelling.268 Diego de Alcaraz claimed that great damage had been done him. The Crown responded to him and on 28 January 1495 it instructed the magistrates of the town of Uclés to convene the parties and adjudicate their dispute in such a way that Diego de Alcaraz should suffer no damage.269

Zafra, 30 January 1494 After converting to Christianity, Luis González returned to this town by way of Badajoz, because of its proximity to the Portuguese border. When going into exile he had sold certain property for less than half its value, and now he asked the Crown to have it returned to him. On 30 January 1494 the Crown responded to him, ordering the magistrates of the town to deal with his petition and respond to it according to the ordinary conditions for the restoration of property to returnees.270 There also returned from Portugal a group of conversos whose names were Fernando 263 Her full surname, García González, appears in another document. On 19 Dec. 1494 she complained to the Crown against Martín de Argüello, the alcaide of the citadel, who had robbed Jews of their property at the time of the expulsion, stealing as much as 40,000 mrs. The magistrates of the city of Miranda de Castañar had refused to respond to her complaint against him, and her petition to the Crown was lodged after his death, claiming the portion due by law to his widow, since she possessed the property that her husband had stolen. The Crown responded to her and ordered the magistrates of the town to see that justice was done her. See RGS 11 No. 4417, fo. 396, and see also Carrete Parrondo, Provincia de Salamanca, 88–9. 264 The order was confirmed in the petition of Pero Martínez Araya, a resident of Laguardia, regarding a debt demanded from him by Antonio de Cuevas, amounting to 3,000 mrs. See RGS 12 No. 3722, fo. 302, 265 On him see n. 75 above. dated 13 Oct. 1495. 266 RGS 12 No. 3078, fo. 146, drafted by Alonso del Castillo with the approbation of the magistrates and licenciados de Castro, Gallego, and Polenco. 267 RGS 12 No. 333, fo. 408: ‘Açola a la synoga de la dicha villa’. Also see Ch. 3 above. The synagogue 268 was purchased by a Moor. ‘Del conçejo de la dicha villa’, ibid. 269 Drafted by Luis del Castillo with the approbation of the council. 270 See RGS 12 No. 374, fo. 113.

return and conversion

391

López, Fernand Guttiérez, Gómez de Moscoso, and Fernando Sancedo. They had heard that anyone of Spanish origin who converted to Christianity in Portugal, even if accused of smuggling or abetting smuggling, was permitted to return to Spain without standing trial or without having his property confiscated when he returned to his native city; property would only be confiscated from those remaining in debt to Christians when they left for exile. The group returned as early as September 1494, but lately the bachiller Sebastian de Lobatón, the magistrate and commissioner in Zafra, had begun to lodge claims against Jews who had removed contraband from the kingdom. He had confiscated their property and placed a lien upon their assets, in violation of the aforementioned order. The conversos petitioned the Crown for the removal of the lien. Their petition was examined in the council, as was an order that had been sent to Alonso Enriquez, the corregidor of Badajoz, regarding an investigation he had been ordered to carry out in the matter of smuggling coins and other forbidden articles.271 The order, cited in the Crown’s response to the petition, clearly indicates that the Crown was very interested in the return of the exiles to Spain as conversos: It is our grace and we command persons who have recently converted to our holy Catholic faith, and have arrived or shall arrive in our kingdom, even if they are accused of removing or causing to be removed from our kingdom coins, silver, gold, and other articles forbidden by the laws of our kingdom, shall not be arrested by you on this account, nor shall you sequestrate, confiscate, or seize any of the articles they have brought or shall bring with them from outside the kingdom, when they arrive or shall arrive in it after converting to our holy Catholic faith. Take only from those you shall find at fault among them the goods and debts that they left in these our said realms at the time when they were Jews and at our command departed from them as has been said.272 271 A contino in the royal court: See Lunenfeld, Keepers, 195. On 16 May 1494 the Crown ordered him to deal with the complaint of Alonso Álvarez, a resident of Llerena, which was lodged against Yose de Avila, a local resident who had fled and settled in Villanueva de Barcarrota, a place belonging to Fernán Gómez de Solis. See RGS 11 No. 1891, fo. 225. On 20 July 1494 he is mentioned in an order given to Juan Núñez of Mérida, granting him a house and grounds that had belonged to Isaac Abenaco, also of Mérida. This order contains the title of the receiver of Jewish property in Andalusia. He was to make certain there were no delays in the transfer: RGS 11 No. 2441, fo. 13. Sebastian de Lobatón was a magistrate in 1488 and 1492 in Ciudad Real; in 1490 he served in Medina del Campo and Olmedo. See Lunenfeld, Keepers, 96. He was also connected with the investigation of smuggling by persons from Talavera de la Reina, Talamanca, Puente del Arzobispo, the dioceses of Plasencia, Coria, Badajoz, and the province of León in the maestrazgos of the orders of Santiago and Alcántara. See RGS 15 No. 186, fo. 154 (30 Jan. 1499); RGS 15 No. 813, fo. 504 (30 Mar. 1498). 272 RGS 15 No. 1380, fo. 161. The exact date of the order’s issue is missing, as is the name of the authorizing body: ‘E es nuestra merçed e mandamos que las personas convertidas a nuestra santa fee catolica que se han venido o vinieren de aqui adelante a los dichos nuestros reynos que aunque sean culpados en aver sacado o fecho sacar de los dichos nuestros reynos para fuera dellos, moneda, oro e plata e otras cosas vedadas por las dichas nuestras leyes, que por ello non les prendays los cuerpos nin les secresteys nin enbargueys nin tomeys bienes algunos de los que consigo han traydo o traxeren de fuera de los nuestros reynos al tienpo que se han venido o vinieren convertidos a nuestra santa fee catolica. E solamente tomad a los que fallaredes culpados dellos los bienes e debdas que en estos dichos nuestros reynos dexaron al tienpo que heran judios e por nuestro mandado salieron dellos como dicho es’. This order was issued before Sept. 1494, and it was sent to Alonso Enriques, the corregidor of Badajoz. See RGS 10 No. 1891, fo. 225, dated 16 May 1494. The order is dated 10 May 1498 and was drafted by Pero Fernéz de Madrid, escríbano de cámara of the monarchs with the approbation of the council. The sanctions stipulated were loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs.

392

return and conversion

Lobatón was required to act according to the aforementioned order, and if he had taken property from those mentioned in the list above, he must return it with all expenses. And this also applies to money that he confiscated from them.

Estremera, 7 February 1495 Maestre Pedro de Valencia, a resident of Estremera, near Belinchón and Tarancón, preceded his father-in-law Namias Avenosa into exile. Having sold vineyards and olivegroves to the value of 10,000 mrs for a quarter of that sum to Fernando Morote, a resident of Belinchón, and to another resident named Rumatón, the father-in-law too went into exile, and died there, leaving his daughter Agüeda (the plaintiff’s wife) as sole heir. The couple returned to Spain, after converting to Christianity, but when Pedro sought to recover the property, the buyers refused to sell it back. The magistrates of Belinchón were ordered on 7 February 1495 to convene the parties and adjudicate his claim so that he should have no further reason to address the Crown.273 Pedro de Valencia also had sold his own property at the time of the expulsion, ‘when he departed with all the other Jews’.274 It included a year-old vineyard (‘majuelo’) and nine casks (‘tinajas’) or jugs of wine, apparently sold to Francisco Mejía, who had initially refused to buy, claiming that the seller had not presented the permit to sell granted to those leaving for exile, and had signed as a guarantor for a third person who had gone into exile.275 The property was put up for public auction; Mejía bought it at a fraudulent price, for less than half its value. When the exile returned and sought to buy back his vineyard and the casks of wine, the purchaser refused. Pedro de Valencia addressed the Crown and asked for fair judgment. The Crown responded to him, and on 11 February 1495 it ordered the magistrates of Belinchón to summon the parties and give him a hearing so that maestre Pedro de Valencia should have no reason to address the Crown again.276 Regarding the aforementioned guarantee, he was answered on 16 February 1495. He had served as a guarantor for the sum of 5,000 mrs to Ysaque Zadique, a resident of Belinchón, who owed it to Fernando Sánchez, the tax-collector on behalf of maestre de Santiago. Since they were about to collect that sum from him, he requested to have it deducted from Zadique’s property, which had also been sold for less than half its worth when its owner went into exile.277 The Crown instructed Rodrigo del Mercado to inquire into the petition and reach a decision.278

Valdaracete, Carabaña, February 1495 (day missing) Fernán Sánchez de Cuenca, a resident of Carabaña in the province of Madrid, ‘went into exile with the other Jews’.279 He owned a tannery, which before leaving he gave as a present to Fernando Cediel of Perales. After he returned and converted to Chris273 RGS 12 No. 539, fo. 431, drafted by Juan de Bolaño, escríbano de cámara, with the approbation of the council. 274 ‘E se salio en uno con los otros judios que dellos salieron’, RGS 12 No. 540, fo. 430. 275 276 See below. The order was drafted by Juan de Bolaño with the approbation of the council. 277 See RGS 12 No. 681, fo. 497, drafted by Juan de Bolaño with the approbation of the council. 278 279 RGS 12 No. 974, fo. 450. ‘Se fue salio en uno con otros judios’, ibid.

return and conversion

393

tianity, Cediel restored the business to his ownership; however, the council of Valdaracete took it from him. Therefore he addressed the Royal Council and asked to have the business returned to him as rightful owner. In February 1495 (the day is missing), the Crown instructed the magistrates of Valdaracete to adjudicate the plea in such a manner that Fernán Sánchez should have no further cause to address the Crown.280

Monroy, 18 March 1495 Diego Fernández, a cobbler of Monroy, went into exile as a Jew. Before departing he sold his house to a Moor for 100 reales, a third of its value. After converting to Christianity and returning, he asked the Moor to sell it back to him for the price he had paid, but the other refused. In order to correct the damage he had suffered, Diego Fernández addressed the Crown. On 18 March 1495 he was answered, and the corregidor or alcalde of Trujillo was instructed to summon the parties and ascertain the truth of his claim. If it was true, the property was to be transferred by payment of the full price according to its value at the time of the original sale or by allowing Diego Fernández to buy it back for the price he had received, with additional compensation for improvements and expenses. This order remained valid within four years from departure, return, and purchase of the property.281

Hita, 22 March 1495 At the time of the expulsion, this town, in the province of Guadalajara, had 110 Jewish households, including people of means who owned considerable agricultural property, including pasture land, grain fields, vineyards, and gardens. Not all of the Jews of this town went into exile, for some of them converted to Christianity after promulgation of the Edict of Expulsion. Among the conversos were the Baquex family, who owned a lot of property, and Joseph Alazar the elder (‘el viejo’). Little is known about those who departed for exile, returned, and converted to Christianity, seeking to recover their property.282 One of them, however, called María de Acosta after her conversion,283 went into exile with her father, who had sold a house, parts of a vineyard, casks of wine, household effects, and other items for less than half their value to Fernando de Cogolludo.284 After her father died in Portugal, she returned to Spain and converted to Christianity. When she asked Cogolludo to sell the property back to her, he refused; she petitioned the Crown, which on 22 March 1495 instructed the magistrates of Brivizca to ascertain whether her claim was valid, and if so to convene the parties and issue a decision such that she should have no further Drafted by Juan de Bolaño with the approbation of the council. RGS 12 No. 1358, fo. 427, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council. See also Beinart, Trujillo, 70, 247, 263. 282 On this see Cantera Burgos and Carrete Parrondo, ‘La judería de Hita’, 249–305. The names of the property owners and their property are listed here. The list is based on AHN, Osuna, Leg. 1670 No. 7. See ibid. 295 ff. regarding the property of Jews who had lived outside the town and had property in town. 283 She should apparently be identified with the María de Acosta whose father’s name was Vsua ( Joshua) Namias. At the time of the expulsion Fernando de Brihuega bought a house, a vineyard, and household utensils (‘vasijas’) from her. He asked the Crown to reject her petition for the return of this property, since he had already sold it: see RGS 12 No. 1819, fo. 262. The Crown answered him on 12 Apr. 1495. 284 RGS 12 No. 1422, fo. 274, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council. 280 281

394

return and conversion

reason to address the Crown.285 However, events may not have worked out as she wished. Francisco López converted to Christianity in 1497, perhaps as one of those forced to convert in Portugal after the Edict of Expulsion was issued there.286 When he came home to Hita, he sought to recover his property, which included a flour mill and gardens that he had transferred to Aparicio de Cañizares, the protégé (‘criado’) of the Duke of Medinaceli; the new owner refused to return the property, claiming that he had received it all as a gift from the duke. López repeatedly appealed to the duke through his confessor, monks, and other people, for the return of the flour mill, the gardens, and his businesses, but all to no avail. The duke, for his part, addressed the provisor of Sigüenza and the licenciado de Morales, asking them to examine the judicial aspect of the claim, and they, too, determined that the property belonged to Francisco López, according to conscience as well as law. However, Cañizares wilfully refused to return the property. When López complained to the Crown, which ordered the return of the property within thirty days, the Duke of Medinaceli was annoyed and began to threaten him. The magistrates of Cogolludo also refused to deal with the matter, for they were supported in their posts by the duke. The Crown accepted López’s petition and on 16 March 1498 ordered Aparicio de Cañizares to appear before the audencia and the oidores in Valladolid within twenty days.

Ávila, 28 July 1495 It is not known how many Jews of Ávila went into exile and then returned after converting to Christianity. However, a petition to the Crown from Christian residents of Ávila and the outlying towns by means of the attorney Velasco Fernández shows there were some. These returnees demanded payment of outstanding debts owed them by Christians. The Crown accepted the position of the Christian residents, and on 28 July 1495 it instructed the corregidores, asistentes, alcaldes, alguaciles, merinos, and other magistrates of Ávila and its district and in the entire kingdom to see that the interest taken from the debtors was returned to them.287 The Crown’s approach was based on the prohibition against interest enacted at the Cortes of 1476 and 1480, but we do not know how the order was implemented. In all probability, in this case too the returnees sought restoration of their property at the price they had received for it with the addition of payment for improvements and expenses, according to the relevant instructions.

Ojocastro, 18 August 1495 The parents of Pero Martínez de Valgañón, a resident of Ojocastro, went into exile, leaving behind a house, gardens (‘guertas’), lands, and also a ramming device (‘pyson’). 285 RGS 15 No. 751, fo. 124, drafted by Cristóbal de Vitoria with the approbation of the council. Cogolludo was to appear within eighteen days: twelve for the first summons, three for the second, and three for the third. The sanctions stipulated were loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. 286 A woman named Isabel, the wife of Francisco López and sister of maestre Lope, was burnt by the Inquisition in about 1519. See Cantera Burgos and Carrete Parrondo, ‘La judería de Hita’. 287 Cf. on this subject the Crown order of 7 Dec. 1502. The Crown instructed the corregidor of Ávila to send it a memorandum on the debts of the local peasants to conversos. See León Tello, Ávila, 113–14. The order was drafted by Cristóbal de Vitoria with the approbation of the council.

return and conversion

395

They died in Portugal; Pero and his sisters returned and converted to Christianity. They were the heirs to this substantial property, which had been seized by Pero Manrique, the lord of Escaray. Therefore the returnees petitioned the Crown and asked to have the property restored to them. The Crown responded to them by instructing the bachiller Hernán Gil Mogollón, the corregidor of Santo Domingo de la Calzada, on 18 August 1495, to set out without delay for Pero Martínez’s house, to investigate the matters mentioned in his petition, and see that justice was done for the plaintiffs, so that they had no further reason to address the Crown.288 Most likely the extent of the property was also a reason for expediting the response to the complaint.

Belorado, 21 August 1495 Juan Martínez de Valgañón petitioned to the Crown in his own name and those of his nieces and nephews (‘sobrinos’) María, García, Catalina, and Fernando. He requested that Don Luis de Velasco, the lord of the place and a ‘knight and a man with power and authority’ (‘cavallero e ome poderoso’), should return their house to them.289 They had left the house behind in the town when they went into exile. Don Luis had seized it and refused to return it to them after they returned and converted to Christianity, despite an order that the Crown had issued instructing him to do so within eight days. On 21 August the Crown decreed that Don Luis must appear in person or send an attorney (‘procurador’) before the magistrates of the royal court in Valladolid within twenty days to plead his case.290

Torre,291 2 September 1495 Francisco de la Torre, a man of considerable means in the village, went into exile and left much property behind there, and in its vicinity. This property was divided, and sold to or deposited with the following twenty-one residents: Juan Sarmiento; Martín Alonso; Juan Ramírez; Fernando Ruiz; Pedro Rodrigo Chiquete; Aparicio Núñez; Juan de San Juan; Juan Peligro; Rodrigo Camazón; Pedro Ramírez, son-in-law of Martín del Brazo; Rodrigo Camargo; his son-in-law Diego Ramírez; Juan del Pozo; Nuño González; Juan Blanco; Alonso Casado; Alonso Rodríguez the Lame (‘el coxo’); Martín the wool-comber (‘peynador’); García Camazón; Pero Bernaldes; Juan Martín Pelote, a weaver (‘tejedor’). When Francisco de la Torre returned and converted to Christianity, they refused to return the property that was in their possession. In support of his RGS 12 No. 3185, fo. 130, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council. RGS 12 No. 3227, fo. 176. Don Luis de Velasco arrested two brothers, Jacob and Heli, sons of Isaac Aruete of Belorado. He was supposed to deliver them to the corregidor of Guipúzcoa, Juan de Ribera. Isaac Aruete owed Don Luis 50,000 mrs, and he agreed that his two sons would be arrested as guarantors of the debt. See RGS 9 No. 90, fo. 190, dated 17 Jan. 1492. See also RGS 9 No. 203, fo. 187, dated 19 Jan. 1492. Jacob and Heli lodged a complaint against him before the Crown, which ordered an investigation to be held. The brothers agreed to bring witnesses, as did Don Luis de Velasco. See RGS 9 No. 203, fo. 187. On 23 Mar. 1493 he was instructed by the Crown and the council to deliver to María Díaz, the widow of Pedro de Solorzano, residents of Redecilla del Camino, the house, the vineyards, and the property that her brothers and uncle had delivered to her when they went into exile as Jews. See RGS 10 No. 771, fo. 297. 290 The summons stipulated three dates: the first within ten days, and the second and third at five-day intervals thereafter. The order lacks the name of the draftsman and the authorizing body. However, at the head of the order it is said to be issued on behalf of the king and queen and the council. 291 Torre is a village of Alde de Castroverde de Cerrato. 288 289

396

return and conversion

claim, he stated that he had not smuggled coin and the like into exile, nor anything else because of which he ought to lose his property. The Crown responded to him on 2 September 1495, instructing the aforementioned residents to return the property, including the fruit and income (‘frutas e rentas’) they had received since he had gone into exile, without deducting anything.292 It was probably difficult for him to recover his property owing to its entirely agricultural nature.

Coruña del Conde, 12 September 1495 Pero Núñez de Santa Fe, formerly Yose de Valladolid, converted to Christianity ‘when the Jews were expelled from our kingdoms’ without going into exile,293 but his wife and son went to Portugal. He made up his mind to follow them and convince them that they should convert and return to their city. In his absence, various people forcibly seized his house and property that he owned in and around Coruña del Conde. When he returned and demanded that they relinquish his property they refused, and he was completely impoverished. At the same time he petitioned the Crown for permission to collect debts owed to him by Miguel García, Fernando de León, and Pero García Gumiel, who had official posts in the city and served as alcaldes and alguaciles, and he could not obtain a fair trial in the city. With the approbation of the council, on 12 September 1495, the Crown instructed the magistrates of Coruña to summon the parties and decide among them in such manner that Pero Núñez had a fair hearing.294 292 RGS 12 No. 3306, fo. 210. Drafted with the approbation of the council by Juan Ramírez, escríbano de cámara of the king and queen. The sanctions stipulated were loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. They were to appear before the magistrates of the royal court in Valladolid, if they had any arguments, within twenty days (twelve days for the first summons, and four days each for the following two). If they did not, the case would proceed in their absence, and only the arguments of Francisco de la Torre would be heard. 293 RGS 12 No. 3435, fo. 80: ‘Fueron echados e desterrados los judios destos nuestros reynos’. On him see below, n. 294. 294 The order was drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council. Perhaps he is the same man as Pedro Martínez de Santa Fe (Ch. 3 n. 268, who as a Jew had engaged in lending money for interest and converted to Christianity with his brother Alonso Núñez. See RGS 9 No. 2653, fo. 83, dated 9 Aug. 1492. The name Núñez is written in that document. The two brothers addressed the Crown and asked for the appointment of a reliable man who would see that the property was restored to them. Alfonso de Torres, a resident of Aranda de Duero, was appointed for that purpose. On 7 Sept. 1492 the Crown gave an additional writ of protection and defence to the two brothers, so that they could receive their property without fear or apprehension. The women who went into exile dispersed their property in gifts on their way to Portugal. The order was addressed to the magistrates of northern Castile. See RGS 9 No. 2915, fo. 247, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 468–9. Another document from 14 Feb. 1493 shows that Pero Núñez de Santa Fe converted to Christianity in July 1492, without crossing the border into Portugal, and only afterward did he go there. When he returned, he learned that lawsuits had been filed against him, and a sentence had been issued for the usurious interest he had taken on loans to the councils of Riasa, Gumiel de Hizán, and Hontoya de Val de Arados. He asked the Crown to cancel these decisions and agreed to litigate with the debtors, even though those loans had been extended fifteen to eighteen years previously, when he was a Jew and known as Don Yose de Valladolid. The Crown responded to him and ordered a prompt hearing. See RGS 10 No. 366, fo. 133, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 506–7. The document issued on 16 Dec. 1494 (RGS 11 No. 4376, fo. 384), drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council, shows that he was a large-scale moneylender (‘muy logrero’), and as a Jew he had caused the impoverishment of many people and the ruin of residents of his city and many other

return and conversion

397

Apparently this order was preceded by special permission granted to Pedro Núñez and Alonso Núñez de Santa Fe, residents of Coruña. Their wives had left early and dispersed their property in various places, except for what they took with them, and they gave presents (‘donaçiones ynfeutosas’) from the abundant property that belonged to them absolutely. They feared that those who had received some of their property would try to do them physical injury. They do not mention property sold at less than half its value, but they point out the haste of departure and the behaviour of their wives. The Crown issued a writ of defence and protection and an order to return their property.295 Pedro Núñez de Santa Fe was apparently the most important converso in Coruña del Conde, where he owned a great deal of property including land. His brothers converted with him, one taking the name Martín García and the other, a tax-farmer and alcabala collector, Alonso Núñez. In the early sixteenth century, the Inquisition began to take note of indications that the family was maintaining a Jewish way of life after its return from Portugal.296 Pedro Núñez de Santa Fe’s wife, Constanza Núñez, removed the h. alah portion from the dough when she baked bread,297 and she salted meat to make it kosher. Pedro himself removed the rump sinew from meat in accordance with places, who were vassals of Bernaldino Suárez de Mendoza, the Count of Coruña, who had also addressed the Crown on this problem. He had sold his promissory notes to the prosecutor for Jewish property in the diocese of Osma for 140,000 mrs, and anything that the purchaser collected above that sum would be his. Clearly these were interest-bearing loans. Alonso de Castillo, the purchaser, collected the debts in the name of Pero Núñez de Santa Fe, and this prosecutor, Alonso del Castillo, exploited his position as though he were collecting the debts for the Crown. The Count of Coruña petitioned the Crown to forbid Alonso del Castillo from dealing in the collection of debts, and in his place another judge should be appointed for that purpose, who would see to the return of the money that had been collected (that is to say, the interest), or else the money should be delivered to a dependable man until the Crown decided what to do about it. The Crown responded and instructed the corregidor or the resident magistrate of Aranda to conduct a secret investigation and to send the results to the Crown. He was to forbid further collection. The Crown required appearance before the investigating magistrate of anyone who possessed any information about it. See Cadiñandos Bardeci, ‘Judíos y moros’, 314–15. This affair is also described in a document dated 2 Mar. 1495 (RGS 12 No. 993, fo. 320). As stated in this document, the payment received by Alonso del Castillo was 110,000 mrs, against the obligation to collect the sum of 400,000 mrs on behalf of Pedro Martínez. The request in this document comes from the count, asking that an ordinary magistrate, resident of Coruña del Conde, take charge of these debts. The sums already collected would be transferred to two dependable men whom the Crown would have appointed. The corregidor of Arande would gather precise information about the conduct of Alonso del Castillo and any collections made by him were to be cancelled until the Crown ordered what was to be done. The corregidor was to gather all information and transmit it to the Crown. The order was drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the council. 295 This conclusion can be reached on the basis of the heading of the order, which was directed to the magistrates of the royal court, to all the corregidores, to the alcaldes, and the other magistrates of the cities of La Coruña, Aranda, Peñaranda, Peñafiel, Rúa, Gumiel de Hizán, Gumiel del Marcado, Atienza, and also all the other magistrates of localities in the kingdom and in the possessions of the Crown and to anyone before whom the order might be presented. See RGS 9 No. 2915, fo. 247, drafted by Sancho Ruiz de Cuero, the secretary of the king and queen, with the approbation of the council, and issued in Valladolid on 7 Sept. 1492, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 468–9. 296 See Cantera Montenegro, Encuentros en Sefarad, 135; and on Pero Núñez de Santa Fe see Carrete Parrondo, El Tribunal, 68–9, 80 ff., 90 ff. 297 The testimony of Juana, the wife of Juan de la Parra, a resident of Coruña. She testified on 14 Apr. 1502; Carrete Parrondo, El Tribunal, 80, cf. 91–2 (the testimony of Mingo Lozano, who testified on 29 Dec. 1501 in Peñaranda).

398

return and conversion

Jewish law. Álvar García, a converso himself, also a resident of Coruña, told how he had received dried and smoked meat in order to deliver it to the children of the accused woman. He suspected that this meat was kosher, because the fat and sinews had been removed, and he delivered it, with an explanation, to the receiver of confiscated goods associated with the Inquisition.298 Pedro Núñez also educated his children and grandchildren to observe Jewish law: according to the testimony of Miguel Peligro, the grandson began to recite the Jewish grace after meals in the witness’s presence, and his grandfather stopped him during the blessing. Doubtless this was because of the presence of the witness during the meal.299 He uttered harsh words against the holy Christian faith,300 and he mocked the mass when he was in church.301 Upon the death of the Crown Prince Juan, Alonso Núñez, the brother of Pedro Núñez, said that he had died the death of a traitor.302 These conversos explained that they had converted to Christianity in Portugal because they lacked the means to live, while they had left much property behind in their home town. Indeed, this was the situation of many deportees who crossed the border into Portugal.303 The books of the Jews who returned to Coruña were burnt there in either 1493 or 1494.304

Torre de Mormojón, 4 September 1495 When Francisco de la Torre, whose Jewish name is unknown, went into exile, he loaded his property on to a wagon and took his three mules with him. This property, which he valued at about 60,000 mrs, was taken from him by Jerónimo de Valladolid, the collector of the castellanos tax, possibly, however, because of a debt from before 1492. He had returned and converted before by 11 December 1494, when the Crown instructed Antonio Martínez de Aguilera, the corregidor of Plasencia, to deal with his 298 Carrete Parrondo, El Tribunal, 81. Similar testimony was given by Álvar García’s wife Isabel. This testimony was supported by Alonso de Soria, converso and ward in the home of Pedro Núñez, who saw how in 1491 or 1495 Pero Núñez prepared the meat according to Jewish law and removed the rump sinew. 299 The witness was a resident of Hontoria (de Valderados) in the province of Burgos. He testified on 22 Dec. 1500 in Gumiel. 300 Testimony of maestre Diego, a physician resident in Coruña, known as tornadizo ‘convert’), who testified on 20 Dec. 1501 (see below, n. 304; Carrete Parrondo, El Tribunal, 90), and of Mingo Lozano. 301 Testimony of Fernando Alonso, a resident of Arandela (in the province of Burgos), Carrete Parrondo, El Tribunal, 97. He lowered his head so as not to see how, during mass, ‘the body of Our Lord’ was lifted up. 302 The Crown Prince died on 4 Oct. 1497. With witness testified on 4 Jan. 1501. See Carrete Parrondo, El Tribunal, 97: ‘Vaya pese a Dios con el o con su muerte, muera mala muerte como traydor, que hizo botar otra mejor gente, que no el de Castilla; ya muriesen el rey e la reyna tan mala muerto como el’. 303 The testimony of several witnesses: Juan de Camaraz, a resident of Aranda. He testified on 12 Jan. 1501 (about Martín García known as ‘el Ronquillo’); and also Diego de la Puerta, who testified on 25 Oct. 1501. These are the words of the monk Francisco de Aranda, which Pero Núñez said to him (Carrete Parrondo, El Tribunal, 130–1). He testified on 26 Oct. 1501. 304 The burning of Jewish books was mentioned by Antonio Triguero in the trial of Pero Núñez (Carrete Parrondo, El Tribunal, 96). He was a resident of Villanova de Gumiel de Hizán, near Burgos. On that occasion Pero Núñez’s brother Martín García was also present, exclaiming, ‘O, quanta buena ley se quema oy!’ on 4 Jan. 1501.

return and conversion

399

petition and see that justice was done him.305 We do not know how he resolved the matter. On 4 September 1495 Francisco de la Torre obtained an order from the Crown addressed to the magistrates of the royal audiencia in Valladolid, instructing them to attend to the restoration of the property he had left behind in the town of Torre de Mormojón. Upon his return from Portugal he found that it had been seized by various people. Most likely he was entirely destitute, for he asked the Crown to appoint a letrado, procurador, and escríbano without any payment from him to facilitate the process.306

Corral de Almaguer, 4 September 1495 Isaac Abenasa went into exile and sold his house and property at less than half its value. His son Francisco Martínez converted to Christianity and returned. He asked the purchasers to return the property his father had sold, but they put him off; he therefore besought the Crown for an order to the purchasers, requiring them to return his father’s property to him at the price that had been paid to his father, who had most likely died in Portugal, or else to make a supplementary payment to him for its true value. On 4 September 1495 the Crown answered and instructed Pedro de Mazuelo, a contino at the royal court, magistrate, and prosecutor regarding Jewish property in the diocese of Cuenca, or his substitute, and the magistrates of the town of Corral de Almaguer, to allow him to buy back the property at the price his father had paid plus compensation for the buyers’ improvements, provided that the departure, return, and demand for restoration of the property had occurred within the four years stipulated by the Crown’s order.307 On the same day Pedro de Mazuelo was instructed to respond to the petition of the conversos Alonso de Ubeda, Diego Fernández, Juan de Ocaña, Inés López, Juan de Valencia, and Juan de Saona, who had sold their houses and property at less than half their value before going into exile. After their conversion and return, the buyers refused to restore the property to them. The Crown ordered the parties to be convened without delay, and the buyers were to be obliged to return the property at the price they had paid for it, with the addition of payments for improvements and expenses, or else to make up the full value.308 305 See RGS 11 No. 4265, fo. 313. Antonio Martínez de Aguilera served as corregidor of Plasencia from 1492 to 1495. In 1492 he was the resident magistrate of Murcia, in 1493, the resident magistrate of Plasencia, and in 1498, in Madrid. See Lunenfeld, Keepers, 212 and also 96, and the Appendix. 306 The document is in poor condition. See RGS 12 No. 3344, fo. 30, drafted by Juan Ramírez with the 307 approbation of the council. See below on Ampudia. See also above, on Santa Cruz. 308 RGS 12 No. 3349, fo. 100, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council. Pedro de Mazuelo was ordered on 30 Jan. 1496 by the magistrates of the royal court with the approbation of the Crown to respond to the appeal of García de Santa Cruz, a resident of Almazán, that a lien should be lifted from his debts and his income from textiles, wool, grain, and the like. See RGS 13 No. 149, fo. 132. On 5 May 1496 he was instructed to respond to the petition of Pedro de Pastrana, a Jew from Pastrana, who had converted to Christianity at the time of the expulsion, to help him collect the debts that his father, Ephraim Francis, had transferred to him, totalling 70,000 mrs in Pastrana and the towns of Budia and Durón. See RGS 13 No. 770, fo. 141.

400

return and conversion

Calahorra, 12 September 1495 Diego Martínez, who went into exile, sold a vineyard and a garden for less than a third of their value. He returned and converted to Christianity, seeking to recover his property for the price he had received when he went into exile. He petitioned the Crown through the appeals court for Jewish property, and on 12 September 1495 it ordered the corregidor of Calahorra, with the court’s approval, to ascertain whether his claim was correct, and he had been cheated at the time of the sale. The corregidor was to summon the parties and decide in such manner that Diego Martínez should have no further reason to lodge another complaint before the Crown.309

Aranda, 24 September 1495 Tristán de Arzila was probably a Jew who converted to Christianity and left his home in Aranda for Larache, in order to bring back a group of conversos. When he set out, he was provided with a writ of safe conduct and defence from the Crown. That is to say, he had received the Crown’s blessing. When he reached Larache in North Africa, he was robbed by sailors of the fleet which was stationed there, headed by Iñigo de Artieta. Property was taken from him, including jewellery and 25,000 mrs in cash; the money had apparently belonged to those who wished to return. Therefore Tristán de Arzila sued Iñigo de Artieta before the Crown. The Crown concurred with the council’s recommendation that a magistrate should be instructed to convene the parties and do justice for the petitioner. The magistrate, licenciado Gonzalo Sánchez de Castro, ordered Iñigo de Artieta, who was present at the royal court at that time, to respond to the complaint or to appoint a procurador to represent him. He was required to be present in the town where the court was sitting and to lodge there temporarily.310 On failing to comply with the order and respond to the complaint, Artieta was found guilty of rebellion and treated as a confessed criminal. The magistrate announced his willingness to hear Arzila, who claimed to have witnesses in Portugal who would testify to the veracity of his claims. The documents do not specify how their evidence was collected, but one assumes that standard judicial procedure was followed: depositions taken in the presence of a notary and attorneys, ratified, sealed, and forwarded to the court. The magistrate announced that Tristán de Arzila had proved his claims, and issued a judgment requiring Iñigo de Artieta to pay him 25,000 mrs within fifteen days, plus compensation on demand for his expenses according to the plaintiff’s estimate. The court also permitted Arzila to demand his rights from the sailors who were present when he was robbed and who took part in the robbery of other Jews.311 On 24 September 1495 the monarchs ordered the chief justice of the kingdom, the RGS 12 No. 3351, fo. 101, drafted by Alonso del Mármol with the approbation of the council. RGS 12 No. 3426, fo. 188, drafted by Juan de la Parra with the approbation of the magistrates of the royal court. The end of the document is torn and a small section is missing. On 3 Sept. 1495 the house of Rabbi Lazar in the town was given to licenciado Gonzalo Fernández Gallego, a magistrate of the royal court. The house was granted to him because Rabbi Lazar smuggled contraband into Navarre. RGS 12 No. 3329, fo. 270. 311 Tristán de Arzila presented an account of his expenses to the court under oath. These came to 3,222 mrs, and the magistrates of the kingdom were ordered to execute the verdict and collect the expenses. 309 310

return and conversion

401

alcaldes of the royal court, all the magistrates of the condado of Vizcaya and the province of Guipúzcoa, and the other magistrates of the kingdom, and anyone to whom the order or a notarized copy should be shown, to see to the implementation of the verdict.312 This extraordinary document shows how concerned the government was for the return of the exiles, which was apparently a private initiative but enjoyed the approval of the government. It is unlikely that Tristán de Arzila would have set out on his own, without the writ of protection and defence.

Cáceres, October 1495 (day missing) The story of the tribulations of Ruy López de Medina, a resident of Cáceres, may serve as a faithful reflection of the fate of many deportees. He went into exile with his wife and their six sons and arrived in Tunis. When they went into exile, they had smuggled out gold and silver but no other contraband. They decided to return, and in order to do so they left four of their sons in the hands of the Muslims. Ruy, his wife, and two of their sons converted and returned to their native city of Cáceres, utterly destitute had not their many acquaintances in the city taken pity on them and given them donations. He thus scraped together 10,000 mrs so that he could buy a bed and clothing for himself, his wife, and his sons. In Cáceres he was involved in a lawsuit with the notary, which his poverty prevented him from conducting. He therefore requested that the Crown should instruct Pedro Maldonado and the corregidor to decide between him and the notary. The Crown responded to him in October 1495 (day missing) and ordered Pedro Maldonado to reach an agreement with the corregidor, if he held the title of letrado, and if he lacked that title, with his alcalde, to decide in a manner that should not give Ruy López de Medina reason to address the Crown or the council again.313

Ampudia, 13 January 1496 Juan Martínez was a resident of this town, and when he left and went into exile he sold his property to Pero Alonso and Pero de Valloria, a resident of the town. They also bought property from other Jews who left for exile. Juan Martínez returned in 1494 and converted to Christianity. He demanded that they return his property, which consisted of a house and a vineyard. They had paid him 3,600 mrs for it. After returning, Juan Martínez settled in Torre de Mormojón and sued them for his property. They claimed that in order to buy the house and vineyard at a fair price, with no fraud, they had sold property of their own. In their opinion, Juan Martínez’s suit had no legal basis. If they were required to return the house and vineyard, they would be totally impoverished and ruined. Therefore the two buyers addressed the Crown and asked for the cancellation of the order requiring the restoration of the property of Jews who had gone into exile and then returned and converted to Christianity. Their petition was discussed in the Royal Council, which transferred it to the 312 RGS 12 No. 3546, fo. 205, drafted by Antonio de Almendares with the approbation of the magistrate Gonzalo Sánchez de Castro. The sanction stipulated was a fine of 10,000 mrs. An appeal could be submitted by appearing before the court within fifteen days. 313 RGS 12 No. 3885, fo. 128, drafted by Juan Ramírez with the approbation of the council.

return and conversion

402

Crown, which indeed issued a decision on 13 January 1496, declaring that the two purchasers should not be required to return the house and vineyard, without reference to the order issued by the Crown regarding ‘Jews who had recently converted to Christianity’.314

Talamanca, 20 May 1498 The heirs of Jacob Arragel requested the restoration of their property after they had returned and converted to Christianity. In order to prevent the return, Pedro de la Peña petitioned the Crown, arguing that the family’s property had been in his possession for six years, and he had cultivated it with the labour of his hands and improved it.315 The Crown answered him and ruled that the order of 20 May 1498, regarding the return of the property of Jews who returned and converted to Christianity, did not apply to him, and he was exempt from acceding to their demand.316

ii. return and conversion among the jews of aragon Examination of the return of Jews from the kingdom of Aragon to their places of origin and their efforts to re-establish themselves is more difficult because most of those who went into exile from there did so through the Mediterranean ports. The conditions of the times made return by a land route easier and faster than return by sea, which required chartering places on board a Genoese or Basque ship headed for a port in eastern Spain. Hence it is likely that most of those who returned to the cities of Aragon did so by land, primarily those who had left from the cities near the border with Navarre. Here, too, the details of return and conversion emerge from royal decrees for the return of property, and as early as the end of August 1492 we find the first order regarding deportees who returned to the city of Zaragoza after converting to Christianity. On 27 August 1492 the notary and merchant Gonzalo de Miedes, a resident of Zaragoza, was ordered to return to Alfonso d’Almerich an annual income of 19,240 sueldos on property that he had bought from him when d’Almerich went into exile.317 Similarly, on 8 September 1492 Ferdinand ordered the return of Solomon Rodrich’s property to his son, the converso Juan Provençal.318 In this spirit Angelina d’Espindola demanded the return of 4,000 sueldos from her dowry and wedding presents (‘arras’) 314 RGS 13 No. 41, fo. 94, drafted with the approbation of the council by Ruiz de Castañeda. The order relates to the returnees: ‘que a pedimiento de los judios que nuevamente convertidos mandamos dar’. On the troubles of the Jews of the city of Ampudia see Ch. 5 above. 315 See Ch. 6 above, on Algete. 316 RGS 15 No. 815, fo. 80, drafted by Juan Ramírez with the approbation of the council. 317 M. A. Motis Dolader, La expulsión de los judíos de Zaragoza (Zaragoza, 1984), 81, based on AHPZ, Juan Aznar Guallart 1492, fos. 210–212v. 318 Solomon Rodrich left for exile via La Ampolla: he was known by the appellation Fenero. See ACA, Real Cancillería Reg. 3.57, fo. 127; Motis Dolader, La expulsión de los judíos de Zarag, 81–2; cf. id., ‘La conversión de judíos aragoneses’, 235–7, with instances of appeals for the return of silver jewellery, gold, and silver utensils. The appeals are relatively early, dating from 1492, and there were also some later appeals in 1495.

return and conversion

403

from the property of her husband, maestre Bonjua, a resident of Zaragoza. Her suit was lodged on 21 October 1495.319 A later suit was that of Martín de Soto, the son of Jento Silton of Zaragoza, the owner of a cloth factory (‘molino de batán’) in Magallón. On 28 March 1503, Ferdinand also awarded him three gates and a tower (‘tres portales y una torre’) in the Coso of Zaragoza.320 Among the deportees from Calatayud, Salamo Aven Bolat is known to us. He was a resident of the village of Guesa and claimed his property after converting to Christianity and taking the name of Antón Lopez de Tudela, as he is listed in the protocols of the notary Forcen López of 1506.321 There must also have been converts to Christianity who returned from Navarre to Huesca, but it cannot be known whether they were few or many in number. We know of one member of the Argilet family who reached Italy, converted to Christianity on 17 March 1495, and returned to his home town, where he is found on 5 December 1499. Another man who returned as a convert was Martín García, the son of the physician Rabbi Isaac Xuen. He became a priest in 1507.322 ✻

This detailed account of those who went into exile, returned, and converted to Christianity after accepting the conditions laid down by the government for their return clearly shows that a considerable number of Jews returned to Spain, almost to the very places they had left, and it also bring out another series of problems. Naturally only a small minority of the returnees and very few of their problems have been described above. Every place had its own problems regarding those who departed in exile and returned, in view of the conditions that had in fact changed immediately after their departure in exile. The returnees apparently sought to restore the status quo ante: henceforth they were Christians in every respect (at least outwardly) and equal to the other residents, except for Muslims, if any were to be found in those places. The claim made by some of those who returned that they had ‘seen the light’ of Christianity while they were in Portugal is probably mere lip-service. They ‘saw the light’ after the hardships they underwent in exile: illness, the death of parents and children, husbands and wives, lack of wherewithal, and loss of what they had brought with them, robbery and rape, while their property remained in their former cities, property which they had sold, as they said, for ‘less than half its value’.323 In many places there also remained relations who had not gone into exile but had converted to Christianity, and the returnees wished to rejoin them. The Spanish Crown encouraged the exiles to return, promising that even if they had smuggled out silver, gold, coin, and other contraband, they would not be punished. Only that part of their property which remained in their places of residence, or debts that Christians 319 See Motis Dolader, La expulsión, 82. Based on ACA, Real Cancillería Reg. 3571, fos. 195v–196v. This claim was resolved a year later. 320 See Motis Dolader, La expulsión, 82; Blasco Martínez, La judería de Zaragoza, Reg. s.v. 321 322 See Borrás Gualis, ‘Liquidación’, 32. See Durán Gudiol, La judería de Huesca, 141. 323 See the accounts of return presented above.

404

return and conversion

owed to them, would be in danger of confiscation. The orders issued in the name of the Crown, the Royal Council, and the decisions of the appeals courts regarding the return of property, as described above, were a powerful means of encouraging the exiles, exhausted by the trials of wandering, to accept the condition of the Crown for their return to Spain: conversion to Christianity. The measures taken by the Crown were an incentive to return, for the Crown and the Royal Council related directly to every request for the return of property and frequently decided in favour of those who sought to recover their property, after carefully ascertaining how it was sold and under what local conditions. Generally they instructed the local authorities to solve the problems that arose between the returnees and those who remained behind and had bought houses and other property from them. We also find that certain physicians (maestres) received special treatment when they returned to their former places of residence. It is no coincidence that there were a large number of these physicians, and in this light we have mentioned the special permission received by the physician Isaac Abuacar, who wished to return to his city and retain his scientific medical reference books in Hebrew and Arabic.324 Following the expulsion a crisis definitely ensued among members of this profession in Spanish society. Nevertheless, it should be emphasized that the Crown sought to maintain the new situation that emerged regarding ownership of real estate and regarding irrigated and non-irrigated agriculture. The expulsion and sale of dwellings and land created a delicate balance in those cities, towns, villages, and hamlets from which Jews left for exile. It is not for naught that the Crown limited to four years the time allowed between departure in exile, return, conversion to Christianity, and repurchase of property by its former owners, in the manner that had been determined. It also stipulated that repurchase was possible only if the buyer had not sold his own property in order to buy the exile’s, and that it was sold for ‘less than half its value’. If the buyer had sold his own property, he was not required to return what he had bought from the returned converso at the price paid for it, even if the applicant was willing to pay for expenses, repairs, and improvements. It often happened that residents of one place or another, who had bought property from departing Jews, objected to returning it, and these objections were accepted by the Crown and the council. This was done to avoid upsetting the new public, economic, and social conditions that had arisen in one place or another. Changes in the ownership of property in places with a relatively small number of inhabitants often gave rise to expressions of hatred and public disorder.325 The buyers of the property, Christians, Moors, or conversos related to the sellers, were almost always residents of the place in question or somewhere nearby, and they viewed the purchase as an opportunity for themselves. Moreover, the expulsion and the haste of departure opened the way for domineering men to seize property that had been left ownerless. More often than not the Crown itself assisted in the seizure of property by making grants of Jewish property to associates, the local clergy, monasteries, and the like.326 It was sufficient to claim that a deportee had smuggled 324 Here the Crown responded to a request of the Cardinal of Spain. This physician was one of the first exiles to return. He was only forbidden to keep books on the Bible, the Talmud, Jewish law, and religion. 325 326 See e.g. on Cabezuela, under Plasencia. See Chs. 3 and 4 above. See above, on Toledo.

return and conversion

405

contraband out of the kingdom for his property and debts owed him by Christians to be confiscated and delivered to the local receiver of Jewish property or to some other personage. However, the Crown undeniably insisted on its authority in relation to the fate of the deportees, their lives, and their property. Any effort viewed by the Crown or its agents as an infringement upon that authority brought an immediate reaction, with the full severity of the law. Thus it is no wonder that the problem of return and with it the recovery of the property of the returnees preoccupied the rulers of the state for many years, in fact, until the end of the fifteenth century and after the Edict of Expulsion and forced conversion in Portugal. For the cruel injury of the forced conversion of 1497 also impelled the deportees to return home, to their city or place of origin. An extraordinary document, dated 20 March 1498, issued in Alcalá de Henares, according to the instruction of the king and queen, with the approbation of the Royal Council, sheds additional light on the return that came in the wake of the forced conversion of 1497. It informs us regarding a general instruction, based on the request of Jews who had been converted to Christianity by force in that time of persecution, to return to their places of origin. It confirms that they had nowhere to go, which is why they wished to return to Spain. This order cancels the deadline set by the Crown for the return of the exiles and the right to sue for their property. Thus they were permitted to repurchase their property at the price they had received for it, with the addition of payment for improvements.327 Who, then, were those who returned and converted to Christianity? The documents show that they were the deportees who had something to which to return. That is to say: those who had left property behind. The list of property that they left behind them is, taken together, quite impressive. Not only professionals such as physicians returned, as noted above. Without doubt the returnees were people of means who could expect a secure livelihood. Among them were owners of land, vineyards, olive-groves, vegetable gardens, fruit orchards, and saffron plantations. Perhaps the heritage of earning their living from agriculture also impelled them to return. They were Jews from Maqueda,328 Torrijos, Illescas, Puebla de Montalbán, Buitrago, and elsewhere. The grave question confronting them was, how could they make a living 327 ‘Consternidos de la nesçesidad que tenian de no tener a donde se yr, o por no se poner en peligro de pasar la mar se tornaron christianos e se boluieron a nuestros reynos’. See RGS 15 No. 811, fo. 379, drafted by Gaspar de Gricio with the approbation of the council. 328 See Carrete Parrondo, ‘La conversión’, and AHN, Inq. Toledo, Leg. 138, No. 4, regarding the trial of Juan Calderón, formerly Judah Abensabad, which was held from 1500 to 1510. This trial is described at length by Carrete Parrondo, p. 146. He used to smuggle out money to his father, who remained in Portugal. Carrete Parrondo presents a list of sixty-eight exiles who returned and converted to Christianity. Among them were Yose Maymaran, who had gone to Fez but returned and converted, taking the name of Benito Sánchez, tried between 1501 and 1509; members of the Adaña family, Jacob (known as Diego de Plasencia) and Judah, a shoemaker (known as Alonso Aguilar); Isaac Castrenon, a weaver who took the name Juan Sánchez; Jacob Castrenon, who took the name Alonso Martín. Most of the returnees to Maqueda were artisans, some of whom were condemned by the Inquisition in the 1520s. They included Alonso Rodríguez, a wool-carder, who had been known as Jaco Rosillo as a Jew; he was tried in 1528–31 (Leg. 208 No. 26). His grandson testified against one of his brothers, Yuda, who repeatedly recited the psalm ‘When Israel came out of Egypt’, and was presumably expressing his hopes. See also Baer, JchS ii. 479. This list is only the smallest part of the exiles who converted to Christianity and returned to their former places of residence. See Beinart, ‘The Last Jews in Maqueda’, 239–53.

406

return and conversion

in their new place of residence? As long as they had money for their expenses, they could manage somehow, or else they sold what they could to local buyers. They all had owned large or small dwellings, which they wished to recover. Some of them even asked for the return of their old homes in the Jewish quarter which they had left because of the segregation of housing implemented in 1480, when they had moved into less valuable dwellings. Some had owned shops next to their houses. Some had enjoyed an annual income from a building or land. They sought to recover all the property they had sold for less than its value. Furthermore, in many cases sons and daughters whose parents had died after finding temporary dwellings for themselves in Portugal, under the new, severe conditions of their lives, returned to Spain and demanded their parents’ property. Or women who were widowed sought to recover their husband’s property or even their dowries. The account of return and conversion shows a crosssection of Jewish society before the expulsion, though it is difficult to determine an absolute numerical relation between those who went into exile and those who returned after converting to Christianity and demanded their property, whether or not they obtained it. The decisive majority of the returnees earned their living from agriculture in various forms. As noted, they lived in cities, towns, and villages. Regarding some of these places, we only know that Jews lived there before the expulsion because of their desire to return to them. And notice should be given to places such as Guadalajara and Plasencia, to which the deportees returned. The geographical area over which these places were dispersed was quite extensive and includes more than eighty localities in Castile to which exiles returned after converting to Christianity and tried to recover their property. For most of the returnees, this was not the end of their troubles. Everything depended on the degree to which they sought to return secretly to their Jewish heritage. Regarding them, the Spanish Inquisition had its say, and it was a force to be reckoned with. Their trials began after the Inquisition gathered testimony according to its methods. Most of the trials show that these conversos maintained their belief in the law of Moses. Thus they joined the ranks of the crypto-Jews of former generations who preceded them in their suffering. The trials apparently began after the footsteps of those returning to Spain to convert to Christianity had died down. Among them there stands out the trial of a converso whose escape from the stake is mentioned above. Clearly the Inquisition sought to root out these Judaizers. The expulsion of the Jews, who had been accused of being the cause for the return of conversos to their people, was only one step in the extirpation of Judaism from Spain. In its manner, the Inquisition continued to wage the war of destruction that had been declared years before against the Jews and their religion.

407 Table 7.1 Crown assent to return of property and related claims (by date of order) Date

Place of return

Purpose of petition

Document

Guadalajara

Remarks

1492 2 Aug.

Return of family

RGS 9 No. 3840, fo. 13

11 Aug. Castrojeriz

Return of property

RGS 9 No. 2672, fo. 202

22 Aug. Burgos

Prevention of recovery of property

RGS 9 No. 2739, fo. 209

21 Sept. Alfaro

Release of converso from detention

RGS 9 No. 3054, fo. 152

20 Nov. Segovia

Restoration of property to the Galfón family (including returnees)

RGS 9 No. 3371, fo. 26

1493 8 Jan.

Cuéllar

Return of family, property

RGS 10 No. 37, fo. 248

In Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 502 ff.

9 Jan.

Toledo

Return of physician Isaac Abuacar

RGS 10 No. 38, fo. 52

In Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 504 ff.

28 Feb. Cuéllar

Return of family, property

RGS 10 No. 489, fo. 120

5 Mar. Oropesa

Return of property

RGS 10 No. 550, fo. 367

6 Mar. Cuéllar

Return of family and property

RGS 10 No. 555, fo. 1

19 Mar. Gumiel del Mercado

Return of property

RGS 10 No. 761, fo. 299

22 June Medina del Campo

Property of the physician maestre Enrique

RGS 10 No. 1668, fo. 88

27 June Ledesma

Removal of lien from property

RGS 10 No. 1700, fo. 243

1 July

Castrojeriz

Return of pasture and arable land

RGS 10 No. 1752, fo. 356

4 July

Guadalajara

Return of houses in Jewish quarter

RGS 10 No. 1788, fo. 226

10 July Ciudad Rodrigo

Return of house

RGS 10 No. 1876, fo. 118

10 July Logroño

Return of land and house

RGS 10 No. 1877, fo. 177

13 July Santa Olalla

Return of house and vineyards

RGS 10 No. 1919, fo. 286

15 July Logroño

Settlement of debts

RGS 10 No. 1929, fo. 83

9 Aug. Villar Urueña

Return of houses

RGS 10 No. 2132, fo. 202

10 Aug. Plasencia

Return of houses to returnees

RGS 10 No. 2139, fo. 164

24 Aug. Talavera/ Navamorcuende

Return of property

RGS 10 No. 2791, fo. 67

[?] Aug. Guadalajara

Return of houses in quarter

RGS 10 No. 2345, fo. 62

19 Oct. Fuentedueña/ Peñafiel

Return of property

RGS 10 No. 2746, fo. 35

See also 16 Apr. 1494, 2 May 1494

See 1 Oct. 1494

408 Table 7.1 (cont.) Date

Place of return

Purpose of petition

Document

Remarks

25 Oct. Huete

Return of entire family

RGS 10 No. 2805, fo. 27

See 31 May 1494

26 Oct. Ciudad Rodrigo

Return of house

RGS 10 No. 2823, fo. 34

26 Oct. Badajoz

Return of property

RGS 10 No. 2822, fo. 32

26 Oct. Aguilar de Campoo Return of property

RGS 10 No. 2825, fo. 36

1493 (cont.)

26 Oct. Torrelobatón

Return of property

RGS 10 No. 2826, fo. 37

26 Oct. León

Return of property

RGS 10 No. 2828, fo. 39

26 Oct. Puente del Arzobispo

Return of property to returnees

RGS 10 No. 2829, fo. 33

6 Nov. Saldaña

Grant of houses and property to physician

AHN, Osuna, Leg. 3248

Return, conversion, recovery of property

RGS 11 No. 220, fo. 162

1494 6 Feb.

[missing]

10 Feb. Oñate

Rights of inheritance

RGS 11 No. 281, fo. 221

15 Feb. Torrelobatón

Return of property

RGS 11 No. 440, fo. 72

15 Feb. Torrelobatón

Return of house

RGS 11 No. 431, fo. 341

15 Feb. [missing]

Writ of protection for returnee

RGS 11 No. 407, fo. 212

18 Feb. Mombeltrán

Return of nine people; return of property

RGS 11 No. 461, fo. 234

[?] Feb. Segovia

Return of property

RGS 11 No. 537, fo. 243

[?] Feb. Puente del Arzobispo

Return of house

RGS 11 No. 528, fo. 345

5 Mar. Torrelobatón

Return of houses and lands

RGS 11 No. 600, fo. 188

7 Mar. Torrelobatón

Return of property (Jacob Falcón)

RGS 11 No. 657, fo. 294 RGS 11 No. 679, fo. 434

8 Mar. Coca

Return of property

11 Mar. Agreda/Berlanga

Return of a dowry

RGS 11 No. 703, fo. 341

13 Mar. Malpartida (Plasencia)

Opposition to return of domestic animals

RGS 11 No. 776, fo. 341

15 Mar. Mombeltrán

Return of property

RGS 11 No. 753, fo. 358

18 Mar. Santa Cruz

Return of houses, land, and orchards

RGS 11 No. 821, fo. 473

18 Mar. Plasencia

Return of fifty people and problems of property

RGS 11 No. 834, fo. 455

18 Mar. Vélez, Tarancón, Belinchón

Claim to property by heirs

RGS 11 No. 825, fo. 270

20 Mar. Torrelobatón

Property of Pero Báez

RGS 11 No. 867, fo. 356

20 Mar. Huete

Seizure of property

RGS 11 No. 875, fo. 435

20 Mar. Guadalajara

Return of property

RGS 11 no. 881, fo. 336

22 Mar. Torrelobatón

Return of a house

RGS 11 No. 927, fo. 380

See 2 Aug. 1492

16 Apr. Cuéllar

Return of property

RGS 11 No. 1266, fo. 344 See 8 Jan. 1493

409 Date

Place of return

Purpose of petition

Document

16 Apr. Trujillo

Return of house in city square

RGS 11 No. 1271, fo. 298

18 Apr. Elche (near Talamanca)

Return of house in Jewish quarter

RGS 11 No. 1331, fo. 276

20 Apr. Mombeltrán

Return of property

RGS 11 No. 1375, fo. 174

21 Apr. Puente del Arzobispo

Return of houses

RGS 11 No. 1382, fo. 345

Remarks

1494 (cont.)

25 Apr. Mombeltrán

Return of property

RGS 11 No. 1452, fo. 395

26 Apr. Toledo

Return of property (Pedro de Madrid)

RGS 11 No. 1481, fo. 350

30 Apr. Sepúlveda

Return of property

Cédulas Castilla, Lib. 1, fos. 34v–35r

30 Apr. Ledesma

Return of house

RGS 11 No. 1563, fo. 396

In Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 532

[?] Apr. Medina del Campo Return of property to widow

RGS 11 No. 1632, fo. 309

[?] Apr. Trujillo

Return of house and vineyards

RGS 11 No. 1608, fo. 210

2 May

Cuéllar

Return of property; smuggling

RGS 11 No. 1608, fo. 449 See also 8 Jan. 1493

7 May

Plasencia (Losar)

Financial problems

RGS 11 No. 1747, fo. 287

17 May Oropesa

Return of debts

RGS 11 No. 1905, fo. 118

26 May Valladolid

Return of house

RGS 11 No. 2008, fo. 73

31 May Huete

Seizure of property

RGS 11 No. 2070, fo. 70

31 May Huete

Return of property

RGS 11 No. 2668, fo. 385

6 July

Plasencia

Return of houses

RGS 11 No. 2250, fo. 364

6 July

Plasencia (Losar)

Return of vineyard

RGS 11 No. 2251, fo. 194

7 July

Plasencia

Return of debts

RGS 11 No. 2270, fo. 392

10 July Málaga-Llerena

Return of debts

RGS 11 No. 2304, fo. 386

16 July Plasencia

Return of tanning business

RGS 11 No. 2372, fo. 364

17 July Jarandilla

Return of property

RGS 11 No. 2378, fo. 190

24 July Villafranca de la Puente

Return of house and property

RGS 11 No. 2495, fo. 384 RGS 11 No. 2496, fo. 291

28 July Torrelobatón

Return of house

RGS 11 No. 2537, fo. 289

29 July La Fuente del Maestre

Robbery and claim for return of property

RGS 11 No. 2550, fo. 227

29 July La Fuente del Maestre

Return of house

RGS 11 No. 2549, fo. 225

2 Sept. Medina del Campo Return of property to physician maestre Pablo

RGS 11 No. 2670, fo. 32

22 Sept. Torrelaguna

Return of property

RGS 11 No. 2887, fo. 327

23 Sept. Guadalajara

Repurchase of property

RGS 11 No. 2894, fo. 143

23 Sept. Uclés

Return of property

RGS 11 No. 2899, fo. 236 See 13 Oct. 1494

27 Sept. Aillón

Return of property

RGS 11 No. 2956, fo. 86

3 Oct.

Return of pledges

RGS 11 No. 3077, fo. 591

Colmenar

410 Table 7.1 (cont.) .

Date

Place of return

Purpose of petition

Document

Remarks

1494 (cont.) 4 Oct.

Guadalajara

Purchase of property

RGS 11 No. 3078, fo. 594

4 Oct.

Guadalajara

Purchase of property

RGS 11 No. 3081, fo. 192

8 Oct.

Plasencia

Return of income

RGS 11 No. 3148, fo. 493

8 Oct.

Málaga-Llerena

Return of debts

RGS 11 No. 3139, fo. 295 See above, 10 July 1494

9 Oct.

Guadalajara

Return of house in Jewish quarter

RGS 11 No. 3175, fo. 498 See also 4 July 1493

9 Oct.

Plasencia

Return of property

RGS 11 No. 3185, fo. 313

9 Oct.

Puente del Arzobispo

Return of house

RGS 11 No. 3171, fo. 110

9 Oct.

Medina del Campo Claim for payment for wine

RGS 11 No. 3612, fo. 279

13 Oct. Avilés

Return of house

RGS 11 No. 3241, fo. 411

13 Oct. Uclés

Return of house

RGS 11 No. 3247, fo. 152 See 13 Sept. 1494

14 Oct. Plasencia

Return of house

RGS 11 No. 3257, fo. 317

21 Oct. Puebla de Montalbán

Return of house and property

RGS 11 No. 3375, fo. 244

21 Oct. Puebla de Montalbán

Return of property

RGS 11 No. 3384, fo. 560

21 Oct. Escalona

Return of house and property

RGS 11 No. 3387, fo. 433

23 Oct. San Martín de

Return of property Valdeiglesias

RGS 11 No. 3414, fo. 246

23 Oct. Torrelobatón

Return of house

RGS 11 No. 3399, fo. 182

28 Oct. Alcalá de Henares Return of house, vineyards, land

RGS 11 No. 3492, fo. 204

30 Oct. Cobeña

Sale of three houses

RGS 11 No. 3548, fo. 389

31 Oct. Plasencia

Return of property

RGS 11 No. 3561, fo. 327

3 Nov. Puente del Arzobispo

Return of house

RGS 11 No. 3615, fo. 215

3 Nov. Medina del Campo Return of family from Portugal

RGS 11 No. 3612, fo. 279

6 Nov. Segovia

Return of property

RGS 11 No. 3706, fo. 506

12 Nov. Mombeltrán

Return of property

RGS 11 No. 3774, fo. 235

13 Nov. Málaga–Llerena

Writ of protection

RGS 11 No. 3800, fo. 376 See above, 8 Oct. 1494

17 Nov. Almazán

Collection of debts for merchandise

RGS 11 No. 3847, fo. 218

18 Nov. Puente del Arzobispo

Return of property

RGS 11 No. 3878, fo. 216

18 Nov. Colmenár

Return of property

RGS 11 No. 3888, fo. 364

25 Nov. Novés

Return of property

RGS 11 No. 3991, fo. 119

25 Nov. Novés

Return of property

RGS 11 No. 3992, fo. 71

26 Nov. Vélez, Tarancón, Belinchón

Return of property to physician

RGS 11 No. 3966, fo. 402

26 Nov. Alcalá de Henares Return of property to physician

RGS 11 No. 4105, fo. 455

411 Date

Place of return

Purpose of petition

Document

Return of house and vineyards

RGS 11 No. 4065, fo. 485

Remarks

1494 (cont.) 28 Nov. Guadalajara [?] Nov. Huete

Return of houses

RGS 11 No. 4119, fo. 408

[?] Nov. Plasencia

Appeal against verdict

RGS 11 No. 4141, fo. 508

[?] Nov. Mula

Return of property

RGS 11 No. 4122, fo. 260

4 Dec. San Martín de Valdeiglesias

Return of beehives

RGS 11 No. 4188, fo. 269

11 Dec. Miranda del Castañar

Return of vineyards

RGS 11 No. 4283, fo. 125

11 Dec. Torre de Mormojón Arrest for debt

RGS 11 No. 4265, fo. 313

16 Dec. Alcalá de Henares Return of shop

RGS 11 No. 4311, fo. 119

20 Dec. Puente del Arzobispo

RGS 11 No. 4439, fo. 359

Return of shop and apartment

1495 13 Jan. Alcalá de Henares Return of house

RGS 12 No. 107, fo. 344

28 Jan. Alcaráz

Return of house near synagogue

RGS 12 No. 333, fo. 408

30 Jan. Zafra

Return of property

RGS 12 No. 374, fo. 113

7 Feb.

Guadalajara

Purchase of house after return

RGS 12 No. 477, fos. 263, 264

7 Feb.

Estrenera, Belinchón

Return of vineyards and olive-groves

RGS 12 No. 539, fo. 431

10 Feb. Huete

Return of promissory notes

RGS 12 No. 529, fo. 152

11 Feb. Estrenera, Belinchón

Return of property

RGS 12 No. 540, fo. 430

16 Feb. Estrenera, Belinchón

Problems of security for a debt

RGS 12 No. 681, fo. 497

28 Feb. Guadalajara

Return of house sold to Moor

RGS 12 No. 934, fo. 519

[?] Feb. Valdaracete, Carabaña

Return of gift

RGS 12 No. 974, fo. 450

18 Mar. Monroy

Return of house sold to Moor

RGS 12 No. 1358, fo. 427

18 Mar. Badajoz

Return of property

RGS 12 No. 1342, fo. 336 See 26 Oct. 1493

19 Mar. Guadalajara

Return of house

RGS 12 No. 1366, fo. 240

22 Mar. Hita

Return of house, vineyards, etc.

RGS 12 No. 1422, fo. 234

22 Mar. Hita

Return of property

RGS 12 No. 1819, fo. 263

2 Apr.

Mombeltrán

Return of property

RGS 12 No. 1593, fo. 239

2 Apr.

Mombeltrán

Return of property

RGS 12 No. 1594, fo. 240

8 Apr.

Mombeltrán

Return of property

RGS 12 No. 1690, fo. 301

14 Apr. Huete

Seizure of house and property

RGS 12 No. 1875, fo. 419

14 May Torrelaguna

Problem of marriage and conversion

RGS 12 No. 2222, fo. 271

412 Table 7.1 (cont.) Date

Place of return

Purpose of petition

Document

Remarks

1495 (cont.) 28 July Ávila

Problem of debts

RGS 12 No. 2931, fo. 108

7 Aug.

Permission to collect debts

RGS 12 No. 3078, fo. 146

18 Aug. Ojocastro

Return of house and gardens

RGS 12 No. 3185, fo. 130

21 Aug. Belorado

Return of house

RGS 12 No. 3227, fo. 176

2 Sept. Torre

Return of property

RGS 12 No. 3306, fo. 210

4 Sept. Corral de Almaguer Return of property

RGS 12 No. 3349, fo. 100

Miranda del Castañar

4 Sept. Corral de Almaguer Return of property

RGS 12 No. 3351, fo. 101

12 Sept. Coruña del Conde Return of property

RGS 12 No. 3435, fo. 80

12 Sept. Calahorra

Return of property

RGS 12 No. 3426, fo. 188

20 Sept. Badajoz

Collection of tax and debts

RGS 12 No. 3514, fo. 90

24 Sept. Arenda

Robbery after departure, RGS 12 No. 3546, fo. 205 return, claim for compensation

1 Oct.

Abadía (Plasencia) Return of vineyards

[?] Oct. Cáceres

Return of house, ransom of captured sons

4 Dec. Torre de Mormojón Return of property

RGS 12 No. 3599, fo. 147 RGS 12 No. 3885, fo. 128 RGS 12 No. 3344, fo. 30

1496 13 Jan. Ampudia

Opposition to return of property

RGS 13 No. 41, fo. 94

30 Jan. Almazán

Illegal seizure of property

RGS 12 No. 149, fo. 132

28 Apr. Plasencia

Return of houses

RGS 13 No. 642, fo. 90

5 May

Pastrana

Collection of debts

RGS 13 No. 770, fo. 141

Miranda del Castañar

Return of inheritance

RGS 14 No. 43, fo. 206

Return of houses

RGS 14 No. 2067, fo. 75

See Chapter 5 above

1497 5 Jan.

29 Aug. Plasencia 1498 16 Mar. Hita

Return of property

RGS 15 No. 751, fo. 124

20 Mar. Talamanca

Property of Arragel family

RGS 15 No. 815, fo. 80

30 May Zafra

Return of group accused of smuggling

RGS 15 No. 1380, fo. 161

Note: This table shows how the pattern of return developed. The year in which the council dealt with the most petitions concerning property was 1494. Sixty-four different places are recorded, which does not mean that exiles did not return to other places in Castile. These cases are only those considered by the council; we are not to conclude that all orders of Crown and council were carried out. In total, 169 appeals were answered: 5 in 1492, 27 in 1493, 94 in 1494, 34 in 1495, 4 in 1496, 2 in 1497, and 3 in 1498. The notaries were kept busy registering these orders regarding the property of returnee petitioners. The list of places is also very informative.

8

The Senior Dynasty i. the origins of the family and its first steps in government n friday, 15 june 1492, Abraham Senior and his son-in-law Rabbi Meir Melamed were baptized with great pomp and circumstance in the presence of O the king and queen and other great personages in Guadalupe. For all of those pre1

sent the occasion was highly significant. For the monarchs it was a double victory: both a solution of impending problems regarding cash flow to the Royal Treasury, and also a step towards the end of Judaism in Spain. For the converts themselves it was the end of their lives as Jews and the beginning of their new path in Christian society. The family as a whole probably did not abandoned Judaism, for it cannot be assumed that all its members from Ávila, Guadalajara, and Segovia made their way to Guadalupe in order to be baptized in the royal ceremony. Indeed, we shall see below that some of the family went into exile at the time of the expulsion. In order to understand the activities of Abraham Senior, who became Fernán Núñez Coronel after his conversion, and his son-in-law Rabbi Meir Melamed, who became Fernán Pérez Coronel, we must turn our attention to their beginnings as Castilian Jews and their ties to prominent personages of the kingdom. Nothing is known about the origin of the family.2 Given its activity in the region of Ávila, Guadalajara, Segovia, and Medina del Campo, most likely it came from there. In the opinion of A. Marx, 1 See Baer, Toledot, index; also below. The document, which was issued by the king and queen in Guadalupe on 2 July 1492 (RGS 9 No. 2317, fo. 99), permits one to conclude that the following were present at the ceremony: Luis de Santángel; Francisco Pinelo; Rodericus, doctor (a member of the Crown Council, Rodrigo Maldonado de Talavera); Fernánd Álvarez de Toledo, the monarchs’ secretary. The Cardinal of Spain, Pedro González de Mendoza, Archbishop of Toledo, baptized him and his family. On Fernánd Álvarez see Ladero Quesada, España en 1492, 177. On Rodrigo Maldonado de Talavera see Rumeu de Armas, Nueva luz, 26. 2 See Baer, JchS ii. 256, which presents a document concerning a man named Senior of Oña, a resident of Briviesca. See ibid. 422, a document from 1485 on a Jew named Bivas. Cf. Cantera Burgos and Millás Vallicrosa, Inscripciones hebraicas de España, 367. They present a seal from Seville that belonged to Senior, the son of Bona. However, one cannot determine whether these people were related. H. Graetz, Geschichte der Juden von des ältesten Zeiten bis zur Gegenwart (1853‒70), trans. into Heb. by S. P. Rabinowitz (1890‒9), vi, appendix, 417, states that the Senior family originated from Aragon, which is merely a matter of conjecture. For Abraham Senior’s name as a Christian see C y S Reales Leg. 10, fo. 346, Segovia, 9 June 1505: ‘Rabi Mayor que despues se torno christiano se llamo Fernán Núñez Coronel’. Further evidence that Abraham Senior was the tax-collector Fernán Núñez Coronel is found in RGS No. 1500, sin foliar, Granada, 20 Oct. 1500: ‘A vos Fernand Nuñes Coronel, vesino e regidor de la çibdad de Segovia, nuestro reçeletor

414

the senior dynasty

Abraham Senior was 80 years old when he converted to Christianity, which means that he was born in 1412.3 If we accept this estimate, we find that the first document associated with him, dating from 12 February 1468, shows he was already well established when he began to develop ties with the authorities. In any event, he certainly knew Rabbi Abraham Bienveniste of Soria, and he would have been very familiar with the steps he took for the renewal of the Jewish community of Castile, since he organized the conference of the representatives of Jewish communities which convened in Valladolid in 1432 and instituted certain ordinances.4 Moreover, Abraham Senior was known to Abraham’s son Don Joseph Bienveniste, who farmed and collected taxes during the 1440s and 1450s, and also to Abraham Bienveniste, the son of Joseph, and to Vidal Bienveniste. The grandson also had business connections and a partnership with Abraham Senior in farming taxes.5 We do not know when Abraham Senior married, or the name and origin of his wife. As we learn from numerous documents, his family was blessed with many children (see the family tree).6 During the reign of Enrique IV we are on firmer ground regarding the public and financial activities of Abraham Senior. It was probably Diego Arias Dávila, protonotary and accountant to King Enrique IV and father of Bishop Juan Arias Dávila of Segovia, who brought him into contact with the Crown.7 Abraham Senior was his partner in general que fuystes de la nuestras rentas de los nuestros reynos de los dos años pasados de mil e quatroçiento e noventa e dos e noventa e tres y nuestro arrendador e recaudador mayor de las dichas nuestras rentas de los dichos dos años de çiertos partydos, salud e graçia’. Also see below, at nn. 278–9. 3 Marx, Studies in Jewish History and Booklore, 92. According to the documents to be described below, he appears to have lived a long life. It is agreed that he converted to Christianity at an advanced age, though it seems likely that he was younger than 80, for the information presented by Marx is from a lone source. 4 Regarding these ordinances see Baer, JchS ii. 288 ff. 5 See Baer, JchS ii. 280, 322 n. 22. See also the section dealing with Senior’s tax-farming below. 6 This chart presents the names taken by the sons after conversion. One of the sons was named David, but it cannot be told which one. Luis Coronel, the son who studied theology in Paris, is also mentioned, though he might have been a grandson. See below for an account of the activities of Senior’s descendants. Luis F. de Peñalosa, ‘Juan Bravo y la familia Coronel’, Estudios segovianos, 1 (1949), 73–109, lists members of the Coronel family, and it is difficult to determine their family relationship. Abraham Senior had a brother named Solomon Coronel, who apparently went into exile. Cristóbal Coronel, a resident of Ciudad Real, is also mentioned, and his relationship to Abraham Senior cannot be determined. On him, see below. Abraham Senior also had a sister named Doña Clara (see below, Sect. IV). On Pablo Coronel see Peñalosa, ‘Juan Bravo’, 96, who quotes the inscription from Pablo Coronel’s tomb and notes that his relationship to Abraham Senior is unclear; C. Carrete Parrondo, El judaísmo español y la Inquisición (Madrid, 1992), 140 ff. In a description of the later voyages of Christopher Colombus, a sea-captain named Pedro Fernández Coronel is mentioned; it cannot be determined whether he was related to the Senior family. See Christopher Columbus, The Four Voyages, ed. and trans. J. M. Cohen (Harmondsworth, 1969), 238. 7 See Carrete Parrondo, El judaísmo español y la Inquisición, esp. 36, sig. 51, the testimony of Antonio de Ávila of 11 Mar. 1486 (in the trial file Libro 20, fo. 523). Later, giving evidence before the Inquisition, Abraham Senior declared that Diego Arias kept the commandments; Diego Arias himself had spoken in this vein in the presence of various people who testified before the Inquisition, and stated that he was a heretic (‘herege’) who kept the commandments of the Law of Moses: see e.g. Carrete Parrondo, El judaísmo, 29, sig. 25; 25, sig. 38, 55; 43, sig. 66 (on prayers recited publicly in Abraham Senior’s house and the synagogue in it). See esp. 105, sig. 183 and cf. 48, sig. 76. As a Jew Diego Arias had been known as Ysaque Abenacar. In his childhood he loved to study Torah (meldar), encouraged by his sister Çinha (testimony of

the senior dynasty

415

keeping the king’s accounts, and retained his connections with the family even after Diego’s death.9 On 12 February 1468 Abraham Senior and his brother Solomon were granted a privilege exempting them from taxes,10 as reported in a document issued on Simeon Açeror); he was known for his fine voice, and enjoyed singing prayers and religious songs (testimony of Rabbi Mose Ibn Shem Tob, given on 16 Jan. 1487: 48, sig. 77, and cf. 21, sig. 5). His first wife was Çinha’s granddaughter (testimony of Simeon Açeror, given on 23 Jan. 1492: 119, sig. 229), called Clara (testimony of Samuel Zaragoza, 109, sig. 183), who converted with him in 1411, when Vicente Ferrer was in Segovia (94, sig. 162), and took the name Elvira González. He was still alive in 1461 (testimony of Isaac de Cáceres, a resident of Ávila, given on 1 Sept. 1491 and confirmed on 11 May 1492: 118, sig. 227; cf. 94, sig. 162; 154, sig. 253). In the Christian community he was known as Diego Bolante (‘Fickle’), according to Antón Pérez, who testified on 13 July 1490 (91, sig. 157) and Juan de Velasco, who gave evidene for the defence on 17 June 1490 in the trial of Elvira González (129, sig. 237). In accordance with his will, they were buried in the cemetery near the monastery of the Merced (35, sig. 46; so too the prosecutor, 145, sig. 249). From the arguments of the prosecution we learn that he left a donation to a converso monk to pray for his soul using the prayers he used to recite when he was a Jew; he was undoubtedly referring to Kaddish. 8 C. Carrete Parrondo, ‘La hacienda castellana de rabbi Meir Melamed (Fernán Núñez Coronel)’, Sefarad, 37 (1977), 341, suggests that Reina was Rabbi Meir Melamed’s wife. He bases this conjecture on a file of the Inquisition in Segovia. See AHN, Inq., Leg. 1413 No. 7, fo. 7r. However, according to what is said there, Abraham Senior had a sister named Reina: ‘doña Reyna hermana de Habraham’ (see the testimony of Gonzalo Ortiz, a resident of Segovia). 9 In 1485 he even served as an intermediary in the marriage of Pedro Arias Dávila II to Isabel de Bobadilla. See Carrete Parrondo, Proceso inquisitorial, 65, no. 110. See too in that volume the testimony of Francisco de San Román, who was sent as an emissary to Seville, to the Marchioness of Moya, Beatriz de Bobadilla; he testified on 10 Dec. 1488. Attention must be given to the special role played by Abraham Senior here in this effort at matchmaking. Doubtless he also had considerable experience in this area as well. On the partnership between him and Diego Arias Dávila in keeping the accounts of King Enrique IV, see the testimony of Yose Lumbroso in Carrete Parrondo, El judaísmo español y la Inquisición, 94, sig. 162; he testified on 8 July 1490, and see below, n. 104. 10 This does not refer to the son named Solomon Senior.

416

the senior dynasty

25 March 1468 in Béjar, drafted by the notary Diego González de Cuenca. He also received a perpetual grant of land and an annuity from the Crown.11 On 15 November 1468 he received an important appointment as magistrate of the Jewish community.12 Thus there is no doubt regarding his close ties with the Crown or his financial means even at that time, nor is there doubt regarding his involvement in public activities. However, if this was his first communal position, he received it at a relatively late age. His authority included policing and supervision of Jewish communal welfare. In his capacity as bedin or vedin, he collected fines imposed for various transgressions. Some of these fines were transferred to the Royal Treasury. This appointment came to him by virtue of his many and good services to the Crown, and in this capacity he was exempt from taxes on the Jewish community, a matter to which we shall return. At the right time Abraham Senior joined the camp supporting King Enrique’s sister, the Crown Princess Isabella. We do not know whether he really mediated in making the match between Isabella and Ferdinand, the Crown Prince of Aragon. But by the end of Enrique’s reign he was already the chief tax-collector for Castile.13 For that reason the woman who was to become the queen of Castile was interested in his services and advice. Abraham Senior, along with Alfonso de Quintanilla, who was later appointed as chief accountant (‘contador mayor’) of the kingdom,14 convinced Don Andrés de Cabrera, the commander of the citadel of Segovia, to deliver the city of Segovia and its fortress to the royal couple, Ferdinand and Isabella.15 The chronology of events indicates that Abraham Senior’s appointment to the post of alguacil of the Jewish community of Segovia was approved on 21 October 1476.16 This appointment was based upon the aforementioned appointment dated 15 November 1468. From it we learn that Abraham Senior was appointed in place of Pero Ruiz de Mojares, who had been the commander of the citadels (‘alcayde de mis alcaçares’) in Segovia.17 Abraham Senior’s annual salary was set at 10,000 mrs. Later it is told that King Enrique had first ordered the appointment of Diego Vásquez de Asi[ ], a relation of Bishop Alfonso of Jaén, to the post of alguacil. Abraham Senior argued before the Catholic Monarchs that this appointment had been extorted from the Crown by false arguments and fraud, and by concealing the truth (‘callada la verdad’). Thus for some reason Abraham Senior had been relieved of his position and employment. He appealed to Ferdinand and Isabella, asking them to redress the wrong done him so that he should not suffer any damage. His appeal was viewed favourably by the Crown, See Baer, JchS ii. 335. Baer, JchS ii. nos. 322, 334. The order was issued in the village of Colmenares. The appointment was renewed and ratified on 1 Sept. 1472. His title was ‘Vedin e alguasil del aljama de judios’. 13 See Baer, Toledot, 396–7. According to Alonso de Plasencia, in 1473 Abraham Senior reconciled Enrique and Isabella. He was helped in this by Andrés de Cabrera, his close friend. See Peñalosa, ‘Juan Bravo’, 75–109. 14 On the function of Alfonso de Quintanilla in the Santa Hermandad see Lunenfeld, Hermandad, 10. 15 The wife of Andrés de Cabrera, Beatriz de Bobadilla, was one of Isabella’s ladies in waiting. Cabrera and his wife were friends of Abraham Senior. See Baer, JchS ii. 355, above, n. 9, and below, n. 104. 16 See RGS 1 No. 1537, fo. 653. The appointment was made in Toro, apparently after the victory of the Catholic Monarchs over King Afonso V of Portugal. 17 Enrique IV removed him from office for disservice (‘deserviçio’) to the Crown. In the document he is called Perucho de Mojares. 11 12

the senior dynasty

417

which ordered the cancellation of Diego Vásquez’s appointment, and Abraham Senior was reappointed to the post of alguacil.18 An addition to the document, dated 1 September 1472, is important for understanding the tasks entrusted to Abraham Senior: Inasmuch as it has been reported to me that in certain instances, because of the lack of a judge, trials and suits between Jew and Jew are before my councillors and the chief accountants, and before my alcaldes and other magistrates of the said city and of other places in my realm, and the execution of the decisions is done and performed by certain of my justices, which is to the detriment of Don Abraham and his said office; therefore it is my will and grace that the valid execution of court decisions and orders deriving from these suits shall be issued and enforced by Don Abraham, my alguacil, or by a person under his authority. And no alguacil of my court or chamber nor of this city [shall act in this capacity], wherefore I give full power to Don Abraham, my alguacil, or to a person under his authority.19

Without doubt this authority, which was given to Abraham Senior as alguacil—the executor of decisions regarding Jews in his city of Segovia—indicates the increase in his power and connections, both in the court of Enrique IV and also in that of the Catholic Monarchs and among those close to them. The enlargement of his power in areas of public activity in Segovia was also to find forceful expression among all the Jews of Castile. His effort to be appointed as magistrate for the Jews in civil suits and criminal trials in the city of Ávila is to be seen as part of the expansion of his authority and power.20 He apparently had a special interest in holding the post in that city, where he had extremely important connections and relations, both because members of his family lived there and also because he owned considerable property there.21 The comendador Gonzalo Chacón, the mayordomo and chief accountant of the Crown, informed the Catholic Monarchs that the city prosecutor, the licenciado Andres López de Burgos, had transferred to Abraham Senior the post of magistrate in place of maestre Shemaya.22 The Crown cancelled the appointment, which might not have been made with its approbation or in consultation with it, and on 15 November 1479 the licenciado de Burgos was ordered to restore the former situation in Ávila, ‘because most of its inhabitants are Jews [and it is a place] of factions and disputes’.23 Abraham Senior was 18 ‘Que el dicho don Abrahen aya e gose del dicho ofiçio de alguasiladgo segund que lo deuiere’, RGS 1 No. 1537, fo. 653. 19 ‘E por quanto a mi es fecha relaçion que algunas veses acaesçe que por falta de jues que no ay entre vos muchos pleytos e debates que son o se mueven de judio a judio se tratan ante los de mi Consejo e contadores mayores e ante mis alcaldes e otras justiçias desa dicha çibdad e de otras partes destos mis reynos e la esecuçion de los tales debates se fasen e esecutan por algunos de mis justiçias, lo qual es en perjuysio del dicho don Abrahen e del dicho su ofiçio. Por ende quiero e es mi merçed que la tal execuçion, que por virtud de las sentençias e mandamientos que en los tales pleitos se dieren e executen e pueden executar [execute e pueda executar?] el dicho don Abrahen mi alguaçil, o quien el dicho so poder ouiere, e non otro ningund alguasil de la mi casa e corte e chançilleria ni desa dicha çibdad, para lo qual doy todo poder conplido al dicho don Abrahen mi alguasil o a quien el dicho so poder ouiere’, RGS 1 No. 1537, fo. 653. 20 21 See León Tello, Ávila, 60–2. See below regarding his property in Ávila. 22 See Baer, JchS ii. 321. León Tello, Ávila, 136, presents a document about him from the reign of Juan II, dated 15 Nov. 1451. From it we learn that the king had exempted him from payment of taxes. 23 ‘Porque la mayor parte de la poblaçion de dicha çibdad es de judios y por ser lugar de vandos y questiones’, León Tello, Ávila, 60.

418

the senior dynasty

forbidden to serve as alcalde, and Andrés López de Burgos was ordered to execute this order, which is indicative of the insistence of the Catholic Monarchs that all appointments should be made only with their explicit approval. Maestre Shemaya’s title indicates that he was a physician, and he was very active in the city. Perhaps Abraham Senior sought to exploit for the Jews a situation that had emerged after this magistrate’s death. One piece of evidence indicates that Rabbi Shemaya was involved in the death of Alonso de España.24 Meanwhile Abraham Senior began to appear as the chief collector of taxes in the kingdom of Castile. He is first mentioned in this capacity in 1476; henceforth he allocated the tax quotas imposed upon the Jews of Castile. Despite the negative attitude to him displayed by the Jewish community because of this appointment, Baer was no doubt right to suggest that the appointment was not only a reward for his services to the monarchy, but also served that community’s needs.25 On 12 March 1477 he was appointed as court rabbi (‘rab de la corte’) and supreme magistrate of the Jews, responsible for the allocation of taxes in the communities of Burgos and beyond. With this appointment he apparently became the highest official over Castilian Jewry.26 Abraham Senior did not hesitate to take this position from Vidal Astori. Significantly, King Ferdinand justified Astori’s removal from office as the appointment of ‘a better man’ by virtue of his achievements and activities in the service of the Crown and on behalf of the Jewish communities,27 which had already appointed him earlier.28 However, it is difficult to explain the previous appointment of Vidal Astori, unless this appointment merely pertained to the region of Old Castile. Astori was deprived of his authority, and we know nothing more of what befell him. Abraham Senior’s progress from one success to another in the royal court is clearly evident. After the Cortes of Madrigal, in 1476, had decreed that all Jews in the kingdom should wear a special badge,29 he was declared exempt from these prohibitions: ‘that they should not be applied or extended to him, because of his many and good and loyal and praiseworthy services which he has done for us and which he continues to do every day’.30 24 On maestre Shemaya, who was the physician of King Enrique IV, see also Carrete Parrondo, Proceso inquisitorial, 43, no. 66; 63, no. 100; 100, no. 173; 120, no. 231. 25 See Baer, JchS ii. 402. 26 For the writ of appointment, see Baer, JchS ii. 338–40. It was also published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 108–9. 27 ‘Reuocaçion de la merçed que fue fecha a don Vidal Astori del judgado mayor e ravinadgo de çiertes aljamas de judios de Burgos e allende, por quanto el rey e reyna avian antes fecho merçed dello al dicho Abrahen’, ibid. 28 On the nature of the appointment it was said: ‘E porque al tienpo que yo di la dicha carta non me fue fecha relaçion de la merçed que del dicho judgado mayor e rabinadgo e repartidos de todas las dichas aljamas de los dichos mis regnos e señorios yo e la dicha reyna ovimos fecho e fesimos a don Abraham Señor’. On Abraham Senior the document adds, ‘Como por se persona abil para los dichos ofiçios e miraria en ellos lo que cumpliese a nuestro seruiçio e a la pro e bien de las dichas aljamas’, ibid. 29 On the restrictions and the badge that the Jews were required to wear, see Beinart, ‘The Jewish Badge’. 30 ‘Que non se entendiese nin estendiese a el por los muchos e buenos e leales e señalados seruiçios que el nos ha fecho e fase de cada dia’. See RGS 2 No. 2218, fo. 70, issued in Toledo on 24 Dec. 1479, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 162–3 (see there for further literature).

the senior dynasty

419

This exemption was also granted to his close relatives. From the order, which was issued in Toledo on 24 December 1479, we learn that all the members of the family were to be exempt from all the orders and restrictions that had been instituted against the Jews of the kingdom. They were also exempt from all the punishments imposed on those who violated those prohibitions. However, the Hermandad did not view this favourably, and it agreed only that Abraham Senior should enjoy this exemption. Therefore Solomon Senior, Abraham Senior’s son, requested that this exemption should applied to all of Abraham Senior’s sons and their wives. The Crown granted this request and exempted all of the family members from the restrictions, and no punishment was applied to them for not abiding by the obligations imposed upon the Jews of the kingdom.31 In examining Abraham Senior’s activities on behalf of the Jewish community, we must distinguish between his function as the appellate judge for lawsuits between Jews, his intervention in favour of the Jewish communities in times of trouble, and his connections with the monarchy and with the local government.32 The documents regarding his activity as a magistrate clearly inform us not only about his status and authority regarding Jewish matters, but also about the living conditions of those Jews who had recourse to his judgment and intervention in their affairs. As an indication 31 Those who violated this order, that is, those who injured members of the Senior family, would be punished by the confiscation of their property and the loss of their employment. This apparently refers to municipal officials and occupants of posts in the monarchy. The writ of exemption is published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 162–3. An additional personal privilege was granted to this family on 20 Jan. 1488. On that date Ferdinand and Isabella granted Rabbi Vda Vaquix, Abraham Senior’s son-in-law, by virtue of his services to the Crown and on the basis of the request of his father-in-law, lifelong exemption from the duty of billeting any person in his home in Guadalajara. This order also instructed the billeter (‘posentadores’) of the royal house, the Crown Prince, the infantes, and the city that no one was to be billeted in the house where he lived now or in any house where he would live in the future. It was forbidden to take bedding (‘ropa’), straw (‘paja’), wood (‘leña’), poultry, or any other thing from the house. This was despite the imminent arrival of the Crown, the Crown Prince, and the infantes in the city of Guadalajara. It was also forbidden to take animals from him or them hire from him or to take anything in another manner. This order was issued to the heads of the city of Guadalajara, to all the clerks, caballeros, escuderos, and other good men, and the other functionaries of the city. Anyone violating the order would lose the Crown’s favour and be subject to a fine of 10,000 mrs. See RGS 5 No. 2091, fo. 16; Baer, JchS ii. 423 (regest); Cantera Burgos and Carrete Parrondo, ‘La judería de Hita’, 252; eid., Sefarad, 34 (1974), 379–80. On 22 June 1492 Don Yom Tob Vaquix and Don Vda Vaquix served as witnesses for the sale by Don David Barchillon, a resident of Buitrago, to Don Diego Hurtado de Mendoza, the almirante mayor of Castile, of all the property that David Barchillón owned in El Pozo, a village near Guadalajara. Other members of that family were Joseph and Isaac Vaquix, residents of Hita. Joseph Vaquix was widely known as the Jewish bachiller, Yose the physician; David Vaquix was a surgeon. Don Lezer (Eliezer) Vaquix was a resident of Zuruelas. Their sister, Doña Vellida, was a woman of considerable means and regarded as the wealthy woman of the family. In the view of Cantera Parrondo, Diego de Sosa is to be identified with Don David Vaquix, after whom a street was named Calle de Don Daví. For a list of property belonging to Don Lezer, see Cantera Burgos and Carrete Parrondo, ‘La judería de Hita’, 280 ff. Some members of this family went into exile, while others remained in Spain and converted to Christianity. 32 His activities as the supreme farmer and collector of taxes of Castile will be discussed below. On taxation in Spain and the rest of Europe at this time see the relevant essays in Richard Bonney (ed.), Economic Systems and State Finance (Oxford, 1995); id. (ed.), The Rise of the Fiscal State in Europe c.1200–1816 (Oxford, 1999).

420

the senior dynasty

of these conditions, we may cite a passage from the letter sent by the Jews of Castile in 1487 to those of Rome and Lombardy. In the matter of young children we rely upon the Sage’s words: at five years for the Bible [etc. And since you asked the number:] The heads of the Children of Israel in our kingdom, for our sins we have remained few of many, for we have recently undergone s[everal sore] tribulations, so that we nearly perished from the land, were it not for the Lord of Hosts who was with us to keep us in life to this day the year of flowing water [a pun on the numerological value of the Hebrew letters standing for the Jewish date 5247], the [king] passed [over our heads] and made a powerful war against the kingdom of Granata, and for this reason, with his being a lord of justice and righteousness, [he demanded from us?] 14,000 castellanos of good gold, 1 castellano for each head of household and b[lessed be our God who in His great] mercy and goodness from which He hath not turned away and shall not turn away the Tribe of Judah, he the Exilarch who is over us,33 in whose hand there is the seal [from the high king?] of the communities whether for banishment whether for confiscation of property [abbreviated quotation from Ezra 7: 26], and not to transgress the words of the Law, but only to make a barrier for the Law [ ].34

The documents concerning people who needed the services of Abraham Senior must all be seen in their particular contexts. One of the suits heard before him is apparently connected to a capital crime. On 27 January 1480 the Catholic Monarchs gave a writ of protection to Rabbi Shem Tob, a resident of Murcia, after a suit he had brought against Meir and Bensilay de la Caballeria, Jews resident in Murcia and Lorca, regarding the death of Rabbi Shem Tob’s brother.35 The case was heard before Abraham Senior, whose decision was favourable to Rabbi Shem Tob. Therefore he was afraid that his opponents would do him physical injury. Similarly, a Jew named Alegre (his first name is missing) petitioned the Crown regarding his suit against Ysaque Portugués and his brother Yose. The suit was also heard before Abraham Senior. The two had fought, and Ysaque Portugués struck Alegre, wounding him from behind with two stabs of a knife.36 Therefore Ysaque Portugués was sentenced to have his right hand chopped off and to be banished from the city, apparently Soria, including a proclamation by a herald. The judge, Juan de Fuentes de [ ], who heard the complaint, taking the place of the corregidor, rejected that punishment and only condemned Yose Portugués to be banished from Soria and its region for the rest of his life. He could not return there unless he received forgiveness from Alegre and from the king and queen. If he returned without permission, he would be condemned to death, and all his property would be confiscated. The brothers were required to pay the trial expenses. Abraham Senior signed this verdict in Toledo on 14 May 1480,37 and it was read to Yose Portugués before witnesses.38 34 This can only refer to Abraham Senior. See Baer, JchS ii. 385. The source is RGS 2 No. 2366, fo. 125, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 167. 36 37 ‘Dos puñaladas por detrás’. See RGS 3 No. 22, fo. 3, of 3 Aug. 1480. 38 The witnesses in this case were: Gómez Gomara, a notary public in Toledo; Juan de Carcamo, an apprentice and servant of Dr del Lillo; Gonzalo de Córdoba, the escríbano de cámara of the Catholic Monarchs, who was present and served as a witness to the delivery of the verdict. The list of gentile witnesses shows the general character of the trial. See n. 40 below. 33 35

the senior dynasty

421

However, on that occasion Abraham Senior did not determine the trial expenses. Alegre submitted a memorandum (‘vn memorial’) on his expenses. This sum was estimated by Senior at 42,880 mrs, which he divided in two, and each brother was obliged to pay half (21,440 mrs). They were to pay this fine within ten days of the date of the verdict.39 Alegre was not satisfied with this and petitioned the Crown, asking for an order so that he could implement the results of the verdict and the collection of the expenses better and more fully. This petition was accepted by the Crown, which appointed Jorge de Beteta, the alcaide of the citadel of Soria, to serve as the executor of the verdict issued by Abraham Senior.40 The identity of Alegre is important here. It is difficult to determine whether he is to be identified with Juan Alegre, the court jester; if so, this might explain why his petition to the Crown was so effective.41 Yose de León, a resident of Medina del Campo, lodged a complaint against Isaac Guerrero, the son of Abraham Guerrero, and against Isaac Guerrero, the son of Simon Guerrero, residents of Medina del Campo. Three months earlier, they had injured his 16-year-old son beside the River Zapardiel, without any reason or cause.42 Yose de León lodged a complaint about this before the magistrates of Medina del Campo. The magistrates condemned Isaac b. Simon to death, and Isaac b. Abraham to banishment. Yose de León appealed against this verdict before the council of the Hermandad, because the injury had been a violation of public order. However, the council of the Hermandad confirmed the verdict and determined that banishment from Medina del Campo and its region could not be rescinded without instructions from the Royal Council. Then the two cousins turned to Abraham Senior in his capacity as chief magistrate of the Jews. The local magistrate ordered the cancellation of the verdict because the trial had been between one Jew and another, and therefore he imposed excommunication (‘descomunión’) upon the assailant. Consequently Yose de León asked the Crown for an order quashing Abraham Senior’s decision. Yose de León argued that the case was criminal, and as such came under the jurisdiction of the Crown and the Royal Council. That is to say, the appellant based his plea on the right to criminal trial, which was denied the Jews. Yose de León also asked the Crown to withdraw the complaint from Abraham Senior’s jurisdiction. The Crown accepted his petition and ordered him not to intervene in this case or to hear the appeal against the verdict.43 The Crown clearly recognized that Abraham Senior had exceeded his authority, even though he was the chief magistrate of the Jews. 39 See RGS 3 No. 22, fo. 13, dated 3 Aug. 1480, issued in Toledo. It states: ‘la tasaçion de los quales reseruo en sy’. 40 The order was issued in Toledo on 26 July 1480, and Senior signed it. The witnesses to the signature were: Fernando de Alcocer; Francisco de Illescas; Fernando de Toledo; Juan Hortis de Çarate, the king’s notary. Dr Núñez signed along with Senior. See n. 38 above. 41 Bernáldez, Memorias, 74; Cantera Burgos, ‘Fernando del Pulgar y los Conversos’, 325 ⫽ ‘Fernando del Pulgar and the Conversos’, 326, 352 n. 43; M. A. Ladero Quesada, La Hacienda Real de Castilla en el siglo XV (La Laguna de Tenerife, 1973), 92. 42 See RGS 3 No. 3447, fo. 87, dated 6 Oct. 1484, issued in Valladolid. The river is near Medina del Campo. 43 See Baer, JchS ii. 220 ff. The right to criminal trial was taken from the Jews on 3 Sept. 1380, and the prohibition was renewed by the Catholic Monarchs on 27 Apr. 1476 in the decisions of the Cortes of Madrigal. See Baer, JchS ii. 340.

422

the senior dynasty

Yose Çulema petitioned the Crown in his own name and those of the physician Rabbi Abraham Abencarax, David Çulema, David Amarax, Don Mose Atia, and Mose Alfara, all residents of Segovia. They requested the transfer of jurisdiction to Abraham Senior from the alcalde of Segovia, who had usurped it in confiscating their property.44 They were involved in a lawsuit with Abraham Mesme and his relations:45 a fight had broken out over a seat in the synagogue, though no one was injured.46 The Crown responded by transferring the case to the corregidor, who would adjudicate it, and if he determined that there were matters regarding the magistrate of the Jews, transfer it in turn to him.47 This is doubtless an expression of the Crown’s determination to maintain public order and peace in the Jewish community. However, it is strange that the authority was not given to Senior at the outset, for he had been appointed as alguacil and bedin of the Jews, unless that appointment had lapsed meanwhile.48 On 23 February 1485 the Catholic Monarchs wrote from Valladolid to Abraham Senior, informing him that Levi Ibn Shem-Tob had addressed them regarding his legal marriage to Bienvenida, which had been annulled by the bride’s parents,49 though he had married her legitimately.50 Against his will, by force, and by sophisticated means his father-in-law had forced him to annul the marriage,51 so that his bride could marry someone else. He asked the Crown to annul her marriage to this other man, so that he could marry her himself. He explained that annulment of this marriage was necessary according to the law and practice of the Jews, which forbade bigamous marriages, before he could keep her, and claimed that the reasons offered by Bienvenida’s parents for cancelling his marriage to her did not apply to him. According to the contract,52 he was entitled to marry her, and no other Jew was permitted to marry her, since he was still legally married to her. Most likely he was of priestly lineage, and the parents had claimed that she was a divorced woman, whom a man of priestly lineage is forbidden to marry. His argument was brought before the Crown Council, which decided to consult the ‘Raby de los judios’ and to hear the requirements of Jewish law from him. Abraham Senior was instructed to examine the complaint and adjudicate it. Until the matter was cleared up, Bienvenida was forbidden to marry any other Jew, and no Jew could marry her, under penalty of the punishment imposed by the Jewish religion upon those who take a second wife while they are betrothed or married.53 The Crown ordered that this should be announced in each and every one of the synagogues 44 The notary hired for this trial was ordered to cease his activity, but the Crown instructed that he was to be paid for his expenses. 45 Perhaps he was a relative of Rabbi Simeon Meme, one of the last rabbis of Castile. It refers to a complaint about ‘asyento de vna sylla’. For the document see RGS 3 No. 3435, fo. 221, dated 2 Oct. 1484, 46 ‘Ni feridas ni lesyones’, ibid. issued in Valladolid. 47 The decision was made with the approbation of the Royal Council and the almirante Don Alonso Enríquez. 48 See below on the decision of the Crown regarding the quarrel in the synagogue of Trujillo. 49 See RGS 4 No. 392, fo. 280, and see Baer, JchS ii. 361 ff. 50 ‘Segund ley e horden de toda ley e derecho de judios’, ibid. 51 ‘Por formas e maneras esquisitas’, ibid. 52 ‘Contrato publico que çerca del dicho desposorio auia pasado’, ibid. 53 ‘Pues dis que el non otorguia ninguna de aquellas cosas e casos que la ley e derecho de judios dispone para se quitar el uno del otro le deuia ser dada e entregada la dicha Bienvenida su esposa por muger’, ibid.

the senior dynasty

423

and Jewish communities, wherever Levi Ibn Shem Tob might be found. Abraham Senior was to carry out this order within six months from the date of its issue, that is, by 23 July 1485.54 An indication of the amount of business in which Abraham Senior was involved as the chief appellate magistrate for the Jews is found in several incidents that arose in Trujillo, which merit particular attention.55 Abraham Senior was instructed to remove the ban that had been placed upon Solomon Barchillón for saying that Mose Javalí was a fortune-teller and sorcerer, and that he was prepared to produce three witnesses to testify to this. The acting corregidor ordered him to do so, and Barchillon produced his witnesses. Javalí was then required to prove that he was innocent. Even before he was accused officially, he had apparently been banned by the community, and this caused him material damage. He appealed to Abraham Senior, who ordered, on the basis of his arguments alone, the cessation of all judicial proceedings against him. He also ordered Barchillón to pay him 960 mrs in damages, being the expense he incurred by going to Abraham Senior. Solomon Barchillón was to retract his accusations within three days, and pay Javalí for his expenses in Trujillo itself. Barchillón was ordered to appear in person before Abraham Senior, and the Jewish judges were to pronounce a ban against the witnesses who testified against Javalí.56 Solomon Barchillón does not appear to have been deterred by Abraham Senior’s verdict. From the account above we learn that the Crown intervened,57 and found that Abraham Senior’s verdict was contrary to the laws of the kingdom.58 The Crown forbade any steps to be taken against Barchillón, on pain of confiscation of property. Barchillón was apparently relying upon the prohibition against Jews’ judging capital cases, since sorcery was a criminal act punishable by death. He claimed that Abraham Senior’s intervention in the case was detrimental to the interest of the Crown, and that the corregidor to whom Barchillón had addressed his complaint was acting on behalf of the Crown and its judicial system. Abraham Senior’s position is subject to interpretation. Most probably he wished to hush up the matter and treat it as an internal Jewish affair. The fine imposed on Barchillón and the obligation to appear before Senior can be interpreted as punishment for informing, and for this the injured Jewish community could have obtained an order (‘albalá en blanco’) from the Crown to strike at the informer. Both Javalí and Barchillón were well aware of the Jewish community’s legal position, and each acted in his own fashion. However, the Crown viewed the action of Abraham Senior as exceeding his authority, which is why it decided against him.59 54 Ibid. An additional fine of 40,000 mrs payable to the Royal Treasury would also be imposed if Bien55 The document is published in Baer, JchS ii. 361–3. venida should violate the order. 56 See the detailed account of this affair in Beinart, Trujillo, 174–5. 57 See RGS 4 No. 1788, fo. 241, dated 24 Sept. 1485, issued in Córdoba. 58 ‘Que era contra las leyes destos nuestros reynos, e defiende a los judios que non puedan tener ni tengan juredicçion alguna e que era en perjuysio de nuestra juredicçion real, porque estando pendiente el dicho negoçio ante el dicho corregidor vos, el dicho Abraham, non podistes entremeteros a conoçer del dicho negoçio antes deuia ser determinado alli’, ibid. 59 If someone acted against the order, he would be fined 50,000 mrs, payable to the fund for the war in Granada. This was certainly a very large fine.

424

the senior dynasty

ii. the case of juan de talavera In the early 1480s the affair of Juan de Talavera stunned the Jews of Segovia, and its echoes apparently reached all the Jews of the kingdom, for various government officials were involved in it. Juan de Talavera converted to Christianity, at some unspecified time but perhaps not long before before his appointment as notary in charge of allocating taxes in the kingdom on 1 February 1484. The event took place in Segovia, where Abraham Senior lived, and he, of course, was responsible for allocating taxes among the Jewish communities.60 The brother of maestre Juan de Talavera, Yose Talavera,61 as well as their sister and their brother-in-law Yose Catalán, remained loyal to their ancestral faith. Talavera’s appointment seems to have been opposed by Abraham Senior, who found it offensive, as did the other Jews of the kingdom.62 He doubtless had his own reasons and considerations for opposing it. As early as the summer of 1484 the notary public of Segovia, Cristóbal Pérez, was ordered to serve a complaint, on the initiative of Juan de Talavera,63 regarding injuries and damage that the Jews caused to the Crown, and require them to answer an interrogatory presented by him. Cristóbal Pérez put off serving the complaint with various delays, one of them being that the matter did not pertain to him.64 Evidently Juan de Talavera was unable to take office because of these postponements and the various claims lodged by the Jews. An announcement of the appointment was sent to Abraham Senior, and the Crown also gave Talavera a letter of protection and defence because of the plots against him. He complained that on one occasion, when he was in Zamora, without the writ of protection, he had been arrested and beaten while incarcerated. Abraham Senior had ordered his imprisonment and Jacob Cachopo, the representative of the Jewish communities, had co-operated with him.65 Talavera requested that the Crown appoint a magistrate to see that justice was done him. The Crown responded by appointing Gómez de Tapia, a resident of Segovia, to investigate the complaint, hear the parties, and reach a decision. On the basis of his complaint on 1 February 1485 the Crown ordered an investigation 60 ‘Escribania del jusgado e repartimiento de las aljamas destos reynos’. See RGS 4 No. 242, fo. 272, 61 Their family seems to have come from Talavera de la Reina. dated 2 Feb. 1485. 62 On the opposition to Juan de Talavera see Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 42, n. 18. 63 See RGS 4 No. 134, fo. 274, issued in Seville. He complained that the Jews of the kingdom refused to accept him. 64 See RGS 4 No. 1584, fo. 46, dated 2 Sept. 1485, and issued in Valladolid. The Crown ordered the notary in charge of the case to hand over the papers to the two judges, Nuño Fernández de Peñalosa and Nuño González de Turégano (on whom see below), who would deal with the complaint; he was granted six days in which to present any counterclaims before the Crown Council, sitting in Valladolid, but must deliver the material within nine days. All other notaries of Segovia were also ordered to transfer all the documents in their possession to the two judges. Juan de Talavera was exempted from paying expenses, because he was a poor man and would have to pay the salary of the magistrates when he had the means to do so. 65 On Cachopo see Beinart, Trujillo, index, and also id., ‘Jacob Cachopo, the Last of the Attorneys for the Jewish Community of Castile before the Expulsion’ (Heb.), Pe’amim, 46–7 (1991), 139–47. The document states: ‘Jacob Cachopo le fizo prender e le tomo todas las escripturas e cartas que de nos tenia e las liberanças que en las dichas aljamas fechas, e le quizo matar engañosamente’.

the senior dynasty

425

to be held regarding unjust taxes allegedly imposed by Abraham Senior upon the Jews. With respect to this complaint, Juan de Talavera seems to have appeared in defence of the communities. Nevertheless the Crown quickly altered its position regarding the appointment of Gómez de Tapia, and as early as 14 February 1485 it appointed other magistrates to deal with Talavera’s complaint and his suit against Abraham Senior. These were Nuño Fernández de Peñalosa, the Archdeacon of Sepúlveda, and Nuño González de Turégano.66 These two were instructed to investigate the civil complaint against Abraham Senior and the communities, and Turégano was appointed as the single judge in the criminal case. His verdict was that, if Talavera’s conversion to Christianity had led the Jews to prevent him from taking office, conversion should not prevent the assumption of an office to which the convert had been appointed. Without doubt Talavera’s appointment aroused anger within the Jewish community, for they were certain that he would settle accounts with the Jewish community and speak ill of his former brethren.67 Indeed in an order from the Crown dated 21 July 1485, addressed to Peñalosa and Turégano, we find that Juan de Talavera had still not managed to assume the office to which he had been appointed. He was apparently involved in a lawsuit not only with Abraham Senior, but also with Solomon Senior.68 The two had done him damage and injury,69 and Juan de Talavera lodged a criminal complaint against them. He assumed that this complaint would enable him to avoid further dealings with the communities, who had expressed their animosity towards him. The Senior brothers argued that the two magistrates, Fernando de Velliza and the licenciado Francisco González de Molina,70 had no authority to judge them. Indeed, they did not wish to adjudicate Juan de Talavera’s complaint because it was lodged against the Senior family. He even raised suspicions against the bachiller Juan de Ocaña, before whom the complaint had been brought. An assistant had been appointed for the bachiller, one of Abraham Senior’s young assistants named Bonifacio. At the height of his claims, Juan de Talavera demanded that all suits and claims that he had brought or might thereafter bring against Jews and their communities should be heard before Peñalosa and Turégano, with the same allocation of responsibilities as above: Molina and Velliza were to be deprived of authority, and another person would be named to assist the bachiller Juan de Ocaña in place of Bonifacio. The Crown accepted this request. At this stage of the struggle between Juan de Talavera and Abraham Senior and his family and the Jewish communities, the former had gained the upper hand. During the summer of 1485 Juan de Talavera’s brother, Yose Talavera, joined in the campaign of judicial complaints. He informed the Crown that the Jews of Segovia and the entire kingdom had tried to kill his brother because of the lawsuits he had brought against them. Without doubt the Jews of the kingdom also perceived the grave threat to them posed by Talavera’s appointment. According to Yose the Jews of See RGS 4 No. 286, fo. 271, issued in Valladolid. It is known that the Jews employed every possible means to prevent the appointment of conversos as judges over them. See Baer, JchS ii. 297. 68 The document implies that he was Abraham Senior’s brother. 69 ‘Agrauios e fuerça e synrasones’, see RGS 4 No. 1069, fo. 37, issued in Valladolid. 70 His full name was Fernando González de Molina. See RGS 4 No. 534, fo. 189, dated 18 Mar. 1485. 66 67

426

the senior dynasty

Segovia tried to find false witnesses in the Jewish quarter of the city to testify against him, and the witnesses were promised bribes and favours. He told his brother that the Jews were planning to kill him as they had killed three other converts in 1484. Once the plot was revealed, Yose Talavera asserted ‘that the Jews claimed the right to execute anyone who revealed their secrets without any compunction’.71 However, at present the Jews had no right to hold criminal trials, so that they could not execute those who appeared to them to be informers. Hence they sought witnesses to testify against Juan de Talavera and himself (Yose Talavera), that he, Yose, had sworn by the life of the monarchs and had not kept his oath.72 This matter is worthy of attention. Elsewhere I have discussed the oaths of Jews who swore on the life of the monarch,73 a common custom among the Jews of Spain. Anyone violating this oath was profaning the king and liable for punishment. Yose Talavera was arrested and imprisoned for fifty days for lèse-majesté and most likely for his other misdeeds. Intervention by guarantors made possible his release so that he could advance arguments on his own behalf. He proved that the witnesses who had testified against him before Abraham Senior were young men (‘muchachos’) who had changed their names so that their identity would not be discovered.74 The case had been brought before the alcalde, the licenciado Francesco de Molina, but because those Jews were people of means and wealthy, he had acted with partiality towards them and bias against himself.75 He, Yose Talavera, had been forced to flee the city because he feared them and the damage that was done him. When he was outside the city, he learned that Molina had issued a verdict against him without summoning him to appear in court and without hearing his arguments. He was afraid that actions would be taken against him, and therefore he asked for the Crown’s protection. Furthermore, when they failed to injure him, those Jews had turned to his brother-inlaw, Yose Catalán, his sister’s husband, causing him to drive his wife from his house, leaving her destitute. Yose Talavera asked the Crown to appoint an impartial person, lacking favouritism and suspicion, to do justice for his sister as well, whom the Jews were misusing through their hatred and that of the magistrates. On 31 August 1485 the Crown responded and instructed Molina to send the verdict to the Royal Council and to explain why he had ordered that Talavera should be punished and why Yose Catalán had divorced his wife.76 An order issued by the Catholic Monarchs on 7 September 1485 indicates the results of another intervention by Juan de Talavera that apparently took place in the spring of 1485. Abraham Trancas lodged a complaint against Rabbi Samuel de Vidas, who had seized five buildings belonging to him without permission. The matter was 71 ‘Dis que porque los judios tienen segund sus derechos que qualquier judio que descubriere sus secretos de los que entre ellos pasa, gelo puedan matar sin conçiençia ninguna’. See RGS 4 No. 1564, fo. 36. The document was published in Baer, JchS ii. 376–8. See also id., Toledot, 417–18. The document was issued in Valladolid. 72 ‘Buscaron testigos falsos que dixiesen que auia jurado por nuestras vidas y que no la auia guardado’, 73 74 See Beinart, Trujillo, 27 ff. ‘Auerse mudado los nombres’, RGS 4 No. 1564, fo. 36. ibid. 75 ‘Favorable a los dichos judios y odioso y sospechoso contra el’, ibid. 76 For failure to obey the order, the licenciado would lose the Crown’s favour and be liable for a fine of 10,000 mrs.

the senior dynasty

427

brought before Jewish magistrates, whose verdict apparently did not satisfy him. In his appeal to the Crown he reported that among the witnesses who had testified was maestre Juan de Talavera. Even though Trancas possessed a writ of protection and defence, Senior seized him and his men, held them in prison, and beat him harshly. Trancas obtained an order from the corregidor and magistrates to investigate the complaint and see that he received justice. It cannot be known to what degree he had ties with Juan de Talavera. However, the latter’s testimony on his behalf shows which side Trancas belonged to in the dispute between the Seniors and the Talavera family.77 We do not know what resulted from the investigation demanded by Yose Talavera, nor what was his fate. However, a fundamental turning-point was reached in the judicial proceedings after the Crown’s answer to Yose Talavera. On 19 December 1485 the corregidor of Segovia was instructed to adjudicate Abraham Senior’s complaint against Juan de Talavera for sorcery.78 Juan de Talavera had allegedly committed criminal acts against various people. Nevertheless, they had not brought charges, and he had never been tried. Before the aforementioned date the Crown issued instructions to put him on trial. Abraham Senior announced to the Crown that he had asked the alcalde de Nurueña, the magistrate of the city, to interrogate ten witnesses whom he had presented, who would give evidence about Talavera’s conduct. The alcalde, having collected the testimony, was ordered to submit it in writing, signed and sealed, to the Royal Council. The evidence was examined, and with the approbation of the members of the council, the Crown was asked to instruct the corregidor to examine the complaint and hear the parties without delay, so that Abraham Senior would have no cause to complain to the Crown that justice had not been done.79 However, the decision was not implemented at that time, as we shall see below. Also in the month of December,80 an order was issued to arrest Juan de Talavera for various criminal offences in Segovia. He had fled, and his whereabouts were unknown. When found, he was to be transported immediately, and at his expense, to Segovia to stand trial before the corregidor. What became of him is unknown. He never took the office of notary to which he had been appointed, but his trial was not thereby concluded. On 23 June 1486 the corregidor of Segovia, Diego Sánchez de Quesada, and with him all the magistrates of the city, were instructed, in the name of the judges of the royal court, to receive the prosecutor of the kingdom, Fernando Gómez de Agreda, and his 77 See RGS 4 No. 1640, fo. 54. Abraham Trancas testified against Diego Arias Dávila and his wife before investigators of the Inquisition on 6 Oct. 1487. See Carrete Parrondo, Proceso inquisitorial, 113, no. 212. On 17 Dec. 1487 he expanded on his evidence. See ibid. 117, no. 224, and also JchS ii. 376–9; Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 166–7. See also Asenjo González, Segovia, 329 n. 212. 78 The corregidor was Dr Ruy González de la Puebla. On 29 Oct. 1481 he served as a witness in delivering a communiqué from Rodrigo Álvarez Maldonado on the execution of the segregation of housing of the Jews of Segovia. See F. Fita, BRAH 11 (1887), 283. On 15 Apr. 1485 he was ordered to investigate the sermons of the monk Antonio de la Peña against the Jews. See RGS 4 No. 764, fo. 300. The order was issued in Valladolid. On the investigation against Antonio de la Peña see Baer, Toledot, 417 ff. and also below. 79 For failure to comply with the order, the corregidor would lose the Crown’s favour and be liable for a fine of 10,000 mrs. For the document see RGS 4 No. 2220, fo. 136, issued in Valladolid. 80 The date is not specified. See RGS 4 No. 2247, fo. 110, issued in Alcalá de Henares.

428

the senior dynasty

witnesses and to swear them in.81 Fernando Gómez de Agreda brought various charges before the judges of the royal court against maestre Juan de Talavera. In 1484–5, Talavera had been in Plasencia,82 Segovia, and Ávila and had presented himself as a prosecutor and collector of testimony against Jews.83 He had tried to persuade various people to testify against them84 in return for part of the money and fines that he extorted from the people against whom they testified. These were accused of bribery and other offences. This is evidently the manner in which he began to act against his former brethren, after converting and receiving the post of notary as described above. The danger for the Jewish communities in acting against him is also evident. Abraham Senior and Jacob Cachopo knew very well with whom they were dealing. If this is not sufficient, Agreda’s charges support Abraham Senior’s accusation of sorcery against Talavera. He stated in detail how the man had dealt in fortune-telling and witchcraft and had extorted money from various people by professing to reveal what would happen to them in the future. He even asserted that it was in his power to see to it by means of magic charms (‘palabras e echises’) that a person could marry whomever his heart desired. Agreda added that Talavera had done other grave things, because of which he was liable to severe criminal punishments. The prosecutor was given ten days to present his evidence.85 The corregidor and the magistrates of the city were instructed to record it in the presence of a notary and to send fair copies under seal to the judges of the royal court within ten days.86 They apparently complied. Thus we may assume that Juan de Talavera was ultimately caught and sentenced to death as a sorcerer and fortune-teller. We do not know what became of Yose Talavera. Most likely his game was up within the Jewish community. Abraham Senior’s victory in preventing intervention in taxation of the Jewish community was thus complete. However, further struggles awaited him in public life until he decided to separate himself and his family from his people and their God.

iii. abraham senior’s public service before conversion Abraham Senior’s path as described above shows him as a courtier and advocate of his people. It should be emphasized that in this capacity there were no conflicts of interest between his function as head of the Jewish community of Castile, as their spokesman before the government, and the personal financial interests in which he was involved. He was firm in his manner and in his methods of advocacy. Senior had occasion to act in the royal court against Antonio de la Peña, a Dominican monk of Tomás de Torquemada’s house in Segovia, Santa Cruz, whose inflammatory 81 The order was addressed to all the corregidores, their assistants, the judges, the alguaciles, and the other magistrates of Segovia and the other cities of the kingdom. 82 The document lists all the months of the year in which he took evidence and details the names of the witnesses. 83 The witnesses were Christians, for they were required to swear by Mary and the Gospels while hold84 ing a cross. ‘Buscar e corromper testigos’, ibid. 85 The sanctions stipulated for non-compliance were loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. 86 The magistrates were the licenciados Diego Martínez de Álava and Pedro de la Cueva.

the senior dynasty

429

sermons in the city and its neighbourhood, including the Jewish quarter, raising an outcry.87 Apparently seeking to follow in the footsteps of Vicente Ferrer and Alonso de Espina, he called for action against the ‘Jewish wolves’, saying they should be driven out in the manner that wolves are driven away, by fire.88 While calling for extreme measures against the Jews, he would weep and arouse the simple folk to weep with him, leaving the entire city ‘shocked and full of turmoil’.89 Some people were stirred by the sermons to declare that the church bells should be rung, and they should go to the Jewish quarter and plunder the Jews.90 Without doubt he wished to destroy the Jewish community of Segovia, and, beyond that, in the entire country. In his petition to the Crown, Abraham Senior emphasized that if an order were not issued to thwart the monk’s intentions, he would cause grave damage to the entire city of Segovia. Thus Senior viewed an attack upon the Jewish quarter and upon the Jews as an attack against the city and its residents. In order to forestall the damage, he asked the Crown to forbid the monk Antonio de la Peña to give sermons, and that no person, under penalty of grave punishments, should dare to listen to his sermons, because they did a great disservice to the kingdom and to God. The Crown did not hesitate to accept Abraham Senior’s position and ordered the bachiller Álvar Fernández de Villalpando to arrest both de la Peña and those who had called for violence, bring them or send them at their expense to the royal court, wherever it was located, and deliver them to the Crown magistrates, so that they could be tried before them. They were not to be freed on bail, but only upon an order from the Crown. He was to seize the real and moveable property of those whom he was unable to arrest, to confiscate it, and to make an inventory of it and deliver it to trustworthy men. They were to appear before the Crown within thirty days.91 But on 15 April 1485 the Crown again ordered the corregidor of Segovia, Ruy González de la Puebla, or his replacement, to deal with a new complaint brought by Abraham Senior against Antonio de la Peña.92 Even after Villalpando had arrived in Segovia, investigated the monk’s conduct, and served a summons on him from the Crown, he continued to claim in public that the Jews were doing a disservice to God and that their presence in the city was a great scandal. The corregidor was ordered to ascertain exactly what the monk had said after Villalpando had left Segovia. That is to say, the presence of the Crown’s emissary had silenced the monk, but after the emissary left, he resumed his former ways and continued with his incitement. The corregidor was to set down the results of his investigation in writing and send them under seal to the 87 Clearly this refers to a new residential neighbourhood. See H. Beinart, ‘Jewish Dwellings in Spain in the Fifteenth Century and the Edict of Segregation’ (Heb.), Zion, 51 (1986), 61–85. 88 ‘Que si non ponen fuego al monte que non podrian echar los lobos fuera’. See RGS 4 No. 534, fo. 189, dated 18 Mar. 1485 and issued in Valladolid. See Baer, JchS ii. 363–5, 366; Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 250–3, 258–9; Baer, Toledot, 417–18. See also Asenjo González, Segovia, 327 n. 205. 89 ‘Esta muy escandalizada e alborotada’, RGS 4 No. 534, fo. 189. 90 ‘Diz que algunas personas an dicho publicamente que den a las campanas e vayan a robar la juderia de la dicha çibdad’, ibid. 91 They were summoned to appear on three dates at ten-day intervals. The sanctions stipulated for violating the order were loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. 92 See RGS 4 No. 764, fo. 300, issued in Valladolid. Published in Baer, JchS ii. 365–6 and in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 258–9.

430

the senior dynasty

Royal Council, which would examine the matter. However, we do not know how it was concluded. Abraham Senior’s first complaint to the Crown was directed against the alcalde, Francisco de Molina,93 who had proclaimed the prohibition against baking unleavened bread for Passover in the city ovens. These ovens were owned by various people: caballeros, municipal officials, and private individuals.94 Apparently Abraham Senior and the heads of the Jewish community had already acted on this matter, for the mayor was willing to have the Jews build their own ovens. But time was short, and the Passover holiday was approaching. Therefore Abraham Senior asked for the quashing of the alcalde’s prohibition so that the Jews might bake unleavened bread in the city’s ovens, as they had always done. This investigation was also placed in the hands of the bachiller de Villalpando. He was to ascertain how unleavened bread had been baked in the city in the past, until the alcalde had issued his prohibition. The results of this investigation were probably transmitted to the Crown, which ordered the restoration of the former situation. I believe the alcalde had taken this step on his own initiative, for it contradicted the policy determined by the Crown regarding the Jews and the restrictions to be imposed upon them. From a certain point of view, the alcalde’s action is consistent with restricting the residence of the Jews to a separate quarter and preventing them from leaving that quarter even to bake unleavened bread. Abraham Senior was at the height of his power and influence at this time. In his capacity as the head of the Jews of Castile he settled matters of taking interest at rates forbidden by the kingdom. Jacob Cachopo, the attorney for the Jewish communities, asked the Crown not to have claims lodged against Jews who lent money at interest. The queen accepted the request and even ordered the members of the Royal Council and the prosecutors of the kingdom not to bring to trial Jews who took forbidden interest in loans to Christians. These financial questions will be considered below, but perhaps this concession was connected with the imposition of the castellanos tax on the Jewish communities for the purpose of the war in Granada.95 In 1486 Abraham Senior intervened with the condestable of Castile, Pedro Fernández de Vellasco, the Count of Haro.96 On 16 May 1486 Senior wrote to the condestable from Segovia, asking him to intervene to prevent the expulsion of the Jews from Valmaseda, which had been undertaken at the instigation of the municipality against the authority of the Crown, which alone had the right to determine the presence and existence of the Jewish community. In his petition Abraham Senior identified entirely with those being expelled from the city and with their suffering. Three years earlier Senior had witnessed the expulsion of the Jews of Andalusia, their wanderings and their sufferings, when they were ordered to leave their homes and disperse throughout the kingdom of Castile within a month.97 That expulsion had been conceived by the Inquisition, See above at n. 70. RGS 4 No. 764, fo. 300. On arrangements for the baking of unleavened bread see Carrete Parrondo, 95 Proceso inquisitorial, 51, No. 81. For the document see Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 265–7. 96 I have discussed this subject in detail in ‘The Expulsion of the Jews of Valmaseda’. For the document 97 see the end of this chapter. Beinart, ‘La Inquisición española’. 93 94

the senior dynasty

431

which was active in Andalusia. Having seen the suffering of the Jews of Andalusia and their fate, Abraham Senior saw it as his duty to intervene with the condestable, the lord of the place. Moreover, his intervention was consistent with the political line of the Catholic Monarchs regarding the Jews. As to the attempt at expelling the Jews from Valmaseda, although the Crown countermanded the expulsion, the municipal leaders reached a settlement with the local Jews regarding the sale of their property, and the Jews agreed to leave of their own free will and never to return, nor to lodge a complaint about the municipal leadership and council before the Crown. The Crown accepted this arrangement after the fact, and it could be seen as a milestone in relations with the Jews, which had now been determined locally. However, the Crown was not interested in an arrangement of this kind. For in fact it did not resolve the issue of the presence of Jews in Spain. Abraham Senior was evidently aware of these events, although they took place in a region where the Jewish population was relatively sparse. Another important public activity connected with his name and that of his son-inlaw Rabbi Meir Melamed was the redemption of the Jewish prisoners of Málaga, which was conquered by the Catholic Monarchs on 18 August 1487.98 The Jewish community was taken captive and required to pay 20 m. mrs to ransom itself from captivity. The sale of the prisoners’ property brought in only half of the sum demanded of them,99 and the Jews of Málaga were taken to a prison camp that was set up in Carmona, near Seville,100 although the Jews had been expelled from there on 1 January 1483. On 9 January 1489 the Catholic Monarchs permitted twenty male prisoners to travel throughout Castile in order to raise money for their ransom. Since the Jewish captives of Málaga did not speak Castilian, a few Jews of Castile were permitted to accompany them on their journey. Abraham Senior also gave them a letter of recommendation and a writ of protection for the Jews of Castile. He and Rabbi Meir Melamed bound themselves to pay the remainder of the ransom in instalments.101 On 6 June 1489 the queen announced the liberation of the captives with the issuing of an horro for their ransom and protection, and they were permitted to settle anywhere they wished in Castile. However, these ransomed Jews were not to have a lot of time to sink roots in Castile. Abraham Senior’s position as the leader of the Jews of Castile brought him to establish connections with the heads of the government and with churchmen. Particular among these relations were those with Tomás de Torquemada, the prior of Santa Cruz, a man extremely close to the queen. They certainly knew each other in the early days of Abraham Senior’s public and business activities in the court of Isabella and the citadel of Segovia. Torquemada intervened on behalf of his native city with respect to a See below and the bibliography there on the conquest of the city and the captivity of its Jews. According to Ladero Quesada, ‘La esclavitud’, the Church sold the property for 2,538,568 mrs. Elsewhere, in Granada después de la conquista, he states that the sale brought in one-half the sum demanded, 3,320,267 mrs. 100 For a document on the ransom see Baer, JchS ii. 391–3; see also Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 316, and for one dated 6 June 1489 see ibid. 329–31. 101 A. Bernáldez, Memorias, 195, reports that Abraham Senior ransomed 450 Jewish captives of Málaga with his own money. 198 199

432

the senior dynasty

tax that Abraham Senior sought to collect in 1490. At the request of the city, Torquemada addressed the chief tax-farmer and tax-collector of the kingdom, asking him to deal mercifully with Segovia. This appeal shows that the two men maintained relations, for he was not referred to Diego de la Muela, in whose hands Abraham Senior had placed the collection of taxes in the town, nor did he approach him;102 Senior acceded to Torquemada’s plea not to raise the tax quotas, and the latter was able to reassure the people of his home town that there was no reason for concern,103 since Senior had promised him to do as he had asked. However, even earlier, in 1489, Abraham Senior had contact with the Inquisition in his city, Segovia, when summoned by the prosecution to testify in the trial of Juan Arias Dávila, the Bishop of Segovia, against the bishop’s father, Diego Arias, who had died in 1466.104 Nevertheless, during the case of el Niño de La Guardia, they did not hesitate to allude to him as well, apparently with the intention of connecting him to the plot, when the prisoner Yose Franco sought to transmit information to him regarding his arrest.105 We also possess certain information about Abraham Senior’s activities within the Jewish community from those times. On 5 August 1486 he reached a decision in the suit 102 Diego de Muela was a contino of the royal household and the court of the Royal Council. He came from Valladolid or Almazán. On 31 July 1494 he was appointed magistrate and prosecutor against Diego de Benavante of Carrión and Tomás Núñez Coronel of Ávila for acts of fraud and deception in the alcabala and tercia taxes that the two men had farmed in Ávila and its district. See RGS 11 No. 2584, fo. 86. On 14 Apr. 1495 the Crown ordered Fernán Delgado to submit the findings of his investigation of Diego Pérez de Mieses (or Meneses) of Llerena for acts of fraud in farming taxes in the province of León and Trujillo. The action was taken on the initiative of Fernán Núñez Coronel and Luis de Alcalá. See RGS 12 No. 1836, fo. 384. On 10 Sept. 1496 Muela is mentioned as a resident of Almazan. Diego de Carrión had to appear before him regarding a complaint filed against him by Fernán Núñez Coronel. See RGS 13 No. 1612, fo. 7. On 17 Jan. 1499 he is connected with a complaint against the latter for fraud concerning the alcabala tax in Seville. See RGS 11 No. 1499, fo. 38. 103 See Baer, JchS ii. 451, also Carrete Parrondo, ‘La hacienda’, 343 n. 17. The passage was cited in Loeb, Graetz, and Fita, ‘La Inquisición de Torquemada’, 413 ff.: ‘Yo fable con don Abraham Seneor çerca dello en presençia destos vuestros mensajeros, y me dixo como por este año estaua ya fecha la renta a Diego de la Muela que la ha tenido los años pasados, pero en los años venideros faría todo lo que yo quisese e mandase; y asy se fara como a vosotros cumpla’. He thanked the town for sending a mule and announced that he would return it, for he already had nine mules. Torquemada’s letter to the town was signed on 7 Aug. 1490. 104 See Tarsicio de Azcona, OFM Cap., ‘Juan Arias Dávila (1436–1497)’, Diccionario eclesiástico de España, appendix. Another witness at this trial was Alonso de Cabrera (23 Jan. 1486), who related that Abraham Senior had told him that Diego Arias was a heretic. Senior testified on 21 Apr. 1486. The dossier of the trial is Leg. 1413 No. 7, published by Carrete Parrondo in Proceso inquisitorial, with the title, ‘Proceso inquisitorial contra los Arias Dávila’ (see above, n. 9). Peñalosa, ‘Juan Bravo’, 89–90, presents a paragraph from the testimony of Francisco de San Román of Mota, a village near Cuéllar, concerning what Abraham Senior had said to the Marchioness of Bobadilla regarding the marriage of Francisco de Bobadilla’s daughter to the nephew (‘sobrino’) of Juan Arias. The marchioness told the witness in Seville: ‘Deçid vos a don Habraham que berdad es que todas esas cartas que dize que me escribió me han sido dados pero que como quiere él que case mi sobrina con hombre que se espera que an de sacar los guesos de sus aguelos para quemar, que bien sabe don Abraham que el mismo me obo dicho que Diego Arias muriera hereje.’ Therefore, added the witness, when he had told this to Abraham Senior he was very worried and turned pale (‘mudó de color’). He added that he had told her these things in secrecy. See Carrete Parrondo, Proceso inquisitorial, 65, no. 110. 105 See Ch. 1 n. 108; Loeb, Graetz, and Fita, ‘La Inquisición de Torquemada’, 419 ff. and the protocol of the trial published there; Baer, Toledot, 450.

the senior dynasty

433

between Doña Çinha of Medina del Campo of the one party and Yose Abenfarax of Fresno Viejo, attorney for her son Isaac Abenfarax, and one Don Meir of the other. The matter concerned an inheritance due to her as a widow. It should be noted that in this matter Senior consulted the rabbis of Valladolid and reached a decision in his capacity as magistrate of the Jews. An appeal against this decision was lodged before the Crown.106 The council records of Madrid contain mention of another case in which Abraham Senior ordered the cancellation of all obligations given by a member of the Jewish community, the son of Don Suleiman in Casarrubios, totalling 800 mrs of his property, for the benefit of that community. A certain Don Yonto obligated himself to present the order before the council within fifteen days. In January 1489, acting as the supreme judge, Abraham Senior adjudicated a monetary claim lodged by Rabbi Abraham de Ávila against Don Samuel de Ávila.107 In 1490, Symuel Aben Hayon, a resident of Murcia, lodged a complaint against several Jews before the magistrates of the city. Before Abraham Senior rendered his verdict, the defendants addressed him and obtained an order from him stating that no Christian magistrate could adjudicate their dispute, but only Jewish judges could hear the case and decide it. If Symuel Aben Hayon violated this order, he was to be expelled from the community, and a fine of 10,000 mrs as well as other penalties were to be imposed on him. He could not proceed with the case as he wished and bring it before a Christian magistrate, because of the threat of punishment imposed upon him by Abraham Senior, and he could not expect to receive a fair hearing from Jewish judges. His witnesses were Christians, and if his case were heard before Jewish judges, he would suffer grave damage. Symuel Aben Hayon received a response from the Crown on 10 April 1492, after the Edict of Expulsion had been signed in Granada. The Crown ordered the corregidor of Murcia to hear his complaint and forbade the imposition of any penalties of excommunication or fines.108 Most probably Symuel Aben Hayon was not among those who went into exile.109 In 1491 Abraham Senior was involved in a dispute that broke out in the community of Trujillo. A group of Jews resident in that city constructed a new set of steps leading to the Holy Ark in the synagogue. Pero Díaz de la Torre, the Crown prosecutor, informed the Catholic Monarchs that the stairs had been built by Meir Barchillón, son of Ephraim Barchillón; Rabbi Alfandari; Bueno Machoro; his brother the ironsmith Pollequinos; Suleima Aben Yaish; and Don David Alfandari. The construction had been opposed by the Cohen family (Isaac, Abraham, and Yose) and their relations, and this party appealed to Abraham Senior. As rab de la corte he accepted the position of the Cohen family and forbade use of the stairs. Anyone using them was liable to a fine of 6,000 mrs, a third of which would be used to subsidize the war in Granada, and a third paid to the Hermandad; the beneficiary of the last third is not mentioned. Perhaps it would be paid to the Crown and perhaps to Senior’s private account. See Baer, JchS ii. 383. The document is in the Archivo de la Chancillería in Valladolid. The order was issued on 30 June 1488. See Cantera Burgos, ‘Los acuerdos concejiles’, 387. Juan de Laredo, the chief treasurer of the Hermandad, appeared as the attorney of Abraham Senior before the 108 council of Madrid on 23 Aug. 1488. See ibid., and also n. 149 below. See Baer, JchS ii. 241. 109 See RGS 9 No. 1141, fo. 122, issued in Santa Fe; Baer, JchS ii. 408–9. 106 107

434

the senior dynasty

The builders of the stairs ignored this prohibition and pronounced a ban upon anyone who refused to use the stairs when the Torah scroll was removed from the Ark and transported to the reading stand or returned to the Ark. In his anger Senior raised the fine to 15,000 mrs, also divided into three parts as before. He made certain that both parties received a copy of his instructions. He also imposed a tax upon those who had built the stairs and asked the Crown to collect the fine, though it is unlikely he did not possess the means for collecting that sum. The Crown ordered Fernando Morales to put an end to the dispute and to implement Senior’s decision. Senior informed Fernando de la Torre, who in turn transmitted the information to the Crown. It is difficult, however, to reconcile all these procedures, since Abraham Senior had connections with the Crown. Nor can it be known why he took the part of the Cohen family. He might have done so because of his contacts with them in collecting the castellanos tax. In any case the matter of the stairs in the synagogue of Trujillo was resolved by the expulsion of the Jews.110 The foregoing account shows the variety of Abraham Senior’s public activities. Their extent indicates his great involvement and also the need for the funds that were available to him. His activities demanded a great deal of money, and below we shall see the financial means that were at his disposal.

iv. abraham senior’s property It is difficult to determine the chronology of Abraham Senior’s path to wealth and to ascertain what he owned at the start of his public and financial activity and what he acquired over time, or how he acquired it. An unusual document in Simancas, dated 8 December 1492, after his conversion, records a declaration of property made by Fernán Núñez Coronel, as Senior was now known;111 a similar declaration, dated 26 November 1492, was made by Luis de Alcalá.112 The appraisals were made at their own request, showing that they had some need for them. Most likely they were connected with the special task assigned to them: collecting the debts from Christians that the Jews had left uncollected when they went into exile. The Crown had placed a lien upon these debts and sought to deposit them in the Royal Treasury. It accepted Alcalá’s and Coronel’s requests for an appraisal, and ordered the local corregidores and magistrates to hear evidence regarding their property. This was given, in Coronel’s case, by Pedro de León, a resident of Sigüenza;113 Gonsalo de Yniesta (Hiniesta) or 110 The Crown’s order was issued on 15 Nov. 1491. For the document see RGS 8 No. 3046, fo. 248, issued in Córdoba. See Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 375–7, and also Beinart, Trujillo, 32, doc. 64, 222–4. 111 Hacienda, Leg. 1 No. 77, fo. 35r, drafted in Olmedo, published in part in Carrete Parrondo, ‘La hacienda’. He based the identification of Fernán Núñez Coronel on the chronicle of Valladolid and identified him with Rabbi Meir Melamed. On the problem of the identity of Abraham Senior and Meir Melamed as Christians see below. On the property of Abraham Senior see Asenjo González, Segovia, 391 ff. 112 The property of Luis de Alcalá is listed in Hacienda, Leg. 1 No. 76. A detailed account of his property, for purposes of comparison, will be presented below. 113 On him see León Tello, Ávila, 80–1, and also Cantera Burgos, ‘La judería de San Martín de Valdeiglesias’, 250 ff., 278. The testimony of Pedro González de León and of Gonzalo de Yniesta was taken by the corregidor Francisco de Sevilla and recorded by the notary Juan de Torres.

the senior dynasty

435

Ynestrosa, a resident of Segovia; Alfonso de Barrionuevo; Francisco de Soto; Bernaldino de Casasola. These three seem also to have been residents of Segovia. Luis de Alcalá was a resident and regidor of Madrid, and Fernán Núñez Coronel was a resident and regidor of Segovia. Both were tax-farmers and royal tax-collectors.114 At the same time the property of their guarantors was also registered. The appraisals were most probably undertaken to satisfy the Crown, in case the two men did not meet their obligations in farming and collecting taxes. One wonders, however, why they took place in 1492 and not previously, for the two had long been tax-farmers and collectors, and had certainly been required to provide guarantors for their tax-farming. We have suggested that the appraisal was connected particularly with the collection of debts owed by Christians to Jews. Nevertheless, it enables us to surmise how Abraham Senior and Luis de Alcalá attained their wealth. Its actual extent and the distribution of their properties is instructive regarding their financial power and the influence that derived from their property. The questions put to the witnesses about the two men’s wealth are interesting.115 Relatively few were asked regarding Abraham Senior (Fernán Núñez Coronel); the list of questions submitted by Luis de Alcalá was much longer. It is worth comparing the two interrogatories, especially since Luis de Alcalá’s preceded Coronel’s, though we must assume that each of them co-ordinated the questions with his partner when submitting his interrogatory. However, we must not forget that the witnesses were interrogated completely separately. The witnesses for Fernán Núñez Coronel were asked to state how long they had known him; what property of his was known to them; and whether the property was mortgaged. That is to say, they were asked three substantive questions. By contrast the interrogatory for Luis de Alcalá contained nine questions: • how the witnesses were acquainted with Luis de Alcalá and information about his dwellings; • what taxes he and Coronel were farming and where;116 • what each item of the tax-farmers’ and their guarantors’ property was worth; • whether there were any monetary claims against the property; • whether they had bought the property, or it was mayorazgo in whole or in part as inheritable property; • whether it had belonged to the church or to individuals; • whether the tax-farmers had received the property by way of dowry or bought it at the time of their marriage, and what dowry they had received; • whether the property was held by them on behalf of minors, of the mayordomos of caballeros, ladies, or maidens (‘donzellas’), of Crown councils, monasteries, public bodies (‘universidades’), churches, or of previous wives by whom they had children, 114 See the document mentioned in n. 111 above, especially the detailed account of the questions posed 115 For the names of the witnesses for Luis de Alcalá, see below. to the witnesses. 116 The witnesses did not answer this question.

436

the senior dynasty

• or of those children by inheritance from their mothers—in other words, whether they were the trustees or managers of the property and not the owners; • finally, whether the property was mortgaged or otherwise encumbered.117 Taken together, the questions certainly provided a full picture of the two tax-farmers’ assets, and we should combine the two interrogatories, for it was their combination that interested the Crown.118 To the questions regarding Fernán Núñez Coronel the witnesses responded that they knew of no liens on the property, except those of the king, as a guarantee for the tax-farming. Only the witness Francisco de Soto said that Fernán Núñez Coronel had inherited some of his property from his father, that he had bought another part in Segovia with his own money, and that property had been granted to him by the Crown.119 Certainly he had long owned his home; we shall return to this matter below. A document dated 17 March 1486 states that the Catholic Monarchs ordered the corregidor and the alcaldes of Segovia to respond to Senior’s request for protection of his ownership of an estate (‘dehesa’) that belonged to him in the district of Segovia in Campo de Pinillos, which he had bought,120 honestly and peaceably.121 Apprehensive lest certain people should seize the estate and deprive him of it, he requested confirmation of ownership. The Crown ordered the corregidores to ascertain whether Senior’s claim to own the estate and have bought it in peaceful fashion, legally and justly, was true, and no judgment was pending regarding the estate. If this was the case, he should be defended and assisted in retaining ownership.122 As noted, this property might have been purchased with a grant of 150,000 mrs given by the queen to Abraham Senior in 1480.123 He was also given rental income from pasture land (‘renta en hervaje o heredamientos’). But since it was not possible to make an accounting, the queen ordered the release of 2 m. mrs so that he could purchase inheritable property (‘heredamientos’).124 This sum would be made available to him over five years (1484–8 inclusive), so that each year 400,000 mrs would be released for 117 Perhaps that is the reason for the presentation of testimony about the property of Diego de Bracamonte, who was apparently a guarantor. 118 Further questions were directed to the guarantors: whether they were minors and guardians and trustees (‘tutores e curadores’); whether they were married or about to be married; whether their estates were managed by themselves or by trustees or guarantors. In addition questions were asked of the notaries whose signatures are found on the guarantors’ powers of attorney, and whether all of the foregoing was public knowledge in the places where the witnesses were to be examined. The interrogatory was drawn up by Alonso Sánchez, who was certainly expert in all the processes of investigation. 119 His testimony: Hacienda, Leg. 1 No. 77, fo. 4r. 120 Either with means granted to him by the queen or by his own means. Ibid. 121 ‘Paçificament por justos derechos’. For the document see RGS 4 No. 2577, fo. 26. 122 ‘Y que sy asy es que el dicho don Abraham Seneor a estado e esta en paçifica posesion de la dicha dehesa por justos e derechos títulos, ca sobre ello no ay pleyto pendiente ni sentençia pasada en cosa jusgado lo defendays e amparareys en la dicha posesion’, ibid. The order was issued in Medina del Campo. 123 In fact this was a juro; apparently it was confirmed by the Cortes in 1480, but reduced by 50,000 mrs. See Peñalosa, ‘Juan Bravo’, 75: ‘Se le rebajaron 50,000 maravedis de los 150,000 que el tenía situados en Segovia’. 124 See Baer, JchS ii. 355. The grant was given to him for service to the Crown. See Mercedes, Leg. 106, fo. 86, issued in Tarazona on 14 Feb. 1484.

the senior dynasty

437

him. Evidently the estate in Campo de Pinillos was one of his first purchases after his appointment as rab de la corte, and he began to be involved in large-scale tax-farming, as we shall describe below. Let us now consider his property in Segovia. Abraham Senior’s home, bought with his own money, was situated in the heart of the Jewish quarter in Corpus Christi Street;125 it was his principal dwelling, worth 800,000 mrs before the expulsion.126 His neighbours were Rabbi Meir Melamed (who became Fernán Pérez Coronel) and Diego Pérez. This house was not alone, for Abraham Senior (or Fernán Núñez Coronel) owned another fifteen houses in the Calle de la Zapatería in Segovia. He let those houses to tenants for a total of 30,000 mrs,127 apparently annually. In the opinion of one witness, Gonzalo de Hiniesta, Abraham Senior had bought five or six pairs of houses in the former Jewish quarter, in Corpus Christi Street, estimated to be worth 300,000 mrs. They were purchased after the expulsion.128 Francisco de Soto gave evidence to like effect:129 Coronel’s houses were ‘an entire neighbourhood from the Calle de la Zapatería to the Jewish quarter, next to the house of Fernán Pérez’.130 The purchase of the house of the converso Gonzalo de Cuéllar, in the main square, the Plaza de San Miguel, deserves special attention. He may have wanted to buy the house at first, but the owner refused to sell it for 3,000 florins. It had a garden worth, in Hiniesta’s opinion, 600,000 mrs; Bernaldino de Casasola valued the house at 600,000 or 700,000 mrs. Cuéllar was a regidor of Segovia and was tried by the Inquisition there.131 Apparently Abraham Senior bought the house after he was condemned to be burnt in 1490 and his property was confiscated by the Inquisition. According to the testimony of Francisco de Soto, Abraham Senior, along with Yose Abravanel, received a grant of houses from the Crown.132 We do not know what motivated the Crown to grant them this property, 125 The Marquess of Lozoya identified the house of the Coronel family with a house located on the Calle del Sol. He bases this identification upon Peñalosa, ‘Juan Bravo’, 79–80. See also Teófilo Hernando, ‘Luis y Antonio Nuñez Coronel’, ES 21 (1969), 413–15. 126 Testimony of Pedro González de León (Hacienda, Leg. 1 No. 77, fo. 1r); after the expulsion, when he testified, the house was worth 700,000 mrs. The testimony of Gonzalo de Hiniesta was similar (ibid.). Alfonso de Barrionuevo estimated the value of the house at 1 m. mrs; Francisco de Soto was unable to appraise the house. Bernaldino de Casasola appraised the house at 700,000 mrs (fos. 4r–5r). Another copy of his testimony is in Hacienda, Leg. 1 No. 77. After Senior’s death the heirs divided the house. See Peñalosa, ‘Juan Bravo’, 90, 97 ff. 127 Testimony of Pedro González de León. In the opinion of Gonzalo de Hiniesta, his income from rent was 25,000 mrs. 128 Testimony of Gonzalo de Hiniesta (fo. 2r): ‘que compro agora’. He testifed on 8 Dec. 1492. 129 See ibid., fos. 3r–4r. 130 ‘Con un barrio entero desde la çapateria fasta la juderia junto de casa de Fernan Peres’, ibid. On the legacy left by Fernán Pérez Coronel (Meir Melamed) to the Monasterio del Parral see Carrete Parrondo, ‘La hacienda castellana’, 347 n. 16 and the bibliography there. Francisco de Soto was a witness to the purchase of Gonzalo de Cuéllar’s house and had lived in several houses owned by Fernán Núñez Coronel, as he said: ‘Dormido en mas dellas’ (fo. 3v). 131 Loeb, Graetz, and Fita, ‘La Inquisición de Torquemada’, 392–403. See also Caro Baroja, Los judíos, i (Madrid, 1962), 144 n. 35. For Bernaldino de Casasola’s estimate, given on 18 Dec. 1492, see fo. 4v. 132 Hacienda, Leg. 1 No. 77, fo. 4v. Casasola testified that Abraham Senior and Yose Abravanel received Cuéllar’s house. This witness testified that the land alone cost Senior 500,000 mrs, and he also laid out money to renovate fifteen pairs of houses that he had bought.

438

the senior dynasty

though it was probably a reward for their loyalty and activity in matters of taxation. Seeing the date of Abraham Senior’s conversion, in comparison to the date when the Abravanel family went into exile, it seems likely that Abraham Senior’s willingness to convert and his conversion were given great publicity. In Ávila Senior had three or four houses in the city square, worth 300,000 mrs.133 He had received some of the houses as an inheritance from his father. The rest he had bought from his brothers.134 Francisco de Soto reported that Abraham Senior had bought vineyards and a pine-grove (‘pinar’) worth 150,000 mrs from a Jewish woman named Doña Clara.135 But according to the testimony of Alfonso de Barrionuevo,136 Senior owned a pair of large houses in Ávila, on the square of the small market (‘mercado chico’), and in the same area he owned four pairs of houses near the public oven (‘forno publico’) in Horse Street (‘Calle de los Caballos’), which was in the Jewish quarter, and in New Street (‘Calle Nueva’).137 According to Bernaldino de Casasola, the value of Senior’s houses in Ávila was 350,000 mrs.138 Abraham Senior owned other property in a place named Cebreros in the province of Ávila. This consisted of a house, land, vineyards, inns, and vessels worth over 300,000 mrs.139 He inherited even more from his father and mother and also bought 133 Testimony of Pedro González de León (fo. 1r). According to Gonzalo Yntiesta (Ynestrosa) the houses were on Caldeandrín Street and were worth 300,000 mrs (fo. 2r). Today the street is called Calle de los Reyes Católicos. See León Tello, Ávila, passim. Francisco de Soto corroborated this evidence. According to this witness, several of the houses were in Calle de Caballos and Calle Nueva (fo. 3v). In his opinion the total value of the houses was 320,000 mrs, and the value of the houses in those two streets was 160,000 mrs. 134 According to the testimony of Bernaldino de Casasola (fo. 5r) he inherited the houses from his mother and bought out his brothers, and he also bought from other Jewish landlords. 135 Ibid., fo. 3v. Doña Clara was his sister and went into exile. See the testimony of Bernaldino de Casasola (fo. 5r). 136 He testified on 10 Dec. 1492 in Olmedo before Francisco González of Seville. This witness was interrogated regarding the property of Diego de Bracamonte, a resident and regidor of Ávila. 137 See Carrete Parrondo, ‘La hacienda castellana’, 346 n. 13. The district is called ‘judería vieja’. See León Tello, Ávila, 31, 163 (doc. 483). 138 The fate of one of these houses is worth recording. On 3 Mar. 1497 the Crown answered the petition of Francisco de Henares, a resident and regidor of Ávila, who claimed that the city had no property, and was too poor to purchase a building for itself; council meetings were therefore held in a privately owned apartment for which the city paid an annual rent of 2,000 mrs. There was a house in the city square, the place where municipal assemblies had once been held. The corregidor lived in the house, and it was there that he maintained his prison. The price of the house was 80,000 mrs. The Crown ordered it to be sold on account of a debt owed by Fernán Núñez Coronel. Since it was very old and its repair demanded further investment, Francisco de Henares requested the Crown to order its purchase and repair and also the paving of several streets (‘empedrar algunas calles’), because no one was willing to contribute to that purpose. The Crown responded to this petition and ordered the corregidor and magistrate of Ávila to examine the house and its state of repair. This information was to be sent to the Crown Council notarized and under seal. As for paving the streets, the Crown ordered the residents of the city to do so at their expense, according to each resident’s ability, including the poor. Those who refused would be punished. See RGS 14 No. 691, fo. 58, issued in Burgos with the approbation of the council. 139 ‘Vnas casas prinçipales e muchas tierras e viñas e bodegas e vasyjas, lo qual puede valer mas de 300,000 maravedis’. Testimony of Pedro González de León (fo. 1r). According to the testimony of Francisco de Yntiesta (Ynestrosa), the value of the property was 200,000 mrs. According to the testimony of Francisco de Soto (fo. 3v) it was worth 360,000 mrs. The place was located in part of San Martín de Valdeiglesias. According to the testimony of Alfonso de Barrionuevo (fo. 2v), the place was in the district of Ávila (‘Tierra de Avila’).

the senior dynasty

439

property with his own money and improved the place.140 Bernaldino de Casasola, who estimated the value of the property at 500,000 mrs,141 testified that Senior had inherited some of it from his father, he had bought another part of it from his sister Doña Clara, who left the kingdom (apparently in exile). However, another source states that he inherited the property from his mother, and that he had bought out his brothers.142 He had also inherited vineyards and pine forests worth 150,000 mrs from a Jewish woman. Abraham Senior also owned property in Trujillo, Cáceres, and Ocaña.143 In San Martín de Valdeiglesias he bought property comprising furniture and household items (‘ajuelo’),144 and some olive-trees from the Jewish community, which he probably bought after the community liquidated its property.145 In Puente del Arzobispo he owned houses and land, pastures, and vineyards, and he also had property in Murcia and Estremadura and in other places in Castile.146 The evidence concerning Senior’s property clearly came from people familiar with it who knew its value from close at hand. Pedro González de León estimated the total property at 1,930,000 mrs, Gonzalo de Hiniesta at 2,130,000 mrs. In contrast to them, Alonso de Barrionuevo estimated it at 4,910,000 mrs (and he added another 1,000 doblas to its value), and Francisco de Soto’s appraisal was 4,330,000 mrs. The appraisal of Bernaldino de Casasola was closer to that of the first two witnesses: 2,500,000 mrs.147 Thus we may arrive at a fair estimate of the land and buildings owned of Abraham Senior, or Fernán Núñez Coronel. Given the value of Luis de Alcalá’s holdings, presented below, the higher estimates for Senior’s seem more credible, since they were partners in transactions and obligations which were divided more or less equally.148 Luis de Alcalá, a collector and farmer of taxes, was over 50 years old in 1492 when the inventory was made. Like Coronel, he had requested it himself; the Crown gave authorization on 25 September 1492.149 The hearing began to be collected on 26 November 1492 before the judge of Madrid, Juan de [ ], ‘teniente de los offiçios de la justiçia’ of the corregidor of Madrid, Juan de Valderrama. Luis de Alcalá’s letrado, Juan de Laredo, appeared in his name. 140 ‘Conpro e ha labrado e mejorado en ello mucho’, testimony of Francisco de Soto (fo. 4r). In the opinion of Alfonso de Barrionuevo he had inherited the place from his father. This is also the testimony of Bernaldino de Casasola (ibid.). 141 Ibid. According to the testimony the property was located in Serranías de la Nueva. 142 Ibid., fo. 5v. 143 The testimony of Pedro González de León (fo. 1r). He was unable to estimate its value. This was apparently hearsay evidence and not direct knowledge. 144 Ajuar is a general term for household items and furnishings given as a dowry. Here the term might refer to a farm. 145 The testimony of Bernaldino de Casasola (fo. 5v). On that community see Cantera Burgos, ‘La judería 146 de San Martín de Valdeiglesias’, 278. Casasola (fo. 5v). 147 Thus the value of Abraham Senior’s property is close to that of Luis de Alcalá, regarding whom see below. 148 See M. A. Ladero Quesada, El siglo XV en Castilla, 143–67, esp. 157, where he estimates the value of Abraham Senior’s property at 1,300,000 mrs. It is noteworthy that the document concerning Abraham Senior/Fernán Núñez Coronel does not mention his age at all. 149 The testimony is recorded in Hacienda, Leg. 1 No. 76. See n. 107 above on Juan de Laredo, who was Abraham Senior’s attorney.

440

the senior dynasty

The four first witnesses who were presented for the appraisal of Luis de Alcalá’s wealth were his kinsman Juan Gutiérrez de Toledo,150 who had no part in his business or property; his son-in-law Gonzalo de Monzón; Luis de Villanueva;151 and Fernán García. On 28 November 1492 additional witnesses were listed: Diego González de Madrid; comendador Pedro de Buduerna; alcaide Fernando Gutiérrez; Pedro de Lue[ ]a, and Alonso Fernández of Madrid. Two of the witnesses, related respectively by blood and marriage, undoubtedly provided first-hand information; their reliability is certainly greater than that of any who testified regarding the property of Abraham Senior. However, nothing can be said about the source of the information provided by the other witnesses. The personal information regarding Luis de Alcalá is interesting. He was regarded as a trustworthy man of good repute, and he represented the interests of the Crown in the royal court.152 Luis de Alcalá paid debts and salaries well, honestly, and without lawsuits.153 He had no business other than tax-farming, in which he was engaged with partners. He had leased the income of the Cardinal of Spain in the archdiocese of Toledo.154 He obtained his property by his own means after marrying,155 and he had no debts for property or lawsuits about it. Nor had he any property which was, legally speaking, mayorazgo, nor was there a lien on any of his property.156 The property did not belong to any body, university, or public institution, monastery, caballero, or the like. It all served as a guarantee to the Crown. He was more than 25 years old (in other words, he was not a minor), and even twice that age; he had a wife to whom he was still married and by whom he had sons. Most of Luis de Alcalá’s property was in Madrid and its region. In Madrid he owned a house that he had renovated and in which he lived, worth more than 700,000 mrs;157 he had spent a lot of money on it, and it was to be seen as ‘casas muy prinçipales’.158 He had bought another house near that one, which had belonged to a priest. He had also invested money in that house, which was worth 45,000 mrs more or less. Another large house of his, also a ‘casa prinçipal’, was located in San Salvador Square. He had bought that house, along with an inn (‘bodega’), from Pedro de Vargas. He had also bought two shops with the house from Fernando de Villareal. It was worth 180,000 mrs. ‘Pariente bien çercano’, ibid. He was Meir Melamed’s emissary in 1487–8 for the collection of the montazgo tax on the herds of the Mesta in Chinchilla, which grazed in Murcia. In July (day missing) 1488 he was ordered to release the herds from confiscation and return the dues collected to their owners or to Jorge Mejía of the Mesta council. RGS 5 No. 3681, fo. 174. 152 Testimony of Juan Gutiérrez de Toledo, Hacienda, Leg. 1 No. 76, fo. 10v. 153 This is also the testimony of Alonso Fernández de Madrid (fos. 24r ff.). He had known him for ten years (that is to say, from 1482). Luis de Alcalá had lawsuits only with people who owed him money. 154 Don Isaac Abravanel dealt in tax-farming for the Cardinal of Spain. Luis de Alcalá might have been his partner, or else he might have inherited the association from Yose Abravanel after the expulsion. 155 This is also the testimony of Luis de Villanueva and Fernán García (fo. 24v). 156 Comendador Pedro de Buduerna thought he was the wealthiest man in Madrid, and he also knew him to be a decent man (fo. 25v). According to the alcaide, Pedro Gutiérrez, there was no one with more extensive business dealings (fo. 25v). 157 This was also the approximate value of Abraham Senior’s house, see above. 158 Most likely this was a kind of criterion for sumptuous residences—a palace. 150 151

the senior dynasty

441

At the edge of the city, near Puerta del Sol, he had an inn (‘bodega’) and also a cellar (‘cueva’) and vessels (‘vasijas’) worth 30,000 mrs. In the Santa Cruz neighbourhood, in the vicinity (‘arrabal’) of Madrid, he had two pairs of houses that had belonged to Luis de Valera, worth 60,000 mrs. He had bought an annuity (‘juro’) worth 45,000 mrs.159 These assets included property that had belonged to Juan Arias, worth 10,000 mrs, and to the licenciado de Chinchilla, worth 45,000 mrs and more.160 In the vicinity of Madrid, Luis de Alcalá owned a vineyard and an olive-grove (‘majuelo e olivar’), which had cost him 20,000 mrs. Their area was approximately 40 aranzadas (the Castilian aranzada was 44.7 hectares). On the road of Santa María de Concha he had an extensive walled garden worth 45,000 mrs or 40,000 mrs. He also had vineyards with a total area of 20 aranzadas, and the value of that property was 80,000 mrs. He also owned land worth 25,000 mrs. In Getafe, Zorita, Perales, and Fuenlabrada he owned land of an area of 28 yuntas; (896 hectares), vineyards and a dovecote, which had cost him a lot of money and which was worth 800,000 mrs. In Vallecas he had property (‘heredad’) including land, houses, vineyards, and lots worth 230,000 mrs. In Usualmadera, near Madrid, he owned land worth 150,000 mrs for growing grain (‘de pan llevar’). In Ribas, also near Madrid, he owned land worth 100,000 mrs for grain. In Vadillo, near Madrid, he had 1 yantar of pasture land (‘vn yantar de tierras de yerva’), which was worth 50,000 mrs. He also owned half a garden, his part of which was worth 40,000 mrs. In Peñalver and Alhoçen he owned 45 cántares of olive oil, which was worth 25,000 mrs. In Huramojones, near Madrid, he owned land worth 15,000 mrs. In Carabanchel, near Madrid, he owned land worth 20,000 mrs. In Atocha, also near Madrid, he owned a garden worth 40,000 mrs.161 In Madrid he also possessed gold, silver, upholstery fabric (‘tapiçerias’), slaves, livestock, and household articles worth 600,000 mrs. In Alcaraz he owned a juro worth 10,000 mrs, which he had bought from Diego de Madrid. Juan Gutiérrez valued it at 140,000 mrs. In Segovia he owned an estate, Dehesa de Soto de Rediera, worth 16,300 mrs. The value of the property at the time of the testimony was 500,000 mrs.162 In Alcalá de Henares he owned property worth 125,000 mrs.163 Thus the total value of Luis de Alcalá’s property came to 5,055,000 mrs, according to the testimony of Juan Gutiérrez de Toledo, whereas according to the testimony of Gonzalo de Monzón and Luis de Villanueva,164 its value was slightly less: 5,015,000 mrs.165 Testimony of Juan Gutiérrez de Toledo (fo. 15r–v). According to the document, this should be 35,000 mrs. 161 His son-in-law Gonzalo de Monzón testified to this (ibid.). Today the Calle de Atocha is a central street in Madrid. 162 163 Testimony of Juan Gutiérrez de Toledo (ibid.). Testimony of Gonzalo de Monzón (ibid.). 164 165 See fos. 19v ff. Fernán García estimated his wealth at 4,984,000 mrs (fo. 21v). 159 160

442

the senior dynasty

Without doubt these witnesses possessed first-hand information, and their appraisal must be regarded as authentic. In comparing Abraham Senior (Fernán Núñez Coronel) to Luis de Alcalá, it must be stated that each was the wealthiest man in his region. Apparently Luis de Alcalá’s wealth slightly exceeded that of Abraham Senior. Among the assets of Luis de Alcalá were extensive land holdings of considerable size. To complete the picture let us add the appraisal of the wealth of Diego de Bracamonte, a resident of Ávila, though we do not know why the appraisal was made. As noted, he might have served as a guarantor for Abraham Senior—Fernán Núñez Coronel. Surprisingly, he was a 26-year-old bachelor.166 He was a caballero-hidalgo and regidor in his city of Ávila, the son of a wealthy family, and had inherited its property from his father, his uncle Alonso de Bracamonte, his aunt María (married to Alonso de Ávila), and also from his mother, Doña Teresa, known as la pavona.167 Diego de Bracamonte owned a house in Ávila near Puerta de Misal, and the house was worth 1,000 doblas.168 According to the testimony of Francisco de Soto, the house was worth more than 350,000 mrs, but Bernaldino de Casasola appraised it at 250,000 mrs. He had inherited the house from his uncle Alonso, and there is no doubt that it was modest in comparison to the houses of Fernán Núñez Coronel and Luis de Alcalá. He inherited a place named Cruz from his father, and from his mother, Doña Teresa, known as la pavera, he inherited a placed named Valle.169 In Fuentesol, located at a distance of 3 leagues from Medina del Campo, he had an estate for which he was offered 3 m. mrs, but he refused to sell the property even for 4 million. He inherited it from his uncle Alonso de Bracamonte. According to the testimony of Bernaldino de Casasola he owned 250 cows on that estate.170 In Crusisera, in the region of Ávila, he possessed hundreds of fanegas of grain (‘pan’), hundreds of hens, and hay (‘paja en velaminas’), and coarse woollen cloth (‘albornos’). The area of the land was 650 fanegas.171 Elsewhere he owned 1,000 fanegas of grain and 50,000 mrs in silver, more or less, from the grazing area of the mountain (‘yerva de monte’).172 This appraisal of his property is instructive regarding the place of Abraham Senior in the Jewish community and, after his conversion, in the Christian community. 166 According to the testimony of Francisco de Soto, he was engaged (‘desposado’). But he regarded him as a very wealthy man. See Hacienda, Leg. 1 No. 73. 167 Below in testimony his grandmother is called la pavona. See the testimony of Alfonso de Barrionuevo and also that of Bernaldino de Casasola (fo. 4r). 168 Testimony of Alfonso de Barrionuevo, ibid. 169 According to the testimony of Francisco de Soto, he had ‘el valle e termino redondo que le renta mil fanegas de pan e çinquenta mil maravedis de dinero’ (fo. 4r). Cruz appears to have been an important place. 170 In his testimony he also said that he offered Diego de Bracamonte 3 m. mrs for the property (fo. 6r). 171 He inherited this from his aunt María (ibid.). 172 Bernaldino de Casasola testified on 18 Dec. 1492 that the places where they were located were villages (‘aldeas’) in the area of Ávila. There he had 600 fanegas of grain. The witness was unable to evaluate the property. He reported that near another village he had 700 fanegas of straw and also poultry. Francisco de Soto testified to 600 or 800 fanegas of grain in income (‘pan de renta’), but Bernaldino de Casasola reported 1,000 fanegas of leased land. He was the owner of the mountain there, and the witness did not know its value (ibid.).

the senior dynasty

443

When he was confronted with the choice of either going into exile and losing almost all of this property or conversion, the property was apparently a weighty consideration.

v. abraham senior as tax-farmer and tax-collector In the foregoing account, we have attempted to ascertain as closely as possible the extent of Abraham Senior’s assets at the beginning of his far-reaching financial career, and what assets he purchased over time, as well as what he obtained after his conversion to Christianity. One of the first questions we must ask is whether Abraham Senior acted alone or with partners as a tax-farmer or tax-collector. Without doubt, both taxfarming and tax-collection demanded the maintenance of an apparatus, whether large or small. Thus we must ask whom Abraham Senior employed, whether some of his employees were Jewish, or whether he employed only non-Jews in his activities. Below we shall see that he had both Jewish and non-Jewish subcontractors. He also included the members of his family in the tax-farming, especially his son-in-law, Rabbi Meir Melamed, who apparently came from an affluent family.173 With respect to ties with partners, a distinction must be made between the period before the ‘pragmática of tax-farming’ of 1490–1,174 essentially that preceding the expulsion, and the partnerships that were formed after the expulsion until they were dissolved. Regarding the earlier partnerships, we have already mentioned those with Abraham and Vidal Bienveniste, members of the well-known family from Soria, and Senior’s close ties with Diego Arias Dávila. The list of tax-farmers and collectors who were active during the reign of the Catholic Monarchs in Castile itself is impressive, and important efforts have already been made to list all of them and estimate the extent of their operations. During the reign of Enrique IV, Abraham Senior was apparently closely involved in financial affairs connected with the kingdom. As early as 1466 he transferred funds to the Royal Treasury from the servicio and montazgo taxes, and in that year he farmed the maritime tithe of Castile (‘diezmos del mar de Castilla’).175 In reference to the reign of the Catholic Monarchs, it may be said that Abraham Senior had a hand in everything, and this was true after the expulsion as well, until his death, which was no earlier than 1496. Central to this involvement were the problems of his relations with his sons and heirs and grandsons in tax-farming.176 173 See the section below on Rabbi Meir Melamed. On his relations with Don Isaac Abravanel see Netanyahu, Don Isaac Abravanel, and Ch. 9 below. In the opinion of Baer, Toledot, 468, most of the taxfarming was concentrated in the hands of Rabbi Meir Melamed from 1491 on, but see below, Sect. IX. 174 See Beinart, ‘The Memorandum’. 175 See Baer, JchS ii. 387 ff. See also M. A. Ladero Quesada, El siglo XV en Castilla, 143–67. 176 When Enrique was Crown Prince, Abraham Senior was the partner of Yose Lumbroso in keeping his accounts. See Carrete Parrondo, Proceso inquisitorial, 380 n. 4: ‘Tubo ofiçio de la contaduria con don Abraham Seneor por Rabi Yuçe quando el rey don Henrique era prinçipe’. See also M. A. Ladero Quesada, ‘Un préstamo’, 155. See also RGS 11 No. 3674, fo. 506, dated 6 Nov. 1494. Enrique succeeded to the throne in 1454. Perhaps the person to whom he was connected was Yose Ibn Shemtov. In any event Abraham Senior had business connections with the Crown quite early. He contracted for the montazgo tax in 1469, and in 1473 he also took on the 10 per cent tax on seaports in Castile. See id., El siglo XV en Castilla, 163; A.

444

the senior dynasty

A complaint lodged by Fernando de Talavera, an escudero in the service of Abraham Senior, provides information about his activities during the reign of the Catholic Monarchs. He brought suit before the Crown against Pedro de Maeda, the son of Juan García de Maeda, Rodrigo de la Corsa, and Juan de Riocandio regarding a robbery they committed in October 1477, when Fernando de Talavera was in a tavern (‘posada’) on his way to Seville, where the Catholic Monarchs were in residence. At that time the monarchs were establishing their authority and engaged in important domestic political activity. Fernando de Talavera had 110,000 mrs on him.177 The thief, Pedro de Maeda, reached Sanlúcar de Barrameda with his plunder. There he met Juan de Riocandio and Rodrigo de la Corsa. The three of them divided the money, more or less equally. Their accomplices were Juan and García Piamento, Juan Bueno, and Juan de Alday. The latter two provided shelter for the confederates and shared the money with them. They boarded a ship owned by Juan de Alday, which took them beyond the Crown’s reach.178 This document is instructive not only about the manner in which money was transferred to the Crown but also regarding the dangers awaiting those who transferred the money. Only by lodging a complaint could the bearer of the money clear himself as an emissary, and with him, the man who had engaged him, Abraham Senior. One wonders how the plaintiff knew the details of the division of the spoils and the names of those who assisted the thieves in their flight. Another important detail is the size of the sum of money sent by Abraham Senior to Seville.179 Mackay, ‘Popular Movements and Pogroms in Castile’, Past and Present, 55 (May 1972), 43–4. Mackay bases his article on AGS, Exp. Hacienda, Leg. 2, fo. 457r. Regarding 1468 we must take note of the prohibition against Jews dealing in collection or receiving official positions. Nevertheless, Senior continued his tax-farming. See Amador de los Ríos, Historia, 642–4. On these problems see below. A detailed description of the money he was bearing is found in the document: RGS 1 No. 3075, fo. 320, dated 17 Nov. 1477, in Seville, where Fernando de Talavera went to present his complaint to the Crown. See J. Edwards, Christian Córdoba (Cambridge, 1984), appendix 2, 202–4. One real was worth 7 mrs. See Hacienda, Leg. 1 No. 73, Ley 1 No. 75. On the value of the coin and exchange rates, see Edwards, Christian Córdoba. 178 Fernando de Talavera asked the Crown magistrates to try the partners in the robbery and impose a heavy punishment on them, as they deserved ‘por fuero e por derecho’. The magistrates issued an arrest warrant, and the alguaciles searched for them but did not manage to catch them. Then the magistrates ordered the warrant to be proclaimed in the city squares. The thieves were to return their spoils (110,300 mrs), and if they did not have the money, the duty to return it would fall upon Pedro de Maeda, as the principal culprit. If he did not pay he would be sentenced to death by hanging. As for his associates, Juan de Riocandio and Rodrigo de la Corsa, their ears and hands were to be cut off. They were also to pay the costs of the trial. The same punishment was decreed for the other four thieves. The order is signed by Fernando, licenciado; de la Fuente, licenciado; de Proaña, licenciado; and Pedro de Sierra. 179 This is an opportune place to describe the conditions for transferring funds to the royal court for the Crown’s needs. Although the following event was relatively late, it is indicative. Fernán Núñez Coronel addressed the Crown with a complaint against Diego López de San Miguel, a resident of Porto in Portugal, who had stolen a purse (‘barjoleta’) from his (Coronel’s) agent, containing 1,670,000 mrs. Fernán Núñez Coronel requested an arrest warrant against Diego López, to seize him wherever he might be. This was issued with the approbation of the Royal Council and the Crown; Alonso Ruiz de la Cámara was ordered to arrest him. Indeed, he managed to find him in possession of 630,000 mrs and to bring him before the council under arrest. This sum was conveyed to Fernán Núñez Coronel, who on 2 May 1493 was ordered to pay it within three days to Dr Alonso Ramírez de Villaescusa, the corregidor of Valladolid. The latter was to retain 177

the senior dynasty

445

In 1477–8 Abraham Senior farmed the service and mountain taxes (‘servicio y montazgo’) of the Mesta.180 His partner in this transaction was Abraham Bienveniste of Guadalajara, who was apparently the grandson of the rab de la corte Abraham Bienveniste of Soria. We cannot say whether Bienveniste initiated this transaction, and Abraham Senior joined in as a partner, or the latter had sufficient means to take it on by himself. On 10 October 1477 the Crown informed a long list of people who had invested money in the Mesta, including dukes, marquesses, counts, prelates, and wealthy men (‘ricos omes’), the heads of orders, priors of monasteries, comendadores and their assistants, alcaides of citadels, caballeros, escuderos, clergymen, and the heads of public bodies, that the farming of the taxes on the Mesta herds had been entrusted to the two aforementioned commissioners at all the old tollbooths (‘puertos antiguos’) in which transit taxes were collected.181 The Crown took the shepherds and flock owners under its protection. The part played by Abraham Senior in collecting this tax was to become very extensive. Another order, issued in Jerez de la Frontera on 19 October 1477, can be seen as an extension of the former one.182 Complaints had reached the Crown that every year arbitrary collections were made at the tollbooths, old and new alike. The tax-collectors, who apparently had already held concessions during the reign of Enrique IV, argued that he had permitted them to establish a tollbooth wherever they wished, although the owners and the shepherds claimed that they had already paid at the old tollbooths, or that they intended to pay at the tollbooths where they planned to cross with their flocks. In order to prevent abuses, the Crown ordered that the transit tax was to be paid just once a year, and in one place. To this effect, a precedent was found in a law of the Cortes of Ocaña of 1469,183 as well as a law of the Cortes of María de la Nieve of 1473. The Catholic Monarchs ratified the arrangement at the Cortes of Madrigal in 1476. However, these laws were not obeyed, and the tax-collectors at the tollbooths continued to act on their own and demand transit taxes. This caused a rise in the price of wool and sheepskins, to the prejudice of the state. At a meeting of the Hermandad General in Burgos in 1477, it was decided that only someone working on behalf of the Crown could collect the servicio and montazgo taxes at the fixed tollbooths.184 The Hermandad asked the Crown to appoint a taxfarmer or collector; the Crown nominated Abraham Senior and Abraham Bienveniste. The Crown affected to concede that the expenses of collection exceeded the revenue raised, though it is highly unlikely that the pair would have agreed to suffer a loss without finding some way of covering it. The owners of the flocks and the shepherds the money until the Crown determined what should be done with it. The Crown evidently viewed such acts of robbery with great severity. The order also instructs that other objects, which had apparently been confiscated during the robbery, should be delivered to the corregidor. The fine for failure to deliver them would be 2,000 gold doblas for construction and public works that the Crown had ordered to be carried out in Granada. A notary who failed to obey the order would be fined 10,000 mrs. For the order see RGS 10 No. 1128, fo. 311, issued in Olmedo. We do not know the outcome of this case. 180 On the tax and the vicissitudes of its application see J. Klein, The Mesta (Cambridge, Mass., 1920), 181 275 ff., index,. s.v. See RGS 1 No. 2820, fo. 72, issued in Jerez de la Frontera. 182 183 See RGS 1 No. 2868, fo. 118. That is to say, during the reign of Enrique IV. 184 Anyone who violated the order would be regarded as a robber (‘robador’) and be punishable accordingly.

446

the senior dynasty

were asked to pay transit taxes to the two collectors or those whom they designated as collectors upon entering or leaving the old transit points. During the first year the tax would be paid at the transit point when the flocks entered the grazing area; in the following year it would be paid upon leaving.185 The Crown took the owners of the flocks and the shepherds under its protection and promised that no new taxes would be imposed upon them, and that the collectors would not demand new taxes from them, that they would not arrest the flock owners or shepherds or impound their flocks for failure to pay the tax.186 Abraham Senior and Abraham Bienveniste were ordered to retain the money they collected until the Crown determined what was to be done with it, and it forbade them to add taxes to those that had been set at the transit points. This tax-collection is apparently connected with an order issued by the Catholic Monarchs on 14 December 1477.187 Don Álvaro de Zúñiga, the prior of the monastery of San Juan, was ordered to pay 200,000 mrs to Abraham Senior and Abraham Bienveniste as a transit tax for 1,200 sheep at the Villaharta tollbooth.188 He had not paid that sum at the time the sheep had crossed it. If he did not pay, his property and vassals were to be seized and sold. There is no doubt that the two tax-farmers were behind this order. The tax year, as was customary for all taxes farmed in advance for a specific period of time, commenced on St John’s Day (24 June) 1477 and lasted until St John’s Eve the following year. On 13 March the queen ordered Abraham Senior and Abraham Bienveniste to forgo the collection of the servicio and montazgo tax in Montalbán, in favour of the Marquess of Villena or whomever he should authorize. Diego López Pacheco, Duke of Escalona and Marquess of Villena, who served as the queen’s mayordomo, complained to her that his right to collect the servicio and montazgo tax on his estates and those of his wife, Doña Juana de Luna, and his mother, the Marquesa Doña María de Portocarrero, was not being honoured. He had collected this tax in the past, and he asked for permission to continue collecting it. The amount involved was 1,435,000 mrs for the marquess, solely from the town of Jiquena.189 In partnership with Vidal Bienveniste Abraham Senior collected a tax known as dos pedidos a treynta e seys monedas,190 which municipalities and localities in the region of Toledo paid to Queen Isabella’s aunt in the kingdom of Castile in 1473–4. The two partners collected the alcabala tax in 1475 in Talavera de la Reina and in Villafranca de la Puente.191 However, other people were collecting money illicitly in those places. Lacking either clerical or secular authority in Talavera, Senior and Bienveniste could 185 Perhaps this refers to a sojourn that extended over several seasons, spring–summer and autumn–winter, in making their way from the south to the north and then back to the south. 186 Another copy of this order was issued on 22 Oct. 1477 in Jerez de la Frontera. 187 Issued in Seville. Its reference number is RGS 1 No. 3229, fo. 467. 188 This document also mentions Don Vidal Bienveniste as a partner in the tax. If he was the father of Abraham Bienveniste, Abraham Senior’s partner, he would have been the son of the court rabbi, Abraham Bienveniste. 189 They were ordered to forgo the sum of 1,435,000 mrs for the benefit of the marquess! Their income from the collection was 70,000 mrs. For the document see RGS 2 No. 412, fo. 49, issued in Seville on 17 Mar. 1478. 190 The pedido was a tax or duty imposed by the Crown or by local lords upon the residents of a place. 191 In these two towns they also collected the aforementioned pedido.

the senior dynasty

447

neither collect the taxes themselves nor prosecute those who had illegally collected them. This situation was to the Crown’s prejudice, for the two tax-farmers and collectors could not pass the tax revenues on into the Royal Treasury. The queen ordered the bachiller Diego de Cáceres, a magistrate representing Diego López de Ayala, corregidor of Talavera, a senior judge of that city, and also another personage,192 to see that the money that had been collected was delivered to the two tax-farmers and collectors, even if the old tax-collectors had documents of instruction from the Bishop of Talavera. The instruction included money from the pedido and also the third tax (‘tercia’) and the tax on grain (‘pan’). The wording of this document shows the queen’s determination to make certain that income flowed into the Royal Treasury in an orderly manner. Diego de Cáceres was authorized to use vigorous means to arrange the collection as desired by Senior and Bienveniste. In the fiscal year 1477/8 (from Michaelmas, 29 September, to the following St Michael’s Eve) Abraham Senior took a commission for the income from the tax on pasture land in the serena on the maestrazgo lands of the order of Alcantara.193 Abraham Senior requested that the Crown appoint one or two honest judges (‘sin sospecha’) with authority to adjudicate the claims he presented against recalcitrant taxpayers. The order conferred full authority to arrest defaulters or impound their property and sell it at public auction; the defaulters were also required to pay the expenses of the proceeding.194 We can learn of the extent of Abraham Senior’s tax-farming and -collection from complaints that he lodged before the Crown for injuries and difficulties arising. These complaints also shed light on the attacks made on him and his assistants, for he was hardly a beloved figure among the subjects of the kingdom.195 On 2 June 1480 Abraham Senior obtained an order from the Crown in response to a complaint against caballeros, alcaides, escuderos, and others in the area of the serena of the order of Calatrava, who interfered with the collection of a series of taxes he was farming and collecting. The list itself is quite long, and there is no doubt that the amounts of money to be collected that slipped out of his hands were not small, and we are discussing only one region.196 The taxes concerned were: the grazing taxes, tithes, servicio, and montazgo, as well as the almojarifazgo and portazgo taxes, and taxes on grain and wine and money and on herds of cattle and sheep.197 The subjects of the complaint would obstruct Abraham Senior and his assistants and interfere with the fulfilment of their task. 192 A blank space was left in the original document for the addition of a name. See RGS 2 No. 1868, fo. 56, issued in Trujillo on 2 Sept. 1479. 193 ‘Reçebtor de los yeruas e de las alcaualas de [ ]as de la Serena que en el maestradgo de Alcantara’. See RGS 1 No. 3341, fo. 584, issued on 28 Dec. 1477. Yerba was the tax levied on those who harvested hay and grass from the commons. See Klein, The Mesta, 428. Similarly the half-tithe (‘medio diezmo’) was levied on flocks that wandered, apparently not within the framework of the Mesta. 194 The magistrates and Abraham Senior were authorized to act with the full severity of the law. There was to be no appeal against the verdict. 195 See above regarding the robberies committed against him. 196 For the document see RGS 2 No. 3611, fo. 282. 197 ‘Yeruas e dyesmos e moneda de seruiçio e montadgo e almoxarifadgo e portadgo e algunas e [ ] pan e vino e maravedis e los ganados e menudos e todas las otras cosas’, ibid.

448

the senior dynasty

He encountered similar difficulties in the district of the order of Alcántara and its Mesta, as well as in the villages of Bienquerencia, Magasela, and Calavera. These were the ‘yduas, disnovos e agostaderos’ taxes, as well as the cuedillo tax collected in the area of the serena. On 26 November 1480 Sancho del Águila was appointed to serve as the magistrate and executor in the district of the Mesta of the order of Alcántara and of Puebla de Alcocer.198 From the complaints one can infer that Abraham Senior was not accepted in the areas that belonged to the military orders. These apparently insisted on independence in their rule of the areas under their dominion with respect to taxation. Tax-collection in 1480–5 did not go smoothly. In 1481 Abraham Senior and his partners, perhaps his son-in-law Rabbi Meir Melamed, farmed taxes according to the system of tenders practised in Castile as early as the reign of Enrique, based on the ‘quaderno viejo’, the resolution of the Cortes that met in Santa María de la Nieva. In 1485 Abraham Senior farmed taxes in Olmedo, and Rabbi Meir Melamed did so in Segovia, Zamora, and Toro.199 They also farmed taxes in 1482 and 1483 according to the arrangement that the winning bidder was to receive the concession within three months. The taxes farmed amounted to 1 m. mrs, to which the percentage of profit made by the tax-farmer must of course be added.200 In 1482 Abraham Senior was charged with organizing collection of the castellanos tax on the Jewish communities to finance the war in Granada.201 In that year a reform was made in the system of taxation, which will be discussed below. The guarantors whom Abraham Senior presented in 1485 for farming the general tax in the kingdom and also for the servicio and montazgo taxes202 were Juan Figueroa; Pedro Manrique, lord of Valdecaray y Arguiñana; Alfón Ramero, a resident of Zamora; Rabbi Mose Avennuño, a resident of Segovia; and Andrés de Haro, a resident of Burgos de Man Común.203 Without doubt these were all wealthy men. In that year the farming of taxes was subject to the new arrangement, the quaderno nuevo. However, in 1484 Abraham Senior farmed the alcabala and tercia taxes in the diocese of Cuenca for the following years, until the end of 1487.204 In 1486 and 1487 a tender was issued specifying that payment for the collection of farmed taxes would be made during the last three months of 1487, except for 500,000 mrs that the royal treasurer had already collected. The value of the taxes farmed for that period was 2,500,000 mrs.205 An interesting detail regarding Abraham Senior’s modus operandi emerges from the complaint against him lodged before the Crown by Rodrigo Egas of Madrid. By virtue of the power of attorney he held from the Marquess and Marchioness of Moya, to farm the alcabala and sesmos taxes of Casarrubios and Valdemoro, from 1482 Abraham Senior tendered for the collection of these taxes. Egas made the winning bid, and the 198 In 1484 he was discharged from his post because of his connections with Doña Vellida of Trujillo. 199 See Beinart, Trujillo, 14 n. 5. See Baer, JchS ii. 347. 200 See C y S Reales Leg. 10, fo. 207, dated 13 July 1515. This document is a description of the taxfarming activities of Fernán Núñez Coronel (Abraham Senior) during most of the years of his career. See 201 202 also below. On this see below. C y S Reales Leg. 10, fo. 348. 203 In this document Abraham Senior’s name is listed as Fernán Núñez Coronel, indicating that it was issued after his conversion. 204 See below regarding the farming of the castellanos tax which began in those years. 205 Clearly the tax-farmer’s profit must be added to this. See C y S Reales Leg. 10, fo. 207.

the senior dynasty

449

couple gave him a document attesting to this. He had succeeded in collecting 50,000 mrs annually, of which he transferred 45,000 mrs to the marquess. He asked that 5,000 mrs be paid to him. The Crown responded to his petition and ordered the corregidor to hear the parties and decide in such manner that Rodrigo Egas should have no reason to complain again.206 This was also the spirit of the complaint lodged by Fernando de Santillán.207 He requested payment of 58,000 mrs, a debt remaining from 1485, when he farmed and collected taxes. His fee that year from the montazgo tax had been 40,000 mrs. Abraham Senior still owed him 18,000 mrs from the previous year (1484), but refused to pay. Santillán therefore requested in 1505 that the debt of 50,000 mrs should be paid to him with an additional 40,000 mrs for his work in 1487, as the collector of taxes by sea and land (‘reçeptor de los quitos de mar e de la tierra’). The royal treasurer, Ruy López, was instructed to examine the account books; these showed that in 1485 he had been paid 50,000 mrs for supervising collection of the montazgo; in 1484 he had been paid 18,000 mrs. In the fiscal year of 1487, 40,000 mrs had been paid to him for revenues he had received in his capacity of collector of taxes on sea and land.208 It appears that, with regard to taxes, Abraham Senior treated his Jewish brethren no less severely. Jacob Levi, formerly a resident of Olmedo, who had moved from there to Madrigal at the end of 1485, complained to the Crown that taxes were being imposed upon him in Olmedo because he owned some property there. He was ordered to pay the taxes by a decision of Abraham Senior, who reached that determination ‘without consulting a sage’ (a rabbi).209 That is to say, Abraham Senior made this decision by himself, and it may be surmised that it referred to the imposition of the castellanos tax, which was collected from the Jewish communities of Castile to finance the war in Granada. This was an extremely onerous tax for the Jews,210 and Senior was the farmer of taxes in Olmedo. In the opinion of the plaintiff, this decision was against Jewish law.211 Had Abraham Senior acted as was customary among the Jews and consulted a rabbi, he would not have required Jacob Levi to pay the tax in Olmedo, since in that year, 1487, he had paid taxes in the community of Madrigal. Most likely he had been required to pay the tax there from 1485 on. When the demand for payment of taxes in Olmedo reached him, he appealed to the corregidor and resident magistrate of Madrigal. In his opinion, the legal decision reached by Abraham Senior was unjust and caused him severe material damage, especially since the Jewish community of Olmedo was about to sell the house that he owned there.212 In his petition to the Crown, Jacob 206 See RGS 4 No. 812, fo. 301, issued in Córdoba on 20 Apr. 1485. For failure to comply with the order a fine of 10,000 mrs would be imposed. Regarding the tax-farmers’ profits see Lunenfeld, Hermandad, 106 and n. 49. The profits were usually 45 mrs per mil. The profit was divided in three: 15 mrs for the taxfarmer; 15 mrs for the collectors and their assistants; and 15 mrs for the local council. Hence the local 207 councils had an interest in the proper collection of taxes. He was a contino of the king. 208 For 1485 an additional 40,000 mrs were paid. These details are repeated in the documents: C y S Reales Leg. 10, fo. 347 and C y S Reales Leg. 10, fo. 349. 209 ‘Syn el dicho sabio’: we do not know whom this refers to. See RGS 5 No. 350, fo. 62, dated 26 Mar. 1487, issued in Tordesillas. See León Tello, Ávila, 154, no. 372. 210 211 On the collection of this tax see below. ‘La ley de los judios’, ibid. 212 As was customary, he had to pay a tax in Olmedo because he owned property there.

450

the senior dynasty

Levi asked for an order instructing Abraham Senior to rescind his decision, which was invalid so long as no rabbi or Jewish judge had authorized it. Meanwhile, if the Jewish community of Olmedo had sold his house, that sale should not be valid, and should be annulled. Jacob Levi regarded himself as a resident of Madrigal, where he paid the annual tax as a member of the Jewish community. Jacob Levi’s complaint was viewed favourably by the Crown Council, and with its approbation the Crown ordered Senior to summon a Jewish personage or rabbi whom it was customary to consult on such matters, and together they should reach a decision regarding the petition. At the same time the rabbi (who was to be chosen by Abraham Senior) was ordered to meet with him to discuss the complaint. They were required to hear the parties’ arguments, that is to say, the claim of the community of Olmedo, which was supported by Abraham Senior, and that of Jacob Levi. The manner of choosing of the rabbi—the counsellor remaining under Senior’s authority—is probably indicative of the outcome of the appeal.213 This is an interesting case with respect to the exercise of authority within the Jewish community. To a considerable degree it indicates a decline in the power of the community, for in other periods such an appeal would have been addressed to one of the rabbis of Spanish Jewry. Abraham Sevillano did not hesitate to lodge a complaint before the corregidor against his community and its ‘good men’ regarding financial accounts. His complaint concerned Abraham Senior, who had received a great deal of money from the communities of Castile and Aragon to transfer to the Crown. As treasurer of the community, it was Sevillano who had to transfer the money to Abraham Senior. He presented the accounts to Isaac de Cáceres and to Rabbi Yose, as stipulated by Abraham Senior. The funds in question might be the castellanos tax, though this is not stated in the document. The corregidor required the community to pay, despite the claims of Abraham Sevillano.214 In 1488–9 the value of the taxes farmed by Abraham Senior and his partners reached 10 m. mrs.215 Debts remained from those years, as from previous years, and Abraham Senior needed court orders from the Crown for the seizure of persons and property. He frequently needed special tax-collectors to help him. In those years he also served as a guarantor for his son-in-law, Rabbi Meir Melamed.216 He entered into partnerships with various persons, including, as noted, Yose Abravanel. Pedro Zapata of Toledo should also be mentioned: he was Abraham Senior’s partner in collecting the alcabala and tercia taxes in the maestrazgo of the order of Calatrava.217 To gain insight into his career as a tax-farmer in those years, it is sufficient to glance at the descriptions of the sales of property that took place in Llerena,218 on the 213 The sanctions stipulated were loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. This refers both to the sage and to Abraham Senior. 214 See Baer, JchS ii. 381. This refers to 1486. The document is in Valladolid in the Archivo de la Chancillería. 215 On the partnership in tax-farming between Don Isaac Abravanel and Yose Abravanel see Ch. 9 below, and see also the section on the castellanos and Hermandad taxes. 216 See Baer, JchS ii. 384. Rabbi Meir farmed the alcabala and tercia taxes and also the servicio and mon217 See Baer, JchS ii. 399. tazgo taxes. In 1491 Yose Abravanel was taken as an additional guarantor. 218 See Hacienda, Leg. 1 No. 72. The document dates from 8 Oct. 1492. There are also later documents, from 10 and 12 Oct. and more.

the senior dynasty

451

orders of Fernán Núñez Coronel (formerly Abraham Senior) and his son-in-law Rabbi Meir Melamed.219 Diego Pérez de Mieses (or Meneses) was Abraham Senior’s attorney, and it was he who sold many houses that belonged to Christians who did not pay their tax obligations. For these sales testimony was taken.220 The value of the property sold was 185,000 mrs,221 for failure to pay the alcabala tax. The subcontractors for collecting the taxes that year were Alonso de Castilla, Rodrigo Contador, Rodrigo de León, Alonso Sánchez de Pero Sánchez, Juan Garzón, and Pedro Bermejo. It was they who failed to honour the obligations they had taken upon themselves. At that time property was also sold in Puebla de Sancho Pérez, on the lands of the order of Santiago. That property was sold by Diego’s son Fernán Pérez de Mieses, acting in his father’s name.222 Another document is instructive regarding the means of collection and the frauds and difficulties involved in it. A Jew named Ibn Zemero had not paid Abraham Senior the sum of 300,000 mrs which he owed for the farming of various taxes. Of this sum he gave Abraham Senior bonds for 200,000 mrs, which were owed to him in Seville and its surroundings. Abraham Senior tried to collect the tax from those who had given their bonds, but they refused to pay. The Crown responded to Abraham Senior’s complaint and ordered Juan de Valderrama to adjudicate the claim and reach a decision. However, we do not know what became of Ibn Zemero. It should be emphasized that he himself was a Jew engaged in farming and collecting taxes in Seville, whence the Jews had been expelled in 1483.223 It should also be recalled that Abraham Senior continued to farm taxes in Andalusia without interruption until the expulsion. Also in 1490 the suit of Vitores del Campo and Pero Vaca, his brother, the sons of Sancho del Campo, against Álvaro de Nájera was heard before the Crown. Nájera was Abraham Senior’s business manager (‘hazendor’) and dealt with a complaint lodged against the brothers’ mother for 40,000 mrs. He had seized 11,000 mrs from her, and the brothers claimed that the money belonged to them, as their mother’s heirs, and that Nájera must return the money he had seized. They asked the Crown to impose a punishment on him. Against them Nájera argued that the court’s decision did not apply to him, and also that, besides the two brothers, there were other heirs who had a share of their mother’s estate. Moreover, the complaint itself did not apply to him, since he was not a farmer or collector of taxes. Therefore he asked for the cancellation of the decision against him. He argued that the complaint should have been lodged against his employer, Abraham Senior. Nevertheless the brothers won the lawsuit, and the judges required Nájera to pay 7,000 mrs to the woman’s heirs within nine days; by so doing he would be exempt from other punishments.224 219 Rabbi Meir Melamed is mentioned by his Jewish name in the document, whereas Abraham Senior is mentioned by the name he assumed after his conversion. 220 Lorenzo Navarro and Rodrigo Contador (who was a subcontractor) testified, as well as other witnesses. 221 Aparicio de la Fuente estimated the value of the property that was sold at 195,000 mrs. Indeed there were no significant differences among the appraisals of the property sold. Juan de Treviño estimated it as 222 185,000. The property was purchased by Pedro Fernández de Rincón. 223 He was ‘teniente del asistente de Sevilla’. The order was issued in Seville on 23 Dec. 1490, and its reference number is RGS 7 No. 4100, fo. 68. 224 The judgment states that if he did not pay the woman’s heirs, first his moveable property was to be seized, and if he still did not pay his real property was to be confiscated and sold at public auction. He was

452

the senior dynasty

The document that mentions it dates from 1494, and in it Abraham Senior is called by his Christian name, Fernán Núñez Coronel. Such business left over from before the expulsion shows the various complications that arose from the business of farming and collecting taxes. The chief tax-farmer needed subcontractors resident in various areas. Personal responsibility for payment gave rise to the need to exact it by force, and the tax-collectors did not always act fairly. Not only did the public, both Jews and Christians, openly hate those involved in tax-collection, but the ethical standards of collection were also substandard and accompanied by acts of fraud, for which Abraham Senior was called to account.

Abraham Senior and the Castellanos Tax When the Catholic Monarchs decided to wage war against Muslim Granada, it was also decided to impose a special war tax on the Jewish community to fund a considerable part of the expenses. It seemed natural to charge Abraham Senior with the collection of this tax. His experience in this field was especially great, for, beginning in 1478, he had organized a system for farming and collecting taxes in the kingdom of Castile.225 The special tax was fixed at 12,000 golden castellanos in 1482, and it was allocated among the Jewish communities according to criteria not known to us.226 At the outbreak of hostilities, on his own initiative Abraham Senior required the Jewish communities to contribute 20,000 castellanos to the war-chest.227 In 1484 he gathered representatives of the communities in Maqueda and demanded an additional payment of 16,000 castellanos, though some communities added voluntary payments for the needs of the war. In 1486 Abraham Senior summoned the representatives of the communities to Valladolid. There they decided upon the method for levying the tax: one-third was to be paid according to the ability of the Jewish residents of the communities, and two-thirds as a poll tax, according to the number of members of the communities.228 The castellanos tax was imposed upon 216 communities, and was paid until 1491. The summary of the sums paid by the communities is revealing:229 Year 1482 1486 1488

Amount (mrs) 466,800 1,302,294 1,519,397

Year 1489 1490 1491

Amount (mrs) 4,500,752 3,976,606 4,270,466

to bear the additional expenses. If he had no property, he was to be arrested and detained until he paid the heirs what was due them. The order to enforce this judgment was issued by the magistrates of the royal court, the corregidor and magistrates of Valladolid. See RGS 11 No. 4225, fo. 171, dated 6 Dec. 1494. See Beinart, Trujillo, 53 ff. See Baer, JchS ii. 366–71. For the document on the allocation of the tax, see Cantera Burgos, ‘La judería de Miranda de Ebro’, 361 ff. Also Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 55 ff. and esp. 65–72 for the division of the levy by year. On the forced loans imposed see the Chronicle of Pulgar, ed. Mata Carriazo, ii. 25. A gold 227 See Beinart, Trujillo, 54. castellano was worth 485 mrs. 228 See Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 56. On Maqueda see Beinart, ‘The Last Jews in Maqueda’, 242. 229 These figures are the sum of the list made by Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 65–72. The figure presented for 1485 indicates a significant decline; it may be erroneous. We have singled out several years here. The total annual tax paid by the communities according to the allocation of the tax in 1474 was 458,950 mrs. The levy for the Burgos district in 1485 was 18,000 castellanos. See Cantera Burgos, ‘La judería de Miranda de Ebro’, 361–5. 225 226

the senior dynasty

453

These figures show the constant increase in the demands of the tax, and they show how onerous this tax was to the Jewish community, which had to pay it in addition to other annual taxes. From the detailed account presented by Suárez Fernández, community by community, we find that some of them ceased to exist, and it cannot be known what caused this. Moreover, in certain years the taxes levied from various communities decreased, and then rose again. A particular example of this is found in Trujillo.230 The question returns: what was the part played by Abraham Senior in determining these sums? If he took the collection of the taxes upon himself, this implies that he was convinced that the conditions of the communities were such as to permit it. In fact he would be contributing to the impoverishment of the communities unless he was certain they were capable of withstanding this grave additional pressure on their finances. In several communities the amount of taxes collected rose tenfold, for example in Guadalajara and Ocaña.231 Perhaps this indicates that these communities were joined by refugees from Andalusia. But how would these refugees have had the means to pay? The question remains unanswered. The meeting of community representatives in Maqueda is connected to another step, which was to obtain an exemption from fines for the excessive interest charged by Jews on loans to Christians.232 It is important for our purposes to know whether the community representatives met because they were required to do so by the Crown, which threatened to impose a heavy fine on them for taking forbidden interest, or whether this was an initiative on the part of Abraham Senior, who sought to solve a painful problem and also to display loyalty to the Crown. One must also ask: how was the special levy allocated among the communities? The community representatives and notables who were present at the conference agreed to pay the sum of 16,000 castellanos at fixed intervals, and they empowered Abraham Senior to allocate the sum among the communities. In effect this shows that the communities admitted to transgressing the prohibition against charging usurious interest. Furthermore, an order of 30 November 1484 states: For among them the ancient system is practised and upheld that the representatives of the said communities who came to such assemblies may divide and do divide among all the said communities the taxes and contributions in kind voted by them, even if not all the representatives of all the said communities in our said realms and dominions are present, provided that they had previously been summoned thereto.233

Abraham Senior did indeed allocate the sum among the communities, thus becoming the collector who was to deliver the special levy to the war-chest. If the communities and notables did not meet their obligations or pay in time, Abraham Senior was permitted to arrest them, sell their property, and pay the Crown in maravedís without 231 See Beinart, Trujillo, 54. See Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 65–72. See RGS 3 No. 3749, fo. 83. The order was issued in Seville on 30 Nov. 1484. See Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 243–4, and in general Ch. 4. 233 ‘Porque entre ellos esta tal constituçion antigua usada e guardada que los procuradores de las dichas aljamas que vynieren a las tales juntas puedan repartyr e repartan por todas las dichas aljamas los maravedis e cosas que por ellos fueren otorgades, puesto caso que a ello non sean presentes todos los procuradores de todas las dichas aljamas de los dichos nuestros reynos e señorios syendo llamados primeramenta para ello’, ibid. 230 232

454

the senior dynasty

converting the proceeds into gold castellanos. Anyone who wished to buy could do so; until the property was sold, the arrested Jews were to be kept in prison and not released on bail until they paid what they owed. Senior was permitted to collect expenses that he incurred in collecting this tax.234 The problem of interest and the fine imposed on the communities described above were connected to a petition to the queen lodged by Jacob Cachopo, one of their representatives, regarding the agreement he had reached with Abraham Senior. Cachopo pointed out that it had been decided to exempt those Jews who lent money at interest and had suffered damage from magistrates who heard the claims lodged by Christian borrowers against Jewish lenders. The members of the Royal Council, without considering the agreement, sent magistrates and prosecutors to many of the Jewish communities in Castile with a daily salary, to lodge legal claims against the Jewish lenders. This caused damage to the communities and contradicted the agreement that they had reached with Abraham Senior. Cachopo requested the government to order the members of the Royal Council not to conduct investigations and not to lodge claims through the representatives. If the claims had substance, the municipal, town, and local magistrates could deal with them. The community representatives apparently assumed that the Jews of the kingdom could come to terms with the local magistrates, who were very familiar with the conditions of life where they were. Most likely this petition was lodged with the approbation of Abraham Senior.235 Before the queen issued the order, on 15 June 1485,236 the matter was examined by the members of the council. The queen determined that there was no reason to hold an investigation regarding interest, and that in case of a transgression justice could be done before a magistrate wherever this was necessary. The Royal Council would only adjudicate appeals. As for infractions concerning interest in past years,237 the members of the council could hear testimony, and as quickly as possible, so that the arrangement that had been reached regarding fines for transgressions could be maintained.238 We should emphasize that the queen’s order states explicitly that the members of the council should not take initiative beyond the policy set by the Crown. The arrangement between the Crown and Abraham Senior was apparently the result of negotiations for the purpose of obtaining additional sources of funds for the war against the Moors. We are informed about another problem that was connected with the castellanos tax from a complaint lodged by the Jewish community of Belorado for damages and injury sustained at the hands of Abraham Senior. We also learn about the controversies (‘debates’) that he had with the Jews of Ezcaray, Valgañón, and Saturde.239 The residents of these settlements were vassals of Pedro Manrique. For eighty years (that He was given a power of attorney from the Crown to execute the order. Nevertheless, Cachopo and Senior were to quarrel: see Beinart, ‘Jacob Cachopo’. 236 See RGS 4 No. 1168, fo. 212, published by Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 265–6, issued in Córdoba. 237 ‘De logros en tiempos pasados’, ibid. 238 If members of the council had sent investigators, they were to recall them; if claims had been lodged, they were to be transferred to the magistrates in the dwelling-places of the Jews who had committed those transgressions. 239 Rabbi Uzziel, the attorney for the community, was involved in the claim and he acted in its name. See RGS 5 No. 1155, fo. 200, issued in Burgos on 4 Sept. 1487. 234 235

the senior dynasty

455

is to say, since the 1420s) the Jews who lived there had been accustomed to pay their part of an annual tax of 10,000 mrs to the cathedral church of Burgos for a mass to be performed daily by a deacon and four chaplains for the soul of Don Sancho.240 It was agreed that the Jews would continue to pay this in perpetuity, and those Jews who came to live in these settlements would pay it as part of the service and half-service taxes that they paid, also for the reciting of masses. A decision to this effect had been reached thirty-two years earlier (that is to say, in 1455), and they had paid it since then. Now the communities refused to pay their part of the 10,000 mrs. Abraham Senior reached an agreement with them, that if they paid 10,000 mrs for the expenses of the war in Granada, they should be exempt from the other tax, together with all communities within a distance of 20 leagues of Burgos (or Belorado?). The community of Belorado complained that Abraham Senior did not have the authority to make such a decision, because the whole matter was subject to the decision of the cathedral chapter in Burgos.241 Abraham Senior’s authority was limited to allocation of the service and half-service taxes that the communities paid annually, and also to the castellanos tax and other matters that were for the service of the Crown and the community expenses;242 it did not extend to changing the privilege granted to the aforementioned church. Moreover, the Jews who lived in those places and the entire valley area had been paying the annual tax to the church for 150 years along with the residents of the towns of Grañón, Redesilla de Camino, Val de San Vicente, and Val de Riodono. In past times the Jews from those places had asked to be freed from the obligation of this payment, but the superior judges (‘juezes mayores’) had not agreed to this. Therefore the community asked the Crown to take care of the matter. The Crown indeed ordered Abraham Senior to appear within fifteen days.243 Abraham Senior’s zeal in the task of raising money for the war in Granada and his willingness to confront both the local church and the Jewish communities are evident here. His collection of the war-tax brought him into conflict with the community of Trujillo. The method of taxation he instituted there was as follows: two-thirds of the levy would be paid according to the ability of the person required to pay, and the other third would be a poll-tax. Thus no one was exempt from tax or financial loss. The community wished all its members to declare his assets, in order to determine the amount of tax each household had to pay. The Cohen family was particularly opposed to Abraham Senior’s system. They were the wealthiest Jewish family in the town244 and viewed themselves as representatives of the whole Jewish community. In response to the community’s complaint, on 22 December 1491 the Crown ordered that they were to choose two arbitrators, who were not involved in communal controversies. These were then to choose nine assessors, three for each class of taxpayers (large, medium, and small), and they were to assess the taxpayers in the following manner: 240 There might have been another demand that these communities should pay for the reciting of masses 241 for the souls of Pedro Manrique and Ladrón de Leyba. ‘Cabildo de la yglesia mayor’, ibid. 242 ‘E otras cosas que son seruiçio nuestro e costas de las aljamas’, ibid. 243 The order is signed by the condestable of Castile, the Count of Haro. If he failed to appear, he would lose the Crown’s favour and be liable for a fine of 10,000 mrs. 244 This family had ties with Abraham Senior. See above regarding the controversy over the staircase in the synagogue.

456

the senior dynasty

1. Each assessor was to estimate the tax due without consulting his colleagues and without asking any Jewish man or woman; the estimate was to be up to the sum of 10,000 mrs. No Jew would be assessed at a higher figure. 2. All the assessors were then to meet; one list would be chosen by lot from an urn, and according to that list the war-tax was to be paid. 3. New assessors were to be appointed every two years. 4. The system was to be operative from 1492/3 onwards.245 Most likely this was a compromise between Abraham Senior’s method and the proposal of the community representatives, and this arrangement is not to be viewed as an expression of lack of confidence in Abraham Senior. This arrangement most probably had consequences for other communities. However, it was probably made during the last days of the war in Granada. In fact it was not put into effect, not only because the war ended, but also because of the Edict of Expulsion. If the Catholic Monarchs intended to expel the Jews, this order concealed their intention very well.

vi. abraham senior as treasurer of the hermandad On 18 March 1488 Abraham Senior was appointed treasurer of the Hermandad.246 The certificate of appointment states explicitly: ‘by virtue of the good and faithful services which we have received from you, Abraham Senior, resident of Segovia, and by virtue of your dilgence and fidelity’,247 collection of the payments due from taxes imposed for the Hermandad would be permitted only to him, or to anyone to whom he should give a written power of attorney, signed by himself and by a notary public. The appointment took effect on 15 April 1488, when two-thirds (the first and second payments of the year) of the fourth extension was due. The final payment fell on 15 August of that year.248 Thus the year was divided into three terms, ending on 15 January, 15 April, and 15 August. Abraham Senior was to pay the salary of his workers from the funds collected. The Hermandad was obligated to pay them for their efforts and to cover its own liabilities as well as make all the other payments demanded by the Crown. According to the order, Abraham Senior was to benefit from all the privileges and income deriving from the function and position. The authority of the former treasurer, Pero González de Madrid,249 together with all the privileges he had enjoyed, 245 For the document see Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 383–4, and also Beinart, Trujillo, 63, and document no. 66, 226–7. 246 See Lunenfeld, Hermandad, passim. Also Baer, Toledot, 402 ff. For the letter of appointment, see RGS 5 No. 2591, fo. 150, issued in Valencia on 18 Mar. 1488: Baer, JchS ii. 388–90; Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 297–9. 247 ‘Acatando los buenos e leales seruiçios que de vos, don Abraham Seneor, vesino de la çibdad de Segovia, auemos reçibido e vuestra buena diligençia e fydelidad . . . Vos prouehemos del ofiçio de la thesoreria general de la Hermandad de todos nuestros reynos e señorios.’ 248 This day is the feast of the Assumption of the Virgin. 249 He was the chief treasurer of Seville. On the council of the Hermandad see Lunenfeld, Hermandad, 61 ff.

the senior dynasty

457

were transferred exclusively to him; anyone usurping it would be punished with the usual penalties. The order enjoined co-operation with Abraham Senior on the Bishop of Palencia, the monarchs’ father confessor and capellán mayor, the president of the Hermandad; the provisor de Villafranca, the chief sacristan;250 Alfonso de Quintanilla, the chief contador of the Hermandad; the licenciado de Illescas251—all of these being members of the council and leaders of the Hermandad. On 26 April 1488 the Catholic Monarchs reiterated the appointment.252 In response to the request of Abraham Senior the order was given to the executive magistrates of the Hermandad in every area of the kingdom and to the council of the Jewish communities and of the Moors. They were to pay the Hermandad taxes at fixed dates, and the executive magistrates were to see that this was done. They were to make sure the money was collected on time. Otherwise Don Abraham Senior would be unable to make the payments due to the men of the Hermandad at the appointed times and places. Those who failed to pay in time would be deprived of their property, and they would have to cover the additional expenses.253 This order should be seen as a directive to obey Abraham Senior addressed to the Jewish communities and the Moors. It is not clear why he needed this directive with respect to the Jewish communities. What was Abraham Senior’s income from collecting these taxes? Perhaps this can be connected to a document dated 13 July 1515,254 which reports a grant made to him by the Crown for 600,000 mrs in jewels and pearls.255 The annual payment in 1488/9 came to 33,675,000 mrs. We do not know the projected revenue for 1490/1, but 33,870,000 mrs were collected, and in addition there was an extraordinary levy of 24,125,000 mrs, yielding a total of approximately 58 m. mrs. In 1491/2 the ordinary sum was 33,525,000 mrs, with an extraordinary payment of 24,125,000 mrs, again yielding an approximate total of 58 m. mrs.256 Abraham Senior’s activities in this field were also extensive. One of the farmers of the Hermandad tax in 1489, Guillén del Vado, a resident of Villena, paid the sum collected, 16,067 mrs, to Pedro del Prado, on the basis of a power of attorney that he held from Luis de Villanueva and Abraham Senior; for this payment a receipt was issued. However, the courier was murdered on the road by Moors, and Villanueva and Senior demanded the sum from him again. If he were required to pay it, he wrote to the Crown, he would be caused grave loss. In September 1490 (day missing) the Crown responded by ordering the governor of the marquesado de Villena, the corregidores, their assistants, and all the magistrates to take no measures against Del Vado.257 This might refer to Quintanilla’s assistant, Juan de Ortega, the Bishop of Almería, the queen’s sacristan. This apparently refers to Gonzalo Sánchez de Illescas, the magistrate of the audiencia and the attorney 252 Issued in Murcia, RGS 5 No. 2837, fo. 108. for the Royal Council. See Lunenfeld, Keepers, 62. 253 The sanctions stipulated for violating the order were loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. 254 C y S Reales Leg. 10, fo. 207. This is a memorandum that Francisco Hernández Coronel submitted in the name of the heirs of Fernán Núñez Coronel (Abraham Senior) for the damages caused them by his being deprived of the post of treasurer and ordered to return the sum. Perhaps this late estimate, which was made after Abraham Senior’s death, is a claim for damages caused to the head of the family. In 1490 the queen granted him 20,000 mrs in a financial obligation (‘juro’). See Asenjo González, Segovia, 329. 255 256 ‘en dcV en çiertes perlas y joyas’, ibid. See Lunenfeld, Keepers, 68–9. 257 Issued in Córdoba, RGS 7 No. 3249, fo. 350. 250 251

458

the senior dynasty

Another of the taxes that formed the income of the Hermandad was the albaquía;258 the loss in its collection came to about 1 m. mrs. The king expressed his desire to be Abraham Senior’s partner in collecting this tax, on condition that he should take any profits. Characteristically he also reached an agreement behind Senior’s back with one of the main debtors,259 the master of the order of Santiago, Don Fernando de Puertocarerro, for part of the albaquía. Clearly in this partnership, which was imposed upon Abraham Senior, and which he could not refuse, he was the loser, but from this loss he profited in the end. After Abraham Senior parted ways with the Jewish people on 15 June 1492, various matters remained to be settled regarding the Hermandad as a consequence of activities from before his conversion. In this context Abraham Senior contracted for the collection of the albaquía due to the Hermandad in the kingdom of Galicia, where people owed him money received from various local councils for the conscription of soldiers for the war in Granada in 1487 and 1488. Some recruits had gone to serve on their own initiative, not sent by the districts of the kingdom according to the quotas imposed upon them; these councils in question refused to pay them what was due to them. In fact the councils had to pay Abraham Senior the money that had been collected for the war effort, and he saw that the soldiers were properly paid. Abraham Senior also demanded a payment of 30,000 mrs for himself, which the Crown had ordered to be paid to Marina Díaz, but which was taken by a schoolmaster, causing Abraham Senior losses and damage. The Crown responded to his petition and ordered Martín Durango, the corregidor of Mondoñedo, to ascertain whether the soldiers who had been conscripted had served in the name of their localities according to the quotas imposed upon them, in which case the councils owed Senior nothing, but if they had served as volunteers on their own initiative, he was to be paid what was due him. That is to say, he was not required to bear the expenses that derived from the Hermandad. The corregidor was to see that the money which had been taken by the schoolmaster was returned. Gonzalo del Río, the treasurer of the Hermandad of Segovia and its province, still owed money to Abraham Senior, who laid a complaint against him before the Crown.260 Del Río had collected money from the albaquía for the Hermandad in previous years. Abraham Senior obtained a court order against him, confiscating his property, with the approbation of the Royal Council. His property was impounded and delivered to the Crown by Diego de Vitoria, the receiver of property for the Inquisition of Segovia. His involvement suggests that Del Rio was a converso condemned by the Inquisition. This condemnation, however, was posthumous. Fernán Núñez Coronel, by now a Christian, appealed on the ground that since Del Río still owed him money, which were the taxes of the kingdom, his was the prior claim: the Inquisition had no right to confiscate the property of one, even though a heretic, who owed money to the 258 This is an Arabic term meaning ‘remainder’, referring to the unpaid portion of a debt, in particular of a levy on flocks and herds. The tax could not be collected in whole units. See the dictionary of the Spanish 259 Academy, s.v. ‘Prinçipales debdores’, C y S Reales Leg. 10 No. 207. 260 See RGS 9 No. 3087, fo. 111, issued in Zaragoza on 27 Sept. 1492. In this document Abraham Senior’s title is ‘Vesino e regidor de la dicha çibdad de Segovia, nuestro arrendador e recebdador mayor de albaquias de la Hermandad destos nuestros reynos fasta el dia de Santa María de Agosto de 1488’.

the senior dynasty

459

Crown. This is clearly a matter of authority touching upon the question of whether the Inquisition, on the basis of its authority, could confiscate the Crown’s money. The Crown upheld the appeal and ordered that since Del Río had been condemned after his death, his property should be released from confiscation and placed at Coronel’s disposal.261 We see clearly that Coronel did not hesitate to confront the Inquisition at the height of its power, when he felt that he could obtain support from the Crown. Rodrigo de la Puerta, a resident of Madrid, was the collector of the Hermandad taxes in 1487 in the towns of San Vincente and Santander. He sent the revenue that he collected to the Bishop of Almería,262 and also to Alonso de Quintanilla, the chief accountant and one of the heads of the Hermandad. Gómez Guillén, the treasurer of the Hermandad in the archbishopric of Toledo, alleged that he had pocketed 13,000 mrs of the revenues; de la Puerta, who had preserved the quittances, presented them to him, and declared that he had paid a further 8,000 mrs to Gómez Guillén without being given a receipt. In July 1494 Fernán Núñez Coronel, who was then visiting Medina del Campo, demanded the entire 13,000 mrs on his authority as the chief farmer of the albaquía. De la Puerta claimed that this was money already; he brought suit against Gómez Guillén before Dr de Alcocel, who issued an order in his favour. The Crown responded to de la Puerta’s petition and ordered Pedro Díaz de la Torre to adjudicate his complaint.263 In the province of Trujillo Abraham Senior placed the farming of the alcabala tax and the payments of the Hermandad and their collection in the hands of Diego Pérez de Mieses from 1488 to 1493. In 1495 Fernán Núñez Coronel and Luis de Alcalá lodged a complaint against him before the Crown, accusing him of fraud and deceit in discharging his duties. They alleged that he had obtained the tax-farming contract at less than the usual price by persuading other tax-farmers in the area to refrain from submitting bids for farming taxes (which was against the new laws) and had taken money, bread, grain, wine, and fowl without submitting formal demands for them. Fernán Núñez Coronel and Luis de Alcalá asked the Crown to appoint an investigator ‘above suspicion’ to deal with their complaint.264 The Crown appointed Fernán Delgado, a resident of Llerena. He was ordered to go to the area in question and ascertain the value of the tax to be collected annually, and what fraud had been practised by the agent. The results of the investigation were to be delivered to Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, the Crown secretary, and to Diego de la Muela; the two would report to the Crown on the result of the investigation.265 The details presented above provide a good indication of the way the farming 261 The sanctions stipulated for violating the order were loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 10,000 mrs. The order is addressed to the corregidor and all the magistrates for the confiscation of property. 262 He was Juan de Ortega, the queen’s chief sacristan. 263 See RGS 11 No. 4175, fo. 337, issued in Madrid on 2 Dec. 1494. 264 ‘Syn sospechas’, ibid. On farming of the alcabala tax see J. de Mata Carriazo, El Tumbo de los Reyes Católicos del Concejo de Sevilla, vol. v, 1489–1492 (Seville, 1971), 118–21. 265 RGS 12 No. 1837, fo. 384, issued on 14 Apr. 1495 in Madrid, the native city of Luis de Alcalá, who presumably obtained the order. It dates from before the quarrel broke out between him and Fernán Núñez Coronel. Information about the quarrel apparently reached the authorities on 4 Sept. 1495. See below.

460

the senior dynasty

and collection of taxes were organized. Abraham Senior set up an apparatus in every region where he was active, and his authority and functions apparently covered the entire kingdom of Castile. This also explains his great power and influence with the Crown.

vii. expulsion and conversion The response of Abraham Senior and the members of his family to the Edict of Expulsion has been discussed extensively.266 It is not difficult to guess what happened in the Senior household with the publication of the Edict of Expulsion. Most likely Abraham Senior was near his home during the month between the signing of the Edict of Expulsion on 31 March 1492 and its promulgation on 1 May 1492. Thus one can imagine the conversations and discussions that took place in his home regarding the path that the family should choose. Suárez Fernández maintains that at the end of May Abraham Senior still intended to go into exile.267 He bases this assertion on a document dated 29 May 1492,268 two weeks before Abraham Senior and several members of his family abandoned Judaism, on 15 June 1492. In that document the Crown ordered Pedro de Osas, a resident of Segovia, to investigate the execution of an order issued to Francisco del Luzón, the corregidor of Medina del Campo.269 Abraham Senior informed the Crown that he had contracted with Don Álvaro de Zúñiga, the prior of the monastery of San Juan, to collect the tithes on grain and wine and other articles270 in the vicinity of Castronuño and its bailía, for three years, from 1489 to 1491 inclusive; although he had not raised the entire sum due, he would pay the residue from his own resources if asked. Later, when Senior was in the royal court, he learnt that the comendador of Valdenebro, having heard about the Edict of Expulsion, had appeared and seized what was owed to him in that region,271 to the value of some 700,000 mrs, including moneys claimed by the prior. Abraham Senior asked the Crown to appoint someone to examine the prior’s accounts; after ascertaining what he still owed in Castronuño and in Fresno Viejo, he would arrange payment so that the prior should be content. The Crown responded by ordering Luzón to visit to the monastery, to examine the prior’s complaint, and to settle accounts with the prior. If there was a surplus, it should be returned to Senior. The order to Luzón was issued on 7 May 1492, but since he was very busy, and because he was the corregidor of Medina del Campo regarding the fair, the Crown appointed Pedro de las Osas to investigate the matter in his place. 267 See Baer, JchS ii, index. Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 59 n. 8. RGS 9 No. 1943, fo. 539, issued in Valladolid. The document is published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 420–2. 269 On 14 Jan. 1491 Francisco de Luzón was ordered to inspect the location of the Jews’ stores in the plaza of Medina del Campo. See RGS 8 No. 106, fo. 167. On 22 Mar. 1491 he was ordered, together with the guardián of the convent of San Francisco, to examine the matter of those stores again. See RGS 8 No. 961, fo. 206. On 7 May 1491 he was ordered to settle the matter of Senior’s remaining debt to the prior of San Juan in Castronuño from a tax that Senior had farmed there. 270 ‘Diezmos e panes e vinos e otras cosas’, ibid. 271 ‘Como oyo e supo que nos mandamos salir los judios destos nuestros reynos diz que le enbargo e le hizo enbargar todo lo que en aquella tierra se le deuia asy pan como maravedis’. 266 268

the senior dynasty

461

Does this document enable one to conclude anything about Abraham Senior’s intentions regarding departure in exile? Certainly he reached his decision after taking into account his status, his financial situation,272 and his age. There is no need to entertain speculations as to whether the queen threatened him that if he did not convert to Christianity, she would have the entire Jewish community annihilated.273 In any event, as we have seen in Chapter 1, her opinion was no different from her husband’s regarding the expulsion and the decision to implement it. On Friday, 15 June 1492,274 six weeks after the promulgation of the edict, Abraham Senior and his son-in-law Rabbi Meir Melamed were baptized in the church of Guadalupe.275 We do not know which other members of the family were with them. Cardinal Pedro González de Mendoza and the papal nuncio were among Abraham Senior’s sponsors in baptism.276 One thing is clear without any doubt, that the two chose the destination of Guadalupe, a centre of Christian pilgrimage, by deliberation perhaps with other members of their family, in order to be with the royal retinue. Regarding the Crown, one must ask whether the Catholic Monarchs considered the possibility that Abraham Senior and his son-in-law Rabbi Meir Melamed and their families would not go into exile, and what would have happened had they had gone. If the Crown assumed that they would go into exile, they ought to have completed their tax-collections before the final date for departure, 31 July 1492. Because of the great number of their transactions in taxes and other collections, had they considered leaving from the start, they would have had to begin liquidating their businesses and their extensive estates immediately after the publication of the Edict of Expulsion; the chaos caused by the edict was described in Chapter 4. Hence the most probable conclusion is that Abraham Senior, Rabbi Meir Melamed, and those members of their families who joined them never intended to go into exile. Nevertheless, not all members of the family converted: some were loyal Jews who accepted the tribulations of the expulsion and set out for the unknown, despite the dangers and hardships that were involved in such a critical and significant step. Abraham Senior received the name Fernán Núñez Coronel, and Rabbi Meir Melamed took that of Fernán Pérez Coronel.277 We do not know who chose those names. Most likely they were named Fernán after King Ferdinand, who was one of the sponsors. The family names Núñez and Pérez were very widespread. The addition of Coronel was apparently customary in the noble house of Guzmán, and perhaps that aristocratic family gave them that name. We possess two other pieces of evidence that Fernán Núñez Coronel was Abraham Senior. In the investigation of the value of Fernán Núñez Coronel’s property and the sale of his property in Llerena, on 12 October 1492 Juan Manresa testified about him, saying, ‘Fernán Núñez, who was at that time Rabbi Mayor, [sold property in Llerena] in order to collect the alcabala taxes in the province On his property see above. See Baer, Toledot, 470, and also regarding the sources of this legend. 274 According to the Jewish calendar it fell on 20 Sivan 5252. 275 On Rabbi Meir Melamed, who became Fernán Pérez Coronel, see below, Sect. IX. 276 See Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 49. 277 See Dr de Toledo, Cronicón de Valladolid ⫽ CoDoIn xiii (Madrid, 1848), 5–228 at 195, cited at Peñalosa, ‘Juan Bravo’, 89. 272 273

462

the senior dynasty

of León.’278 Later testimony than this was given on 9 July 1505 by Fernando de Santillán of Segovia, who referred to ‘the Grand Rabbi, who became a Christian later and was called Fernán Núñez Coronel’.279 This I believe is sufficient to lay to rest the uncertainty regarding the names of these converts and their activities after they ceased to be Jewish.280 Before long Abraham Senior, who had become Fernán Núñez Coronel, was given positions, titles, and honours. On 29 August 1492 he was appointed to serve as the regidor of Segovia ‘by virtue of his many good services which he has done and which he is doing for the Crown, and to compensate him for them’. He replaced Francisco de Bobadilla, who had resigned from his post and asked to have Fernán Núñez Coronel appointed in his place.281 He was to number among a small group of aristocrats who sat on the city council, and the Crown ordered the corregidor, the regidor, and the members of the council, the caballeros, escuderos, and good men to accept him in this post without delay. Anyone who opposed the appointment or sought to prevent it would by fined 10,000 mrs. The atmosphere current in ruling circles is conveyed by a memorandum submitted by Francisco Hernández Coronel in the name of the heirs of Fernán Núñez Coronel.282 The government felt the loss of income from the Jews, which it had hoped for and enjoyed. The shortfall resulting from the departure of the Jews in exile was not overcome until 1495–7, although the Crown did not reduce the level of taxation in the kingdom. In consequence, the government made an arrangement with Fernán Núñez Coronel and Luis de Alcalá in 1492–4, clearly in connection with debts left behind by the Jews, either debts owed to them by Christians or by them in taxes to the Crown, to government officials, churches, the Hermandad, and the like, which had not been collected in previous years. It is unlikely that these were debts owed to Christians which the Jews left unpaid when they departed for exile, for those were certainly collected before the expulsion. Indeed the two men, and in partnership with them Fernán Pérez 278 See the assessment of his property above. The document reads: ‘Fernan Nuñez Coronel que a la sazon hera Rabi Mayor, para cobrar las rentas de las alcaualas desta provinçia de Leon’, Hacienda, Leg. 1 No. 73, fo. 3r. The seller was Diego Pérez de Mieses, who was acting in the name of Fernán Núñez Coronel. See below on the sale of this property. 279 ‘Rabi Mayor que despues se torno christiano e se llamo Fernan Nuñez Coronel’. See C y S Reales Leg. 10, fo. 346, and n. 2 above. On this witness see below. He was a collector of the montazgo tax on behalf of Abraham Senior in 1485. Thus he knew very well who was who. 280 There is some confusion regarding the names of the members of the family who converted to Christianity before and after their baptism. Here we deal with those members of the family during the first generation of conversion who are connected with various activities regarding the farming and collection of taxes. The genealogical table presented in Peñalosa, ‘Juan Bravo’, 88, 93–6, does not solve these problems. Cf. Baer, JchS ii. 411; Capsali, Divrei eliyahu zutra, 73; and the anonymous author of the introduction. See A. Marx, ‘The Expulsion of the Jews from Spain: Two New Accounts’, JQR 20 (1908), 240–71 at 250; id., Studies in Jewish History and Booklore, 92. According to the chronicle another one of Abraham Senior’s sons (named David?) was present, as well as two sons of Rabbi Meir Melamed. See n. 1 above. 281 For the document see RGS 9 No. 2787, fo. 36, issued in Zaragoza. On the head of the document it states erroneously that Núnez Coronel had been appointed corregidor of Segovia. The document was drafted by Fernán Alvarez de Toledo, the royal secretary. On his connections with the Bobadilla family see above. See also Asenjo González, Segovia, 440, 441 n. 88. 282 See C y S Reales Leg. 10, fo. 207. The memorandum dates from 13 July 1451.

the senior dynasty

463

Coronel, were soon instructed to collect the debts that Christians still owed to Jews who had gone into exile.283 The Crown placed a lien on all the debts, and the two taxfarmers Fernán Núñez Coronel and Luis de Alcalá promised the Crown to collect the sum of 24,000,000 mrs. They suffered a loss as a result of this promise. They apparently assumed they would collect those debts in 1492–4, and that with the tax-farming of 1495– 7 they would cover their expenses and emerge with a profit. However, Francisco Hernández Coronel claimed that even after a grant of 6 m. mrs given by the Crown to Fernán Núñez Coronel, their losses in tax-farming came to 10 m. mrs gross or 4 m. mrs. Fernán Núñez Coronel and Luis de Alcalá addressed the Crown regarding these debts at the outset of the activities as tax-farmers. The Jews to whom they had granted subsidiary tax commissions had gone into exile, still owing them money but having waived or transferred obligations from Christians, which had thus not reached the principals. They managed to obtain new, interest-free obligations from the Christians as well as promises that they would not behave fraudulently. Debts also remained that those Christians owed to Jews for leases and various transactions, for whose collection the tax-farmers had not managed to obtain powers of attorney from the deportees between the promulgation of the Edict of Expulsion and the Jews’ departure in exile. Those, too, belonged to the tax-farmers Fernán Núñez Coronel and Luis de Alcalá. Since the Crown had placed a lien on debts that remained outstanding, they were unable to collect the sums due to them, and this caused them great damage. The Crown viewed this petition with favour, and on 8 November 1492 an order was issued permitting the two tax-farmers to collect the debts in their possession and the obligations to them from Christians who owed money to Jews. The corregidor of Molina and of the settlements in the condado of Priego were ordered to ensure the execution of the order, which was also addressed to other areas in Castile.284 The list of the places is impressive in itself, for it indicates the areas of Jewish settlement and Jewish business activity. Missing from the list are the areas of Andalusia and Seville, Córdoba, and Jerez de la Frontera; it seems likely that after the expulsion from there in 1483, traces of Jewish business activity also ceased. Moreover, we must distinguish here, as the Crown did, between debt-collection and tax-farming. On 17 December 1492 the queen, who was resident in Barcelona, ordered the corregidor of Trujillo, Álvaro de Porras, to investigate and ascertain what debts the three Cohen brothers had left behind when they went into exile.285 They had farmed the 283 See Ch. 4 above. For this purpose magistrates and arbitrators were appointed for the reciprocal settlement of debts from the period between publication of the Edict of Expulsion (1 May) and the departure of the Jews (31 July). Many of them were Christians who sought to exploit the period for their own benefit and avoid paying their debts to the Jews. 284 The places were: Calahorra, Logroño, Alfaro, Santo Domingo de la Quesada, Rioja, Nájera, Osma, Soria, Burgos, Murcia, Cartagena, the archbishopric of Salamanca, Madrid, Alcalá de Henares, Guadalajara, Illescas, the archdiocese of Toledo, Agreda, Tarazona, the condado of Aguilar, Molina, Medina del Campo, Olmedo, the maestrazgo of San Juan, the estates of Alonso de Fonseca, Huete, Cuenca, Asturias, Oviedo, Valladolid, Tordesillas, Portillo, Torrelobatón, the condado of Benavente, Palencia, Badajoz, the maestrazgo of the order of Santiago, León, the estate of Don Pedro de Puertocarrero, the condado of Frías, Trujillo, Monroy, Guadalupe, and the maestrazgo of Alcántara. See RGS 9 No. 3547, fo. 104, and Beinart, Trujillo, 72 and the document there, 250–1 (doc. 28). 285 RGS 9 No. 3271, fo. 54, published by Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 484–7.

464

the senior dynasty

alcabala tax on salt, oil, and fish in Trujillo for a total of 350,000 mrs. Thus they were obligated to make a first payment of a third of that amount, or 116,000 mrs. However, when they were forced to go into exile, they announced that, since Christians owed them money, they were transferring a debt of 80,000 mrs for collection. Meanwhile the queen had ordered the preparation of new promissory notes, though they were apparently not prepared, for the Christian debtors avoided doing so. Álvaro de Porras was instructed that, after the investigation, he was to permit García de Roa to collect 80,000 mrs to cover the debt for the aforementioned tax-farming on behalf of Fernán Núñez Coronel and Luis de Alcalá. This extensive activity continued during the following years. On 24 April 1493 Fernán Núñez Coronel and Luis de Alcalá received an order from the Crown stating that García de Cotes, the corregidor of Burgos, was to respond to their appeal and see to the collection of the debts. Clearly these men were the receivers of property and debts in the kingdom.286 The details that emerge from the documents indicate many entanglements that could only be resolved over time. Fernán Núñez Coronel and Luis de Alcalá addressed the Crown and asked it to decide in the matter of Don Uiçen Bienveniste,287 who had returned to Spain, converted to Christianity, and taken the name Nicolás Beltrán. With him were other Jews who had left behind uncollected debts owed to them in the diocese of Burgos. They also had left behind income (that is to say, taxes and leases) for which they had contracted in the diocese. Since the Crown had placed a lien on all those debts, Fernán Núñez Coronel and Luis de Alcalá were unable to collect the moneys. The Crown responded to their petition, basing itself on an order pertaining to unspecified localities, and permitted them to collect those debts.288 An order issued on 2 May 1493 to the same García de Cotes, and to Juan Pérez de Baradas, the corregidor or his substitute of Medina de Campo, should be viewed as a sequel to the foregoing. Here, too, the order concerns the debts of Uiçen Bienveniste, who became Nicolás Beltrán. Certain merchants remained indebted to him for woollen cloth (‘çiertas lanas’) which they had purchased from him and which had been delivered to them. Some of these merchants had signed new promissory notes before Fernán Núñez Coronel, because Beltrán had transferred those debts to set off against his arrears. Thus the merchants had to pay the debts in Medina del Campo at the time of the fairs there. Because of the lien placed by the government on outstanding debts to Jews, the merchants had not paid them. Fernán Núñez Coronel and Luis de Alcalá complained that this caused them grave damage. The Crown answered their petition, and, on the basis of the orders of 26 February 1493 and 6 March 1493, ordered the aforementioned corregidores to respond to the complaint of the two debt-collectors and hear the arguments of the parties without delay.289 286 Their title in this document is ‘nuestros reçeptores generales de los nuestros reynos’: RGS 10 No. 1027, fo. 87. 287 That is how his name is spelt in the document, though I have not encountered it elsewhere. Perhaps it should be ‘Niçen’. 288 The order was issued on 26 February 1493 in the name of García de Cotes, in whose jurisdiction the events had taken place. 289 See RGS 10 No. 1128, fo. 311, issued in Olmedo on 2 May 1493. It states that they must so respond to petitions that the plaintiffs shall have no further reason to address the Crown.

the senior dynasty

465

Rabbi Suleiman Avendaño and Isaac Avendaño, residents of Ocaña, had farmed the alcabala and tercia taxes in the marquesado of Villena in 1491. At the time of the expulsion they still owed Fernán Núñez Coronel nearly 1 m. mrs, having apparently been his subcontractors. Attention must be called to the new regulations for tax farming issued that year. Abraham Senior was one of very few men who were permitted to engage in tax-farming.290 The others probably went into exile, but before departing, they made an arrangement with Fernán Núñez Coronel that they would transfer the remaining debts of those who owed them money in the marquesado. Some of those debts were not secure, because the debtors were not people of means.291 To obtain the money, Abraham Senior hired men to collect those debts, which amounted to about 200,000 mrs, but they, too, were unsuccessful, and the damage was considerable. In this matter, too, the Crown instructed the governor and resident magistrate of Villena to permit Fernán Núñez Coronel personally to collect the sums that were still owed to the two Jewish tax-farmers.292 On 21 May 1493 Fernán Núñez Coronel and Luis de Alcalá obtained an order to the collectors of the outstanding debts of Christians to Jews.293 Cristóbal de Vitoria, escríbano de cámara, addressed the Crown and asked that Tristán de Silva, a former corregidor, should be required to pay debts to several residents, apparently of the city of Madrid. Among those debts was the sum of 28,000 mrs which he owed to Rabbi Lesar. Cristóbal de Vitoria requested that this sum be paid to him. The Crown responded and ordered the executive magistrate, Lorenzo Vanegas, to pay him the debt, which would be collected by Fernán Núñez Coronel and Luis de Alcalá, or either of them separately, from Tristán de Silva.294 On 26 June 1493, Fernán Núñez Coronel obtained an order from the Crown addressed to the governor or resident magistrate of the marquesado of Villena295 regarding Mose Abenatabe, who was his agent (‘fasendor’) there and also in the town of Requena. In 1491 he had collected a large amount of taxes and left behind debts owed to him amounting to 60,000 mrs. Those debts were for cash. Fernán Núñez Coronel successfully asked for suspension of the Crown’s lien on those debts so that he could collect them.296 Cristóbal de Ávila had a petition of a different kind. He was appointed executor for the property of Rabbi Judah del Sobrado, a resident of León.297 The property was situated in the dioceses of León and Astorga. Rabbi Judah died before the expulsion, See Beinart, ‘The Memorandum’, in id., Pirkei Sefarad ( Jerusalem, 1998), i. 207 ff. ‘Non mucho abonados’, RGS 10 No. 1128, fo. 311. 292 The order was issued in Barcelona on 18 May 1493. Its reference number is RGS 10 No. 1293, fo. 91. It is based on orders dated 26 Feb. and 6 Mar. 1493. 293 RGS 10 No. 1346, fo. 102, issued in Barcelona. 294 From the document it emerges that the debt was far greater than 32,400 mrs. The two tax-farmers were required to collect the sum of 40,000 mrs and an additional 10,000 mrs. Cf. RGS 10 No. 2744, fo. 70, dated 19 Oct. 1493. It concerns debts that the residents of Madrid still owed to Jews, and which Fernán Núñez Coronel and Luis de Alcalá were authorized to collect. 295 Fernán Núñez Coronel’s title in this order is ‘recaudador de los diezmos e aduanas deste dicho mar296 RGS 10 No. 1692, fo. 244, which was issued in Barcelona. quesado e de la villa de Requena’. 297 On this family of tax-farmers see Baer, JchS ii, index. Rabbi Abraham del Sobrado, also of León, farmed taxes in Peñaranda and Fuentelsol in 1487; in Peñaranda in 1488; in Salamanca in partnership with 290 291

466

the senior dynasty

perhaps between the publication of the Edict of Expulsion and the departure from Spain. Sobrado had been active in those places as a subcontractor for Abraham Senior. Now Sancho de Basán, in the name of Fernán Núñez Coronel, was collecting those debts. The time had passed for the collection from Castroponce in the diocese of León and from Saludes y Maire in the diocese of Astorga, which were the concessions of Fernán de Robles, who owed money to Judah del Sobrado. He was summoned there by Sancho de Basan and required to pay the money within eight days, according to the claim of Fernán Núñez Coronel. In the quarrel that arose between Cristóbal de Vitoria and Sancho de Basán, the latter used insulting and menacing speech. Hence Cristóbal de Vitoria feared that he would now physically attack him, even kill him, and seize his property. Therefore he requested a writ of protection and defence from the Crown, and this was given to him.298 In 1495–6 Cristóbal de Vitoria was serving as the receiver of Jewish property and debts in the diocese of Salamanca and the abbacy of Medina del Campo. He informed the Crown about a number of persons who owed money to Jews. These were: Carlos de Chano, the Crown’s cazador mayor, and Juan Duarte, a surgeon, both residents of Medina del Campo; Fernán Núñez Coronel, a resident of Segovia; Doña María de Ulloa; Pedro Palomeque; the bachiller Robad; the bachiller Villasiega; Fernán Hernandez, a cobbler—these five being residents of Salamanca. They were ordered to appear before the Crown within thirty days to hear the complaint lodged by Cristóbal de Ávila.299 A significant feature of this list is mention of the cazador mayor and of ‘Fernán Núñez Coronel, a resident of Segovia’. Without doubt they remained in possession of money left by Jews who had gone into exile. The complaint against Fernán Núñez Coronel in his latter years, when his career had begun to wane, is astonishing. The task of collecting the debts was difficult. Luis de Alcalá and Fernán Núñez Coronel were obliged to ask the Crown to appoint a man, at the discretion of the Crown’s accountants, to collect the debts and pay various people, regarding whom the accountants would give orders, as the two tax-farmers had been accustomed to do.300 This refers to collections in 1491, 1492, 1493, and even 1494. The man appointed was Francisco de Alcaraz. The two tax-farmers were required to furnish the new collector with the names of those whose debts were due, and he would see to the sale of property and the arrest of the debtors.301 This order certainly included debts left behind by Jews who had gone into exile, and who had sold or transferred their promissory notes to Christians. Apparently Francisco de Alcaraz, who was a contino of the Catholic Monarchs, Isaac Caro in 1488; and in the seigneuries and dioceses of León as early as 1481. On him see Ladero Quesada, El siglo XV en Castilla, 166–7. 298 The reference number of the document is RGS 10 No. 2815, fo. 241, issued in Valladolid on 25 Oct. 1493. If Sancho de Basán violated the order, he would lose royal favour and be subject to a fine of 10,000 mrs. 299 See RGS 13 No. 137, fo. 141, issued in Valladolid on 28 Jan. 1496. Cf. RGS 11 No. 3332, fo. 94, issued in Madrid on 17 Oct. 1494. 300 ‘Dizen que non pueden conplir nin pagar muchas contias de maravedis de las libranças que en ellos auemos mandado faser’, RGS 11 No. 4238, fo. 419. 301 The order was issued in Madrid on 10 Dec. 1494.

the senior dynasty

467

gave a power of attorney to Cristóbal de Gamara, a resident of Pedraza, to collect money that was still owed to Fernán Núñez Coronel from the alcabala taxes.302 The list of places, people, and years merits presentation in full, since it refers to the two years after the departure of the Jews: • Trujillo and its region: a total of 240,000 mrs, including a debt of 48,500 mrs owed to them by Pedro Jarada.303 • Antonio de Segovia, a resident of Medina del Campo, a farmer of the alcabala tax and other taxes in Ponferrada for three years from 1492 to 1494 inclusive, a total of 50,000 mrs. • García Rubio, a resident of Medina del Campo, a debt of 6,200 mrs. • Alvar Gómez de Benavante and Juan de Toralle, residents of Carrión, a total of 23,000 mrs. They owed this money to Fernán Núñez Coronel, and Francisco de Alcaraz was authorized to arrest them and confiscate their property.304 Some of them might have been Jews who had converted to Christianity. Diego del Carrión, a resident of Segovia, had several accounts with Fernán Núñez Coronel regarding farming the alcabala and tercia taxes in Alcalá de Henares and its region, where he served as bailiff in 1492–4. He also had debts left to Fernán Núñez Coronel by Mose Aven Zemerro in collecting taxes.305 The queen considered the matter and issued an order to the corregidor of Segovia and his substitute and also to the magistrates of the city and those of other places, directing them to take care of it. A document (‘carta’) was tendered to her reciting that Diego de Carrión had been ordered to leave for Alcalá de Henares to settle the accounts and debts still outstanding and to pay Fernán Núñez Coronel and his fellow tax-farmers. He was also to produce confirmation of a payment by Fernán Núñez Coronel of 200,000 mrs that he claimed had been paid to Carlos de Lucena, and discuss the accounts with Coronel, who claimed that he owed him a lot of money, on pain of arrest and the confiscation of his property. Notification to this effect was delivered to Carrión, who replied that he was prepared to appear and vindicate himself, claiming that he had gone to Valladolid for that purpose. The licenciado de Pedrosa appointed a time for him to present the documents in Alcalá de Henares said to prove that he had settled his accounts and debts to Coronel. However, Coronel claimed before Pedrosa that Diego had not settled the accounts and had not delivered the documents and confirmations regarding the debts, nor had he presented verification that he had paid the 200,000 mrs which had purportedly been transferred to Carlos de Lucena. He therefore requested an order to arrest Carrión and place a lien on his property. Pedrosa duly required Carrión to pay Coronel the sum claimed, and to appear before the licenciado de Coalla within twenty days, wherever the latter might be; Carrión even promised to do so. When the twenty days had passed, he He, too, was permitted to grant a power of attorney for the collection of debts. On him see Beinart, Trujillo, index. 304 The power of attorney was issued in full in the city of Burgos on 2 Nov. 1495. See RGS 11 No. 3916, fo. 181. The document was drafted by Rodrigo de Alcaraz, the notary of the king and queen. 305 Most likely he was his subcontractor for tax-farming until the expulsion. 302 303

468

the senior dynasty

did not appear, and Fernán Núñez Coronel accused him of treason, demanding his arrest and the seizure of his property. The Royal Council accepted the claim of Fernán Núñez Coronel, and Fernando de Grado, the Crown bailiff, was even ordered to arrest Carrión. The order was transmitted to the corregidor of Segovia, and it was agreed to seize Carrión’s property.306 Then Diego de Carrión appeared in Almazán before Dr de Talavera of the Royal Council and Diego de la Muela of the royal guard.307 He justified his previous failure to appear by claiming that he had not known that the two licenciados were sitting together as magistrates, and offered many other reasons. He also argued that he had made various payments, and that he possessed receipts signed by Fernán Núñez Coronel. He also appealed against the demand for payment of 200,000 mrs. Investigation by the magistrates showed that Carrión did not owe that sum, and that he did not need to pay it, but he did have to transfer the revenues and pay the debts that Mose Ibn Zemerro had left behind. He also had to transfer the remainder of the obligations. In the light of this the queen ordered cancellation of the order to confiscate his property. Those of his assets that had been sold meanwhile should be inventoried by a notary and transferred to Fernando del Río, who would retain them until a final decision was reached.308 We do not know the outcome of this affair, but it shows a great deal about the methods of Abraham Senior, or rather Fernán Núñez Coronel. His financial problems in collecting debts continued in 1497. On 6 February 1497 the Crown transmitted an announcement to Alonso Téllez Girón, the governor on behalf of the order of Santiago in Castile, and to all the magistrates and corregidores and their substitutes,309 that at the time the Jews left Spain,310 Rabbi Shem Tob Ibn Santo, a resident of Ocaña, had transferred to Fernán Núñez Coronel the debts from the alcabala and tercia taxes for 1490–91, but had left behind debts for taxes owed to him by certain councils and individuals in several towns and settlements in the region (‘provinçia e comarca’). Coronel authorized Gutierre Gómez de Torrijos to collect them; he had some success, but a great deal of money remained to be collected. When Fernán Núñez Coronel, Luis de Alcalá, and their partners had to divide the debts in the kingdoms among themselves, Coronel reported that in Ocaña alone he was owed 400,000 mrs, and upon the settlement of accounts that sum was transferred to be collected by Luis de Alcalá. He asked the Crown for a proclamation that the debtors must pay their obligations, instead of putting him off with various pretexts and jokes. In his plea he stated that if this situation persisted, he, Luis de Alcalá, would suffer grave damage, and he could not meet his obligations to the Crown. Therefore he again addressed the Crown and asked for justice. RGS 13 No. 1612, fo. 7. The order was issued in Medina del Pomar on 10 Sept. 1496. These two were magistrates who had been appointed to judge the problems arising between Fernán Núñez Coronel and his partners and their agents. Diego de Muela was a contino or member of the Crown guard. 308 The sanctions stipulated for failure to comply with the order were loss of the Crown’s favour and a 309 RGS 14 No. 407, fo. 251, issued in Burgos. fine of 10,000 mrs. 310 ‘Al tiempo que los judios se fueron de estos nuestros reynos por nuestro mandado’, ibid. See also Baer, JchS ii. 387. 306 307

the senior dynasty

469

In response to this petition the Crown instructed Girón and his men to ascertain what receipts were held by the defaulters and also by Gutierre Gómez de Torrijos. If they did not possess receipts, they were to be arrested and their property was to be confiscated to the benefit of Fernán Núñez Coronel and Luis de Alcalá. However, the Crown left an opening for appeal before the magistrates Rodrigo Maldonado de Talavera and Diego de la Muela, who had been appointed to deal with the debts and collections of the two tax-farmers.311 Vidal was another Jew to whom Abraham Senior had transferred the collection of the alcabala and tercia taxes in Molina from 1490 to 1492 inclusive, and he, too, was apparently a subcontractor for tax-collection. Juan Sánchez de Vallehermoso, in his own name and as the attorney for Molina, addressed the Crown claiming that in February 1497 Fernán Núñez Coronel had given a power of attorney for the collection of debts to Luis Ortega, a resident of Molina. He had also collected taxes on the basis of the power of attorney which was in the Jew’s possession. Thus the taxes had been collected twice. The Crown instructed Dr Diego Díaz de Puebla, the corregidor of Molina, to see that justice was done. He was to demand that Luis Ortega should produce his accounts, so that it would be possible to ascertain whether the debts had been paid or not.312 These cases are probably a mere sample of the financial problems that arose in its wake of the expulsion. We have treated here only those instances in which Fernán Núñez Coronel himself was involved, alone or in partnership with Luis de Alcalá, and the authority that they delegated to others. Detailed examination of these matters shows how complicated was the system for collecting taxes and debt. Fernán Núñez Coronel was only capable of overseeing such a mechanism when Luis de Alcalá, with all his experience in tax-farming, stood at his side and assisted him as a partner. Without doubt this occupation was remunerative for those who engaged in it, but it was mainly important as a solution to the problems of cash flow and revenue that affected the Crown after the departure of the Jews from Spain.

viii. fernán núñez corone l’s general financial activity We have seen the magnitude of the task imposed upon Fernán Núñez Coronel and his partner Luis de Alcalá in collecting the outstanding debts of Christians to Jews, and also the debts of the Jewish subcontractors in farming and collecting taxes. Quite certainly, without the organization of Fernán Núñez Coronel and Luis de Alcalá, who were briefly joined by Fernán Núñez Coronel’s son-in-law Fernán Pérez Coronel, it would not have been possible to overcome the chaos with respect to these debts, to which the Crown regarded itself as the heir, basing itself on the old law that the Jews and everything they owned belonged to the Crown. Certainly some Christians also succeeded in concealing many debts from these collectors, thus deriving material benefit from the expulsion of the Jews. 311 The sanctions stipulated for failure to obey the order were loss of the Crown’s favour and a fine of 312 10,000 mrs. RGS 14 No. 1491, fo. 175, issued in Valladolid on 6 June 1497.

470

the senior dynasty

In order to complete the picture, let us now turn our attention to Fernán Núñez Coronel’s other activities and financial transactions, which appear to have no connection with the Jews or with the unpaid debts of Christians. A relatively late document, apparently from 1494 or 1495, though it relates to the years preceding the expulsion and somewhat afterwards, shows Fernán Núñez Coronel’s methods in his relations with prominent people of the kingdom.313 The document presents a list of persons to whom Fernán Núñez Coronel had given money, and the amounts are listed in his accounts as debts they owed him. This list certainly was intended to serve his personal needs and as proof of expenses that were sometimes incurred with the approbation of the Crown, which wished to do favours for one person or another. From this list we may draw conclusions regarding relations of dependence and obligation, as well as friendship and animosity. These are the main features of the list: • Fernán Álvarez (de Toledo),314 the queen’s secretary, owed Fernán Núñez Coronel some 4,500,000 mrs, including 50,000 mrs he had taken from the revenues of the Hermandad. This entry also states that interest must be added for money taken by his brother. Of that amount, Fernán Álvarez paid 200,000 mrs to the merchant Álvaro de la Torre. Luis de Alcalá announced that Fernán Núñez Coronel had given this sum to the Crown, but that it was the secretary who had taken it. • The income that Yose Abravanel had derived from farming the montazgo tax and the taxes of Palencia had been taken by the Crown. The family apparently went into exile after that, in view of the arrangement that the Crown reached with it. The money, amounting to 250,000 mrs, was given to Fernán Núñez Coronel and Fernán Pérez Coronel by the Crown, so that they would transfer it to Fernán Álvarez, who would benefit from it for a year. • Juan Álvarez, a brother of Fernán Álvarez, was paid 250,000 mrs. • Pérez de Zapata, also a brother of Fernán Álvarez, was paid 1,500,000 mrs. • Gonzalo de Baeza315 was paid 150,000 mrs in 1490 and 1491, and 480,000 mrs in 1492 and 1493; in 1494 there was no reason to pay him. The total amount was 630,000 mrs, and this sum had been received illicitly. He had other income about which the king knew. • The treasurer Ruy López had taken 1 m. mrs without justification. • His brother Francisco Núñez had taken money to which he had no right while he was serving as accountant. • The bachiller de la Torre, though he had no right to do so, had taken 50,000 mrs every year for five years between 1490 and 1495, a total of 250,000 mrs. Other payments are also mentioned that Senior had made over the years during the war against Granada.316 We learn about Fernán Núñez Coronel’s connections with Jews after the expulsion A G S, Diversos de Castilla, No. 574, Diciembre, 46–76. 315 On him see n. 1 above. He was the Crown accountant. 316 ‘Y de los otros años pasados que dura la conpañia’, AGS de S, Diversos de Castilla, No. 574, Diciembre, 46–76. 313 314

the senior dynasty

471

from the petition of Francisco Hernández Coronel to the Crown.317 Fernán Núñez Coronel and Luis de Alcalá wrote to their agent (‘factor’) in Galicia, asking him to transfer money in order to settle an account in Lisbon. It was agreed to transfer 1,600,000 mrs to Portugal in order to pay an obligation.318 Fernán Núñez Coronel arranged an exchange with several Jews, taking into account that money was commonly sent to Portugal from Galicia to cover purchases of salt. Fernán Núñez Coronel did not dare to send money there directly and informed the king about this arrangement. The money was stolen in Portugal, causing him a loss of 200,000 mrs. The king took the damage he had suffered into consideration and made do with a payment of 600,000 mrs. He forgave the rest, and thus he accepted the claim of Fernán Núñez Coronel and Luis de Alcalá. However, in addition the two men were required to pay the sum of 14 m. mrs. This payment was delayed, and in order to meet the king’s demand, the two had to take a loan, in addition to which they also had to pay 3 m. mrs, apparently in interest. Abraham Senior, together with a group of residents of Destriana,319 had signed a guarantee for two brothers, Abraham Comineto, a resident of Ponferrada, and Rabbi Yose Comineto, a resident of Bembibre.320 For three years the brothers had farmed the income of the comendador Arias Maldonado on land belonging to him, for the sum of 90,000 mrs and several additions in kind. The brothers went into exile before the Jews were required to leave Spain, and the guarantors were required to pay 10,000 mrs every year, of which one-tenth went to the monastery of San Marcos. The Crown responded to this matter for the first time on 21 July 1492 and ordered that the claims of the guarantors should be heard. When Rabbi Yose Comineto returned to his city after converting to Christianity in 1494,321 the guarantors renewed their claim against him, and demanded in addition an order that he should be imprisoned until he paid his debt to them, and his moveable property sold. The Crown’s decision was no different from before: it required a hearing of claims from both parties. The settling of accounts for 1494 shows that a debt to the Crown of 3 m. mrs remained. In that year Fernán Núñez Coronel won a concession in Aranda de Duero, according to the new regulations governing tax-farming. Although Pedro de Santa Cruz, having been appointed regidor there, enjoyed the right to collect the tax,322 and the council had determined that Fernán Núñez Coronel and Luis de Alcalá had no basis for a claim upon it despite suffering loss, the queen ordered that the latter pair should divide the tax-collection between them for the following three years (1495–7 inclusive).323 They did so, Coronel receiving the almojarifazgo mayor of Seville and See C y S Reales Leg. 10, fo. 207, dated 13 July 1515; on Francisco Hernández Coronel see above. The purpose of the payment cannot be known. Perhaps it was to the Portuguese Crown for King Manuel’s marriage with Isabella, the Crown Princess of Spain. 319 The other guarantors apart from Abraham Senior, who is already called Fernán Núñez Coronel, were Juan Domínguez; Diego Domínguez; Alonso Robres junior; Fernando de Benavides; Pedro de Robledino; 320 See RGS 9 No. 2516, fo. 114. Esteban Pérez Juan Borizo, a resident of Destriana. 321 As a Christian he was called Antonio Fernández. See Rodrigo Fernández, Provincia de León, ii. 426–7. We do not know what became of the other brother, Abraham Comineto. 322 His name indicates that he was of converso origin or a converso himself. 323 Pedro de Santa Cruz is connected with the order. 317 318

472

the senior dynasty

the alcabala tax of Palencia and Campos and their regions. The Royal Council ruled that if in one area they suffered a loss and gained a profit in another, the profit should be all theirs.324 In Palencia and Campos, Fernán Núñez Coronel had income in excess of 500,000 mrs every year, but his loss in the almojarifazgo mayor of Seville was greater than 6 m. mrs. The two tax-farmers requested that the profit should remain in their hands. In 1495 the king ordered a lien to be placed upon the salary coming to Fernán Núñez Coronel for collecting the taxes for the Crown in 1494.325 Apparently the business of tax-collection had not been managed properly. A document from 17 January 1499, which is an order from the Catholic Monarchs to Don Pedro de Castilla, the corregidor and magistrate of Toledo, shows that there was a suit pending between Diego de la Muela, the monarchs’ attorney, and Fernán Núñez Coronel concerning fraud in the alcabala tax from Seville and its vicinity, and also regarding interference with the tenders for collecting this tax, for which various persons wished to bid.326 Coronel denied the accusations, and the magistrates decided to hear the parties, giving them thirty days to present their claims. Coronel asked to be allowed to produce witnesses. This request was accepted by the Crown, and an interrogatory was drafted for the witnesses. The details were to be sent him in a sealed document by the notary or notaries.327 One other financial transaction in which Fernán Núñez Coronel was concerned may be mentioned here: in an unspecified year, he transferred 100 crowns to two of his sons, Luis Coronel and Francisco Hernández Coronel, who were studying theology at the University of Paris. To arrange the transfer the merchant Luis de Cuéllar was paid 100 Castilian doblas. The value of the entire transaction was 36,500 mrs.328 In 1494 rifts apparently began to develop in the family relations between Fernán Núñez Coronel and his grandsons Juan Pérez Coronel and Iñigo López Coronel, the sons of Fernán Pérez Coronel (formerly Rabbi Meir Melamed), and their partner Luis de Alcalá. An open quarrel broke out in 1495. On 4 September 1495 the Crown ordered the licenciados de Pedrosa, a royal councillor, and the licenciado de Coalla, the chief accountant, to deal with the complaint of Fernán Núñez Coronel against his partners.329 Fernán Núñez Coronel was willing to settle accounts with them in everything, but only if they paid their debts and obligations to him. On behalf of his competitors and erstwhile partners a plea was lodged before the Crown to have a magistrate or two magistrates appointed to hear their arguments. The dissolution of 324 In the margins of the document it is written that the Crown ordered the decision of the council to be verified. 325 On Fernán Núñez Coronel’s request to lift the lien is written the remark ‘verify the matter’. 326 The document does not state when the suit originated. See RGS I-1499, fo. 38, in Ocaña. 327 The interrogatory was to be prepared by the notary of the royal prison (‘escríbano de la carçel real’). Copies of the order were given to the corregidor of Burgos (Rodrigo de Cotes), and those of Medina del Campo (Hernando de Ribadeniera), Segovia (Diego Ruis de Montalbo), and Valladolid (his name is not listed). 328 See C y S Reales 9 Leg. 882, and J. K. Farge, Biographical Register of Paris Doctors of Theology 1500–1536 (Toronto, 1980), 112–16, on the youths’ activities after their studies. 329 The two magistrates were to report their decision, which would be inappellable, to the Crown. See RGS 12 No. 3341, fo. 29.

the senior dynasty

473

the partnership is mentioned in a document dated 7 February 1497, when Rodrigo de Maldonado and Diego de la Muela were appointed to deal with the rivalry between the former partners.330 We shall return to this matter below in the discussion of Fernán Núñez Coronel’s descendants. The date of Fernán Núñez Coronel’s death is unknown, as is his age. However, he lived longer than his son-in-law and partner, Fernán Pérez Coronel. An interesting list of debts remaining from his business in tax-farming and collection after the expulsion shows that he owed the Crown 1,369,047½ mrs.331 Moreover, after his death the quarrels did not cease, nor did the lawsuits and complaints to the Crown magistrates from various parties regarding taxes and outstanding debts. Thus Pedro del Campo, a resident of Segovia, took upon himself the unfinished business of tax-collection for 1501–2 in Jerez de la Frontera. The contract was awarded in its entirety to Pedro del Campo after the death of Fernán Núñez Coronel, on condition that the profits, which belonged to Coronel, were delivered to Pedro del Campo. He was required to pay 843,000 mrs of Coronel’s debts for 1494; he offered various reasons for not being obliged to pay, but on behalf of the Crown it was emphasized that he held the revenues he had received as a deposit. In the end it was agreed in the Crown Council that Pedro del Campo should pay half the income that accrued to Fernán Núñez Coronel in that year. He was also required to provide a guarantee that he would deal honestly towards the guarantors of Fernán Núñez Coronel with the revenue from Jerez de la Frontera if they were required to pay the sums for which they had signed as guarantors.332 The king and the executors of Fernán Núñez Coronel’s will reached the conclusion that Pedro del Campo must pay what was demanded of him. The Crown also ordered the seizure of his property valued at 615,000 mrs and its transfer to Ochoa de Olanda, the treasurer for settlements (‘descargos’). This sum represented half of what was due to Fernán Núñez Coronel, with the deduction of certain expenses; that is to say, less than the aforementioned sum of 843,000 mrs. The king also ordered the sale of the confiscated property and issued an order to protect its purchasers. However, it later transpired that the income was far greater, and therefore on 17 April 1506 the king ordered the corregidor of Segovia and his substitute, and all other corregidores and magistrates everywhere in the kingdom, to ascertain how much more revenue had been received into the possession of Pedro del Campo. He was ordered to appear before the Crown within fifteen days and present a detailed report.333 See RGS 14 No. 407, fo. 251, issued in Burgos. See C y S Reales Leg. 9, fo. 881. The remaining sum was 1,200,000 mrs as an outstanding debt after the death of Fernán Núñez Coronel. Another copy of the document is extant: C y S Reales Leg. 9, fo. 919. 332 C y S Reales Leg. 9, fo. 882. In contrast the same document mentions a bad debt of 500,000 or 600,000 mrs from the remainder of the collection of the albaquía tax still owing to Coronel. There are no details regarding the year of the debt. Perhaps it dated from the time of the collection of the albaquía tax, in which the king was a partner, when Fernán Núñez Coronel was treasurer of the Hermandad. See above. Pedro del Campo and Gonzalo de Segovia were appointed as executors of his will. They required the heirs of the comendador mayor Gutierre de Cárdenas to pay 400,000 mrs or more, which he owed Fernán Núñez Coronel. There remained a debt of 843,000 mrs. Pedro del Campo and Gonzalo de Segovia were still taxcollectors in 1500–3. 333 If he did not appear, property worth 228,000 mrs was to be seized and sold. If someone else paid in his place, he would be given a receipt. See C y S Reales Leg. 11, fo. 177, issued in Valladolid. 330 331

474

the senior dynasty

The claim had a further consequence in 1509. On 30 March 1509 the payment arrangements were determined. Pedro del Campo was obliged to pay the remainder of the debt, coming to 300,000 mrs, within 120 days of issuing the order. He managed to prove that he had indeed paid Fernán Gómez de Eseja, the accountant, in 1494, and also Lope de León and Fernando Marañón, who had been the king’s caballerizo.334 Fernán Núñez Coronel’s involvement in the financial transactions of the kingdom was very extensive, both in area and amount. The complications were many, and some were not even resolved during the reign of Charles V. On 12 November 1522 an official named Pedro Yáñez was ordered to search for and produce the documents relating to tax-collection in the past. He replied that not all the information was present in the account books. In his opinion, it was possible that the treasurer Alonso Gutiérrez de Madrid and the accountant Beltrán de San Cebrián had information about the accounts, having as he recalled reached an arrangement in Real de la Vega de Granada in 1492–4, and agreed on the division of taxes and tax-farming in 1495–7. He also recalled that Fernán Núñez Coronel and Luis de Alcalá were under arrest in 1494 or 1495 because of their debts to the Crown. In the audiencia that met in Burgos on 6 July 1524 it was decided to require Pedro Yáñez to declare the favours (that is, the payments) that Fernán Núñez Coronel had received from the Crown.335 In the tax register Miguel Sánchez (who also presented an affidavit to this effect) found an entry for 1492 that spoke of a declaration by Luis de Alcalá and ‘Rabbi Mayor’ (meaning that it was made when he was still a Jew). He also found a declaration regarding the years 1494, 1495, and 1497; a list written in Real de la Vega de Granada dated 2 November 1491 was also found in the register, and it is the instructions for the farming of taxes in 1492–4. These instructions were written at length, in full detail, so he could not copy them. Most likely a detailed discussion had been held regarding taxation and collection for those years, and apparently the projected war in Granada was considered in secrecy, as well as the subsequent tax-collections and the consequences of the expulsion of the Jews. On that occasion Miguel Sánchez announced that if he was ordered to do so he would produce the tax-farming accounts for 1493–7. He did not know what had been done in those years, because he had not been present in the royal court. Pedro Yáñez added that he did not know what authority or order Fernán Núñez Coronel had received regarding ‘the departure of the Jews’.336 Beltrán de Saltón, the accountant, said on that occasion that he did not possess treasury account books, but he remembered that Luis de Alcalá had presented a tax programme for 1492–4 (this in 1492) and also for 1495–7. Fernán Núñez Coronel’s son Francisco Hernández said that his father had participated in preparing the programme. Indeed he was probably a partner, by virtue of his status and as a result of his conversion. It cannot be doubted that the programme was formulated, and that Fernán Núñez Coronel participated in it after his conversion to Christianity. There is no reason to doubt his son’s declaration, which would not have been difficult to verify. Those present at the consultation of 12 November 1522 recalled the possible con334 336

See C y S Reales Leg. 10, fo. 207. Ibid., ‘Para yda de los judios’.

335

The book is entitled ‘Libro de rentas’.

the senior dynasty

475

sequences of the expulsion. They included the licenciado de Aguirre, the treasurer Alonso Gutiérrez, and the accountant Baltrán de Salto (or Saltón), and the notary for revenues Pedro de la Guarra. According to the memorandum, it was resolved that ‘there must be no reduction of any sort [in taxes], for among accountants and officials and men of the treasury it is said that the matter is for the benefit and service of their Royal Highnesses, for they feared that the departure of the Jews would severely disrupt the revenue, both because they contributed a great alcabala and because many of them were tax-farmers’.337 These are appropriate words with which to end the account of the life and activities of Abraham Senior–Fernán Núñez Coronel, an enterprising man who was involved in many intrigues and great transactions, one of the wealthiest men of Castile in his day.338

ix. rabbi meir melamed and his sons We know nothing about Rabbi Meir Melamed’s parents or his origins. He might have been born in Ávila, Segovia, or Guadalajara. He apparently lived in close vicinity to Abraham Senior. The title of ‘rabbi’, which all the documents attribute to him, is doubtless testimony to his education and erudition. We do not know when he married Abraham Senior’s daughter, nor is it possible to estimate the difference in age between him and his father-in-law. We possess his genealogy for only one generation (see overleaf). Rabbi Meir Melamed was most probably a man of means in his own right; he is known to have been the owner of a flour mill on the Eresma river in Segovia, in the district of Bernallos.339 His assets certainly increased as a result of his business partnership with his father-in-law, though it cannot be determined when this began. Some of the earliest information about Rabbi Meir Melamed relates to 1478, when he was in the queen’s service in Seville.340 One Juan de Riocandio, son of Martín González, a resident of Santa María del Puerto, stole gold and silver coin worth 200,000 mrs.341 Rabbi Meir demanded the return of what had been stolen, but being unable to recover it lodged a claim against the thief before the magistrate Miguel Navarro,342 who not 337 ‘Nonse podiese poner desquento alguno, lo qual entonçes, segun se platicaua entre contradores y ofiçiales y personas de hasienda se tovo por buen serviçio para Sus Altezas, porque se temian que por la yda de los judios auia grand quiebra de las rentas, asy por la mucha alcauala que ellos hazian como porque eran arrendadores muchos dellos’, ibid., the testimony of Pedro Pañes. 338 That document also mentions the men of the royal court who had received favours from him and on the damage that had been caused to him. Diego de la Muela (on whom see above) is mentioned among those who caused him damage. 339 RGS VIII-1499, fo. 71, issued in Valladolid on 28 Aug. 1499. Juan Pérez Coronel inherited the mill, whereupon the corregidor and alcalde of Segovia were ordered to deal with his complaint regarding the damage caused him by another mill belonging to the widow of García del Rio and Hernando de Segovia; he asked that no new building should be built that would cause him damage. The Crown responded to his request. 340 RGS 13 No. 1552, fo. 13, of 2 Sept. 1496, issued in Medina del Pomar. 341 Apparently this was a case of taking funds that were supposed to be transferred to the Crown. Rabbi Meir Melamed paid what was asked of him to the Royal Treasury. 342 His title was ‘alcalde ordinario en la yunta del Çesto, que es la merindad de Trasmiere’.

476

the senior dynasty

only ordered him to return 220 gold pieces (‘pieças de oro’) to Rabbi Meir Melamed within a certain time, but condemned him to death.343 However, the verdict alone was apparently sufficient.

Rabbi Meir Melamed’s sons, Juan Pérez Coronel and Iñigo López Coronel, reported this verdict to the queen and addressed her as their father’s legal heirs. They claimed that the money belonged to them and asked the queen to issue an order to that effect. She responded to them and ordered Juan de Deza, the corregidor of the towns of Laredo, Santander, San Vicente de Barquera, Castro, and Urdiales, or his substitute, to hear the claims of Juan de Riocandio, after he was arrested and his property was confiscated. But he was also to hear the claims of the Pérez Coronel family again. If he could not hear Riocandio, he was to keep him in prison and sell his property at public auction. This order is relatively late, dating from 2 September 1496. One can only speculate why Fernán Pérez Coronel did nothing about the matter before his death, or The punishment was ‘muerte natural’. See in the document, RGS 10 No. 2758, fo. 92 and below. He might have had a brother named Jacob Melamed, whose son converted to Christianity. Antonio de Ávila testified to that effect. See Carrete Parrondo, Proceso inquisitorial, 34, sig. 45, n. 1, and 48, sig. 75, n. 2. That Jacob Melamed was the nephew of Elvira González, the wife of Diego Arias, and received from her one arroba of oil for lamps; this may be the origin of the close ties between the Melamed and Senior families and Diego Arias Dávila. See ibid. 54 n. 83. On Samuel and Jacob Melamed see also ibid. 94, sig. 162. The testimony of Rabbi Meir Melamed also mentions that family relationship. See ibid. 103, sig. 181, and cf. ibid. 42, sig. 65. Rabbi Meir Melamed testified on 24 Apr. 1486. Jacob Melamed had a daughter named Jamila, who was married to Don Solomon Golonón. She, too, testified on 24 Apr. 1486. See ibid. 103, sig. 182. On a different Meir Melamed see ibid. 115, sig. 220. On the family see also Asenjo González, Segovia, 396–7; she accepts the identification of Carrete Parrondo. 345 346 See Baer, JchS ii. 399. See the document of 4 Nov. 1491 cited in n. 384. 347 They lived in the San Miguel quarter in Segovia. See M. Bataillon, ‘Les Nouveaux Chrétiens de Ségovie en 1510’, Bulletin hispanique, 58 (1956), 207–31. In 1510 he was no longer living. In 1519, after his death, his daughter María still lived there. She was married to Juan Bravo de Mendoza, a Christian of pure Christian extraction. This daughter lived for a long time and was married again, to another pure Christian named Fadrique de Solis. See Peñalosa, ‘Juan Bravo’. She died after 26 Nov. 1528. For her will, see ibid. 101–3. See also J. L. Lacave, review, Sefarad, 29 (1969), 371. 343 344

the senior dynasty

477

why his sons waited until three years after it before lodging their claim, while Juan de Riocandio was apparently at liberty. Rabbi Meir Melamed was involved in a lawsuit with Gonzalo Carrillo, a resident of Segovia, which lasted many years. The latter lodged a complaint before the Crown against him, describing him as a ‘criminal who defends himself’ and demanding that he should return 1,500 head of sheep and their products taken when Carrillo had sent them to Córdoba along with Rabbi Meir Melamed’s flock, in lieu of payment for ‘certain leases, pastures, wool, and grain in certain years belonging to the count of Faria’.348 He asked the Crown to instruct Rabbi Meir Melamed to return his house and property349 in the city of Segovia and in Navacerrada,350 which he had seized, together with the ‘jewels and writings’351 taken from himself and his wife, and pay the value of the goods on the basis of profit and loss. Rabbi Meir Melamed argued against him that there had not been as many sheep as Gonzalo Carrillo claimed. Moreover, Carrillo owed him money, as attested by a judgment issued by the magistrate of Manzanares. As for the house and the garden, which Carrillo alleged that he had taken in Segovia, they were in his possession because Carrillo and his wife had sold them to him. Finally, he had never taken the moveable property and writings that Carrillo claimed he had; if he did have some articles, Carillo had given them to him to settle a debt; he had never entered Carrillo’s house with the intention of taking them. Melamed claimed that Carrillo had been obliged to transfer the house, because he was being sued by Juan de Arévalo, a resident of Espinar, who had served as the guardian of minors. Nor was Rabbi Meir Melamed required to restore the pasture land to Carrillo, who had leased it from the count. Moreover, it had not been possible to send the sheep to graze there, because the land was in the region where the war between Castile and Portugal was being fought. Judgment was entrusted to Drs Alonso de Villaescusa and Fernando González de Monzón; however, they did not come to a decision. Carrillo therefore asked the Royal Council to determine the case, alleging that Monzón and Rabbi Meir had intentionally departed from their places of residence, making it impossible to hold the trial.352 The Crown appointed Dr Nuño Ramírez de Zamora, a member of the Royal Council, to take up the case from the point when Villaescusa and Monzón had ceased dealing with it. Thus some procedures had taken place, and Rabbi Meir Melamed had found a way to Monzón. The new judge summoned the two litigating parties before him, giving them thirty days to produce proofs; he announced that no further extension would be allowed, and he issued an interim order to that effect. Gonzalo Carrillo appeared and claimed that his witnesses were in many cities, towns, and localities, and he asked for a writ (‘carta reçebtoria’) attesting that he had appeared. He also asked for a suitable term for the production of his proofs, and he was given four weeks, starting from 28 August. This postponement was acceptable to 348 ‘Çiertos arrendamientos e dehasas de yerua e lana, de pan, por çiertos años del Conde de Haria 349 (Faria)’, RGS 3 No. 29, fo. 11; this may refer to the Count of Haro. ‘Casas e bienes’, ibid. 350 For the latter see RGS 3 No. 1103, fo. 252, dated 28 Dec. 1480, issued in Medina del Campo. 351 ‘Joyas e escripturas’, ibid. Perhaps this refers to papers and documents. 352 ‘Se auian ausentado a sabiendas’, ibid.

478

the senior dynasty

the Crown, which authorized the delay in the appearance of Carrillo’s witnesses and determined that their interrogation should be carried out according to an interrogatory that he should present. The replies, to be recorded by a notary, were to be sent to Carrillo, who would report them to the aforementioned magistrate. This decision was issued on 29 August 1480, in the defendant’s absence. Meanwhile Rabbi Meir Melamed had moved for the suit to be dismissed.353 He presented two letters, signed respectively by the notaries Antonio García de Cota of Segovia, the other by García González de Grijalda. These documents show that Alonso García, a butcher, and his son, also called Alonso, residents of Segovia, and with them Gonzalo Carrillo, had jointly obligated themselves to pay 212,900 mrs for a certain herd, and that that sum had been paid to Rabbi Meir Melamed. He had demanded that Rabbi Meir Melamed should swear that he, Carrillo, owed him that sum; Rabbi Meir had sworn according to Jewish law (‘segund su Ley’), and Carrillo had also taken an oath. Rabbi Meir had proved that the debt was larger, but that he had lodged a claim for less, because he had collected it by seizing Carrillo’s flock and other things about which he made statements at the time of the oath. Carrillo was now required to produce proof of the claim he had lodged before the magistrate and the council. He announced that he possessed proof and witnesses in the province of Segovia and the area of its diocese, in Manzanares and in Nevacerrada, but he needed sufficient time to produce these proofs. This was given to him in an order dated 28 December 1480.354 We read about the continuation of this lawsuit in a document dated 30 June 1485.355 Rabbi Meir Melamed was ordered by the Crown to appear before the members of the council in Valladolid and answer questions regarding the lawsuit between him and Carrillo. He was given three days from the date of the Crown order to appear. The short deadline shows that the matter had suddenly (and briefly) become urgent. It was possible to comply with it, given the rather short distance between Segovia and Valladolid. If he did not appear for the interrogation, the amount of the claim would be confiscated for the benefit of the Royal Treasury, and a fine of 100,000 mrs would be imposed upon him for the purposes of the war in Granada. He was to appear in person, and if he was absent, the hearing would be held as though he were present, and the members of the council would decide the case as they saw fit.356 We do not know the outcome of this suit. In any event, it teaches us about Rabbi Meir Melamed’s methods. His connections in the royal court were evidently as good as those of his father-inlaw, Abraham Senior. At that time, a tax-farming partnership apparently developed between Rabbi Meir Melamed and Luis de Alcalá. The three-way combination of these men with Abraham Senior assembled considerable means, potentially controlling all farming and collecSee RGS 3 No. 1103, fo. 261. He was given twenty days; the witnesses were to be questioned according to an agreed interrogatory to be prepared and presented by Gonzalo Carrillo; further, the two notaries whose documents Rabbi Meir Melamed had presented were ordered to appear before the magistrate and testify. The order was issued in 355 RGS 4 No. 1280, fo. 41, issued in Valladolid. Medina del Campo. 356 For failure to appear he would lose the Crown’s favour, and he would not summoned again. The notaries were to publish this summons: if they did not subpoena him, they would be subject to a fine of 10,000 mrs. 353 354

the senior dynasty

479

tion of taxes in the kingdom. Certainly competition in farming and collecting taxes was great, and their partnership created a kind of cartel that also had enormous influence on the Crown.357 Their methods emerge from a claim lodged against Luis de Alcalá and Rabbi Meir Melamed by the general prosecutor of the Royal Council, Pero Diáz de la Torre, for conspiring to prevent any other tax-farmer from tendering for the collection of taxes in the kingdom. They were called upon to appear in the royal court and justify themselves under penalty of confiscation of their property.358 The two appeared and argued that there was no reason to seize and confiscate their property, for they had not conspired, nor had they done anything illegal. Those who had testified to that effect were perjurers. The council, having heard both parties, decided that the king, queen, and members of the council should determine how the ‘taxes of the fifty-seven districts’359 were to be submitted to tender; to whom they saw fit, and even against the wishes of Luis de Alcalá and Rabbi Meir Melamed. At the same time, noting their good name in the past, the Crown dismissed all charges. After this decision, the two addressed the Crown, asking it to free all the property that had been confiscated, or was under a writ of confiscation, because of the decision in their favour. This document brings us into the world of tax-farmers and the harsh competition among them, while, as noted, the triumvirate of Abraham Senior, Luis de Alcalá, and Rabbi Meir Melamed predominated. Apparently not a few Jewish and non-Jewish taxfarmers became their subcontractors. A Crown order issued to Rabbi Meir Melamed and to Luis de Villanueva, a resident of Madrid, in July 1488, indicates their practice in collecting taxes.360 The two men were collecting the servicio and montazgo for the fiscal year beginning on St John’s day, 24 June 1487 on herds that passed through the city of Chinchilla on the way to grazing in Murcia; since the tax had not been not paid, they had impounded the herds. They were ordered to return them to their owners or to Jorge Mejía, of the Mesta council; within three days they were to refund the sums they had collected for the tax. On 30 July 1490 Ferdinand appointed three members of the Crown council, Dr Rodrigo Maldonado de Talavera, Dr Juan Díaz de Alcocer, and the bachiller Pedro Díaz de la Torre, to adjudicate the claim lodged by Rabbi Meir Melamed, tax-farmer and debt-collector for the alcabalas and ‘the debts, albaquías, and deficits of the Hermandad’,361 against ‘treasurers and agents and receivers of payments and property and other persons’,362 who occupied positions in the Hermandad. Rabbi Meir requested that the defendants should not be permitted to appeal against the verdicts, and complained to the Crown that certain magistrates granted them a long time to submit appeals. With their delaying tactics, they would wear him out, and his legal expenses were 357 On the Jewish lessors and collectors, see Baer, JchS ii. 346 ff. See also Ladero Quesada, El siglo XV en Castilla, 143–67; also Beinart, ‘The Memorandum’. 358 See RGS 5 No. 2417, fo. 161, issued on 13 Feb. 1488; Baer, JchS ii. 387 ff.; above, Ch. 6 n. 24. 359 ‘Las dichas rentas de los çinquenta y siete partidos’, ibid. 360 See RGS 5 No. 3681, fo. 174, issued in Murcia. The precise date is missing. In 1488 Rabbi Meir Melamed farmed the alcabala in Toledo. See Baer, JchS ii. 387 ff. 361 ‘Deudas, albaquias y alcançes de la Hermandad’. See RGS 7 No. 2417, fo. 70, issued in Córdoba; 362 Baer, JchS ii. 395 ff. ‘Thesoreros e esecutores e reçeptores e otras personas’, ibid.

480

the senior dynasty

high; he could not fulfil his obligations to the Crown and pay what he had taken it upon himself to pay on the stipulated dates. The judges were instructed to issue court orders (if not all three of them, then at least two) so that no delay be granted for appeals before the king’s council, the oidores of the audiencia, or even before the Crown itself. Álvaro de Nájera, a resident of Valladolid, lodged a complaint against a number of residents of Frómista and Carrión in the name of Rabbi Meir Melamed and Luis de Alcalá, in their capacity of supreme tax-farmers and collectors.363 These people owed the plaintiffs money, and had undertaken that if they did not pay before a certain date they would add a gold doubloon (‘vn dobla de oro’) for every day of arrears. Now they refused to pay, which was causing the plaintiffs grave loss. The remedy sought was the appointment of an agent on behalf of the royal court, authorized to arrest the defendants and confiscate their property; he would act at their expense. The Crown appointed the magistrate Pedro del Castillo to this post. He was instructed to leave for Frómista and Carrión and examine the accounts and claims together with Álvaro de Nájera, with authority to arrest the debtors and confiscate their property.364 Rabbi Meir Melamed, who is described in the document as ‘our commissioner and chief collector of debts, deficits, and albaquías of the Hermandad’,365 lodged a claim against Gómez Guillén, a resident of Madrid, for not transferring revenues that he had collected for those taxes. At a hearing it was decided that he was to pay Rabbi Meir Melamed 1,300,000 mrs on a fixed date every year, St John’s day (24 June). The Crown instructed Luis de Sepúlveda to seize him and confiscate his property, to sell it at public auction and pay Rabbi Meir Melamed what was due to him.366 Rabbi Meir Melamed can be seen at the height of his activity in a list of forty-four cities, towns, settlements, and districts where he farmed the alcabala tax in 1491.367 This list includes the kingdom of Murcia, areas under the dominion of the orders of Alcántara and Santiago, a very large area. His guarantors were Abraham Senior and Yose Abravanel. This demanded an organization of huge proportions and control over problems and people. Thus it is no wonder that he was involved in many lawsuits. In fact one may say that the main burden of tax-farming and -collection of the Senior–Melamed family was incumbent upon him. 363 From Frómista: Diego Álvarez de Frómista and his son Diego de Carrión; Álvaro Calderón, Diego Gómez, and Ruy Gómez, residents of Carrión. See RGS 8 No. 1964, fo. 118, issued in Burgos. 364 The order was issued on 23 July 1491 in Burgos. It is addressed to the corregidores, the magistrates, and the alcaldes of Palencia, Frómista, Carrión, and other places, and also to Pedro del Castillo. 365 ‘Nuestro arrendador y recaudador mayor de los debdos e alcançes e albaquias de la Hermandad’, see RGS 8 No. 1968, fo. 104, issued in Real de la Vega de Granada on 26 July 1491. We do not know when he became the partner of Abraham Senior in his activity with the Hermandad. 366 The case was heard by Drs Talavera and Alcocer and the bachiller de la Torre (see below), in the presence of Francisco Núñez, the regidor of Madrid, and Alonso del Mármol, escríbano de cámara. 367 See Baer, JchS ii. 398. The places were: Alhóndiga de Córdoba; Villanueva de San Román; the domains of Plasencia; the towns of the Order of Santiago and of Alcántara; Zamora; Cáceres; Trujillo; Medina del Campo; Tordesillas; Torre; the dioceses of Astorga; the domains of Sigüenza; Sahagún; the merindad of Allendebro; the diocese of Osma; Agreda; the merindad of Rioja; Cerratón; Calahorra; Logroño; Segovia; Ávila; Olmedo; Peñaranda; Fuentelsol; Castronuño and its bailía; Ciudad Rodrigo; Toledo; Madrid; Guadalajara; Aranda; Villadolid; Campos; Andújar; Alcalá de Henares; Soria; the dioceses of Orense; Lugo; Cartagena; the kingdom of Murcia; the condado of Niebla; Jerez de la Frontera.

the senior dynasty

481

This was the situation until the promulgation of the Edict of Expulsion. Uncertainty whether Rabbi Meir Melamed would leave with the exiles may be revealed by the request of Pedro Suárez de Alcalá, a resident of Cuenca who had served as an agent for the Hermandad in the province of Cuenca and Cartagena, for ‘order on an order’ from the Crown against Juan de Illescas, requiring him to present to him or to Rabbi Meir within thirty days a receipt signed by the Bishop of Almería, the Provisor of Villafranca, and also Alonso de Quintanilla, the chief accountant of the Hermandad, for the sum of 17,000 mrs. The first order had been given by Juan de Alcocer and Pero Díaz de la Torre by the Royal Council, instructing them to deal with all the matters concerning the albaquías of the Hermandad. The deadline had passed, and Juan de Illescas had not paid the debt. He apparently sought to avoid payment after the edict’s promulgation. Suárez was therefore interested in receiving the ‘order on an order’ in his favour; the Crown responded by ordering Illescas to produce the receipts for the payment to Rabbi Meir Melamed within thirty days.368 Rabbi Meir Melamed converted to Christianity in Guadalupe, along with his fatherin-law Abraham Senior, on 15 June 1492. We do not know whether his two sons were also present on that occasion. As a Jew one of them had been named Abraham after his grandfather Abraham Senior; he apparently took the name of Juan Pérez Coronel. The second son, whose Jewish name is unknown, became Iñigo López Coronel.369 Both reached their majority (25 years old) at the time of the conversion: when their father, Fernán Pérez Coronel, died before 20 March 1493, they could inherit his business (otherwise a guardian would have been appointed). Rabbi Meir Melamed’s wife, Abraham Senior’s daughter, was not present at the conversion and apparently converted later, when the New Christians returned from Guadalupe to their home in Segovia. About a week after his conversion, on 23 June 1492, Fernán Pérez Coronel was appointed as a member of the Royal Council. The appointment was issued in Guadalupe, and he was certainly there when he received this prestigious position. According to the letter of appointment, he was required to attend meetings of the council, to vote in discussions and decisions, and to express his opinion. His salary was set at 30,000 mrs annually, which would be paid to him on the same date as the other members of the council were paid. The president of the council was instructed to summon him and grant him the rights and privileges due him as a member of the Royal Council. The accountants were ordered to record this order in their books and to pay his salary for the current year, 1492, and every following year, as it was paid to the other members of the council.370 On that date he received another appointment, in addition to the title of regidor and member of the Royal Council: to serve as the chief accountant of the crown prince, Don Juan. That appointment was for life. His salary for that position was 30,000 mrs annually, authorized by the document appointing him as a member of the Royal 368 369 370

RGS 9 No. 1687, fo. 601, issued in Santa Fe, 15 May 1492. On Iñigo López Coronel, see Asenjo González, Segovia, 366, 439; on Juan Pérez Coronel, ibid. 396, 440. RGS 9 No. 2345, fo. 51, issued in Guadalupe.

482

the senior dynasty

Council; he was to enjoy all the appropriate privileges.371 The Crown instructed the Crown Prince, the infantes, the dukes, marquesses, heads of orders, and the like, to obey the order. The official appointment of Fernán Pérez Coronel as regidor of Segovia is found in a document dated 2 July 1492.372 He was appointed on the basis of the many services he had rendered to the Crown.373 This appointment was also for life, in succession to Juan de Cabrera, who wished to be relieved of the position. The members of the council, corregidores, clerks, caballeros, and heads of the city were to receive him without any further document and to swear him in. He was to receive the salary due him for this position. All the privileges enjoyed by Juan de Cabrera would devolve upon him. His authority was complete, even if members of the council or municipal government should attempt to prevent him from assuming his position.374 Another document, dated 20 November 1492, relates that the city council had chosen Fernán Pérez Coronel as the regidor of Segovia in place of Juan de Cabrera, who was the candidate of the caballeros and the escuderos, and he belonged to the lineage of Día Sánchez.375 The council requested the Crown to confirm the choice. Apparently this also refers to the definition of his status as a representative of the caballero class. The Crown confirmed the choice.376 He apparently did not stand out in his activity on the city council, being preoccupied with farming and collecting the taxes of the kingdom. Before August 1492 he reported to the Crown that in Maqueda and in Torrijos 200,000 mrs in taxes remained uncollected because there was no agent there.377 On 13 October 1492 a series of witnesses was interrogated regarding the sale of property that had taken place in Llerena and the area of Jerez de la Frontera.378 Juan Fernández de la Pacheca testified about the sale of buildings and property of residents who had served as guarantors for Samuel Huesque, a farmer of the alcabala tax. All the guarantors were Christians, and the property that had been sold was worth 139,000 mrs.379 The sale was managed by Fernán Pérez de Mieses, the son of Diego Pérez. The latter had a power of attorney from Fernán Núñez Coronel for collecting debts in Jerez de la Frontera. Judging by 371 ‘E ayades e leuedes otro tanto salario y los otros derechos’, ibid. RGS 9 No. 2344, fo. 52, issued in Guadalupe, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 438–9. The appointment as regidor is registered 372 See RGS 9 No. 2395, fo. 55, issued in Ávila. on 2 July 1492, see below. 373 ‘Acatando vuestra sufiçiençia ydoneidad e abilidad e los muchos e buenos seruiçios que nos auedes fecho y fasedes de cada dia en alguna enmienda e remuneraçion dellos, tenemos por bien e es nuestra merçed que agora e de aqui adelante para en toda vuestra vida seades nuestro regidor de la dicha çibdad de Segovia en lugar e por renunçio del dicho Juan de Cabrera’, ibid. 374 The sanction for non-compliance with the order was a fine of 10,000 mrs. 375 ‘Linaje del Día Sánchez’. See the document: RGS 9 No. 3372, fo. 29, issued in Barcelona. 376 Those opposing the appointment would lose the Crown’s favour and be subject to a fine of 10,000 mrs. 377 See Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 457–8. 378 See Hacienda, Leg. 1 No. 73, fos. 27r ff. The collection of testimony took place in Jerez de los Caballeros (‘Xeres, çerca de Badajoz’). The testimony was heard before the corregidor of Jerez, bachiller Alonso de Fuente, and the escríbano Juan Pérez de las Carreras. 379 According to the testimony of Gómez González Rosquido the value of the property sold came to 110,000 mrs; Rodrigo Zapata estimated it at 113,000 mrs; Miguel Rodrigo appraised it at 146,000 mrs; and Fernán Sánchez Arjona’s estimate was 107,000 mrs. The average estimate was thus 123,000 mrs.

the senior dynasty

483

all the testimony, Samuel Huesque appears to have been a subcontractor for Fernán Núñez Coronel and his partners Fernán Pérez Coronel and Luis de Alcalá. Juan de la Hoz de Almuña from Segovia served as a guarantor for Urosol, the wife of Isaac Zaragosí of Segovia, for the sum of 300,000 mrs, which she had to pay to the monks of El Paular and other churchmen, as well as to Fernán Núñez Coronel. As guarantor, he gave her an additional 100,000 mrs that were paid to other people and also guaranteed the tercia tax that her husband farmed in Segovia. In return for this Urosol transferred several debts to him, which remained to be collected from the aforementioned taxes after several debtors had failed to pay her. He was also to receive the profit from some of the taxes that her husband had transferred to others for farming, and various taxes that should have been collected. She left several obligations to supply merchandise and houses that belonged to her and her husband in the region of her diocese. Since the Crown had placed a lien on the outstanding debts of Christians to Jews, and since he had taken it upon himself to collect her debts, severe damage was caused to him, and he asked the Crown to release the money and merchandise from confiscation and lien, especially because they involved no usury or interest (‘vsura nin logros’), so that he could collect the money for which he had served as a guarantor. On 25 October 1495 the Catholic Monarchs decreed that his request should receive attention, after the corregidor of Segovia investigated the truth of his claims.380 Día Sánchez381 and Fernán Pérez Coronel were ordered to examine the outstanding debts of Christians to Jews who had gone into exile, and also to ascertain which debts involved interest. When the Crown issued the order placing a lien on the former, it ordered the latter to be cancelled. After the death of Fernán Pérez Coronel, Ponce de Cabrera382 was appointed to this position, and caused havoc by arbitrary exercise of his powers. Therefore, acting in his own name and as procurador of the council, the administration, and the ‘good men’ of the towns and the sexmo of that area (Segovia),383 Juan González del Mesón, a resident of Villacastín, asked the Crown for redress. The corregidor of Segovia, Dia Sánchez, was ordered to respond to his request and determine which loans had been given with interest or fraude de usura, that is, concealed interest. He was to do so with the assistance of a magistrate or a letrado and to declare according to his authority the cancellation of interest and collection of the outstanding debts of Jews who had been expelled. As noted, Fernán Pérez Coronel did not live long; he evidently died before 20 March 1493. His sons Juan Pérez and Iñigo López inherited his tax-farming business, in which they had probably assisted him while he was alive. A document dated 4 380 See RGS 9 No. 3024, fo. 46, issued in Barcelona. On Juan de la Hos see Carrete Parrondo, Proceso inquisitorial, Reg. s.v. He was a converso. On Isaac Zaragosi see ibid., 87. 381 He is Dia Sánchez Quesada, who was the corregidor of Segovia and a relative of Juan de Cabrera, in place of whom Fernán Pérez Coronel was appointed to the city council. See above. On Dia Sánchez see Asenjo González, Segovia, 528, 530. 382 See RGS 10 No. 2758, fo. 97, issed in Barcelona on 20 Oct. 1493; Fernán Pérez Coronel is described as ‘ya defunto’, meaning that he had died some time previously; it appears that he died on 20 Mar. 1493. Juan Pérez Coronel inherited his place on the council as regidor. See below, n. 394. 383 Sexmo refers to the territorial division of the towns and villages connected to one another for the management of their common property.

the senior dynasty

484

November 1491 informs us about Abraham Melamed, the son of Rabbi Meir Melamed.384 He was evidently the elder son, named after his grandfather Abraham Senior, and is probably to be identified, as suggested above, with Juan Pérez Coronel. Abraham Melamed was a resident of Medina del Campo, and on that day an order was given to the merchant messir Lorenzo Albertyn and his agent (‘fazendor’), Galdino, a resident of Valladolid, and also to Abraham Melamed and his agent, Gutierre de Yniesta. Two residents of Medina del Campo, Rodrigo de Dueñas and Nicolás de Madrigal, addressed the Crown about a fire that had broken out in their houses in Valladolid. One of the houses was located in a placed named Rincona, and the other in Calle de la Plaza. The fire had destroyed the entire contents of the houses, worth 500,000 mrs. Claiming that if they had to pay their debts to Lorenzo Albertyn and Abraham Melamed, they would be destitute, they asked the Crown for a two-year postponement. Rodrigo de Dueñas owed 34,000 mrs to Abraham Melamed for grain that he had bought from him; Nicolás de Madrigal owed 20,000 mrs for wine that he had bought from Albertyn. At the fair in Medina del Campo the previous month Albertyn and Melamed had tried to collect those debts, but they purportedly lacked the means to pay them. In their suit the debtors claimed that Albertyn and Melamed were wealthy men and could wait for two years, and requested that during that period they should not be harassed or required to pay the debts. They also asked the Crown to instruct the corregidores and magistrates of Medina del Campo and other places not to act against them. The Crown ordered Rabbi Meir Melamed and Lorenzo Albertyn and their business managers to appear before the condestable and his council, who were in Burgos, within ten days, and to present arguments as to why they should not accede to the aforementioned request. If they did not appear, the condestable would reach a decision in their absence. The Crown apparently leant towards accepting the plaintiffs’ request.385 In our opinion this document refers to the elder son of Rabbi Meir Melamed. If one assumes, as we have suggested above, that he converted to Christianity and became known as Juan Pérez Coronel, since he appears regularly in documents together with his brother Iñigo López Coronel, always listed first, he was evidently already independent and acting on his own account before the expulsion. However, it is difficult to explain his residence in Medina del Campo, for later, after his father’s death, Juan Pérez Coronel was appointed to inherit his position as regidor of Segovia. That appointment almost certainly required residence in Segovia. However, it must be recalled that there were instances when people were appointed as regidor although they did not live in the city where they were appointed.386 The two sons Juan Pérez Coronel and Iñigo López Coronel acted vigorously upon inherting their late father’s affairs. A number of documents provide information about their operations and methods. As noted, since they had reached majority, it may be assumed that they were both married and men of means. Iñigo López Coronel, a resident of Segovia, was the chief collector of the alcabala, 384 385 386

RGS 8 No. 2933, fo. 278, issued in Burgos. For failure to appear they would be fined 10,000 mrs. See e.g. Beinart, ‘The Memorandum’.

the senior dynasty

485

tercia, and maestrazgo taxes in Calatrava. Samuel Francés and his brother Jacob,387 residents of Pastrana, had farmed the alcabala and tercia taxes in the regions of Soria and Almoguera. They owed large amounts to Iñigo López Coronel for tax-farming; against the debt they deposited with him ‘grain, money, and other things, which were owed to them from those revenues’388 by the councils and people of the maestrazgo, and left guarantors for these debts. They had been subcontractors of Iñigo López Coronel (or of his father, Fernán Pérez Coronel) and had gone into exile. In his petition to the Crown Iñigo López Coronel requested the release of those debts from the lien placed on them on 26 February 1493 so that he could collect from them what was due to him. He succeeded in obtaining an order to examine the instructions governing the lien. It was given to the members of the council of the order of Calatrava, and his request was apparently honoured. We may read about Juan Pérez Coronel’s business in a document from 7 March 1493,389 which is an order to the magistrates of the royal court and the chamber and to the corregidores and magistrates of the city of Toledo and Segovia and the town of Escalona and of all other places. Alonso Garson, a resident of Almorox, complained to the Crown about his business dealings with Juan Pérez Coronel. About March 1492 he had bought 300 fanegas of grain, wheat, rye, and barley.390 His guarantor was García Ordóñez, a resident of Almorox. He bound himself to pay Juan Pérez Coronel for the grain on a certain date. No grain was delivered him at the time of the contract, only twenty days later. Then he lost a sixth of the value of the purchase, for García Ordóñez refused to serve as a guarantor unless half of the purchase were given to him. Because of the delay he was apparently called upon to give the guarantor another third of the remainder. When the time came to settle the debt for the purchase, García Ordóñez fled, leaving behind no property that Juan Pérez Coronel could seize in payment for his share. He therefore demanded the full payment from Alonso Garson, but the latter claimed that he could not pay without incurring grave damage in the transaction. Given the value of all that he possessed, even if he could sell it, the amount would not cover his debt, and he would be completely destitute and become a beggar.391 He therefore asked the Crown to give him a reasonable term for paying the debt. In his opinion, Juan Pérez Coronel could wait, since he was ‘wealthy and a man of means’,392 and the postponement of the payment would not damage him. He further requested that there should be no forced collection of the debt through sale of his property. The Crown and the council responded to him and ordered Coronel to appear before them within six days to present his argument against agreeing to the request for a postponement. But he did not trouble to appear, and therefore Garson accused him of rebellion. For its part the council gathered information about Garson and reached the 387 On him see Cantera Burgos and Carrete Parrondo, Sefarad, 33 (1973), 274 ff., where this document is discussed. 388 ‘Pan e maravedis e otras cosas que a ellos eran deuidos de las mismas rentas’, see RGS 10 No. 453, fo. 38, issued in Barcelona. Apparently an attorney acted in his name there. 389 See RGS 10 No. 582, fo. 32, issued in Barcelona. 390 ‘De pan, trigo e çenteno e çebada el par de las fanegas’, ibid. 391 392 ‘Pedir por Dios’, ibid. ‘Es onbre rico y cabdaloso’, ibid.

486

the senior dynasty

conclusion that in his circumstances, because of his poverty, he could not pay his debt to Coronel, who after all was rich enough to wait for payment of the debt. Therefore the council decided to permit postponement of payment according to the following schedule: within twenty days of issuance of the order on 7 March 1493 Alonso Garson was to pay a third of the debt; the remaining two-thirds would be payable six months after issuance of the order. He was to produce reliable guarantors to this arrangement. During that time no executive magistrate would order his arrest and if an order for the seizure of his property was issued, the magistrates were to delay its implementation. All this was conditional upon Alonso Garson’s obedience to the order.393 On 20 March 1493, as noted above, he inherited his father’s place on the council of the city of Segovia.394 On that day the Crown responded to the request of the city leaders who had chosen him, and, in accordance with the customs and privileges of their city, it confirmed the election of Juan Pérez Coronel, the son of Fernán Pérez Coronel, in place of his late father. The Crown announced to the mayor of Segovia, the corregidor, the ‘good men’, the alguacil, the alcalde, the caballeros, and other officeholders the ratification of the election, as it was right for a son to be chosen in his late father’s place. The Crown instructed that he should be sworn in and granted all the rights and honours due to him according to the privilege. Juan Pérez Coronel acted on behalf of his city in a petition to the Crown for the allocation of certain debts owed by Christians to Jews who had gone into exile to the repair of the Alcázar there, as the Crown had ordered. He was unable to obtain the money because the public notaries refused to witness the transactions even though they were paid to do so. He therefore asked the Crown to order the transfer of funds, since the delay caused damage. The order is unusual in that it was given to the notaries of Plasencia, requiring them to be present at the transfer. Clearly these were debts left behind by Jews who had gone into exile.395 In our opinion this order is connected to a list of debts left behind by Jews from Plasencia who went into exile. These are listed in an order issued in Barcelona and dated 26 July 1493. According to it, the debts were to be collected for the needs of the Alcázar in Segovia,396 and the list is worth presenting in detail: Meir Cohen of Plasencia left behind the following debts: From García López de Caravajal From Pedro de Villalobos From Pero González de Mirabel From the alcalde of Mirabel Subtotal

Amount (mrs) 60,000 150,000 65,000 13,008 288,000

393 Anyone violating the order would pay a fine of 20,000 mrs ‘for the buildings and works that we have ordered to have done in the city of Granada’ (‘para los hedifiçios e las obras que nos mandamos faser en la çibdad de Granada’), and he would lose the Crown’s favour. Ibid. 394 See RGS 10 No. 708, fo. 43, issued in Barcelona. 395 See RGS 12 No. 868, fo. 249, issued in Madrid on 25 Feb. 1495. The following day Juan Pérez Coronel obtained an order from the Crown addressed to the corregidor of Segovia, instructing him to respond to Coronel’s request to receive wood at a discount, as was customary for everyone who was of good 396 See RGS 10 No. 1690, fo. 129. and noble lineage. See RGS 12 No. 883, fo. 368.

the senior dynasty

487

Mose Cohen of Plasencia: Amount (mrs) From Juan Fernández: cash (13,000 mrs), two houses, and a third of a structure (‘mesón’) 31,000 From Gonzalo de Caravaja 13,000 Subtotal 44,000 Debt left in hands of Juan de la Hoz de Almuña397 by the wife of Amarax of Segovia 80,000 Total

412,000

According to the order, that money belonged to the Crown, because the Jews had smuggled out property and money, which were not allowed to be removed from the kingdom, as ordered by the Edict of Expulsion. The Crown instructed Juan Pérez Coronel to collect this sum to repair the Alcázar of Segovia, and the debtors were to pay him or whomever he should appoint to collect the money.398 To these debts we must add the money owed to Jews and left behind in Malpartida; the matter is connected with Mose Cohen, whom various residents of Malpartida399 owed a total of 10,000 mrs. Juan Pérez Coronel had to collect those debts. Meanwhile, Mose Cohen returned and converted to Christianity, taking the name of Vasco Chamigo, and claimed that the sum was due to him. For their part, those listed as debtors addressed the judicial system that dealt with Jewish debts and requested postponement of payment. However, their petition was not lodged in time, so that the judicial decision that had been issued regarding the debt became absolute. However, since the payment was not collected, Juan Pérez Coronel asked the Crown to issue a subpoena requiring the debtors to appear in court so that their claim could be heard on the footing of an appeal. The Crown magistrates who examined the petition recommended that a special order be issued for their appearance. Consequently they were given twenty days to appear before the magistrates. If they did not appear, Juan Pérez Coronel would win the suit.400 The man who was assigned to collect this money was Juan Pérez Coronel’s attorney, Alonso de Sahagún. As late as 1496 he complained to the Crown that he had not managed to collect the funds for repairing the Alcázar. Therefore, on 22 April 1496, the Crown ordered the judges of the royal court to see that the order was implemented.401 The Crown included debts from several other places in this order: the dioceses of Astorga, Alcocer, Lillo, Illescas, and Malpartida.402 On him see above. Anyone wishing to appeal against the debt had to appear before the Crown within fifteen days. 399 They were Mateo Sánchez; Juan, the son of Mencia Martín; Alonso Fernández, the son of Juan Sánchez; Alonso, the son of Mateo Sánchez; and Andrés Sala. 400 See RGS 12 No. 4093, fo. 97, issued in Burgos in Nov. 1495 (date missing). 401 See RGS 12 No. 2496, fo. 143, issued in Valladolid. 402 In response to the other petition lodged by Alfonso de Sahagún on this matter, he received an order from the Crown on 30 Apr. 1496. Since the defendants did not appear for the trial, he requested judgment, and implementation of the order for seizure of property. The magistrates acceded to this demand and added that the defendants must also pay the expenses of Sahagún’s attorney, amounting to 946 mrs. The corregidor of Plasencia was instructed to implement this verdict. See RGS 13 No. 689, fo. 154, issued in Valladolid. 397 398

488

the senior dynasty

Juan Pérez Coronel and his brother Iñigo López Coronel were involved in collecting the debts owed to Jews who had gone into exile. Collection of these debts engaged them, as it had occupied their grandfather, Fernán Núñez Coronel, for many years. This was a task that the Crown had imposed upon them for its benefit. It appears, as we shall see below, that the brothers divided the collection of these debts as the heirs of their father, Fernán Pérez Coronel. In Ciudad Real the notary public, Antonio de la Torre,403 was ordered by the Crown to provide Iñigo López Coronel with the documents regarding a claim lodged by Fernán Pérez Coronel against Gaspar Mejía, a resident of the city.404 We do not know whether this was a debt left by Jews to whom money was owed there or whether it was a matter of unpaid taxes that Yose Abravanel had farmed there. In July 1495 Juan Pérez Coronel obtained a judgment against Doña María de Caravajal and her daughter, Doña Leonor de Salazar.405 Both of them appeared before the magistrates appointed to deal with ‘the debts of the Jews whom we have ordered to be expelled from the kingdom’.406 Cristóbal Pizarro, a resident of Trujillo, appeared in their name;407 judgment was given by Alfonso Ruiz de Olmedo, who was apparently one of the magistrates appointed to deal with Jewish debts. The two women continued to complain that the notary refused to give them the judgment, using various pretexts and postponements, so that the time allotted for an appeal should pass, and the judgment become absolute. Since Leonor de Salazar was a minor, Cristóbal Pizarro requested the Crown to issue an order regarding appeals. The Crown responded and instructed the licenciado Francisco de Vargas, corregidor of Plasencia, and the magistrate Alonso Ruiz de Olmedo to cease further involvement in the affair and not to adjudicate the complaint. Pizarro was ordered to appear before the Crown, which would decide regarding the appeal, and he was given thirty days to do so. Since the magistrates for Jewish debts were mentioned, there is no doubt that the order refers to this type of claim, but we have no details about it. Another magistrate for ‘debts of the Jews’ and their property was Lesmes de Mazuelo in the city of Segovia.408 Together with the licenciado de Quintanilla, he was ordered to respond to the complaint of Francisca de Benavente, the wife of Francisco de Benavente, regarding a lawsuit between her husband and Fernán Pérez Coronel and his sons and heirs regarding the sum of 39,000 mrs. They came to an arrangement with the magistrate’s son, Francisco de Mazuelo, that he would declare that the debt was of Jews who had left the kingdom. Because of those contacts, Francisco de Benavente had been arrested and was held in prison. His wife asked the Crown for an order to release her husband on bail and for an examination of the complaint. On him see Beinart, Records, iv. 515. See RGS 11 No. 608, fo. 388, issued on 5 Mar. 1494. See Beinart, Records, iv, no. 124. 405 RGS 12 No. 3014, fo. 439, issued in Burgos. 406 ‘Para el negoçio tocante a la hasienda de los judios que nos mandamos hechar de nuestros reynos’, ibid. See Appendix. 407 On him see Beinart, Trujillo, index, and also the trial of Gonzalo Pérez Jarada: Leg. 175 No. 1(662), fo. 27r. 408 His title was ‘Nuestro juez de los bienes de los judios de la çibdad de Segovia’. See RGS 12 No. 3129, fo. 198, issued in Burgos on 12 Aug. 1495. 403 404

the senior dynasty

489

This petition led to an order issued in Burgos on 7 November 1495,409 from which we learn that Francisco de Benavente had served as a guarantor for a certain sum of money on behalf of a Jew named Isaac Menbroso, who had left for exile. For this reason Francisco de Mazuelo arrested Benavente and kept him in prison for three months. Benavente claimed that he did not owe the money at all, and that he possessed a judicial verdict attesting to that. His imprisonment by Francisco de Mazuelo was illegal, and without authority, and it was the reason why he could not appear before the Crown Council and lodge an appeal against his arrest and imprisonment. The Crown therefore ordered the magistrates to hear the complaint, and the notaries before whom the claim had been lodged to record the judicial proceedings and deliver them signed and sealed to Francisco de Benavente so that he could present them to the magistrates of the royal court, the alcalde de Castro and licenciado Gallego. They seem to have resolved the issue and adjudicated the complaint. It appears that Juan Pérez Coronel and Iñigo López Coronel increasingly took control of tax-collection. On 8 July 1496 the Crown ordered them to be paid 250,000 mrs. This was the remainder of taxes from the years 1492–4 owed by Gonzalo de Ubeda and his son Sánchez de Ubeda, residents of Casarrubios.410 On 8 January 1497 the Crown ordered Carlos de Lucena, a resident of Alcalá de Henares, to appear before the magistrates Rodrigo Maldonado de Talavera, a member of the Crown Council, and Diego de la Muela, within fifteen days, to present his accounts and to answer questions regarding money he had collected which was the income of the Cardinal of Spain. He had also taken it upon himself to collect money on behalf of Fernán Núñez Coronel.411 If he failed to appear, the magistrates would hear only the arguments of Fernán Pérez Coronel and his partner Luis de Alcalá.412 Juan Pérez Coronel apparently died before 1501, for on 5 July 1501 the Crown appointed Iñigo López Coronel to take his place as regidor in the council of Segovia among the caballeros. The appointment was for life, and it was not at the expense of the new regidores appointed to the city council, as had been determined in the Cortes of Toledo in 1491. The members of the council, the caballeros, escuderos, magistrates, regidores, officials, and ‘good men’ were to receive him in the council without delay.413 Nevertheless, conflicts and quarrels were not lacking in the Coronel families between the heirs of Fernán Pérez Coronel and their grandfather, Fernán Núñez Coronel, who lived to a great age. We do not know the background of this friction and these quarrels, to which Luis de Alcalá was also a party, siding with Juan Pérez and Iñigo López. It appears that this was the end of the partnership in which the family had been engaged for decades. 410 See RGS 12 No. 3956, fo. 185. See RGS 14 No. 62, fo. 228, issued in Almazán. RGS 14 No. 62, fo. 313, issued in Burgos. 412 The fine for failure to obey the order was 50,000 mrs! This order was given on the same day to jurado Alemán from Talavera for Vallejo and Alonso de Illescas and Juan Alonso and Andrés de Herrera, residents of Herrera. See also RGS 15 No. 903, fo. 113, issued in Alcalá de Henares on 26 Mar. 1498. This order apparently does not refer to Jews. Fernando de Medina, who is mentioned in the order, was accused of fraud by Luis de Alcalá and Juan Pérez Coronel. He was imprisoned, and they asked that he should be kept in prison until his actions could be investigated. 413 See RGS VII-1501 (fo. no. missing), issued in Granada. 409 411

the senior dynasty

490

Fernán Núñez Coronel addressed the Crown and claimed that he anticipated friction or quarrels and differences of opinion with Luis de Alcalá and Juan Pérez Coronel and his brother Inigo López Coronel, who had inherited the business of their father, Fernán Pérez Coronel. They used to quarrel with his own sons, and his brother, his servants, the managers of his business, and his agents. He himself had had quarrels with them. He was interested in presenting the full account to the Crown and paying everything that he owed according to law.414 He requested them to pay him what they owed him, and for that reason he asked the Crown to appoint either a single magistrate or two, above all suspicion (‘syn sospecha’), who would deal with the accounts and debts that others owed them and in whose collection he was involved. Evidently Fernán Núñez Coronel, suspecting that his three partners had cheated him and conspired against him, had asked for the intervention of the Crown, having reached his wit’s end. Moreover, their association for farming and collecting taxes was soon riven with strife. It appears that the opposing party did not sit idly by, and it, too, lodged a complaint with the Crown, requesting the appointment of a magistrate to deal with its relations with Fernán Núñez Coronel.415 The Crown apparently anticipated this development and appointed the licenciados de Pedrosa and de Coalla to investigate the claims and the accounts and reach a decision, against which no appeal would lie. It appears that the family relations after the expulsion ran aground in litigation accompanied by reciprocal allegations before the Crown magistrates. Abraham Senior– Fernán Núñez Coronel could not have imagined that, in his old age, fissures would develop in his business organization and bring down a financial dynasty that had begun in Judaism and ended in Christianity.

x. solomon senior, the sons of abraham senior, and other family members Solomon Senior We cannot state with certainty how the business relations between Abraham Senior and his brother Solomon Senior were formed and developed. In testimony delivered before investigators of the Inquisition on 21 April 1486, Abraham Senior related that his brother Don Solomon had preached in the Great Synagogue of Segovia, and that some Christians had come to hear him.416 The subject of the sermon was natural and moral philosophy. While we cannot know whether or not this topic was addressed from within the Jewish tradition, in any event we see that Solomon Senior was an educated man. A chronicler speaks of ‘rabbi Don Isaac Abravanel of blessed memory, who con414 ‘El qual dicho Fernand Nuñez dize que quiere dar su cuenta enteramente de todo cargo e dar cuenta e conplir e pagar lo que la justiçia deuiera’. See RGS 12 No. 3341, fo. 29, issued in Tarazona on 4 Sept. 1495. 415 See below, in the description of the actions of Luis Núñez Coronel, a resident of Zamora; the documents are from 21 Oct. 1495 and 3 May 1496. 416 ‘E que bido aqui hir [sic] a un sermon de don Salomon, su hermano, façia en la sinoga mayor de esta çibdad algunos christianos’; it is unclear whether this means that conversos came to hear him or Old Christians. See Carrete Parrondo, Proceso inquisitorial, 107 ff., sig. 190. Below he mentions several names: Canon Antón Vázquez; canon and licenciado Alonso Álvarez; and a physician whose name he did not remember.

the senior dynasty

491

secrated the divine name in public before the king and ministers, he and the Sage Don Solomon Senior the elder, the brother of the Rabbi’.417 According to this account, he was supposed to go into exile, as Don Isaac Abravanel and his family had done. Above we have described the controversy between Solomon Senior and Juan de Talavera,418 which will also be mentioned below. The Simancas archive possesses a order from the Catholic Monarchs, issued in Valladolid on 21 September 1492,419 to the corregidores of Segovia and other cities, and also to the magistrates of those places, to carry out a sentence pronounced in a trial that had been held before the magistrate-commissioner and member of the Royal Council, Gonzalo González de Illescas, between Garci Sánchez de Calahorra and Gómez de Estudilio, a resident of Aranda de Duero, of the one part, and Solomon Senior, a Jew420 resident in Segovia, and his attorney, Rabbi Abraham Nájera, of the other, regarding the farming contract allotted them in 1492–4 by Senior’s business manager and agent in Aranda, César Calderón, for alcabala on peas, beans, must, staves, leather, and footwear,421 to the amount of 11,000 mrs annually.422 Doubtless this transaction had been arranged before the Edict of Expulsion. Solomon Senior subcontracted this tax-farm at quite a high price. In this litigation the plaintiffs advanced arguments, but the defence did not, and may not even have appeared. The verdict accordingly went in favour of Sánchez and Estudillo; 115,000 mrs were confiscated from Pedro del Campo, a resident of Segovia, being money he owed to Solomon Senior. At the same time Senior and his attorney were given ten days to appear and arrange the payment of the 11,000 mrs for three years of tax-farming, as agreed between them in accordance with the directives for the alcabala. The conclusion is clear: this lawsuit concerned a subcontract for tax-farming, made before the edict, in which Solomon Senior owed the fee for the activities of the subcontractors. On 21 December the verdict was issued in the presence of Garci Sánchez de Calahorra, ‘in the absence of the second party’, that is to say, Solomon Senior, because ‘the Jews had gone out of the kingdom’.423 Afterward Garci Sánchez appeared, on his own and his partner’s behalf, and asked the magistrate to grant them the expenses they had incurred. The magistrate set them at 5,801 mrs, which were to be paid within ten days; if Solomon Senior did not pay, Pedro del Campo was to be required to defray the expenses. If the sum was not paid within nine days, his property would be sold. Apparently Solomon Senior was a family member, most likely a brother, who went into exile; otherwise, we must assume that he was a son who did not leave for exile but converted to Christianity. This son would be the one who had received, along 417 The words of Abraham b. Shelomo of Torrutiel, in A. Neubauer, Medieval Jewish Chronicles and Chronological Notes (Anecdota Oxoniensia, Semitic Series, 1/4; Oxford, 1887), 112. 418 See RGS 4 No. 1069, fo. 37, dated 4 June 1485. See also Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, vi. 21. The juxtaposition of these matters in Rabbi Abraham’s description of Isaac Abravanel is meant to make him stand out positively. See above on the exemption from wearing the Jewish badge. 419 420 See RGS 9 No. 3057, fo. 243. ‘Salomon Seneor, judio’, ibid. 421 ‘Peso, haba, mosto, varas, coranbre y zapateria’. 422 Below the document notes the order that they were to be paid 33,000 mrs for the three fiscal years; this sum was due them for tax-collection. 423 ‘En ausençia de la otra porque todos los judios heran ydos fuera del reyno’, ibid.

492

the senior dynasty

with his father and the other members of his family, an exemption from wearing the Jewish badge and all the other edicts issued against Jews.424 It was he who would have quarrelled with Juan de Talavera, as mentioned above.425 We possess relatively late testimony regarding Solomon Senior’s death in exile in Portugal. A document issued in Madrid on 25 May 1499 confirms this fact.426 His son, Lope Jiménez Coronel, converted to Christianity and was involved in a lawsuit against Nicolás Beltrán, a resident of Soria, who had been known as Eçan (sic) when he was a Jew. From the account of the lawsuit we learn that Fernán Núñez Coronel and his son, Pero Núñez Coronel, arranged the transfer of 306⅔ gold ducats from Portugal. This money was needed to pay Nicolás Beltrán; however, he did not honour the agreement.427 We do not know when the transfer agreement was made, but we do know that Solomon Senior had a daughter who converted to Christianity in Portugal and took the name Elvira López.428

Pero Núñez Coronel He was a son of Fernán Núñez Coronel who converted to Christianity, and a resident of Medina del Campo.429 We are informed about him from an order issued by Fernán de Mieses, the commissioner for Jewish property and debt in the diocese of Salamanca and the town of Medina del Campo.430 Three brothers addressed the Crown on this matter: Lope, Rodrigo, and Fernando Díaz, residents of Medina del Campo. During the month of May, after the edict had been promulgated, they were at a fair there, and at that moment they elected to convert. However, their wives and children decided to leave in exile and took their property and business with them to Portugal. We do not know when they went into exile, but the brothers decided to follow them to Portugal so as to persuade their wives and children to convert to Christianity and return to Spain, and also to return their business and money. When the brothers went to Portugal they deposited certain property, obligations, and debts owed to them under the authority of Alonso Ruiz de la Cámara and Pero Núñez Coronel431 totalling 27,000 mrs at a certain rate, in a transaction that Rodrigo Díaz had made in his own name with another Jew named Horcanos, a moneychanger resident in Medina del Campo. They succeeded in convincing their wives and children and brought them back to Medina del Campo. See above: RGS 2 No. 2218, fo. 70, dated 24 Dec. 1479. 426 See RGS 4 No. 286, fo. 271, dated 14 Feb. 1485, and see above. See RGS V-1499, sin foliar. 427 In this lawsuit Nicolás Beltrán was required to pay the sum of the transfer as well as 13,700 mrs for court costs and other expenses. See the document mentioned above. On Beltrán see C. Carrete Parrondo, Los judeoconversos de Almazán 1501–1505: Origen familiar de los Laínez (FIRC 4; Salamanca, 1987), no. 81. He stayed in Portugal. Testimony on this dates from 2 June 1505 and was given in Almazán. 428 See Carrete Parrondo, Los judeoconversos. 429 This fact is mentioned in a document dealing with the lawsuit between Luis Núñez Coronel, a resident of Zamora, and Iñigo López Coronel, a resident of Segovia. See RGS 13 No. 714, fo. 189, issued in Madrid on 3 May 1496. 430 See is RGS 11 No. 3612, fo. 279, issued in Madrid on 3 Nov. 1494. He was connected to the matter of the debts of the deportees in Llerena. 431 As noted, he was Pero Núñez Coronel, a farmer of the alcabala tax in Medina del Campo. 424 425

the senior dynasty

493

Meanwhile Fernán de Mieses had ordered Alonso Ruiz de Cámara and Pero Núñez Coronel to transfer their property, the money, and the obligations to him. They lost them because Rodrigo Díaz, before his conversion, had taken a mule to Portugal. In so doing he had violated the prohibition against removing beasts of burden from Spain;432 this had apparently been renewed after publication of the edict, in which nothing was said about means of transport for the exiles. Rodrigo Díaz claimed that having left the mule in Salices, while staying there he had recovered it and brought it back to Castile. Because of an intrigue against him on the part of Fernán Pérez de Mieses, Alonso Ruiz, and Pero Núñez Coronel, and with the intention of harassing him, Fernán Pérez de Mieses had confiscated the money they had left on deposit before leaving Spain to fetch back their wives. This argument seemed reasonable to the Crown, which instructed Fernán Pérez de Mieses to transfer information regarding the complaint to it without delay. After examining it, the council issued an order that the petition of the three brothers should be examined immediately, and that justice should be done for them. Pero Núñez Coronel fitted in very well with the financial system in the kingdom after the expulsion.433

Luis Núñez Coronel We can prove with certainty that Luis Núñez Coronel was the son of Fernán Núñez Coronel. We do not know when he converted to Christianity. He was a resident of Zamora, to which he moved from Burgos. As early as 1491 he was collecting taxes in the abbacy of Moruela, near Zamora, and in other places close to that city. He continued in this capacity in 1492.434 In 1492 he was a tax-collector and farmed taxes in Burgos, and he was involved in several lawsuits in that city as well as in its merindad. These suits remained pending, since he and his wife left Burgos in July 1491 in order to convert to Christianity. Being engaged in several tax transactions for the Crown and in his private business, he was reluctant to return to Burgos and attend to the lawsuits; instead he petitioned the Crown for an order to the corregidor to deal with the claims still pending. This petition was viewed favourably by the Crown, which ordered the corregidor of Burgos and the magistrates of the city to hear the parties and decide without delay regarding his appeal.435 These prohibitions were instituted after promulgation of the edict. See Chs. 2 and 6 above. There are documents about him from 1496, 1501, 1508, and 1511, not relevant to the present topic. On 17 June 1496, in Morón, he was ordered to pay 100,000 mrs to the city of Medina del Campo for repairs that had to be made on account of a fire. The sum was the remainder of 200,000 mrs that the Crown had released for the purpose; RGS 13 No. 1025, fo. 238. On 5 Mar. 1501 an order was issued to arrest him for failure to arrange the payment of a tax he had farmed, apparently in 1500 (RGS III-1501). He was summoned to appear before the Crown Council in Valladolid. The collection was transferred to Luis Núñez Coronel. On 8 Apr. 1508 the property of María de Ávila, the mother of Francisco Gómez de Ávila, and Francisca de Barrientos, who was from Ávila, was auctioned to pay for a guarantee of 400,000 mrs they had given for Pero Núñez Coronel concerning a debt for taxes in Media del Campo. See C y S Reales, Leg. 9, fo. 1026. A document dated 4 July 1511 relates to tax payments for 1506 collected in Segovia. C y S Reales, Leg. 9, fo. 1025. For more on him see below, in the description of the activities of his brother Luis Núñez Coronel. 434 See RGS 14 No. 1474, fo. 307, dated 3 June 1497, and also below. 435 If the corregidor was negligent, action would be taken against him as against those who did not obey the Crown’s orders. See RGS 10 No. 386, fo. 132, issued on 16 Feb. 1493. 432 433

494

the senior dynasty

On 23 February 1493 the Catholic Monarchs informed Diego Gómez de Benavente, a resident of Carrión, the chief farmer and collector of the alcabala taxes in 1492–4,436 that he and Luis Núñez Coronel must appear within a short time before the Crown regarding the claim of Diego de Benavente against ‘Luis de Coronel’ for ⁷⁄₁₂ of the farming of the alcabala in Ávila. Luis Núñez Coronel had a counter-claim against Diego de Benavente. Gonzalo González de Illescas was to adjudicate the claims of the parties within eight days.437 It appears that Luis Núñez was involved in the family quarrels. Juan Pérez and Iñigo López had lodged a complaint against him for taking 30 silver marks, and also for other reasons.438 When the bachiller Gonzalo Sánchez de Castro, a magistrate of the royal court, upheld the complaint, he appealed to the Crown. Juan Pérez, for his part, requested that a date should be set for Luis Núñez to appear so that the claim could be judged before the Crown; it was accordingly ordered that he or his attorney should appear in twenty days. The details of the suit are clarified by an order dated 3 May 1496.439 Now Iñigo López appeared as the plaintiff, arguing that he had lent the 30 marks to Luis Núnez as a favour for his father, Fernán Núñez Coronel, a resident and regidor of Segovia; Luis Núñez had bound himself to return the money in Segovia by the end of December 1494 in the material of the loan (that is to say, in silver metal) or its equivalent. Luis Núñez had signed a promissory note to this effect on 11 September 1494. This obligation was presented to the magistrate by Fernando López, Iñigo López’s attorney. The plaintiff asked to have the debt paid or the silver returned (30 marks less 2 ounces) and the promissory note certified. The magistrate ordered Luis Núñez to be notified and required him to appear before him within three days to respond to the complaint. Luis Núñez appeared and confirmed his signature, but claimed that he had not received the money at all; it had gone to Pero Núñez Coronel, the son of Fernán Núñez. Luis Núñez had signed the note, as Iñigo López had asked him, because he did not wish it to appear that he had lent money to Fernán Núñez Coronel, his brother (sic), so that he would have the possibility of collecting it from him, apparently at a time of need. It appears that the trust among them was not very great. According to Luis Núñez Coronel, the money was not given to him but rather to Pero Núñez Coronel, for their father (as it is written here) Fernán Núñez Coronel. After hearing the arguments of the parties the magistrate of the royal court, Gonzalo Sánchez de Castro, decided to give both parties nine days for an answer. Fernando López appeared on Iñigo López’s behalf, demanding 2,400 mrs for every mark of silver. For his part Luis Núñez argued before the magistrate that he could not produce wit436 The order was based on an earlier order addressed to the licenciado Gonzalo González, a member of the Royal Council, on 16 Feb. 1493. See RGS 10 No. 439, fo. 41. 437 For failure to obey the order a fine of 10,000 mrs would be imposed. For more on Gómez de Benavente see below. 438 ‘Treynta marcos de plata’, less two ounces. See RGS 12 No. 3808, fo. 243. The order was issued in Burgos on 21 Oct. 1495. See also above, the description of the actions of the brothers Juan Pérez Coronel and Iñigo López Coronel, and also the document dated 4 Sept. 1495. See RGS 12 No. 3341, fo. 29. 439 See RGS 13 No. 714, fo. 189, issued in Valladolid.

the senior dynasty

495

nesses of his own in the time allotted, since they were in Zamora, Medina del Campo, and other places, whereas the magistrate was sitting in Valladolid. He swore that he was not requesting a postponement with vain excuses or evil intentions. If he was given another extension, he could produce witnesses. The magistrate gave him another twenty days to do so. Fernando López stood firm and requested him to issue a verdict without considering Luis Núñez Coronel’s request. It appears that Iñigo López’s attorney succeeded in convincing the magistrate, who ruled that since Pero Núñez’s evidence had shown that Luis Núñez had received the silver, he must return it within twenty days. He must also pay the costs incurred by Iñigo López Coronel for the lawsuit. The magistrate decreed that Pero Núnez Coronel was also permitted to demand his due. Luis Núñez’s appeal was considered in the Crown Council, where the verdict was rescinded on the ground that Gonzalo Sánchez de Castro was not authorized to adjudicate this case. First he should have addressed the corregidor of Zamora, where Luis Núñez lived, in order to implement the verdict in the first instance, and Iñigo López Coronel was obliged to prove that he had not received the money. Luis Núñez wished to have the suit returned to the corregidor of Zamora, but Iñigo López asked to have the verdict carried out as had been decided by the magistrate. In yet another examination of the case in the Crown Council, it was decided that Gonzalo Sánchez de Castro had ruled correctly, and the council confirmed his verdict, declaring that Luis Núnez Coronel had presented his claims in poor fashion. They also awarded Juan Pérez his costs in the first suit, and set Iñigo López’s and his attorney Fernando López’s costs at 1,609 mrs.440 It appears that in the end the debt was settled to the satisfaction of Iñigo López,441 though this certainly did not improve the relations among the members of the family.442 In that year, 1495, Luis Núñez Coronel farmed the alcabala tax on charcoal and wooden fuel in Toledo.443 In 1497 he was occupied, along with Juan de Figueroa, in collecting the servicio y montazgo in Torre de Esteban Hambrán, in the province of Toledo; they obtained a writ of protection and defence against Don Iñigo López de Mendoza, the Duke of El Infantado, because he had collected that tax and because the local residents had threatened them.444 He continued with various lawsuits in 1497–8 as well, for taxes and collections from previous years. Above we have mentioned his collection of taxes in the area of Zamora in 1491–4, that is to say both before and after his conversion to Christianity, when Jews still lived in there. He transferred the task to Francisco de Anaya, a resident of Zamora, and to Martín Cornejo. He transferred the collection of taxes on grain and money that he had lent to various local councils and individuals to the aforementioned and also to others. They placed 2,000 measures of grain on sale and had con440 The order states that the property of Luis Núñez Coronel was to be seized and sold at auction, and if he had no free assets, he was to be arrested and detained until he paid his debt to Iñigo López Coronel. 441 On the entire lawsuit see an identical document from 4 July 1496 issued in Morón: RGS 13 No. 442 1150, fo. 49. See RGS 13 No. 1417, fo. 35, issued in Soria, 10 Aug. 1496. 443 See RGS 14 No. 592, fo. 231, issued in Burgos, 20 Feb. 1497. 444 See RGS 15 No. 1471, fo. 307, issued in Valladolid, 3 June 1497.

496

the senior dynasty

tracts for the sale of grain, and they did not wish to pay him and Luis Núñez Coronel what was due them; they had stolen from him and were causing him severe injury. The complaint was accepted; Anaya and Cornejo were ordered to pay him what they had collected and also for the grain they had sold. The corregidores and magistrates in Zamora and the other cities of the kingdom were to execute this order.445 He made a similar complaint against Juan de Oviedo, a resident of Madrid, his business manager and agent for collecting taxes in Toledo in 1495, who had taken more than 30,000 mrs from him, and owed him a large sum of money because of other services he had provided for him; being peripatetic, he was hard to reach. This situation caused Luis Núñez great loss. He had received an order from the corregidores, their assistants, and the magistrates of Toledo and Madrid to arrest him; unless he provided guarantees, he was to be kept in prison until he arranged the payment of his debts, or proved that he owed nothing to the plaintiff.446 In 1501 Luis Núñez Coronel was still engaged in tax-collection, in particular the farm of servicio y montazgo in 1498–1501. On 5(?) March 1501 collection of the tax in Medina del Campo was transferred to him from Pero Núñez. He was ordered to appear before the Crown in Valladolid and explain the matters of tax-collection.447 The complicated business transactions of Luis Núñez Coronel give the impression that he was frequently involved in controversies and lawsuits about money. Since everything known about him is based on documents related to these lawsuits, which continued for years in various judicial authorities, our picture of him is one-sided.

Luis Coronel As we have seen, Luis Coronel’s theological studies at the University of Paris had been subsidized by his father; having graduated master and become a Dominican, he served as the king’s preacher (‘predicador del rey’) in 1498. On 14 October 1522 Charles V, acceding to the request of ‘maestre Luis Coronel, the son of Fernán Núñez Coronel’, ordered the release of money that had remained from his father’s estate, from debts that Queen Isabella, the king’s grandmother, had owed his father. The order states that the money was to be released so that the soul of the king’s grandmother should rest in peace in its tomb and so that no damage should be done to Luis Coronel.448 At that time Pope Alexander VI also appointed him to serve as administrator of the abbacy of Roncesvalles.449 Certainly the collector and farmer of taxes, Luis Núñez Coronel, cannot be identified with the monk Luis Coronel, possibly the grandson of Fernán Núñez Coronel, who was completely assimilated within the Dominican order. See RGS VII-1498, fo. 187, issued in Valladolid, 2 July 1498. See RGS III-1501 (unfoliated). See also Peñalosa, ‘Juan Bravo’, 78. He bases his discussion there on RGS I-1505. 447 See also Carrete Parrondo, ‘La hacienda castellana’, 341 n. 10; based on AGS, Estado, Leg. 11, fo. 35. 448 ‘Que el anima de la Su Alteza se descargue y el dicho maestre no reçibe agrauio’. See C y S Reales, Leg. 10, fo. 207. 449 AGS, C y S Reales, Leg. 10, fo. 207, and see also Real Academia de la Historia de España, Colección Salazar A-26, fo. 104r. 445 446

the senior dynasty

497

Tomás Núñez Coronel This son of Fernán Núñez was the chief tax-collector in Ávila, where he farmed and collected the alcabala and tercia taxes in 1492–3. On 31 July 1494 an order was given to Diego de la Muela, a resident of Valladolid, to serve as investigative magistrate against Diego de Benavente of Carrión450 and Tomás Núñez Coronel, farmers and collectors of the alcabala and tercia taxes in Ávila and its region in 1492–3, for acts of deception and fraud and failure to serve the Crown. They were to be tried and punished according to the laws of the kingdom and the tax-farming regulations. Diego de la Muela would serve as the investigative magistrate. It appears that the two men were partners and that their tax-farming had begun before the expulsion. It might also have affected Jews.

Francisco Fernández Coronel Little is known about Francisco Fernández Coronel, apart from his theological studies in Paris. The only item of information in our possession indicates that he lodged a claim regarding the tax-farming of his father, Fernán Núñez Coronel, and Luis de Alcalá. The claim dates from 13 July 1515, and it has already been described above in relation to his father.451

Alfonso Pérez Coronel He was a resident of Ávila and probably a collateral kinsman of either Fernán Núñez Coronel or Meir Melamed, since his father died before the expulsion. Perhaps he was Meir Melamed’s brother. According to an appeal referred by the Crown on 25 February 1493 to the corregidor of Ávila, before the expulsion he had acted in partnership with his mother and brothers with respect to their father’s estate and everything they had earned from their business since his death.452 When his mother and brothers went into exile, they had divided the debts of the business,453 and he had paid them fairly what was due for their portion. Having bought them out, he decided to convert to Christianity, if he had not done so before. His sister Reina owed money that she could not repay; in lieu of payment, she had assigned him such debts as were owing to her; he had given her the balance in cash. His mother, his brothers, and his sister had granted him suitable powers of attorney; however, their debtors refused to pay him, because of the Crown lien on debts left behind by the Jews. Since this had caused him severe injury, he asked the Crown to issue an order permitting him to collect those sums. The corregidor was ordered to summon the debtors (they were all apparently from Ávila) and decide the case so that Alfonso Pérez Coronel should have no further reason to address the Crown again.454 451 On him see above, the section on Luis Núñez Coronel. See C y S Reales, Leg. 10, fo. 207. The document was issued in Barcelona, and its reference number is RGS 10 No. 443, fo. 36; ‘Que el tiempo que los judíos estauan en estos nuestros reynos la hasienda de su madre e hermanos e la suya estaua todo junto, asy que lo que a ellos e a el pertenesçia de la herençia de su padre como de lo que con ello se auia ganado desde el tiempo que murio aca’, ibid. 453 ‘Partyeron las debdas que de la dicha hasienda se deuian’, ibid. 454 Noting that this order is dated 25 Feb., whereas the order to place a lien on the debts was issued on the following day, it appears to us that Alfonso Pérez Coronel knew of the intention to impose the lien and took care to secure his interest before that order was promulgated throughout the kingdom. 450 452

498

the senior dynasty

On 26 February 1493 the Crown responded to another petition of his regarding debts that he wished to collect in Segovia, where Christians owed his mother and brothers money, and that this should be viewed as an extension of the previous case.455 On that day he also obtained an order addressed to the comendador Francisco de León, against whom he had lodged a claim before the Crown Council, alleging that he had impounded from a builder named Gordillo a horse that Alfonso Pérez had lent his brother, who went into exile in Portugal via Valencia de Alcántara. It had been arranged that his brother should to leave the horse there with Gordillo, who was to return it to Alfonso Pérez, or else Alfonso Pérez himself should to go there and recover it.456 Francisco de León, who was in Alcántara at that time and dealt with claims regarding Jews,457 had impounded the horse for no good reason. He was ordered to return the horse to its owner, if Alfonso Pérez could prove that he owned it; otherwise he was to appear before the Crown Council within fifteen days.458 We read about another aspect of Alfonso Pérez’s business in a complaint lodged by two brothers, Fernán and Rodrigo Pérez, moneychangers in the royal court, against Alfonso Pérez Coronel of Segovia for a debt of 27,000 mrs. They had lent him the money when the Crown and the council were in Madrid, apparently for purposes connected with their presence there. Alfonso Pérez had avoided paying the debt and continued to do so. On 9 October 1495 the Crown responded to them,459 and ordered the corregidores of Ávila and Segovia to see that justice was done them and the debt collected, otherwise a collector would be sent at the expense of the corregidores to collect the debt, and they would bear the expenses.460

Alfonso Ramírez Coronel A resident of Palencia, he addressed a complaint to the Crown against Abraham Abenatabe, a resident of Carrión, collector of the tercia tax in the merindad and archdeaconry of Carrión in 1488–90.461 He had only given two-thirds of the tercia tax because he had waived a fourth (or fortieth) due him from the revenue of the merindad.462 Alfonso Ramírez Coronel also had a suit against Judah Abenatabe, Abraham’s father, and also against Mose Abenatabe, Abraham’s son-in-law. He, Alfonso Ramírez Coronel, had given them a portion in return for waiving the farming of the tercia tax in Requena.463 See RGS 10 No. 452, fo. 37, issued in Barcelona. See RGS 10 No. 451, fo. 49, issued in Barcelona. It was a beast of burden, not a particularly good horse. 457 ‘Para haser pesquisa sobre el negoçio de los judíos’, ibid. 458 For failure to appear a fine of 10,000 mrs would be imposed. 459 See RGS 12 No. 3685, fo. 125, issued in Burgos. 460 Information about the two moneychangers is found in a document dated 12 Feb. 1498, in which the corregidor, the resident magistrate, and the magistrates of Segovia are instructed to confiscate the property and debts owed to them up to the sum of 250,000 mrs, because they took money from two Genoese merchants, Pantaleon Italiano and Martín Çantorio, and several of their guarantors. They had given the merchants nothing in return for their money. The confiscated property was to be deposited with trustworthy residents of Segovia after an inventory was taken. We do not know of any connection between the two and the Pérez Coronel family. The reference number of the document is RGS 15 No. 338, fo. 271. 461 See RGS 9 No. 3475, fo. 157, dated 3 Dec. 1492, issued in Olmedo. 462 463 ‘Una quarentena’, ibid. See Baer, JchS ii. 334. 455 456

the senior dynasty

499

When the Jews left the kingdom,464 the council transferred collection of the tercia tax to Fernando de León. He had paid Alfonso Ramírez Coronel a lower sum than usual for the value of the collection, and this was causing him severe damage. Alfonso Ramírez Coronel asked the Crown to order payment of the sum due him, or as the Crown should see fit. The local council of Cabañas, which was in the merindad and archdeaconry of Carrión, was ordered to pay Alfonso Ramírez Coronel the sum due him (and not the lesser amount collected by Fernando de León) for the tercia tax on grain and wine and herds of sheep and cattle during the three previous years.465 It appears that the municipality had violated the law by authorizing a reduction in taxes, to the prejudice of Alfonso Ramírez Coronel and indirectly of the Crown. The municipality was ordered to make good the damage; if it had any complaint, its representative was to appear within twelve days before the Crown accountants. It could not plead ignorance.466 Alfonso Ramírez Coronel lodged a complaint against the council of Requena regarding a debt of 30,000 mrs owed to him. The executive magistrate for the tercia and alcabala taxes, Villacorta, ordered the municipality to pay. The debt had been assigned to Alfonso Ramírez by Don Abraham Abenatabe, the collector of taxes in the merindad of Carrión in 1488–90; it comprised one-quarter of the fee for tax-collection. The local council avoided paying, making one excuse after another. Hence Alfonso Ramírez requested an order to confiscate the property of the council and inhabitants of Requena. The Crown ordered the council to pay the aforementioned sum to Alfonso Ramírez Coronel within three days.467 If the council had a counterclaim or could show cause why it should not obey that order, it was to appear within twelve days, represented by an attorney, and present its arguments.468

Cristóbal Coronel Cristóbal Coronel was a resident of Ciudad Real; we do not know his relationship to the Núñez Coronel or Pérez Coronel families. He was chosen to represent the city before the Crown, arguing against the permanent attorney of the city, who refused to open the chest of the city’s privileges. Since Cristóbal Coronel was a regidor of Ciudad Real, it is clear that he came from a distinguished family and had obtained an appointment from the Crown. Seeing that he represented the city, he was trusted by the municipal leadership.469 The Crown’s representative in the city was instructed to determine in favour of the city and its residents.

Francisca Coronel She was a widow who lived with her 17-year-old daughter in the San Miguel district ‘Al tiempo que los judíos se fueron destos nuestros reynos’, ibid. This formulation is noteworthy. ‘Pan e vino e ganado e menudo’, ibid. 466 Those twelve days were divided into three periods: eight days for the first summons; two days for the second; two for the last. If those summoned appeared on one of those dates, they would be heard by the Crown accountants. In the absence of any attorney, the case would be heard as though one were present. 467 See RGS 9 No. 3476, fo. 136, dated 3 Dec. 1492, issued in Olmedo. It is addressed to the council, the magistrates, the alcaldes, the good men, the councils, the deans, and the mayordomos of the city in 1488–90. Anyone violating the order was liable to a fine of 10,000 mrs. 468 See above, n. 466. The periods of the summons were the same. 469 Issued in Granada on 16 Mar. 1501: RGS III-150. 464 465

the senior dynasty

500

of Segovia. This was the neighbourhood where Iñigo López Coronel and his family lived; it had formerly been the Jewish quarter of the city.470

Beatriz Coronel She lived with her 3-year-old daughter and her 6-month-old son in the house of a woman called La Coronela in a place called San Millán de los Caballeros. She is listed among the Moors who had recently converted to Christianity. Perhaps she was a mistress of one of the Coronels or servant in one of their houses.471 ✻

Various aspects of the lives of the Senior family have been presented here, starting from when its members were concerned with the affairs of the Jewish community of Castile and the individual cities where they lived, ran businesses, and were involved in public life: Segovia, Ávila, Medina del Campo, Palencia, Guadalajara, and others. Their involvement was widespread and extended beyond the Jewish community. This family’s financial power and its activity in the field of taxation and the economy of Castile made it central in the Jewish community and influential in the financial structure of the state. Indeed the family was a dynasty, founded by Abraham Senior and continued by his sons, his son-in-law, and their descendants. It began within Judaism and ended in Christianity, with the total separation of a major part of its members from their origins.472 They detached themselves from Judaism with ease, and their integration and acceptance within the Christian society of Castile was widely acknowledged.

Letter from Abraham Senior to the condestable of Castile. Note his signature at the end of the letter 471 See Bataillon, ‘Les Nouveaux Chrétiens de Ségovie’, 220. Ibid. 227. See H. Beinart, Court Jews in Christian Spain: Élite Groups and Leadership Strata (Heb.) ( Jerusalem, 1967), 68. 470 472

9

The House of Abravanel 1483‒1492 on isaac abravanel and his family arrived in Castile as fugitives from justice. João II, king of Portugal, suspected that Don Isaac was implicated in an effort to D displace the Avis dynasty from the Portuguese monarchy in favour of the house of Braganza. The family’s flight may be said to have closed a circle in their life, for they had apparently left Seville for Portugal after the persecutions of 1391 and the conversion of the head of the family, Samuel Abravanel, who took the name of Juan Sánchez de Sevilla.1 The story of the family’s flight from Portugal is interesting in its own right, but here we are concerned with its activities in Castile after its return, apparently as early as 1483. It re-established itself in that kingdom and adapted well to the new conditions. Francisco Cantera has indicated the route taken by these refugees, headed by Don Isaac: they crossed the border from Portugal to Castile and settled first in Segura de León (today Segura de la Orden) on the lands of the order of Santiago.2 There were many Jewish communities in this region, especially concentrations of those who had been expelled from Andalusia, whence they were driven by an order of the Inquisition dated 1 January 1483.3 Segura is 30 km. from the Portuguese border and close to both Lisbon and Évora in one direction, to Badajoz, Mérida, Cáceres, Plasencia, and other places with Jewish communities in the other. The family settled first in the region of Plasencia, where Isaac’s brothers Yose and Jacob apparently remained until the expulsion.4 The Catholic Monarchs first met Don Isaac in March 1484 in Tarazona.5 Don Isaac was joined by his nephew and son-in-law Yose, the mayordomo of the Duke of Viseu.6 We do not know who recommended the contact between the Crown and the Abravanel family.7 Doubtless the Crown realized that Don Isaac’s experience of finance could See Baer, Toledot, index. See Cantera Burgos, ‘Don Ishaq Braunel’; cf. Netanyahu, Don Isaac Abravanel, 3 ff.; M. Dorman, Yehuda Abravanel: Conversations on Love (Heb.) (Jerusalem, 1983), 23 ff., 31 ff. 3 See Beinart, ‘La Inquisición española’. 4 Don Isaac did not live there permanently, and it appears that in his business he was bound to the peregrinations of the royal court. In 1488 he lived in Alcalá de Henares; in 1491 he lived in Guadalajara. See C. Álvarez García, ‘Los judíos y la hacienda real bajo los Reyes Católicos: una compañía de arrendadores de rentas reales’, in Las tres culturas en la Corona de Castilla y los sefardíes (Valladolid, 1990), 97. Don Isaac arrived in Spain at the age of 46. 5 6 See Netanyahu, Don Isaac Abravanel, 38. He was murdered on 23 Aug. 1484. 7 See the story presented by Solomon Ibn Verga in Shevet yehudah, 30. 1 2

502

the house of abravanel

further its ends. Menachem Dorman surmises that Abraham Senior brought Don Isaac Abravanel to the royal court and introduced him to tax-farming.8 Moreover, it should be noted that this contact took place despite the anti-Jewish restrictions imposed in their full severity during the early 1480s, after the order segregating Jewish neighbourhoods: the Jewish badge, the expulsion from Andalusia, and so on. Don Isaac’s connections with Pedro Gónzalez de Mendoza, Archbishop of Toledo and Cardinal of Spain, and his activities in the cardinal’s court might have attracted the Crown’s interest in his abilities. Certainly the Crown was well informed about events in the royal court of Portugal. Further, Don Isaac’s financial activity is also important with respect to his absorption in the Jewish community of Spain until the expulsion. Among the earliest evidence of Don Isaac’s business activities is a debt of 42,600 mrs owed by a group of conversos resident in Ciudad Real: Juan Amigo, Juan de Pérez, Rodrigo de Fonseca, Diego Valles, Martín de Parias, Juan de Haro,9 and Alonso Parias. The sum was claimed by Juan Ramírez, the mayordomo, from Diego de Haro, a resident of Caracuel on the maestrazgo of the order of Calatrava, who was a guarantor for the lease. None of the debtors could be located. Some had fled from the Inquisition, which was active in Ciudad Real in 1483–5, and others had died. They had leased the annuity in 1483 from Juan de Lucena, the Cardinal of Spain’s mayordomo.10 This debt was acquired by Don Isaac Abravanel, most likely some time after his arrival in Castile. In 1493, after the Crown had acquired debts owed to Jews by Christians and left behind at the expulsion, the tax-collectors began to demand this sum from the primary guarantor, Rodrigo de Haro, who asked the Crown to see that justice was done him. He was unable to collect the sum from the partners in the lease, for, as can be inferred by reading between the lines, Don Isaac Abravanel had left the kingdom. On 8 March 1493 the Crown ordered the corregidor of Ciudad Real, García de Alcocer, to investigate the complaint and hear the parties.11 From another document, dated 6 June 1485, we learn of the leasing of another 8 See Dorman, Yehuda Abravanel, 33. Most likely Dom Álvaro de Portugal, the head of the Royal Council, who was the brother of the Duke of Braganza, brought him to the royal court. See Bernáldez, Memorias, 185, and also below. 9 On them see Beinart, Records, vol. ii, ‘Biographical Notes’, s.v. Juan Pérez was delivered to the secular arm on 23 Feb. 1484. Juan de Haro’s wife, Leonor Álvarez, was delivered to the secular arm on 25 Oct. 1496. On 25 June 1485 he presented a request to the Royal Council regarding the property of Juan de Pérez. See RGS No. 1244, fo. 266. He was the ‘Recaudador del rey de los puertos de Aragon e almoxarife de Sevilla’. See the trial of Inez López, Leg. 162 No. 497, fo. 11r. He was robbed in 1480; on 10 Nov. of that year the Crown ordered an investigation. See RGS 3 No. 691, fo. 100. Juan de Haro claimed that in farming the tax on pan pontifical in the parish of San Pedro, in Ciudad Real, Juan de Pérez had collected 400 fanegas of wheat without his knowledge. On 26 June 1486 the Crown ordered an investigation of the complaint. For the document see Beinart, Records, iv, n. 100. 10 A certain Juan Ramírez served as the mayordomo of the Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros. That Juan Ramírez was on trial in Toledo between 1510 and 1522. See the file of his trial in Records, iii. 1 ff. See also the biographical information in vol. iv. On Juan Ramírez de Lucena, see A. Alcalá, ‘Juan de Lucena y el pre-erasmismo español’, Hispania Moderna, 34 (1968), 108–31. He is not to be identified with the printer, Juan de Lucena, born in Toledo c.1430, who published Hebrew books. Before 1476 he travelled to Italy and brought back Hebrew type. See M. Serrano y Sanz, ‘Noticias biográficas de Fernando de Rojas, autor de La Celestina, y del impresor Juan de Lucena’, RABM, 3rd ser., 6/6 (1902), 245–99. 11 The order was issued in Barcelona with the approbation of the Crown Council.

the house of abravanel

503

annuity from the Cardinal of Spain, Pedro González de Mendoza.12 It deals with the conditions according to which Don Isaac leased the annuity in the diocese of Sigüenza. The alcabala lease was for two years, 1486 and 1487, until the end of the year; the area of collection included the city of Sigüenza and its district and also Val de la Riba. He also leased the tercia in Guadalajara, its district, and the towns of Alhocén and Alhóndiga, with the exception of Santa María de la Fuente. These tax-farming agreements were to be carried in full and together. The amount of the contract was 6,400,000 mrs, divided evenly between the two calendar years, 3,200,000 mrs annually. The conditions of the contract were identical with those governing the activities that year of the tax-farmers Diego de Villamino and García Rodriguez Gallego, residents of Sigüenza, and their partners. Don Isaac undertook to make the first payment of 1,400,000 mrs by 31 January 1487; 200,000 mrs by 30 April; 1,400,000 mrs by 30 June; and the remaining 200,000 mrs by 30 September 1487. Payments to the same amount were made in 1488 for the tax-farm of 1487. Don Isaac was active there for three years (1486–8); the total revenue was 6,400,000 mrs. The same system was used for the tercia,13 which Don Isaac Abravanel farmed in Guadalajara and its district; it was payable through Don Pedro González de Mendoza, the abbot of San Bernardos in Guadalajara. The contract was accompanied by other conditions: the tender would be open to any person who made an offer acceptable to the cardinal from the day the agreement with Don Isaac was signed on 6 June, and it was to be for two consecutive years. That is to say, the contract was not divisible as to time. From the date of its signing until 31 July 1485 Don Isaac could organize the division of the tax into subcontracts for collecting it, but that organization would also be open to competitive bids. The fee payable to Don Isaac would be 200 gold castellanos,14 which comes to 100 castellanos or 48,500 mrs annually, the first instalment payable upon ratification of the contract on 6 June 1485, the second at the end of the contract, when the accounts were settled. His fee was 97,000 mrs, that is, 1.5 per cent of the revenue collected. Let us not forget that he received the first payment of 100 castellanos on 6 June 1485. However, the farming of the tax for 1485 was to be completed by the tax-farmer who preceded Don Isaac, García Rodríguez Gallego, a resident of Segovia. We do not know why he was deprived of the contract for the two years when Don Isaac received it, nor do we know what became of the contract after 1487. For those years the cardinal retained the right to determine who would win the contract. Don Isaac was free to appoint a Christian receiver for 1487–8 upon obtaining the appropriate guarantees from the cardinal. However, he himself would be obliged to make the three payments due on the dates stipulated in the agreement, and this was his responsibility. Don Isaac undertook to fulfil these conditions, on pain of a double fine. His property, with no restrictions, was to be the guarantee. If the cardinal had claims against him, they were to be lodged in Alcalá de Henares, and there they would be adjudicated 12 Published in León Tello, Toledo, i. 509–12. See also Cantera Burgos, ‘Don Ishaq Braunel’, and Netanyahu, Don Isaac Abravanel. 13 This tax was collected on grain, wheat, and barley, harvested, threshed, and ground into flour. It was 14 apparently collected at flour mills. One castellano was worth 485 mrs.

504

the house of abravanel

‘in the painted house’ (‘en el mesón pintado’). Apparently this was Don Isaac’s property or the centre of his activities in his native city.15 The economic activity of the Abravanel family gained further impetus in 1488.16 In that year he began to farm the alcabala tax in Requena, in partnership with Don Yuçe Abenaex, a resident of Córdoba.17 Together they leased the salt-mines in Atienza; running such operations was not the usual business of the family, but we do not know which of their number was involved, and how. It is mentioned in a complaint lodged by Martín de Perato, a resident of Valencia, against Abravanel’s agent (‘fator e fazendor’) for not paying him a sum of money (the amount is unknown) to settle a debt related to 1487–8. The agent had the authority to settle the debt, but refused to do so. Since he was at Moya,18 most likely the matter is related to some transaction that took place there. Martín de Perato was a merchant who ‘walks constantly in the royal court and negotiates for his merchandise’.19 Since the corregidor of Moya was instructed to investigate the complaint, hear the parties’ arguments, and reach a decision, most likely the transaction was made in Moya itself. The order was issued on 12 November 1489.20 In December 1489 Don Isaac Abravanel and his agents received a response regarding a complaint they had lodged against the Mesta.21 We do not know why Don Isaac was involved in litigation with the Mesta, though it probably concerned the montazgo payable on the passage of herds. The document discusses the obligation to deliver a summons for a hearing to be held within thirty days; Don Isaac had obtained the summons against the Mesta and Alonso Sánchez de Carrión, a resident of Arenas.22 The court order was addressed to both the litigating parties.23 Don Isaac Abravanel’s main activity was concentrated in the courts of the great lords of the kingdom. In 1490 or even earlier he served as the chief accountant of the second Duke of El Infantado,24 Don Iñigo López de Mendoza, and his duchess, Doña María de Luna. On 10 September 1490, in Guadalajara, Don Isaac was ordered to register a permit in the account books of the duke and duchess for the town of San Martín de Valdeiglesias, allowing them to hold a free market there for the benefit of Christians, Jews, and Moors.25 In 1491 Don Isaac presented a claim against the council of San Agustín, Alcovendas, and Pedresuela regarding failure to pay 408,500 mrs.26 15 The witnesses to the arrangement were Diego González de Guadalajara, the cardinal’s secretary; Juan Fernández and Diego de Talavera(?). The signatories were the cardinal, Don Isaac Abravanel, and one 16 17 Juan de Aranda. See Baer, Toledot, index. On him see Beinart, Trujillo, index. 18 In Catalonia, about 26 km. along the road from Vic to Manresa. 19 ‘Que anda continuamente en nuestra corte tratando sus mercaderias’, RGS 6 No. 3266, fo. 209. 20 The order, drafted by Luis del Castillo, the notary of the king and queen, was issued in Ubeda in Andalusia with the approbation of the Royal Council. 21 A blank space was left for the date, but only the month and year are given. See RGS 6 No. 3669, fo. 98. 22 On the farming of these indirect taxes, see below. 23 Issued in Ubeda in Andalusia with the approbation of the Royal Council. The notary Alonso del Mármol drafted the order. The document is in a poor state of preservation. 24 See Cantera Burgos, ‘Don Ishaq Braunel’, 244. His full title was ‘contador mayor del ilustre y muy magnifico señor duque de infantazgo’. 25 See Cantera Burgos, ‘La judería de San Martín de Valdeiglesias’, 224. 26 Those towns were then in the area of Guadalajara. On Alcovendas and its debts, see below, esp. at n. 55.

the house of abravanel

505

The claim was for a covering of brocade cloth and other merchandise given to the aforementioned Doña María.27 Don Isaac’s attorney, Francisco Sánchez de Valladolid, appeared for him at a hearing in March 1492. But in 1491 Don Isaac had lent the Crown 1,500,000 mrs for the war in Granada. This sum was returned to him by Don Luis de Santángel in an arrangement with the Crown regarding the family’s manner of departure.28 Much can be learnt about the extent of Don Isaac Abravanel’s business from the documents that deal with the liquidation of his debts and businesses, beginning in May 1492, after the Edict of Expulsion had been promulgated. At that time Don Isaac and members of his family were engaged in intense negotiations regarding the settlement of debts owed to them and the arrangement of various payments due to the Crown and sundry persons. On 22 May 1492 the Crown appointed Juan Ramírez de Tovar to help Don Isaac collect the tax debts remaining from various sources of revenue that the Crown wished to realize. Among the debtors were several municipal and local councils and individuals. The list of taxes that Don Isaac farmed is quite impressive and worthy of detailed presentation here.29 Three local councils: Alcovendas, San Agostín, and Pedresuela owed him 100,000 mrs.30 These towns were under the dominion of Don Juan Arias de Ávila. The residents of another forty-four settlements are mentioned as owing money to Don Isaac.31 Only a few individuals were listed with their place of residence.32 Among those owing money three Jews are named: Çaq de Aguilar, a resident of Toledo who was living in Alcolea at the time of the edict;33 Rabi Baru de Donatis, a resident of Illescas;34 Abraham Çerfati, a resident of Segovia who was responsible for the montazgo services.35 The mention of these Jews along with many Christians presents a difficulty, for one wonders whether they were not about to leave for exile, whereas the purpose of the list was to assist Juan Ramírez de Tovar in the collection of debts. Nevertheless we must bear in mind the distances that he and his agents had to traverse in order to make these collections. The total sum covered by the document is 1,029,762 mrs, showing how much money Don Isaac gave up for the benefit of the Crown.36 It is not stated explicitly that this money was to be collected for the Royal Treasury, and if the 27 ‘Por çierto brocado e mercaduria que el dicho mi parte dio a doña Maria de Mendoça’. See Cantera Burgos, ‘Don Ishaq Braunel’, 245. 28 M. A. Ladero Quesada, Castilla y la conquista del Reino de Granada (Valladolid, 1967), 299. This sum became part of the Crown’s debts to Luis de Santángel, and was returned to him in 1494. See Ladero Quesada, ‘Actividades de Luis de Santángel’, 106, 110, 117. Also see M. Ballesteros Gaibrois and R. Ferrando Pérez, Luis de Santángel y su entorno (Valladolid, 1996), passim. 29 The document was published by Baer, JchS ii. 409–10; it was again published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 403–8. See also Cantera Burgos and Carrete Parrondo, Sefarad, 33 (1973), 40, 296–7; Carrete Parrondo, ‘La hacienda castellana’, 348, no. 17. 30 On Alcovendas see n. 26 above, and also below. For a complete list of debtors see Table 9.1. 31 See Table 9.1. The list of places shows that most of his tax-farming was in the region of Plasencia, Guadalajara, Toledo, and Burgos. 32 33 e.g. in the district of Guadalajara six places are named. His debt came to 13,170 mrs. 34 His debt came to 18,000 mrs. 35 His debt came to 246,389 mrs; he seems to have acted as Don Isaac’s agent or partner in farming this tax. 36 This is the sum, and not 1,021,956 mrs as stated by Baer, JchS ii. 409–10.

506

the house of abravanel

three Jews were among those who left for exile, their payment had to be collected by Juan Ramírez de Tovar before the end of July 1492.37 As late as 6 October 1492 he received a power of attorney from the Crown for the collection of debts that remained outstanding after Don Isaac Abravanel’s departure. This power of attorney was given to him even though the Crown had ordered a delay in the collection of the outstanding debts owed by Jews, for it stated that debts owed to Don Isaac were to be collected.38 Juan de Tovar’s great familiarity with the business of the entire Abravanel family is evident. In every instance the obligation was placed upon the councils, magistrates, regidores, caballeros, escuderos, oficiales, and ‘good men’ in all of these places to assist him.39 The Christian debtors included a variety of personages; most probably each was a man of status in his place of residence. Among them is mentioned Juan de Lucena of Ciudad Real, who was a converso, as other debtors may have been too.40 Among the contracts may be mentioned the debt of Juan de Figueroa, who owed 170,000 mrs, from the lease of the salt-mines of Atienza, a concession belonging to the Duke of El Infantado and leased to Don Isaac in 1491. We need not mention the small debts here, for most likely these were debts from loans rather than debts from taxes.41 Several residents of León who owed money to Don Isaac Abravanel tried to avoid paying their debts to him, but the Crown took note of this and ordered the corregidor, Juan de Luzón, to see to their payment,42 doubtless to the Royal Treasury. The Crown was interested in collecting money owed to Don Isaac Abravanel but paid to him, as we learn from the grant made by Ferdinand to Fernán Núñez Coronel and Fernán Pérez Coronel for the collection of the servicio and montazgo of Plasencia. The Crown had purchased that collection from Don Isaac, and most likely this was part of the arrangement between him and the Crown regarding the liquidation of his business prior to his departure in exile.43 Of this sum Fernán Álvarez de Toledo, the monarchs’ loyal and devoted secretary, was paid the sum of 250,000 mrs, quite a substantial grant. On 20 July 1492 the Catholic Monarchs issued an order to the corregidores and magistrate of Toledo and other places, instructing them to adjudicate without delay the 37 ‘E mandamos tomar las dichas debdas para nos para los mandar cobrar de los conçejos e personas que los deben’ (fo. 4). See also León Tello, Toledo, ii. 569. 38 See RGS No. 3189, fo. 51, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 472–3. And also see fo. 61 there and below on Juan de Tovar. 39 The order was issued in Granada and drafted by Juan Álvarez de Toledo, the monarchs’ secretary, in the name of his masters, the king and queen. 40 See the notes to Table 9.1. On Juan de Lucena, see above, n. 10, and also Baer, Toledot, index. 41 For details see Table 9.1. 42 The debtors were Juan de Godoy, who came from La Mata and owed 8,100 mrs; Pero Gómez from Mora, who owed 3,100 mrs. These may have been debts from taxes. See Rodríguez Fernández, Ciudad de León, ii. 158. 43 ‘Lo que paresçe en los libros de Fernand Nuñez que han lleuado algunas personas desde el año de nouenta aca syn auer para ello cabsa ni rason alguna, a lo que me acudido es lo siguiente: Los ofiçios que tenia de Abravanel de los recabdamientos del serviçio e Montadgo de Plasençia conpro Su Altesa y fiso merçed dellos a Ferrand Peres Coronel e a Ferrand Nuñes. Y mando Su Altesa los traspase en Fernand Alvares lleuose la renta de un año de corretaje que fuera ccIV’: AGS, Diversos de Castilla, No. 574, fos. 46–76. The term ‘corretaje’ refers to a payment given for his pains to an intermediary who executes the corredor.

the house of abravanel

507

complaint of Judah Ibn Simon, a resident of Sigüenza, against Don Isaac Abravanel.44 Ibn Simon claimed that he had been an equal partner with Don Isaac in farming the pontifical revenues in Toledo and Sigüenza, but that Don Isaac took over the taxfarming and left the kingdom without settling his accounts with him. Indeed, it appears that the complaint regarding his departure was true, for by that time Don Isaac and his household were on their way to the port of Valencia. Judah Ibn Simon was also about to leave the kingdom, and in his petition he asked the Crown to intervene so that Don Isaac paid his debt. Most likely he intended to have the debt covered out of the debts left uncollected by Don Isaac, which had been transferred to the Crown. However, it is possible that he intended to deduct his share of the debts from those to be collected by officials appointed by the Crown for collecting Jewish debts. One might also suspect that Judah Ibn Simon sought to benefit from Don Isaac’s departure from his native city.45 Nevertheless, the Crown ordered an urgent examination of the complaint. It should be emphasized that this matter concerns the income of Cardinal Pedro González de Mendoza. We do not know the outcome of the investigation nor the cardinal’s response. Apparently there were others who tried to exploit Don Isaac’s departure to avoid paying their debts. Gómez de Robles is mentioned in a document dating from prior to August 1492,46 and Luis de Sepúlveda was instructed to deal with a series of matters.47 It is difficult to determine from the document whether it deals with Don Isaac’s business or Jacob’s.48 In any event, this was family business. A list of the affairs of the Abravanel family was presented to the Crown, and the extent of their activities was impressive. The list shows that Gómez de Robles was accused of various acts of fraud: he did not pay for fodder (‘yerva’) for his herds; ornamental hangings (‘paramentos’) were apparently returned to Abravanel in damaged condition, and this caused damage to the Crown itself. The list mentions areas where the matter of ploughing had to be investigated in the towns of San Silvestre, Torrijos, 44 The date of the document is June. In June of that year monarchs were in Guadalupe. See RGS 9 No. 2496, fos. 146 and 399, with the commentary of C. Álvarez and A. Prieto, the editors of the register. 45 ‘Con mil ducados de oro e otras joyas de plata e oro que los valga e con las otras cosas que consigo llevaron que no sean vedados’. See also Cantera Burgos, ‘Don Ishaq Braunel’, 248. Here we have further evidence regarding the things that Don Isaac Abravanel’s family took with it when they went into exile. 46 The document is in AGS, Diversos de Castilla, Leg. 8, fo. 127, and is published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 456–7. Gómez de Robles was the governor of the town of Torrijos. In 1490 he was granted escribanía de número in the city of Avila, of which he was a citizen. His title was ‘criado del comendador de León de Sus Altesas’. On him see also RGS 7 No. 1704, fo. 27, dated 20 June 1490. The document was issued in Alcalá la Real. See also RGS 7 No. 3735, fo. 17, dated 12 Nov. 1490, issued in Córdoba. On Gómez de Robles see León Tello, Toledo, ii. 575. 47 On Luis de Sepúlveda see RGS 2 No. 2598, fo. 269, dated 18 Feb. 1480, issued in Toledo. See also RGS 7 No. 3845, fo. 20, dated 5 Dec. 1495 and issued in Seville. It concerns notarial office granted to him in Las Palmas in the Canary Islands; cf. RGS 7 No. 3688, fo. 254, dated 9 Dec. 1490, issued in Seville. Also RGS 11 No. 707, fo. 22, issued on 12 Mar. 1494 in Medina del Campo. Cf. RGS 10 No. 1910, fo. 230, issued on 13 July 1493 in Barcelona: ‘Que Luis de Sepúlveda y Lope de Villarreal hagan pesquisa sobre las personas que en los puertos de la frontera de Portugal, del obispado de Badajoz, del maestrazgo de Alcántara y de otros lugares, dieron lugar a que los judíos que por ellos pasaron sacasen oro, plata y otras cosas vedadas a causa de algunas cosas que les daban’, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 523–4. 48 On him see below. See also Ch. 6 above.

508

the house of abravanel

and Maqueda. Robles cheated among other things with regard to a chapel that he may have built, claiming that its price should have been 180,000 mrs.49 The list makes clear the family’s great involvement in business affairs in Torrijos, Maqueda, and San Silvestre and in additional regional matters having to do with their agricultural areas and also their walls. It mentions problems of a fence around a garden in San Silvestre, stating that gardens were not to be planted in places where trees were growing, perhaps referring to olive-trees. It is concerned with the pressing of reeds and the sale of land to which the order of Calatrava had rights; with arranging the transfer of olivepresses; with repairing the bridge leading from the citadel of Maqueda; and with arranging repairs of the wall in Torrijos. A series of instructions found in the list refer to implementing local arrangements after no one was found to do so after the departure of the Abravanel family. Among these was also the arrangement with Gabriel de Tafia.50 Gabriel de Tafia and Luis de Sepúlveda were responsible for collecting a debt of 200,000 mrs in Maqueda and Torrijos which according to Rabbi Meir Melamed had not been collected in 1491. Abravanel, either Don Isaac or Yose, had not collected the sum because no collector was found to do so. The alguacil had seized a mule, but there were various delays. Gabriel de Tafia and Gómez de Robles were to see to the collection of the debts owed to Abravanel in Maqueda and its district; in Torrijos; in San Silvestre; in Santa Cruz, Girundote; in Alcarón; and a certain quantity of wheat in Fuensalida. Gómez de Robles was to produce the documents related to the collection. The remainder of the sum that could not be collected would be covered by Abravanel. If there were differences of opinion about the matter, justice should be done to Abravanel. Gabriel de Tafia and Luis de Sepúlveda were to reach the decision.51 The document also mentions the appointment of an alguacil in Maqueda. Several other paragraphs discuss the ransoming of prisoners from the war in Granada, with which Don Isaac had apparently been concerned. Most likely this action involved obtaining financial means; the proposals brought from the city by one López were acceptable to him.52 The action also related to some of the prisoners who would come to Maqueda and its surroundings. The document shows clearly that it was intended to separate the old people and the children. It hints that someone (Abravanel or López?) went there. Perhaps the ransoming of these prisoners is related to that of the prisoners of Málaga.53 Among the uncollected debts left behind by Don Isaac Abravanel was one to Don Álvaro de Portugal, the head of the Crown Council. On 23 August 1493 the bachiller Alonso Pérez de Alcalá was instructed to enforce a contract made between Don Isaac This might refer to false claims, as the document suggests: ‘cosa de tanta costa donde no era menester’. See Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 456–8. 50 Several documents in the Simancas refer to him: see e.g. RGS 4 No. 2544, fo. 136, issued on 12 Mar. 1486 in Arévalo; RGS 6 No. 645. fo. 302, issued on 24 Feb. 1489 in Medina del Campo. The document mentions the name of his father, Gómez de Tafia. 51 In the absence of Gabriel de Tafia, Luis de Sepúlveda was to reach a decision by himself. See Baer, JchS ii. 412–13, and also Beinart, ‘The Last Jews in Maqueda’, 242 ff. 52 We do not know who the López was who handled the negotiations and when they took place. 53 See above, Chs. 1 and 5, regarding the expulsion from Andalusia, and also n. 3 above. 49

the house of abravanel

509

and Fernando de Villarreal, a resident of Almagro, and collect the sum of 51,333 mrs, which constituted half the debt owed to Don Álvaro.54 The problems of the town of Alcovendas have been mentioned above. These were not solved with Don Isaac Abravanel’s departure in exile. In 1494 possessions of the town council were seized for a debt of 100,000 mrs, which was owed by Juan Arias de Ávila, the lord of the town.55 On the basis of the authority granted to him by the Crown, Juan Ramírez de Tovar seized a herd of cattle belonging to the residents56 without the agreement of the town council. Among the cattle were eighty oxen, which were taken to Madrid and without delay sold there at public auction for 74,000 mrs, although their true value was 200,000 mrs. This action caused severe damage to the residents of the town. Juan Ramírez de Tovar collected 10,000 mrs for himself for expenses, though he was forbidden to do so on the footing of a bailiff, for the sum had been collected as a tax debt.57 During this process five or six oxen had died; the council demanded compensation from Juan Ramírez as well as reimbursement of the 10,000 mrs that he had taken for himself. For his part, Juan Ramírez lodged a claim for 98,800 mrs, a debt for brocade cloth delivered to Juan Arias de Ávila by Don Isaac, who had given Ramírez a promissory note for it. The council refused to pay this debt. Juan Ramírez argued that he had seized the herd for fear that it would be smuggled away. He had performed the seizure legally in the presence of a notary, and before removing the herd from the town he had notified the council and offered to return it if they paid the debt, but they had argued that the debtor was Juan Arias de Ávila and not themselves. Juan Ramírez had sold the flock because the date for payment of the debt had passed, and he had proclaimed this in public daily.58 His letter of appointment from the Crown did not state who was to cover his expenses and salary. Therefore he had taken 10 per cent of the value of the sale. The sum he collected came to 9,800 mrs, which he deposited with a dependable man. For his part, Juan Ramírez requested that the Crown should determine whether he was entitled to the expenses and permitted to do as he had done. The local council alleged that Juan Ramírez de Tovar and the notary who worked with him were entitled to only 2,000 mrs, and demanded the refund of 7,850 mrs.59 Lorenzo del Mármol, with whom Juan Ramírez had deposited the money, was instructed to return 7,650 mrs to the council and to pay Juan Ramírez only 2,000 mrs.60 Juan Ramírez was cleared of guilt for causing the death of the oxen. 54 See RGS 10 No. 2269, fo. 117, issued in Barcelona. One Fernando de Villarreal was summoned on 19 July 1515 by the prosecutor in the trial of Juan Ramírez of Ciudad Real, mayordomo to Cardinal Cisneros, to appear and answer an interrogatory. See Leg. 176 No. 4 (675), fo. 770. On another man of that name, a resident of Ciudad Real, see Beinart, Records, iv, and the bibliographical notes. Since Ciudad Real and Almagro are adjacent, this might be the man who contracted with Don Isaac. 55 See RGS 11 No. 802, fo. 279, issued on 17 Mar. 1494 in Medina del Campo, and Table 9.1 below. 56 57 ‘Ganados de arida’. His wages for this action were probably paid by the Crown. 58 As was customary, the proclamation was made three times, on Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday, the herd being sold on Wednesday. 59 Perhaps there is an error of arithmetic here regarding the amounts due to the notary and Juan Ramírez, or else the expenses might be other than those referred to in the claim. 60 If he did not pay, his property would be confiscated, and if he had no property, he would be arrested and imprisoned; he was not to be removed from prison on a third-party guarantee.

510

the house of abravanel

There were two men named Yose Abravanel in the family,61 one Isaac’s brother and the other his son-in-law, and it is difficult to determine which is referred to in the documents. Yose Abravanel was also connected to the farming of taxes and revenues, and he was rich in property and money. He was relatively young when he entered the financial business of the kingdom, perhaps independently, though most likely as Don Isaac’s partner. On 30 November 1488 he was appointed as supreme tax-collector for the service and montazgo tax on flocks in the kingdom.62 This apparently refers to the transfer of the flocks of the Mesta, an organization that excluded Jews. He received this position by virtue of the good services he had done for the Crown day after day.63 This appointment was given to him and his heir, for his entire lifetime and that of his heir.64 To some degree this appointment is similar to that of Abraham Senior as the treasurer of the Hermandad, which was given to him in 1488,65 the very same year that Yose Abravanel was appointed. One may surmise from this that the Crown had adopted a certain line of policy, especially since the post of treasurer to the Hermandad was forbidden to a Jew.66 Yose Abravanel was to receive 30 mrs for every 1,000 mrs that he collected. The appointment was to begin on St John’s day (24 June) 1488 and to continue until that date in the following year, thenceforth renewable annually during Yose Abravanel’s lifetime and that of his son and heir after him. They were also to enjoy all the perquisites of the appointment. On that day he also received another appointment: chief tax-farmer for the revenue from the alcabala, the tercia, and the tax on grain and wine and other commodities upon which taxes levied in the city of Plasencia and its district.67 He was also appointed to this position for life, as was his son afterwards. In this position his wages were 30 mrs for every 1,000 mrs that he collected. The appointment became effective on 1 January 1489, and is therefore identical to the appointment to collect the montazgo taxes on flocks. The important aspect of this appointment is its closeness to the time of the expulsion, in that he was appointed for two generations, and this is exceptional. Perhaps the appointment served to camouflage the Crown’s intention of terminating Jewish residence in Spain. We can learn more about the ways of Yose Abravanel and his devotion to the position of supreme tax-collector in the district of Plasencia from a document issued on 28 February 1491,68 which was addressed to the corregidor and magistrate of Plasencia. The city authorities had complained to the Crown about Yose Abravanel and an agent (‘factor’) of his ‘that they impose conditions, pretexts, and regulations [other] than those they had used to do before, and things that are not found in the cuadernos of the alcabala’.69 The officials were ordered to investigate the terms of the collection conSee Netanyahu, Abravanel, index. ‘Recabdador mayor de serviçio y montazgo de los ganados destos nuestros reynos e señorios’. See RGS 5 No. 4300, fo. 46, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 311–12. It is defective, and a section 63 ‘Pur muchos buenos, leales y agradables serviçios’, ibid. is missing. 64 ‘El qual recabdamiento queremos que aya e tenga el dicho don Yuçef Abravanel y un heredero que el nonbrare e touiere por todos los dias de sus vidas dellos y de cada uno dellos’. 65 66 67 See Baer, Toledot, 404. Ibid. See RGS 5 No. 4301, fo. 216, issued in Valladolid. 68 See RGS 8 No. 566, fo. 335, issued in Seville. 69 ‘Que ponen condiçiones e achaques e derechos de los que antes de agora solian e cosas que no estan en el quaderno de las nuestras alcaualas’, ibid. 61 62

the house of abravanel

511

tract in the spirit of ‘the laws newly made by us’,70 and to see that the local residents had no reasons to complain. The question that arises here is: to what laws was the document referring? New ordinances were instituted in Real de la Vega on 10 December 1491;71 however, that was about eight months after the date mentioned in the document. It is not unlikely that they were in force before their official promulgation, and perhaps a collection of these laws was available some time before the date mentioned in the document, 28 February 1491. In the laws promulgated on 10 December Jews and Moors were forbidden to engage in the farming and collection of taxes in partnership with Christians. However, the appointment of Abraham Senior and Yose Abravanel was confirmed. The latter was appointed for life in Plasencia and its district, but the appointment of his son and heir following him as a tax-farmer for his entire life was annulled, as was the salary for collection.72 By contrast, a less favoured Jew, David Ibn Alfahar, lost the permission to farm and collect taxes altogether.73 Yose Abravanel gave two brothers, Alonso and Juan Sánchez, the concession to farm taxes from the estates of Cotillo, Casarejo, and Espadaniel for an annual sum.74 A month and a half after the concession was transferred to them, an order was issued, apparently from the Royal Council, at the request of the localities of Calzadilla, Casatejada, Casares, and Millanes, all within the district of Plasencia. The villagers were permitted to graze their flocks in the fields of the three aforementioned estates, because their own pastures were too small. The Crown first instructed its maestresala Antonio de Fonseca, the corregidor of Plasencia, to investigate the plea; in the light of his findings, the brothers were instructed not to collect tax from the villagers nor to punish them as defaulters, and exempted from payment of a commission to Yose Abravanel. Despite these measures, Abravanel sued them for payment for use of the pastures, which had meanwhile become the public pasture land of Plasencia. It appears that Yose Abravanel ordered the seizure of their property, and they requested the Crown to prevent the confiscation, arguing that they were exempt from all his claims. Their petition was accepted by the Crown Council, and on 8 November 1491 it ordered the corregidor and magistrate of Plasencia to ascertain the nature of Abravanel’s claims; the findings would be sent to the Crown Council, which would adjudicate the plea. The problems of liquidating Yose Abravanel’s business became more intense as the date for the departure from Spain approached. In early June 1492 his wife, his property, and also that of Jacob Abravanel were seized by Duke Álvaro de Zúñiga and his brother Juan, the master of the order of Alcántara, with the claim that Yose 70 ‘Que veades las leyes del quaderno e condiçiones con que se arriendan las nuestras alcaualas e espeçialmente las leyes agora nueuamente por nos son fechas’, ibid. 71 ‘Leyes del quaderno de las alcaualas que hizieron los Señores Reyes Catolicos año 1491, de los que se auia de guardar en los arrendamientos dellas’; see Beinart, ‘The Memorandum of Tomás de Torquemada’. 72 See ibid. 22. 73 On Ibn Alfahar see Ladero Quesada, El siglo XV en Castilla, 158–64; he was from Quintanar, and in 1490 he farmed the albaquias tax in Murcia. The new laws also deprived Jews and Moors of the right to serve as subcontractors for tax-farming in places with more than 200 households. See Beinart, ‘The Memorandum’, 24. 74 See RGS 8 No. 2977, fo. 205. The amount of the tax to be farmed is not specified. The wording is: ‘por çierto preçio de maravedis en cada un año’.

512

the house of abravanel

Abravanel owed them money from taxes that he and his guarantors had collected in Plasencia and its area in 1487–8. These sums, they claimed, were theirs by right, whereas Yose Abravanel argued that he had paid them a far larger sum from what he had collected in those years. Nevertheless, he was prepared to settle accounts with them, showing that beyond all doubt he intended to leave the kingdom. He produced two guarantors for the liquidation of his business: Luis de Alcalá, resident and regidor of Madrid,75 and Fernán Núñez Coronel, formerly Abraham Senior, who had converted to Christianity in Guadalupe on 15 June. This arrangement was acceptable to the Crown, which ordered the corregidor of Plasencia, the alcaldes, and the other magistrates of the city to release the wife and sons from custody (this is a change from the beginning of the document, which does not mention the sons), as well as the property of Yose and Jacob Abravanel. They were also ordered to release their agents, servants, and guarantors, and others who had been arrested and imprisoned by the Zúñiga brothers because of debts. Luis de Alcalá and Fernán Núñez Coronel took it upon themselves to present the accounts and claims for the tax-farm in place of Yose Abravanel. They would provide the sum needed to settle the claim. This order was issued in Guadalupe on 18 June 1492, and shows that Yose Abravanel negotiated with Abraham Senior in Guadalupe,76 for as we have noted, Senior had converted to Christianity three days earlier in that very city, in the presence of the Catholic Monarchs, with Ferdinand himself serving as godfather. It should be emphasized that the settlement was reached after Abraham Senior’s baptism. Two days later, on 20 June 1492, the king and queen instructed the council of Plasencia, the magistrates, the regidores, caballeros, escuderos, and other good men, and all the tax-farmers, the loyal men, and the counsellors who had collected taxes from the time that the city and its district had passed into the possession of the Crown until the end of 1491,77 to permit Gómez de la Rocha, who was authorized by the Crown, to ascertain what the city had to pay on its account with Yose Abravanel. The information was to be transferred to the Crown accountants, and it was forbidden to interfere with the work of Gómez de la Rocha.78 On the same day, 20 June 1492,79 Ferdinand and Isabella signed an additional order connected with the activity of Yose Abravanel.80 He had complained to the Crown about the residents of Plascencia, ‘who because of their great hatred and enmity had lodged claims against him and his wife and his brother Jacob Abravanel and their assistants when they were absent’,81 though he owed them nothing. This was an effort On Luis de Alcalá see Ch. 8. The order was drafted by Fernán Álvarez de Toledo; it is published in Baer, JchS ii. 416 ff. and also in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 435–6. 77 See RGS 9 No. 2336, fo. 112, issued in Guadalupe, also drafted by Fernán Álvarez de Toledo. 78 A fine of 10,000 mrs would be imposed on the delinquents, and they would lose the Crown’s favour. 79 Given to Fernán Yáñez de Alcocer (or Alcover), the king’s personal servant. Most likely he lobbied for Joseph Abravanel in the royal court. See Cantera Burgos, ‘Don Ishaq Braunel’, 250. 80 Published by Baer, JchS ii. 417–18; also in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 436–8; cf. Cantera Burgos, ‘Don Ishaq Braunel’, 250. 81 ‘Por grand odio y henemistad que le tienen non deviendoles cosa alguna ponen demandas a su muger e a don Jacob Abravanel su hermano y a sus criados en su absençia’. See RGS 9 No. 2334, fo. 94. 75 76

the house of abravanel

513

to benefit from the situation in Spain after publication of the Edict of Expulsion; it intensified as the date of departure approached. The intention of the claims was, according to the document itself, ‘to prevent their departure in time, so that the punishments mentioned in the Edict of Expulsion would be imposed upon them’,82 for Jews who did not leave in time would be executed if they did not convert to Christianity. In his complaint Yose Abravanel argued that he had left guarantees behind for all the demands that would be made when the Jews’ debts were claimed.83 The creditors argued that those guarantees were insufficient, and they were not obliged to obey the Crown’s orders regarding the departure of the Abravanel family. In response to Don Yose’s complaint at the seizure of the property of his wife, his brother Jacob, and their assistants, the Crown gave a power of attorney to Dr del Castillo, the resident magistrate of Plasencia, instructing him to rescind the action taken against Yose Abravanel’s family and ‘to permit them to remove their property as they saw fit’.84 If there were any problems, the aforementioned magistrate should clarify them with Yose Abravanel, his brother Jacob, Yose’s wife, and their assistants in the presence of their procuradores, at the same time observing the ordinary procedures determined regarding the debts of Jews. Clearly the Crown’s position was that the Jews must be enabled to depart. This claim was not unique, nor was the instruction to protect the departing Jews from extortion. It appears that the family was later left in peace. By 31 May 1492 they had already obtained permission to depart.85 Abraham Senior purchased Yose Abravanel’s house,86 and probably other property belonging to him and his brothers. Each member was allowed to remove 1,000 gold ducats and jewels on the way to the port of Valencia.87 They had to pay the not particularly steep exit duty of 460 sueldos on 31 July, according to dret del vinte (derecho del veinte) payable to the Crown for merchandise removed from the kingdom. This was the Abravanel family’s last day on Spanish soil, just as it was the last day for all the deported Jews. We do not know the exact date when the whole family left their homes, or whether they split up when they departed, as the Patriarch Jacob divided his camp when he met his brother Esau. It is known that Yose Abravanel testified before a tribunal of the Inquisition in Valencia on 23 July 1492.88 There are also royal instructions regarding the departure of the family dated 5 July 82 ‘A los detener que no puedan salir en el termino, que los auemos mandado salir dellas a los judios e judias, por qual aya de yncurrir en las penas en las nuestras cartas contenidas’, ibid. 83 ‘Pagar lo que fuere fallado que deuen o deuieren el dicho Yoçe Abravanel de todo lo que fuere pedido durante el termino en que nos avemos mandado que se demanden las debdas que deuen los dichos judios’, ibid. 84 85 ‘E dexeys yr e sacar los dichos sus bienes libremente’, ibid. See Baer, Toledot, 471. 86 We learn of this from the list of property of Fernán Núñez Coronel that was made on 10 Dec. 1492, from the testimony of Francisco de Soto, a resident of Ávila. He stated: ‘Cree que todo lo conpro salvo a la parte de las casas que eran de Gonçalo de Cuellar que oyo desir que le fisieron merçed Sus Altezas al dicho Fernand Nuñes, e a Yuçe Abravanel, e que la parte que conpro del dicho Abravanel gelo conpro el dicho Fernand Nuñez’: AGS, Hacienda, Leg. 1 No. 77, fo. 4r. This transaction was clearly made with knowledge that Abraham Senior was not going into exile. 87 See Hinojosa Montalvo, ‘Solidaridad’, 118–20, and below, n. 94. 88 See Baer, JchS ii. 411, which is based on AHN, Inq. Valencia, Leg 538. He testified on 23 July 1492 for the prosecution in the trial of Francisco d’Esplugues.

514

the house of abravanel

1492, and Netanyahu conjectures that Don Isaac Abravanel waited in Valencia for the arrival of Yose and Jacob and their families before they left together for Italy.89 Nevertheless some debts apparently remained outstanding, for on 8 July 1493 the Royal Council, headed by Don Álvaro de Portugal, issued an order to the corregidor or alcalde of Plasencia, in response to the city’s petition.90 The city complained that when it passed under the dominion of the Crown, collection of the alcabala had been given to Fernando de Monroy, the lord of Belvís. After him the collection had been given to [Yose] Abravanel,91 who had collected approximately 70,000 mrs on the strength of the authority he had received. Yose Abravanel’s assistants had helped collect this sum. Before he left for exile, the city had asked him to release the money, but he refused. Now the city council requested to have the sum collected from the guarantors or from real and moveable property that Yose Abravanel had left behind. It appears to us that this late claim is related to the argument made by Yose Abravanel concerning unjustified claims lodged against him by the city and various individuals.92 As noted, the city’s petition seemed reasonable to the Royal Council, which ordered the corregidor of Plasencia and the magistrate acting in his name to convene the guarantors and others who were in possession of property that had belonged to ‘that Jew’, and to hear the case without delay,93 meaning that the property should be sold if necessary. The city clearly intended to seize Yose Abravanel’s former property in Plasencia from the various private hands into which it had passed. Another example of the seizure of the family’s property emerges from an affair involving Jacob Abravanel.94 He had 140 cows grazing on an estate called Justicia in a region under the jurisdiction of the order of Alcántara. The cowherd, Hernán García, knowing that Jacob Abravanel was about to go into exile, had taken the cows and attempted to smuggle them to Portugal, where Jacob Abravanel was not planning to go—for, as we have seen, in 1483 the family had fled from Portugal, and they were liable for severe punishments there. The cowherd intended to take possession of the animals, but he told the border guards that he was bringing them to Portugal on orders of his master, Jacob Abravanel. The guards allowed him to take twenty or thirty cows with him across the border, but they divided the rest of the animals among themselves. In a complaint to the Crown Jacob Abravanel claimed that he did not intend to join those who were going to Portugal, but rather to go to Valencia and depart by sea. Hence he sought the return of the herd and compensation for the damage that had been done to him. See Netanyahu, Abravanel, 281–2, and also n. 74. Cf. Cantera Burgos, ‘Don Ishaq Braunel’, 245 ff. See RGS 10 No. 1521, fo. 218, issued in Barcelona. The order was drafted by Alonso del Mármol, the 91 See also Cantera Burgos, ‘Don Ishaq Braunel’, 249. notary of the royal chamber. 92 See above. The order was given to him on 20 June 1492. 93 ‘Por que vos mandamos que veades lo susdicho, llamando a los dichos sus fiadores e otras personas que touieren los dichos byenes del dicho judio a quien ataña breve e sumariamente fagays sobre ello entero complimiento de justiçia’. To present counter-arguments it was necessary to appear before the council within fifteen days of the order being issued. 94 See RGS 9 No. 2359, fo. 97, published in Baer, JchS ii. 418–19, and in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 439–40: ‘E por quanto nos somos çertificados quel dicho Jacob Abravanel non osava de ir a los reygnos de Portogal, antes va a envarcar por la mar por via de Valençia tovimoslo por bien’. Cf. Cantera Burgos, ‘Don Ishaq Braunel’, 249 n. 19. 89 90

515 Table 9.1 Persons and places in debt to Don Isaac Abravanela Place

Sum (mrs)

Alcobendas, San Agostín, and Pedresuela

100,000

Towns under the dominion of Juan Arias de Ávila Alcobendas (the council)

41,500

Individuals according to their place of residence Abadía Juan de Brochena; Juan de Alva; Luis, the son of Diego García

5,200

Juan de Berrozna

1,300

Juan Capoteb

1,570

Alba (in the district of Toledo) Fernando Mayoral

7,500

Alcalá de Henares Iñigo López de Stuñiga

1,000

Alcolea Çac de Aguilar, of Toledo, a resident of Alcolea Barbadillo de Pedreros

131,700

c

Gonzalo de Barbadillo de Herreros

10,005

Barruelo (in the district of Piedrahita) Francisco Escurria

2,415

Campillo Bartolomé González

2,156

Andrés Martínez Caracuel Juan de Haro

45,600

Castellanos Juan de Espada; Francisco de Espada

2,000

Cebolla Alonso Gómez, the mayordomo of Juan de Ayalad Francisco Moro

6,000

Ciudad Real Juan de Lucenae

71,600

Escalona Fernando de Adrada

5,265

Espinar Firan Garçía (Realigo)

1,710

Guadalajara (district) Jorge de Vegaf

3,900

516 Table 9.1 (cont.) Place

Sum (mrs)

Guadalajara (city) Pedro de la Peña; Pedro de González Martínez

4,500

Belfaje Antón de Soria; Alonso Diáz;g Antón de Soria (alone); Marchamalo

9,500

Pero Lacas

2,250

Cabinallas Diego Martínez

2,250

Yunquera Juan Caputih

2,100

Guadyerbas (in the district of Oropesa) Miguel Sese; Torievio de la Fuente

1,966

i

Hoyuelos; Pero Gómez (el moço) and his guarantor, Pero Martín de Barbadollo

14,000

Illescas Rabi Baru de Donatesj Malpartida

18,000

k

Andrés González

3,723

Mansilla l Juan de Villosnada

8,100

Mata Juan de Godoy Mora

2,760

m

Pero Gómez Morro

3,100 n

Neila (on the land of the condestable)

María de Prado, the wife of Bartolomé Marques Alonso; Martínez (su mayoral ), and Andrés Velázquez his guarantor

5,000

Andrés Márquez

2,804

Alonso Márquez; Jorge Martín

7,650

Plasencia o Pedro de Sevilla; Juan de Sevilla; Ruy González, escríbano; Francisco González, son-in-law (yerno) of above

53,537

Puebla de Montalbán Mateo Pérez

1,666

San Pablo, in the district of Toledo Bartolomé Fernández de la Lencha

4,060

517 Table 9.1 (cont.) Place

Sum (mrs)

Sarracín Juan Fernández de las Heras

8,500

Segovia Gonzalo de Villafuentes

7,742

Sigüenza Abraham Çerfati, the manager of the ‘mountain service’,p and his brother Antón de Rios; Martín Peco

246,389 10,000

Soria Juan Dalsas, mayoral of Rodrigo de Moralesq

1,720

Torres (in the district of Salamanca) Alonso González Barnabe

1,010

Vadillo (in the district of Ávila) Francisco Jiménez

3,983

Villanueva (in the diocese of Ávila) Juan de Rebilla Villaharta Rodrigo de Soria,r Gonzalo de Soria, together with Diego López Belcape, a resident of Alcázar de Consuegra Villavilao (on the lands of the Count of Aguilar) Pedro Pleno Viscaíno (on the land of the condestable) Alonso Malmonje

6,630

85,000 1,967 17,600

Villajimeno Juan Fernández

5,000

Yepes Fernán González, a shoemaker; Francisco Tardío

1,240

Various individuals (without indication of their places of residence) Fernando de Villarreals Francisco Muñiz Total debts to be collected

118,333 23,333 1,141,104

a See Baer, JchS ii. 409–10; Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 405 ff. On a debt of 1,500,000 mrs owed by the king to Isaac Abravanel, and the payment of this debt, see above, close to n. 28. b See below, s.v. ‘Yunquera’. c Today it is Barbadillo de Herreros, in the province of Burgos. d A number of documents in AGS from the years 1485–7 mention Juan de Ayala. See RGS 4 No. 1698, fo. 192, 13 Sept. 1485, Córdoba; RGS 5 No. 269, fo. 50, 30 Mar., Córdoba; RGS 5 No. 387, fo. 169, 13 Apr. 1487, Córdoba; RGS 5 No. 400, fo. 143, 23 Apr. 1487, Córdoba; RGS 5 No. 454, fo. 52, 2 May 1487, Tordesillas; RGS 5 No. 674, fo. 113, 7 July 1487, Real sobre Málaga; RGS 5 No. 746, fo. 20, 30 July 1487, Burgos; RGS 5 No. 748, fo. 102, 30 July 1487, Burgos; RGS 5 No. 1150,fo. 207, 30 Sept. 1487, Burgos; RGS 5 No. 1314, fo. 99, 26 Sept. 1487 Burgos. Juan de Ayala was the corregidor of Valladolid in 1487.

518 Table 9.1 (cont.) e It cannot be known whether this refers to the well-known printer. This name is mentioned several times in documents in AGS, and one cannot determine whether the same person is referred to. See RGS 7 No. 1822, fo. 15, 3 June 1490, Seville. According to this document, Juan de Lucena protested against the verdict that had been issued against him. The document was issued by the council and the Inquisition. See n. 10 in the present chapter. f On him see RGS 4 No. 96, fo. 9, 27 Jan. 1485, Valladolid. He was a criado of Don Fernando de Velasco, a resident of Guadalajara. A complaint was lodged in his name against Abraham Abayn, also a resident of Guadalajara, for an unspecified sum which Abraham had lent to Fernando de Velasco. He had seized pledges worth 25,000 mrs in addition to the amount of the loan. The document reiterates the prohibition on lending at interest and the decision of the Cortes of Toledo in 1462 with support from Enrique IV, forbidding loans for interest. g On him see RGS 2 No. 2697, fo. 153, 1 Mar. 1480, Toledo. A man with this name, a resident of Olivar, was involved in a lawsuit against Bueno Abulafia, a resident of Guadalajara. h See Abadia, above. i On him see RGS 8 No. 3346, fo. 92, 10 Dec. 1491, Burgos. The corregidor of Valencia de Alcántara was instructed to implement the law forbidding loans at interest that was issued in Madrigal in 1476, according to the request of Pedro Gómez ‘el viejo’ and Pedro Gómez ‘el moço’, residents of Hoyuelos. j Rabi Baru de Donatis; see in the present chapter, at n. 34. k There are two, Malpartida de Plasencia and Malpartida de Cáceres, and it cannot be determined which one is meant. l Near Burgos. m In the province of Toledo. n In the province of Burgos. o See RGS 7 No. 3347, fo. 235, 13 Oct. 1490, Córdoba. p ‘Fator de serviçio de Montazgo’. q On him see RGS 1 No. 1073, fo. 262, dated 7 Apr. 1476, Madrigal. ‘Comision al doctor Pedro Álvarez y a Rodrigo Morales, regidor de Soria, para que informen açerca de la petiçion hecha por los judíos de dicha çiudad, sobre razon de çiertas cosas que se les deben, y carta a todos las justiçias, para que hagan pagar a estos todo lo que se les debe’. See also RGS 1 No. 2342, fo. 245, dated 4 June 1477, issued in Trujillo. r On him see RGS 12 No. 3945, fo. 49, 18 Sept. 1494, Burgos; RGS 12 No. 3962, fo. 80, 9 Nov. 1495, also Burgos, a suit regarding an estate. s There were various men with this name. See RGS 1 No. 2036, fo. 385, 13 Mar. 1477. Also RGS 1 No. 2107, fo. 434, 27 Mar. 1477; RGS 5 No. 3611, fo. 244, 28 July 1488, Murcia; RGS 2 No. 1289, fo. 92, 14 Nov. 1471, Córdoba; RGS 2 No. 3494, fo. 227, 7 Dec. 1489, Seville; RGS 8 No. 617, fo. 291 (s.d.) Feb. 1491 (s.l.); RGS 8 No. 1637, fo. 9, 31 May 1491, Córdoba. ‘Emplazamiento a Fernando de Villarreal, veçino de Almagro, y consortes, casi todos judios, para que abonen lo que habían cobrado por don Yuçe Abenaex, veçino de Córdoba, arrendador de alcabalas, y que este a su vez debia a don Gutierre de Cardenas, comendador mayor de Leon, y al doctor de Lillo, chançiller y del Consejo Real, de los rentas, pechos, etç, de los dos años anteriores, de los veçinos de Maqueda, Torrijos y de otros lugares, ya que dicho don Yuçe se había ausentado y no se hallaban bienes suyos—Consejo’. See also RGS 9 No. 1742, fo. 130, 17 Apr. 1492, Santa Fe; RGS 10 No. 3000, fo. 108, 23 Nov. 1493, Zaragoza (a Fernando de Villarreal was the chief collector of the alcabala: RGS 11 No. 2025, fo. 59, 28 Nov. 1494, Medina del Campo; a man of that name was a collector of the servicio y montazgo); RGS 11 No. 4287, fo. 275, 11 Dec. 1494, Madrid.

On 24 July 1492 the king and queen, who were in residence in Guadalupe, ordered Antonio de Fonseca to arrest those who had helped García sell the cows and to release him from prison. Thus the cowherd must have returned home and been arrested. Antonio de Fonseca was to see to the return of the cows. If the cows had been sold, he must hear the parties concerned (the seller, the buyer, and the owner) and pay Jacob Abravanel a fair price (‘justo valor’) for the cows. The sellers of the cows were required to pay these sums to Jacob Abravanel.95 ✻

The documents summarized in this chapter tell about only a small part of the family’s activity after fleeing Portugal and settling in Castile. They resided in Alcalá de Henares and Plasencia and established an extensive financial network in Guadalupe, 95 The order adds that any person with information about the sale was obliged to inform Antonio de Fonseca, without limitation in time.

the house of abravanel

519

Maqueda, Torrijos, San Silvestre, and Talavera de la Reina, and in the regions associated with those cities. There is no doubt about how the family managed such significant achievements within a relatively short time, both in Jewish and general public activity and also in their connections with the Crown and eminent people in Castile.96 They did not hesitate to leave all this behind in Spain, and, courageously, they took up the wanderer’s staff and cast their lot with their brethren who went into exile. 96 In his eulogy for Samuel Abravanel, the son of Don Isaac Abravanel, on 8 Tevet 5464 (1504), Rabbi Joseph Garzón recalls Don Isaac’s benefits to him. This evidently occurred in 1483/4. See H. Benayahu, ‘The Sermons of Rabbi Joseph ben Meir Garzón’ (Heb.), Michael, 7 (1982), 121, 152–5.

10

Contemporaries Describe the Expulsion deep and essential difference exists between what the deportees experienced during the expulsion and the responses of contemporary non-Jewish A chroniclers. Nor was the response of following generations to the blow dealt to Spanish Jewry during the expulsion similar to that of those who lived through it. Members of the generation of the expulsion, both Jews and non-Jews, were witnesses to an event that demanded a response and the expression of an opinion about what had happened to a nation, an entire religious and ethnic minority that had been living in a country for nearly 1,500 years. Unquestionably the Edict of Expulsion came as a surprise to the Jews of Spain—indeed, this was the intention of Ferdinand and Isabella and their confidants and advisers in planning the expulsion: Tomás de Torquemada, their father confessor Hernando de Talavera, and several faithful secretaries and powerful men of the kingdom. When the lot fell, and the deportees were scattered in every direction, only a few of them wished to express an opinion regarding what had happened to them. Each was sustained by his or her faith, and all those who recorded their feelings and thoughts in writing chose their own way to approach the fate that had befallen themselves and their families, and the question of who was responsible for the injustice done to them personally and to their people. In contrast, an anonymous Jewish writer, in his anger at the torments and tribulations visited upon his brethren during the expulsion, compares Ferdinand to Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar rolled into one: And the Lord’s word was in a conflagration, that is, the land of Spain, for the fire of God burned there. And a new king arose in the land, a king whose evil decrees were renewed, and he did what his fathers and his fathers’ fathers had not done. He was Don Ferando [sic] of Aragon, a fierce king who showed no favour to old or young, and did not pardon, he is Sennacherib, who mingled the nations, and scattered the Jews across the earth, he is Nebuchadnezzar, who dimmed the beauty of our light and threw down from heaven to earth the pride of our glory, and in God’s hatred of us, He made him king over all of Spain, over Castile and over Aragon and Valencia and over Catalonia and over Sicily. And the islands in the sea both near and far. And God also placed the kingdom of Granada in his hand, and made him ruler of all that was his, and he was a powerful governor, and nothing stood in his way. There was none like him among all the kings who ruled before him.1 1 See M. Benayahu, ‘A Source for the History of the Expulsion from Spain’ (Heb.), Sinai, 88 (1981), 40–7, and esp. 46, 47. This anonymous author was unquestionably familiar with the structure of the Spanish state when he wrote his lament for what had become of these Jews during the expulsion. Cf. the ‘family’ scroll

contemporaries describe the expulsion

521

This writer was from Castile and knew the political conditions of the state, the way it was governed, and its political composition. It was he who mentioned ‘270 holy communities, full and good, which used to be in the kingdom of Castile in serenity and ease, raising up among them several Sages and heads of academies, and in the other kingdoms, splendid communities, for thousands and tens of thousands, for we could not count them’. With their destruction, their glory was sent into exile. This destruction was beyond consolation, and Ferdinand was the sole agent of the destruction, personifying the two ancient persecutors associated with the destruction of the Jewish people.2 By contrast, an anonymous Christian writer places the following words in the mouth of Queen Isabella: The queen answered the Jews who were seeking to intervene in a manner similar to that of King Solomon of blessed memory: ‘Like channelled water is the mind of the king in the Lord’s hand; He directs it to whatever he wishes’ [Prov. 21: 1] and she said: ‘Do you think that we were the ones who said this to you? It is the Lord who placed that word in the king’s heart’.3

It is clear from these words that Ferdinand was also regarded as an agent of providence in the expulsion of the Jews. Indeed the anonymous writer states that the king and queen saw eye to eye in their political path. The words attributed to her by this writer are not to be interpreted only as an expression of pluralis maiestatis. Without doubt she interpreted her collaboration with her husband in signing the Edict of Expulsion as a mission for her God, whose name was constantly on her lips.4 In the eyes of Ferdinand and Isabella, the expulsion of the Jews was a supreme religious task undertaken on behalf of God and country. The anonymous writer associated her views with the verse from Proverbs that he cites, implying that the tribulation undergone by the Jews of Spain was predestined for them. From the Christian point of view, the expulsion was a supreme act for religion and country. Indeed, this is how Bartolomeo Senarega of Genoa saw things: ‘their deed is praiseworthy, for it touches upon the glory of religion, though it had some cruelty in it, if we regard them [the Jews] not as animals but as human beings and creatures of God’.5 on the expulsion from Spain known as Minh.at zikaron, mazkeret avon (‘Memorial Gift, a Reminder of Iniquity’), written by a son of Vidal, the nephew of Don Solomon; Y. Hacker, ‘A New Chronicle of the Expulsion of the Jews of Spain, its Causes and Consequences’ (Heb.), Sefer zikaron leyitsh.ak baer ⫽ Zion, 44 (1979), 219–20. The author of this account described the heights of King Ferdinand’s arrogance after the conquest of Granada: ‘And it came to pass that he rose up in arrogance and said to himself, I shall equal the highest kings of France and England, who expelled and removed [the Jews] from their lands and kingdoms, and I, too, shall do the same, for I am no less than they, they shall not dwell in your land, less they cause them to sin, etc.’. See too the remarks about Ferdinand, who is called Nabal in the anonymous prophecy published by Tishby, Meshih.iyut, 61, 114. See Benayahu, ‘A Source for the History of the Expulsion from Spain’, 223–7. See Marx, Studies in Jewish History and Booklore, 85, and see also Baer, Toledot, 472 ff. 4 For a description of relations between her and her husband in determining political policy see Beinart, Conversos on Trial, 30–1. 5 See B. Senarega, De rebus Genuensibus commentaria anno MCDLXXXVIII usque ad annum MDXIV, ed. E. Pandiani (Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, 24/8; Bologna, 1929), 9, and cf. Hillgarth, The Spanish Kingdoms, ii. 452. Also see Machiavelli, Il principe (ch. 21), who viewed the expulsion as a political act, calling it ‘pietosa crudeltà’, and also Guicciardini’s remarks, cited in Baer, Toledot, 522 n. 143. 2 3

522

contemporaries describe the expulsion

The foregoing writers discussed the deed itself. Another anonymous writer expressed the meaning of the expulsion, as quoted by Y. Tishby in the documents he discovered and deciphered:6 And for this reason [the evil decrees of Spain] all the world will be in distress, as it is said [Job 38: 13], and it will shake the wicked out of it, on the reason for the expulsion of the year ‘to grasp7 the corners of the earth’ [ibid.], for of this it is said in Daniel [2: 34] ‘as you looked on, a stone was hewn out, not by hands, and struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and crushed them’, for here we have a hint of the king Ferando [sic], which comes from the [Aramaic] word for iron [cited in Daniel], parzela, and that stone will now be, with God’s help, in that time, upon [Amalek and Esau]. . . . And the reason wherefore everything depends on the exile of Jerusalem in Spain [the traditional Hebrew designation for the Jews of Spain], and wherefore our troubles began there, is that [Iberia] is at the end of the earth, and it is fitting for that reason that the whole world should say that [the Lord] is one and His name is one, which means to say that most of the things that were hinted in the esoteric doctrine about the future took place in particular in Castile and Portugal at the time of the expulsion.8

He added: for the reason of the expulsion of Jerusalem in Spain, the kingdom will be to the Lord, with God’s help. . . . And hence this is an intimation of who is causing these troubles to us, to our seed, and to our Torah, and for that reason the Blessed Name will in the future visit great evil upon them and upon their idolatry.9

We need not elaborate upon Tishby’s conclusion that this anonymous author viewed the events of his day as the birth pangs of the messianic age.10 The kabbalist Rabbi Judah Hayat described the privilege he was granted in being able to write his commentary on the kabbalistic work Ma’arekhet ha’elohut: And I believe in absolute faith that I was granted this privilege with all the evil tribulations that were visited upon me in the expulsion from Spain. Whoever hears about it, his ears will ring, and I cannot recount its innumerable ordeals, but I will tell a few of them, and I will speak praises of the Lord.11

This is his personal experience, and many others underwent similar afflictions and tribulations, in grief and heartbreaking torments, maintaining faith during the trials to which God subjected His people. It was his privilege to be called upon and tested by Him in whose hands the fate of the Jews had been placed. So did simple folk say when leaving Spain for Portugal: Esto el Dio barohu lo ha de librar (‘This the Lord, blessed be He, will decree’).12 See Tishby, Meshih.iyut, 67, 114. The Hebrew word ‘to grasp’ has the numerical value of 52, the Hebrew date of the expulsion. 8 9 See Tishby, Meshih.iyut, 68, 108, 115. Ibid. 68, 115. 10 11 Ibid. 68, esp. n. 211. See Minh.at yehudah, fo. 2b. 12 See the testimony of Juan de Salsedo in his trial; while he was a Jew, his name was Rabbi Yom Tob. He went to Portugal and converted to Christianity there, apparently in 1494. The account of his trial is presented by Carrete Parrondo, El Tribunal, 119, no. 268. See also ibid. 155–6, no. 373. He testified on 10 Mar. 1502 in Aranda during his trial, and was condemned to return to the bosom of the church and be imprisoned for life. 6 7

contemporaries describe the expulsion

523

The converso Francisco de Águila, reported on the hardships and hopes of the deportees: And those who were there prayed and supplicated greatly to their God when they saw the death of their children and their people. They said that in the light of their supplications God would perform a miracle for them. And he [the witness] did not want to come here [to Spain] until he saw the miracle that God would do for them, and he would have waited for them, except that the sons of Pero Núñez urged him that they should go.13

A second converso, Hernand Álvarez de la Fuente, a resident of Soria, also expressed the Jews’ suffering in the spirit of the verse ‘he who rises from the pit shall be taken in the snare’ ( Jer. 48: 44): ‘Three stains in his heart, and one because he returned from Portugal’.14 Among Christian observers we may cite the priest Andrés Bernáldez, who was not a notable philosemite. Here is his account of the words spoken by the rabbis to their fellow Jews, with whom they went into exile:15 And they bade them know that this thing came from God, who wished to lead them from servitude and bring them to the Promised Land. And in this departure they would see how God would do many miracles for them and bring them from Spain with wealth and great honour, as they hoped; and that if by land in the departure they encountered any misfortune or setback, when they entered the sea, they would witness how God would lead them as He had done for their fathers in Egypt.16

This testimony cannot be doubted. This was a departure of redemption, the beginning of salvation. God would do miracles for those departing as He had done for those who left Egypt. With enthusiasm he describes those going by foot, in suffering and torments, to the sea: in rejoicing, with the song of women and girls, accompanied by large and small drums, 13 See the testimony of Francisco de Águila (on whom see Ch. 5), 17 Jan. 1502, while imprisoned by the Inquisition. See Carrete Parrondo, El Tribunal, 144. On Pero Núñez see Ch. 7 above (Coruña del Conde). He reported to the witness, Juan de San Esteban: ‘E venido de alla, este testigo le dixo . . . que como avia tardado en Portugal, e le preguntaua de las nuebas de alla e como les yva a los judios. El qual le respondio que dellos passauan allende, segund avia oydo desir, e dellos se tornauan a Castilla, e que los alla estauan fasyan muchas oraçiones e reclamos a Dios, viendo su perdiçion de sus criaturas e de sus personas. E que desyan que podyan ser, syno que viendo sus reclamos que Dios avia de faser algund miraglo con ellos. El qual no quisiera venirse de alla fasta ver que miraglo fasya Dios con ellos, e se touiera a los ver saluo por la priesa que le daban los fijos de Pero Núñez que se veniesen’. 14 ‘Que tiene manzillas en el coraçon: la vna porque volvio de Portugal’. The other stain was for not marrying the witness, Clara de San Clemente, the wife of maestre Alonso, a resident of Gomara, who had also converted to Christianity and returned from Portugal. See Carrete Parrondo, El Tribunal, 178. She testified before an Inquisitorial tribunal on 1 Sept. 1502, apparently in Soria. The ‘third stain’ was apparently a repeat of the first, concerning which he testified several times. 15 Bernáldez, Memorias, 253 ff. León Tello has summarized the opinions of the members of that generation in Toledo, i. 345–57. 16 ‘E les dezian que supiesen de çierto que aquello venia por Dios, que los queria sacar de cabtivos e llevar a la tierra de promision, e que en esta salida verian como Dios haria por ellos muchos milagros e los sacaria de España ricos e con mucha onrra, segund lo esperavan; e que si en la tierra, en la salida, oviesen alguna fortuna o siniestro, que entrando en la mar verian como Dios seria su guiador, como avia fecho con sus antepasados en Egipto’, Bernáldez, Memorias, 253–4.

524

contemporaries describe the expulsion

And they went along the roads and over the fields through which they passed, in much travail and misfortune, some falling, others standing up, some dying, others being born, others falling sick, that there was not a Christian but felt sorrow for them; and always where they went they [the Christians] invited them to be baptized, and some in their misery would convert and remain, but very few; and the rabbis continually gave them strength and made the women and girls sing, and play tambourines and timbrels, to raise the people’s spirits.17

So they proceeded, trusting that God would once again miraculously divide the sea for them, and they would cross it on dry land. Looking upon it retrospectively, Rabbi Isaac Caro, a member of the expelled generation, wrote in his commentary on Genesis: ‘You shall roam and wander on the earth’, that is the expulsion. However, Scripture uses the term ‘wandering’ about Cain and not ‘expulsion’, for expulsion is decreed by the king against one who is to be expelled from his kingdom. But when Cain killed, there was no kingdom on the earth and no city. Therefore the expulsion did not come at the time when he went from that place to another.18

The distinction between Cain’s wandering and the Jews’ expulsion implies that, unlike Cain, the Jewish people were guiltless. Solomon Ibn Verga also sought to find an answer to the question of that generation about the wrath that had been visited upon the Jews expelled from their country. He compared the expulsion from Spain to the exile suffered by the Jews when they lived in their own land. Hence it is no surprise that he described it as a punishment. He put a question in the mouth of Alfonso, the ‘merciful king’, who asked Thomas, ‘the sharp-minded Sage’:19 When you determined that the Jews must be punished, why was it the punishment of expulsion? Because we do not find that a father banishes his son for sinning, but he reproves him while he is in his house and palace. But the Jews are called the sons of God, as it is written in the Bible.

He goes on: And now the Jew domineers, and if he has two hundred gold pieces he immediately wears garments of silk and embroidered linens, which ministers would not do if they have an income of a thousand doubloons per year, and so they [the ministers] conspire against them, and perhaps they will continue and expel them from the kingdom.20 17 ‘E ivan por los caminos e campos por donde ivan con mucho trabajo e fortuna, unos cayendo, otros levantando, unos muriendo, otros nasciendo, otros enfermando, que no avia cristiano que no oviese dolor dellos; e siempre por donde ivan los conbidavan al bautismo, e algunos con la cuita se convertian e quedevan, enpero muy pocos; e los rabies los ivan esforçando e hazian cantar a las mugers e mancebas, e tañer panderos e adufes, por alegrar la gente’, ibid. 258. 18 Rabbi Isaac Caro, Toledot yitsh.ak, ‘Bereshit’, on Gen. 4: 12. See also H. H. Ben-Sasson, ‘Exile and Redemption in the View of the Generation of the Exiles from Spain’ (Heb.), Sefer hayovel leyitsh.ak baer ( Jerusalem, 1961), 216–17. See also there for the opinion of R. Isaac Aboab the elder (d. 1493 in Portugal), who identified the exile from Spain with Cain: Nehar pishon lefarashat bereshit (Constantinople, 5298 [1538]), fo. 11a. 19 20 See Shevet yehudah, ed. A. Shohat ( Jerusalem, 1947), 27. Ibid. 30–1, 40, 45.

contemporaries describe the expulsion

525

King Alfonso continued and expelled them from his kingdom.21 In his account Ibn Verga makes the king say that there had been expulsions in the past, and they are interpreted as punishment; that is, that the Jews were expelled for their sins, in other words, because of their guilt. The expulsion from Spain therefore had a cause, an allusion to the Jews’ way of life there. In his view, the expulsion of the chosen people was linked to the biblical words: ‘Only you did I know of all the families of the earth, and therefore I shall visit all your sins upon you’ (Amos 3: 2). Ibn Verga, who underwent the expulsion from Spain and the forced conversions in Portugal, looked inwards, referring to external factors only to the degree that they were a rod to chastise the people. Yitzhak Baer has described the way the intellectuals of the generation viewed the expulsion;22 there is little to need be added to that account. Writing in retrospect, the Christian Juan Sobrarias, who was regarded as a humanist in his time, wrote in praise of Ferdinand and Isabella for the expulsion.23 In a work extolling Ferdinand, printed in Zaragoza in 1511,24 he lauds the action of the Catholic Monarchs. Ferdinand was a hero who ordered the expulsion of the Jews ‘in love of God, when he could no longer bear the actions of those who had crucified Jesus, and therefore he ordered their expulsion’.25 However, we find a realistic view of the expulsion in another source, a debate held on 6 July 1527: It was said among the accountants and officials and the financiers that it was a good service to His Majesty, for they feared that the departure of the Jews would cause a great loss [grand quiebra] in revenue, both because of the large alcabala tax that they paid and also because among them were many tax-farmers.26

Nevertheless, supreme motivations impelled the Crown to take that bold step. Sobrarias attributed another goal to Ferdinand: the conquest of Jerusalem and the holy places. He would gather the scattered Christian flock, and the Christians already in Jerusalem were to see that the desired Christian conquest did indeed take place.27 This was no 21 See also Y. H. Yerushalmi, The Lisbon Massacre of 1506 and the Royal Image in the Shebet Yehuda 22 Toledot, 472–4, 552 nn. 142–3. (Cincinnati, 1976), 42 ff. 23 Juan Sobrarias was born in Alcañiz in Aragon c.1460 and was therefore an eyewitness to the expulsion. He took part in the armada to Sicily in 1495; after studying medicine and the arts in Italy, he returned to Aragon and was active as a physician in Zaragoza (where he moved from Alcañiz in 1502). He was engaged in literature, and went back to Italy; he was also active in Alcañiz. He died on 22 Apr. 1528. On him see R. del Arco, ‘Un panegírico de Fernando el Católico, por el humanista Juan Sobrarias’, BRAH 135 (1952), 193–222. 24 Printed by Jorge Coci. Two copies of the work are extant and in the National Library in Madrid (call number R 9388). 25 ‘Fernando, inflamado en el amor divino, no quiso tolerar los crímenes de aquella gente, que había crucificado a Cristo, y decretó su expulsión’, quoted in Del Arco, ‘Un panegírico de Fernando el Católico’, 214. 26 ‘Segun se platicaba entre contadores y ofiçiales de hasienda se touo de buen serviçio para Sus Altezas, porque se temian que por la yda de los judios auria gran quiebra en la rentas, asy por la mucha alcauala que ellos hazian como porque eran arrendadores muchos dellos’. C y S Reales, Leg. 10, fos. 207 ff., 13 July 1515, Burgos. See our discussion above. 27 Diego Guillén de Ávila, in a poem of praise that he wrote for Isabella in 1500, also ended his work with a prophecy of the conquest of Africa and Jerusalem. See R. Foulché-Delbosc, ‘Cancionero castillano del siglo XV’, NBAE 19 (1912), 79. See also R. del Arco, La idea del imperio en la política y la literatura española (Madrid, 1944), chs. 6–7.

526

contemporaries describe the expulsion

innovation. Columbus, too, in his fourth letter to Ferdinand, promised that the gold he would discover in the New World would finance these conquests.28 That is to say, the goal of Ferdinand and Isabella (to whom on 2 December 1496 Pope Alexander VI awarded the title of ‘Catholic Monarchs’) was connected not only to the expulsion of the Jews from Spain but also to the Land of Israel, the land of the Jewish people. ✻

In their expulsion, the Jews of Spain underwent an ordeal unparalleled in scope. It is unique in Jewish history because of the number of those exiled. Only a slight part of the suffering of those Jews has been documented above. The trials undergone by those exemplary Jews, great and small, simple people and sages, combined and became part of the entire nation’s destiny. For both Spanish Jewry and the entire Jewish people, the expulsion marked the end of a period in Jewish history. The Jews of Spain undertook a soul-searching when they went into exile from the place where their ancestors had dwelt for fifteen hundred years. Those who went into exile suffered the trials afflicting all those who take up the wanderer’s staff. Therein was revealed their strength and spirit. By moving from one diaspora to another, they opened a new page in Jewish history. 28 See J. C. Collis, Christopher Columbus (London, 1976), 165. The idea of the ‘kingdom of Jerusalem’ was raised at that time by Arnaldus de Villanova. See J. Carreras Artau, Relaciones de Arnau de Vilanova con los reyes de Aragón (Barcelona, 1955), 43–50. A detailed discussion of Columbus’ plan is found in F. FernándezArmesto, Columbus (Oxford, 1991), 49–50, 109, 153–8, 202 n. 13.

APPENDIX

Other Activities of Some Royal Officials Pedro de Castilla, corregidor of Toledo 17 January 1494. Ordered to examine witnesses in the suit filed by Diego de la Muela on behalf of the Crown against Fernán Nuñez Coronel for fraud in the alcabala tax of Seville (RGS I-1499, fo. 38, cf. Ch. 8). 22 March 1494. Ordered to sell the old synagogue of the community and other buildings and courtyards that had belonged to the synagogue in order to pay a juro to Fernando de Ávalos and Fernando Suárez, residents of Toledo (RGS 11 No. 924, fo. 6). 21 October 1494. Ordered to deal with the appeal of Juan Francolín for the return of property that his father had sold when departing in exile (RGS 11 No. 5385, fo. 519). 28 March 1503. Received conversos to be burnt at the stake. See H. Beinart, ‘The Conversos of Belalcázar and Bodonales in Extremadura’ (Heb.), in Memorial Volume for H. H. Ben-Sasson ( Jerusalem, 1989), 217 ff.; and for a similar incident on 26 Feb. 1502 id., ‘The Conversos of Halia and the Movement of the Prophetess Inés’ (Heb.), Zion, 53 (1988), 13–52.

Antonio Cornejo, corregidor of Plasencia 3 February 1493. Ordered to investigate acts of murder and robbery committed against those leaving in exile (RGS 10 No. 278, fo. 134, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 505). 11 February 1494. Ordered to respond to the appeal of Pedro Gutiérrez and permit him to collect debts left to him by the Jew Salomon [ ]. He was to act according to the instructions of 26 February 1493 and 6 March 1493 (RGS 11 No. 300, fo. 276). 13 March 1494. Ordered to respond to the petition of Alonso Sánchez and Pero Matheos regarding the price of animals that Meir Berruga had sold them when he went into exile, which on returning and converting he sought to recover for the price he had received; also ordered to deal with the problem of the property of deportees from Cabezuela who had returned and converted to Christianity (RGS 11 No. 776, fo. 341). 6 July 1494. Ordered to deal with the petition of Marí Álvarez, a resident of Losar, and the owner of property in Valverde on the lands of the Count of Nieva, against Francisco de la Rúa (RGS 11 No. 2250, fo. 193). 7 July 1494. Ordered to deal with the complaint of Mari Álvarez against the Count of Nieva (RGS 11 No. 2270, fo. 392). 16 July 1494. Ordered to deal with the complaint of the Crown against Pedro de Plasencia (known as Samuel Alegre while a Jew) and to see that Ali de Valencia returned his house and leather tannery in Plasencia at the price he had paid for it (RGS 11 No. 2372, fo. 364).

528

appendix

12 November 1494. Ordered by the council and the Crown to respond to the petition of Gómez de la Torre, a resident of Mombeltrán, requesting the return of a house and property that had belonged to him and his mother in Valverde (RGS 11 No. 3774, fo. 235).

Sancho de Frías, corregidor of Huete 19 March 1493. Ordered to respond to the petition of the bachiller Pedro de León and his wife, Juana de Quiroz, a conversa whose grandfather had given her property at the time of the expulsion; they converted to Christianity at the end of the time when it was permitted for Jews to remain in Spain (RGS 10 No. 691, fo. 224, cf. Ch. 5). 25 October 1493. Ordered to respond to the petition of a group of deportees from Huete who had returned, converted to Christianity, and sought to recover their property (RGS 10 No. 2805, fo. 27). 20 March 1494. Ordered to respond to the petition of Juan Franques and his complaint against his brothers Meir and Jaco Pareja and his cousins Rodrigo and Alfonso Carillo, residents of Huete (RGS 11 No. 875, fo. 435). 31 May 1494. Ordered to respond to the petition of Miguel Sánchez de Ribillo, a resident of Huete, for the return of property sold by his brother-in-law Menahem de Estella when he went into exile (RGS 11 No. 2072, fo. 70). 31 May 1494. Ordered to respond to the petition of Juan Ramírez regarding the recovery of the property of his relations Donça Manrique and David Pareja. He was to ascertain whether the buyers had sold property to buy his (RGS 11 No. 2068, fo. 375). 10 February 1495. Ordered to investigate the appeal of Álvar Núñez regarding the loan of 215,000 mrs given by the Jews of the citadel of Huete as a loan to the Crown before the expulsion through the intercession of the licenciado de Sahagún. He was to pass on the results of his investigation to the Royal Council (RGS 12 No. 529, fo. 152). 11 March 1497. Issued order in favour of the council of Huete regarding the supply of 150 goats to Mose Abulafia on account of a debt of the council to Isaac Cohen for 6,000 mrs (RGS 14 No. 826, fo. 63).

Pedro García de Cotes, corregidor of Burgos 5 May 1492. Mentioned in an order connected with arranging the departure of Jews from Burgos and the sale of communal and private property of the exiles (RGS 9 No. 1464, fo. 573). 10 September 1492. Served as the alcalde of Atienza and was ordered to respond to the complaint of Pedro Benítez of Centenera against Pedro López, a resident of Almazán, regarding usurious interest taken by the latter. His assistant in Atienza was García de Suazo, whom he delegated to take care of the complaint (RGS 9 No. 33, fo. 240). 3 December 1492. Mentioned as the investigative magistrate of Miranda de Ebro. He was instructed to reach a decision regarding the request of the Count of Salinas to collect debts transferred to him by Samuel de Villalpamido, formerly the count’s mayordomo (RGS 9 No. 3472, fo. 113).

activities of royal officials

529

26 February 1493. Ordered to respond to the plea of Juana Fernández de Amusco, who lived in the courtyard of the convent of Santa Clara in Medina de Pomar, regarding debts she was owed by a Jew named Oña. She wanted permission to collect these debts by means of bills of sale that had been transferred to Christians (RGS 10 No. 458, fo. 214). 2 March 1493. Ordered to respond to the complaint of the apostolic tax-collector, to whom the Bishop of Almería owed tax from benefices in Briviesca and from Jewish property in the abbacy of Fonseca (RGS 10 No. 531, fo. 75). 22 March 1493. Ordered to confiscate the property of Don Abraham Bienveniste de Calahorra, which had been deposited with Juan Alonso de Sahagún, a merchant from Burgos (RGS 10 No. 751, fo. 276). 15 April 1493. Ordered to take care of the claim lodged by Gutierre de Mier regarding debts left behind by Jewish debtors (RGS 10 No. 953, fo. 160); see below, 6 May 1499. 24 April 1493. Ordered to respond to the petition of Fernán Núñez Coronel and Luis de Alcalá and to permit them to collect the debts owed to them by Nicolás Beltrán, who had returned home after converting to Christianity (RGS 10 No. 1027, fo. 87). 2 May 1493. Ordered together with Juan Pérez de Baradas, the corregidor of Medina del Campo, to collect debts from various merchants for cloth sold to them on credit by Nicolán Beltrán (RGS 10 No. 1128, fo. 331). 30 May 1493. Ordered to respond to the petition of the Marquess of Aguilar regarding permission to collect the debts owed by Christians to Jews against taxes that the Jews had farmed for him and for which they had given him notes (RGS 10 No. 1418, fo. 85). 13 August 1493. Ordered to respond to the plea of Juan González de Matilla and permit him to collect the sum of 93,000 mrs that the Jews owed for taxes collected on behalf of the papal office. The sum was delivered to the tax-collector Juan González in the form of promissory notes of Christians who owed money to the Jewish tax-farmers (RGS 10 No. 2164, fo. 188). 1 March 1494. Ordered to respond to the complaint of the brothers Juan and Rodrigo de Lodoso, residents of Perdosa de Redilla, against the Jews Bali, R. Frayn, and Cresçent regarding a monetary debt (RGS 11 No. 551, fo. 185). 17 April 1494. Ordered together with the corregidores of Santillana, Águila, and Trasmiera to convene the parties for a hearing regarding the tax owed to the Bishop of Burgos and the mayordomo of Diego de Salazar of Burgos (RGS 11 No. 1294, fo. 493). 28 April 1494. Ordered to deal with the petition of Alonso de Salazar as procurador of Miranda de Ebro regarding the tax that the Jewish community of that town had paid as part of the taxes of the city of Burgos. The sum owed was 1,200 mrs, in addition to 4,400 mrs paid annually by the Jews of the town (RGS 11 No. 1507, fo. 173). 6 May 1494. Ordered to respond to the plea of Juan de Leyba to the Crown regarding a suit against Christians who owed money to Jews and business managers (‘fator e hazendores’) who had given him their promissory notes (RGS 11 No. 1727, fo. 218).

530

appendix

6 May 1494. Ordered to respond to the appeal of Gutierre de Mier (see above, 15 Apr. 1493), the camarero of the Countess of Haro, regarding debts owed to Yuçe Harache and his son Don Meir, residents of Villa del Río Pisuergo (RGS 11 No. 1734, fo. 82). 28 January 1495. Ordered to respond to the plea of the Conde de Oñata regarding debts of his mayordomo in a place named Guevara. The mayordomo had gone into exile and left him promissory notes from Christians for debts that did not bear interest (RGS 12 No. 332, fo. 398). 7 April 1495. Ordered to deal with the complaint of Gómez Fernández de Rivamartín and Pero Ortiz de Costa, residents of Haro, and to permit them to collect debts based on notes sold to them by Samuel Chacón, also of Haro, who had gone into exile. He is referred to here as the corregidor of Santo Domingo de la Calzada (RGS 12 No. 1671, fo. 161). 22 [month missing] 1498. Involved in the confiscation of money and instructed to adjudicate a controversy between Diego Gómez del Castillo, a resident of Medina del Rioseco (the son of Samuel Agai, a resident of Torre de Mormojón) and Francisco Arias Maldonado, the prosecutor for Jewish property (RGS 15 No. 1825, fo. 86). 7 January 1499. Ordered to investigate witnesses regarding fraud in collecting the alcabala tax on the part of Fernán Núñez Coronel (RGS I-1499, fo. 38). Thus he clearly saw long service for the Crown and was counted among its loyal followers.

Licenciado Pero Gómez de Setúbal 12 March 1493. Ordered to respond to an appeal from the provisor of the church in Cartagena and to permit the collection of a debt of 30,000 mrs in taxes due to Pope Alexander VI farmed by the exiles, who had left promissory notes from their Christian debtors (RGS 10 No. 627, fo. 180). 23 March 1493. Ordered to adjudicate the complaint of Catalina de Ochoa against Francisco de Ayerbe regarding property that the latter bought from Abraham Cohen when he went into exile (RGS 10 No. 752, fo. 273). 16 May 1493. Ordered to deal with the petition of the merchant Diego de Toledo, a resident of Toledo, who sold merchandise to Isaac Isaac (sic), a resident of Toledo, for 125,500 mrs, and to help Diego de Toledo collect 24,000 mrs owed to him by Jews for textiles that he had sold them; they had left him promissory notes from Christians, who had agreed to the transfer. He was to act according to the instructions of 6 March 1493 (RGS 10 No. 1285, fo. 280). 15 October 1493. Ordered to deal with the complaint of Jaime de Santángel (RGS 10 No. 2713, fo. 83). [Day missing] November 1494. Ordered to collect testimony in the case between Alonso Careño, the tax receiver from Murcia, and Diego Rodríguez de Peñalver, and transmit it to the magistrates of the royal court (RGS 11 No. 4122, fo. 260).

Pedro Maldonado, magistrate for Jewish property in Coria and Plasencia 8 October 1494. Ordered to deal with the petition of Juan de Vargas for the return of two houses that he had sold before going into exile (RGS 11 No. 3148, fo. 493).

activities of royal officials

531

9 October 1494. Ordered to respond to the plea of Gutierre de Paz for the return of his and his parents’ property (RGS 11 No. 3185, fo. 313). 14 October 1494. Mentioned as having confiscated a house sold by Juan de Vargas to Alonso, a wool-carder (‘cardador’), resident of Malpartida (RGS 11 No. 3257, fo. 317). 23 October 1494. Ordered to revoke his judgment in favour of Martín Pérez, the receiver of Crown property in Coria, and the confiscation of two houses belonging to Iñigo López and Diego Pérez, both of whom were conversos who had rented from the church in Plasencia and transferred the lease to Francisco de Tamayo at the time of the expulsion (RGS 11 No. 3416, fo. 561). 31 October 1494. Received an order in the matter of the appeal of Gutierre de Paz (RGS 11 No. 3561, fo. 327); see above, 9 October. 31 October 1494. Ordered to respond to the plea of Juan Gutierre for the return of a building and property (RGS 11 No. 3209, fo. 489). [Day missing] October 1494. Ordered to revoke his judgment against Francisco de Belvís, a resident of Plasencia (RGS 11 No. 3593, fo. 286). [Day missing] November 1494. Ordered to revoke his judgment in favour of Martín Pérez against Juan Fernández, a mayordomo (RGS 11 No. 4141, fo. 508). 7 May 1495. Ordered to cease collecting fines and duties from those whom he gave judgment and whose property he confiscated; he was to make do with the salary he received from the Crown (RGS 12 No. 2087, fo. 330). 20 May 1495. Ruled in favour of Martín Pérez against Alonso Bernáldez de Quirós, regarding whom a promissory note was found among the books of Rabbi Mose Caçes. At the end of May the judges of appeal ordered witnesses to be heard for Bernáldez de Quirós (RGS 12 No. 2429, fo. 124). 20 May 1495. Ordered to suspend for sixty days his sentence on the Count of Nieva, requiring him to pay 103,244 mrs and another 25,000 mrs, the price and taxes for several houses, which he had apparently seized (RGS 12 No. 2493, fo. 347). 5 August 1495. Ordered to desist from executing judgment against the Count of Nieva and quash the total fine of 128,244 mrs (RGS 12 No. 3062, fo. 77). 15 September 1495. Ordered to quash the writ of confiscation of property from Juan Rodríguez de Castro and his family for smuggling gold, silver, and other contraband, and also to return their property (RGS 12 No. 3456, fo. 220). [Day missing] October 1495. With the corregidor or his substitute ordered to adjudicate the petition of Ruy López de Medina, a resident of Cáceres, regarding a complaint against the escríbano of the municipality (RGS 12 No. 3885, fo. 128). 27 April 1496. An order was issued to the corregidor of Plasencia, requiring him to act according to the instruction of Martín Pérez, the receiver of property for the Crown, against Pero Suárez de Villalobos of Plasencia. He was to seize a vineyard and other property valued at 30,000 mrs, according to a court order granted to Suárez against the Jew Yose Castaño. The Crown and the magistrates of the appeals court then accepted Suárez’s arguments and ordered him to produce witnesses and proof within forty days from 23 April (RGS 13 No. 630, fo. 65).

532

appendix

[Day missing] August 1496. Ordered to pass on information regarding Juan de Porras of Mérida, to the Council of the Kingdom. The matter was connected with smuggling (RGS 13 No. 1541, fo. 97). He was certainly very severe in his approach to the property of the exiles and of those who returned to Spain as converts to Christianity.

Antonio Martínez de Aguilera, corregidor of Plasencia 29 May 1492. Ordered to deal with the petition of the Jewish community of Dueñas to the Crown regarding debts owed by Christians to Jews. 27 August 1493. Ordered to collect debts owed by Christians to Jews, regarding which the promissory notes had been purchased by Antonio de Herrera of Frómista at the time of the expulsion (RGS 10 No. 2318, fo. 272). 4 December 1493. Ordered to see to the expenses of Rodrigo de Castañeda, and with him a notary, who arranged the settlement of debts of Christians to Jews in Manzanos and district (RGS 10 No. 3126, fo. 179). 13 March 1495. Ordered to investigate the complaint of Martín de Pernia regarding sale of a lot in the Jewish quarter in 1493 for 8,000 mrs otherwise than at public auction (RGS 12 No. 1245, fo. 513). 25 July 1495. Ordered to deal with the complaint of residents of Santa Fe, Don Pedro, and Perespina Streets against the establishment of a slaughterhouse in the synagogue of the city of Plasencia (RGS 12 No. 2903, fo. 94).

Licenciado Pedro de Maluenda, corregidor of Zamora 20 April 1494. Ordered to respond to the petition of Lazaro Gómez de Sevilla, a contino of the Crown, regarding the loss of his income from Jewish meat and wine, amounting to 5,200 mrs. The Crown permitted him to sell at public auction all the communal property of the Jewish community of Zamora and to see that the proceeds were paid to everyone who had received ‘cabeça, serviçio y medio serviçio’ from the Jews (RGS 11 No. 1367, fo. 18). 23 August 1494. Ordered to adjudicate the plea of Juan Maldonado on behalf of his father Pedro Maldonado against Alonso de Tordesillas, the receiver of Jewish property. The property had been confiscated because of a fraud committed at the time of the expulsion. Juan Maldonado claimed that the property was also included in that of his mother, and therefore he requested its return (RGS 11 No. 3247, fo. 567). 23 August 1497. Ordered to adjudicate the same dispute within six days and issue a verdict within twenty days (RGS 14 No. 2015, fo. 157).

Lesmes de Mazuelo, corregidor of Segovia 3 August 1494. Ordered to deal with the petition of Fernando de Piña and to return his property, even though his mother was accused of smuggling. The claim was that their father, Abraham Lumbroso, had died before the expulsion, so that his heirs should receive half of the estate. Fernando de Piña spoke in his own name and in that of his brothers Gonzalo, Diego, and Alvaro, and his sister María (RGS 11 No. 3073, fo. 453).

activities of royal officials

533

4 September 1494. Ordered to examine the claim of the monastery of Santa María de la Merced in Segovia. The monastery owned some buildings in the Jewish quarter, which it had rented to Jews. At the time of the expulsion the monastery purchased rights to the buildings. Lesmes confiscated the buildings, claiming they had belonged to Jews. He was to transmit the details of the investigation to the council (RGS 11 No. 2709, fo. 181). 3 October 1494. Ordered to investigate the claim of Abraham Lumbroso’s children to half his estate (RGS 11 No. 3073, fo. 453). 6 November 1494. Ordered to deal with the petition of María Fernández of Robledo against Alonbrosa, a Jewish woman to whom she owed 7,000 mrs, which were usurious interest. Alonbrosa returned to Spain and converted to Christianity (RGS 11 No. 3706, fo. 506). 11 November 1494. Ordered not to collect money or confiscate property from the inhabitants of El Espinar because of debts they owed to Jews. If he failed to comply, he would be fined 100,000 mrs. This fine would also be imposed on the local notary. The parties were to appear before the council within fifteen days. If they did not comply with the order, they would have to pay a fine of 10,000 mrs. He was to return what he had collected. He received wages from the Crown, and he was not to take other money (RGS 11 No. 3738, fo. 180). 17 November 1494. Ordered to cease all confiscation and execution of orders regarding the property of the residents of El Espinar, who were with their flocks in Extremadura, for debts they owed because of interest. The order was valid until 1 March 1495 (RGS 11 No. 3840, fo. 361). 4 December 1494. Ordered to deal with the petition of Juan Vázquez regarding debts left behind by the Jews in the form of promissory notes to Christians. These debts were for taxes farmed for the church in Segovia. He was to act according to the instructions of 26 February 1493 or of 6 March 1493 (RGS 11 No. 4185, fo. 164). 11 February 1495. Ordered to inform the council why he had confiscated a group of houses that had belonged to the church in Segovia. The church had also received income of 30 mrs from every Jew who was married in Segovia in return for the 30 gold pieces received by Judas Iscariot (RGS 12 No. 541, fo. 423). 13 February 1495. Ordered by the Crown to investigate the complaint of the town of Muñoveros against Francisco, the son of Lesmes, for confiscating property of the local council because of a debt to Jacob Galfon and to Alumbroso, residents of Segovia, which they claimed they had paid (RGS 12 No. 592, fo. 422). 12 August 1495. Ordered together with the licenciado Quintanilla to investigate Francisco de Benavente’s complaint regarding his illegal imprisonment on the part of Lesmes (RGS 11 No. 3129, fo. 198). 7 November 1495. Lesmes’ son Francisco de Mazuelo had acted in his father’s name in collusion with Juan Coronel and his brother Iñigo López Coronel in a claim lodged against them by Francisco de Benavente (RGS 12 No. 3965, fo. 185).

534

appendix

Alonso Ramírez de Villaescusa, corregidor of Valladolid 2 May 1493. Ordered to receive the sum of 30,000 mrs from Fernán Núñez Coronel. This money had been confiscated from Diego López de San Miguel, a resident of Oporto in Portugal, who had stolen it from men in Núñez Coronel’s service (RGS 10 No. 1128, fo. 311). 18 March 1494. Ordered to deliver the sum of 12,000 mrs which he had taken from Jews at the time of the expulsion and avoided transferring to the Crown. He was to deliver the money to Diego de Carmona, who had been sent to him by the Crown, including accounts (RGS 11 No. 820, fo. 489). 20 December 1494. Ordered to pay to Iñez Álvarez, the wife of Doctor García de Castro, the sum of 3,000 mrs from Jewish property in return for the juro de heredad which he possessed from the taxes of the Jews in Valladolid. If there was no property to seize, he was to pay her the sum of 9,000 mrs for the years 1492 and 1494 from property that had already been sold there (RGS 11 No. 4433, fo. 8). 4 March 1497. Ordered by the Crown and the council to adjudicate the complaint of the residents of Boadilla del Camino against the effort of the sons of Mose de Castrillo to collect debts from them which the council had exempted them from paying (RGS 14 No. 722, fo. 151). 21 June 1497. Mentioned as a member of the Council of the Kingdom; received a power of attorney to continue collecting debts; the king ratified his appointment of Diego Gutiérrez Manuel as receiver of Jewish property in Valladolid and the diocese of Palencia (RGS 14 No. 1643, fo. 310).

Juan de Ribera 2 December 1491. Ordered by the Crown to see to the enforcement of the obligation on Jews and Muslims to wear a special badge (cf. Ch. 1 n. 17), on the basis of a petition from two residents of Logroño, Rodrigo de Goldamez and Gonzalo Arseneal, who claimed that the order was not enforced in their town (AGS Diversos de Castilla, Leg. 8, fo. 116). 17 March 1492. Ordered by the Crown and the council to investigate and adjudicate a complaint lodged by Yose del Coral of Logroño, regarding a house that had belonged to him in Laguardia, and where Yose’s son had lived since 1482. His claim was against the residents of the town who had opposed them (RGS 9 No. 827, fo. 338). 6 October 1492. Ordered to enforce collection of legitimate debts and forbid collection of usurious debts (RGS 9 No. 3188, fo. 57). 18 January 1493. Ordered by the Crown, with the approbation of the council of Castile, to respond to the complaint of the Duke de Nájera and his vassals regarding wool that Jews had bought from residents of Villalosada, Lumbreras, and Hortigosa. For their debt they had presented promissory notes to Francisco de las Heras, a merchant of Burgos (RGS 10 No. 126, fo. 173, and Ch. 4). 28 January 1493. Ordered by the Crown to investigate the complaint of Pedro Sánchez de Soldán (or Roldán) regarding the baking oven that had been taken from him in Calahorra (RGS 10 No. 205, fo. 230).

activities of royal officials

535

2 March 1493. Ordered again to deal with above business. From this order it appears that de las Heras was the partner of Bienveniste de Calahorra (RGS 10 No. 513, fo. 132). 20 March 1493. Ordered by the Crown and the council to act according to the instructions of 26 February and 6 March 1493 and to allow the collection of debts that Jews had transferred to Juan de Leiva before the expulsion (RGS 10 No. 712, fo. 196; also Ch. 4 n. 198). 15 April 1494. Mentioned in order to the corregidor of Calahorra (RGS 10 No. 205, fo. 230). 15 April 1494. Mentioned in order to the corregidores of Calahorra regarding Pedro Sánchez’s baking oven (RGS 11 No. 1257, fo. 165). 26 January 1496. Mentioned in order issued by the Crown to the council of Arnadillo. He had ordered the collection of a debt from the property of a Jew from Aranda and Alfaro, which the tax-collector Mose Açoboque had left behind in Alfaro. The tax was for the benefit of the church and had not been collected since 1492 (RGS 13 No. 116, fo. 151).

Día Sánchez de Quesada 2 March 1486. Appointed by the Crown to adjudicate a complaint lodged by Abraham Lunbroso (Lumbroso) from Segovia against Mose Nájera, who was his business manager. He had collected money and fled from the city (RGS 4 No. 2489, fo. 118; Ch. 6 n. 77). 23 June 1486. Ordered to respond to the complaint of the converso Juan de Talavera, was accused of an act of sorcery and found guilty by Abraham Senior (RGS 4 No. 3157, fo. 51). 26 June 1492. Ordered to investigate the complaint of Francisco Vaca, the regidor of the city of León, against Juan de Portugal, the corregidor of the city. The latter was accused of selling the property of Jews who were about to go into exile, and he took over their property (RGS 9 No. 2375, fo. 289). 6 July 1492. Ordered to deal with the complaint of residents of Segovia and its region against Jewish moneylenders who had lent them money at usurious interest and required the borrowers to pay twice the sum borrowed. This referred to loans made before 1480, that is to say, before the renewed decision of the Cortes regarding interest. He had to render a decision regarding the loans made before 1480 so as not to delay the departure of the Jews into exile. As for loans made after 1480, he was to act according to the instructions regarding the settlement of mutual debts between Christians and Jews (RGS 9 No. 2405, fo. 87). 21 July 1492. An order of the council mentions that he was instructed to ascertain what debts the Jews had left behind and transferred to Christian creditors in return for debts that the Christians owed them for taxes, grain, wine, and wool, and other items that Christians owed Jews. He was to specify which debts were liquid and which were interest-bearing and involved fraude de usura (RGS 9 No. 3548, fo. 115, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 497–8). 14 October 1492. Ordered to draw up a register of outstanding debts transferred by Jews to Christians (RGS 9 No. 3196, fo. 58).

536

appendix

24 December 1492. Ordered by the queen to ascertain what tax debts the Jews had left behind to the bishop and to his mayordomo in his name; to permit their collection if they were liquid and transacted on a quid pro quo basis; to freeze debts entailing fraude de usura (RGS 9 No. 3593, fo. 100). He was also ordered to deal with the complaint of Lázaro Bohordo and Juana García, residents of Segovia, regarding a pledge that was retained by a Christian for a debt to the Jew Abraham Lumbroso (RGS 9 No. 3002, fo. 83; on Lumbroso see above, and also n. 77). 24 December 1492. Ordered to deal with the complaint of Juan de Segovia regarding a loan for interest he had contracted with Jacob Galfon (or Galhon) for the sum of 24,000 mrs, in return for which he was obligated to supply 1,000 velocinos of wool, the value of which was 38,000 mrs. If the loan involved fraude de usura, it was to be cancelled (RGS 9 No. 3601, fo. 114; on Galfon see above). 26 February 1493. Ordered to deal with the complaint of Alfonso Pérez Coronel, who asked to be permitted to collect debts owed to him by Christians, who had owed money to his mother, his brothers, and sisters, who had gone into exile. He, Alfonso Pérez Coronel, had paid them for their share of the family business (RGS 10 No. 452, fo. 37; see Ch. 8). 28 February 1493. Ordered to investigate and adjudicate the plea of Fernán Gómez de la Cueva of Cuéllar regarding a house and a courtyard that had belonged to him and to his brother Simon, who sold it at the time of the expulsion (RGS 10 No. 489, fo. 120). 2 March 1493. Ordered to deal with the petition of Juan de Salazar regarding the collection of debts amounting to 50,000 mrs, which Jews had transferred to Juan de Salazar, the alcaide of the citadel of Cuéllar (RGS 10 No. 520, fo. 108). 13 April 1493. Ordered to deal with the complaint of Fernando de Sosa of Torrelaguna against Pablo de Sosa, a resident of Pedraza de la Sierra (RGS 10 No. 936, fo. 177, and see above). 3 May 1493. Ordered to ascertain what communal property the Jews had left behind in Segovia after discharging all the favours (‘merçedes’) that the Crown granted to residents from Jewish property (RGS 10 No. 1137 fo. 88). 8 May 1493. Ordered to respond to the petition of Francisco de Benavente regarding the return of a house that his mother Jamila had left him when she went into exile. The house had been seized by a priest and Christians from the parish of Santisteban (RGS 10 No. 1163, fo. 321). 25 June 1493. Ordered to see to the release of Jews from Cuéllar who had returned as converts to Christianity and been arrested for smuggling. If they had been arrested for another reason, they were to be transferred to the royal court for trial (RGS 10 No. 1687, fo. 135, and see above). 24 September 1493. Ordered together with Dr de Guadalupe, the regidor of Segovia, to respond to the complaint of Antonio Herrero, a resident of Cobos. Herrero had bought an ox from Isaac Galhon (Galfon) for 2,000 mrs, and he gave him a promissory note for the sale. Galhon sold the note to Antonio de Mendaño, who had confiscated a vineyard from him that was worth 2,000 mrs, and a cow worth 1,800 mrs. This was thus a case of usurious interest (RGS 10 No. 2575, fo. 257).

activities of royal officials

537

20 October 1493. Appointed to deal with the complaint of Juan González del Meson of Villacastín regarding interest-bearing loans that had been cancelled, and that Jews had not collected when leaving for exile. This was after the death of Fernán Pérez Coronel and the appointment of Ponce de Cabrera (RGS 10 No. 2758, fo. 97). 12 December 1493. Ordered to produce guarantees of the proper administration of the office to which he had been appointed, and he failed to do so. Representatives of the comunidad and the ‘good men’ complained to the Crown, which based its action on the decision of the Cortes of Toledo (1480) and ordered Ponce de Cabrera to produce the necessary guarantees (RGS 10 No. 3132, fo. 22). [Day missing] February 1494. Ordered to respond to the petition of Pero Gómez de Arteaga and his mother, Elvira de Arteaga, regarding the return of their property (RGS 11 No. 537, fo. 243). 7 March 1494. Ordered to examine the complaint of Diego de Riofrío against a Jew named Jacob Falcon, who had returned as a convert to Christianity, regarding property that had been sold (RGS 11 No. 657, fo. 294). 14 March 1494. Ordered to deal with the complaint of Pero Alonso, a resident of Las Vegas, against Jacob Galfon, who had converted to Christianity and was now known as Pero Suárez (RGS 11 No. 747, fo. 319). [Day missing] March 1494. Ordered to deal with the petition of Esteban López of Sansoto in his name and that of the residents of Val de Lozoya, San Miguel, and San Llorente against Jacob Galfon and Beatriz González (RGS 11 No. 1010, fo. 235). [Day missing] March 1494. Ordered to respond to the complaint of Gómez Falcón and his brother Gabriel Falcón and their sister Beatriz Gómez regarding the property that their father, Zarco, had sold when he went into exile. They returned as converts to Christianity (RGS 11 No. 1006, fo. 220). 30 April 1494. Ordered to execute the transfer of the Great Synagogue (‘Sinoga mayor’) to the heads of the monastery of Santa María del Faral Extramuros in Segovia, despite the claim of the alcalde that he had bought the building from the Jews (RGS 11 No. 1102, fo. 240). 22 February 1495. In his capacity as corregidor of Salamanca, appointed as a judge together with Fernán Pérez de Meneses and Diego de Burgos to adjudicate the plea of Martín Gutiérrez, against whom Pérez de Meneses had lodged a claim (RGS 12 No. 798, fo. 459).

Bachiller Alonso de Torres 22 May 1492. Appointed to defend the Jews of Aranda who were going into exile, at the request of Samuel de Soto (RGS 9 No. 1799, fo. 526). 22 May 1492. Ordered to hear suit between García de Quemada and Yose de Soto (RGS 9 No. 1797, fo. 510; see Ch. 4). 24 May 1492. Appointed together with Juan de la Rivera of Valladolid to examine claims of de Soto family for debts owed to them by residents of Gumiel del Mercado and other places (RGS 9 No. 1868, fo. 531).

538

appendix

29 May 1492. Ordered to deal with the problem of mutual debts between Jews and Christians and the problem of selling the property of the deportees (AGS, Diversos de Castilla, Leg. 8, fo. 99). 2 June 1492. Appointed by order of the Crown to adjudicate concerning interest collected from Christians by the Jews of Aranda and Gumiel de Hizán, in particular Samuel de Soto (RGS 9 No. 2073, fo. 182, published in Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 422–3; see Ch. 5). 22 June 1492. Ordered to see that debts owed to Samuel de Soto and his sons were paid without delay, provided they were lawful (RGS 9 No. 1800, fo. 524; see too Suárez Fernández, Documentos, 408–11). 9 August 1492. Appointed as an arbitrator in the matter of returning the property of the brothers Alfonso Núñez and Pedro Núñez (or Martínez) de Santa Fe, residents of Coruña del Conde, who returned from Zamora on their way to Portugal and converted to Christianity rather than go into exile (RGS 9 No. 2653, fo. 83). 6 Feb. 1493. Ordered to adjudicate the complaint of Diego Sánchez de Revecha, a resident of Gumiel de Hizán, regarding the debts of Samuel de Soto and the guarantors, to whom he had given the promissory notes of Christians (RGS 10 No. 301, fo. 150; see also RGS 9 No. 2073, fo. 182, dated 2 June 1492).

Bibliography aboab, immanuel, Nomologia o Discursos legales (Amsterdam, 1629). aboab, r. isaac, the elder, Nehar pishon lefarashat bereshit (Constantinople, 5298 [1538]). abravanel, r. isaac, ‘Introduction’ to the Book of Kings (Heb.) ( Jerusalem, 1955). —— Ma’ayanei hayeshuah, Introduction. alcalá, a., ‘Juan de Lucena y el pre-erasmismo español’, Hispania moderna, 34 (1968), 108–31. alonso de santa cruz, Crónica de los Reyes Católicos, ed. Juan de Mata Carriazo (Seville, 1951). álvarez de la braña, r., ‘La sinagoga de Bembibre y los judíos de León’, BRAH 32 (1899), 106–10. álvarez garcía, c., ‘Los judíos y la hacienda real bajo los Reyes Católicos: Una compañía de arrendadores de rentas reales’, in Las tres culturas en la Corona de Castilla y los sefardíes (Valladolid, 1990), 97. amador de los ríos, j., Historia política, social y religiosa de los judíos en España y Portugal (repr. Madrid, 1960). arco, r. del, ‘La aljama judaica de Huesca’, Sefarad, 7 (1947), 271–301. —— ‘De Historia aragonesa: La judería de Huesca’, Revista de Historia y de Genealogía Española, 1 (1912), 461–71. —— La idea del imperio en la política y la literatura española (Madrid, 1944). —— ‘Las juderías de Huesca y Zaragoza’, Sefarad, 14 (1954), 79–98. —— ‘Un panegírico de Fernando el Católico, por el humanista Juan Sobrarias’, BRAH 135 (1952), 193–222. —— and balaguer, f., ‘Nuevas noticias de la aljama judaica de Huesca’, Sefarad, 9 (1949), 351–92. asenjo gonzález, m., Segovia: la ciudad y la tierra a fines del medievo (Segovia, 1986). azcona, t. de, ofm cap., La elección y reforma del episcopado español en tiempo de los Reyes Católicos (Madrid, 1960) —— Isabel la Católica (Madrid, 1964). baer, f. (y.), Die Juden im christlichen Spanien, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1929–36). —— Toledot hayehudim bisefarad hanotserit, 2nd edn. (Tel Aviv, 1955); trans. as A History of the Jews in Christian Spain (Philadelphia, 1966). balaguer, f., ‘Notas sobre la población judía de Huesca en el siglo XV’, Sefarad, 45 (1985), 341–51. ballesteros, e., ‘El cementerio judío de Ávila’, BRAH 28 (1896), 353–63. —— Estudio histórico de Ávila y su territorio (Ávila, 1896).

540

bibliography

ballesteros gaibrois, m., and ferrando pérez, r., Luis de Santángel y su entorno (Valladolid, 1996). baron, s. w., A Social and Religious History of the Jews (2nd rev. edn; New York, 1966). barrantes maldonado, a., Ilustraciones de la Casa de Niebla, ii (Memorial histórico español, colección de documentos, opúsculos y antigüedades, publ. por la Real Academia de la Historia; Madrid, 1857). bataillon, m., ‘Les Nouveaux Chrétiens de Ségovie en 1510’, Bulletin hispanique, 58 (1956), 207–31. batista i roca, j. m., The Hispanic Kingdom and the Catholic Kings (New Cambridge Modern History, 1; Cambridge, 1957). batlle gallart, c., ‘Solución al problema de las dos sinagogas de Gerona’, Sefarad, 19 (1959), 301–20; repr. in Romano (ed.), Per a una història, i. 229–50. bedarida, g., ‘Ebrei di Sardegna’, La rassegna mensile di Israel, 11 (1936–7), 328–58, 442–3. beinart, h., Anusim bedin ha’inkvizitsiyah (Jerusalem, 1965). —— Atlas of Medieval Jewish History ( Jerusalem, 1992). —— ‘The Conversos of Belalcázar and Bodonales in Extremadura’ (Heb.), in Memorial Volume for H. H. Ben-Sasson (Jerusalem, 1989), 217 ff. —— ‘The Conversos of Halia and the Movement of the Prophetess Inés’ (Heb.), Zion, 53 (1988), 13–52. —— Court Jews in Christian Spain: Élite Groups and Leadership Strata (Heb.) (Jerusalem, 1967). —— ‘Did messir Alfonso de la Caballería Intervene to Prevent the Expulsion of the Jews of Spain?’ (Heb.), Zion, 50 (1981), 265–75. —— ‘The Expulsion of the Jews of Valmaseda’ (Heb.), Zion, 46 (1981), 39–51. —— ‘The Expulsion from Spain: Causes and Results’, in id. (ed.), Moreshet Sefarad, ii. 11–42. —— ‘The Great Conversion and the Converso Problem’, in id. (ed.), Moreshet Sefarad, i. 346–82. —— ‘La Inquisición española y la expulsión de los judíos de Andalucía’, in Y. Kaplan (ed.), Jews and Conversos: Studies in Society and the Inquisition ( Jerusalem, 1985), 103–23. —— ‘Jacob Cachopo: The Last of the Advocates for the Communities of Castile Before the Expulsion’ (Heb.), Pe’amim, 46–7 (1991), 139–47. —— ‘“The Jewish Badge” in Spain and the Enforcement of the “Edict of the Mark” under the Catholic Monarchs’ (Heb.), in Bein yisrael veha’umot: Festschrift for Shmuel Ettinger (Jerusalem, 1988), 29–41. —— ‘The Jewish Commununity of Maqueda at the Time of the Expulsion’, Zion, 56 (1991), 239–53. —— ‘Jewish Dwellings in Spain during the Fifteenth Century and the Edict of Separation’ (Heb.), Zion, 51 (1986), 61–85.

bibliography

541

—— ‘Jewish Witnesses for the Prosecution of the Spanish Inquisition’, Essays in Honour of Ben Beinart, i (Cape Town, 1978), 37–46. —— ‘The Judaising Movement in the Order of San Jerónimo in Castile’, Scripta Hierosolymitana, 7 (1961), 167–92. —— ‘The Memorandum of Tomás de Torquemada to Queen Isabella’ (Heb.), in Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress for Jewish Studies (Divrei hakongres ha’olami hashishi lemada’ei hayahadut) (Jerusalem, 1976), ii. 3–26; repr. in id., Pirkei sefarad (Jerusalem, 1998), i. 207–30. —— Records of the Trials of the Spanish Inquisition in Ciudad Real, 4 vols. ( Jerusalem, 1974–85). —— ‘Relaciones entre judíos y los Reyes Católicos después de la Expulsión’, Sefarad, 46 = Volumen en Homenaje al Prof. Pérez Castro (1986), 63–70. —— ‘Los Reyes Católicos y sus pragmáticas sobre oficios públicos y reales’, Estudios Mirandeses, 8 (1988), 37–55. —— Trujillo: A Jewish Community in Extremadura on the Eve of the Expulsion (Hispania Judaica, 2; Jerusalem, 1980). —— (ed.), Moreshet sefarad: The Sephardi Legacy, 2 vols. (Jerusalem, 1992). benayahu, m., ‘The Commentaries of Rabbi Joseph ben Meir Garson’ (Heb.), Michael, 7 (1982), 43–205. —— ‘A Source for the History of the Expulsion from Spain’ (Heb.), Sinai, 88 (1981), 40–7. benítez sánchez-blanco, r., ‘El Valencià de Lluís de Santàngel’, in Lluís de Santángel: Un nou home, un nou món (Valencia, 1992), 221–36. benito ruano, e., ‘Granada y Constantinopla’, Hispania, 20 (1960), 267–314. bennassar, b., De nuevo sobre censos e inversiones en la España de los siglos XVI y XVII (Estado, Hacienda y Sociedad, Instituto de Historia Simancas, Universidad de Valladolid, Valladolid, 1989). ben-sasson, h. h., ‘A Dirge on the Expulsion from Spain’ (Heb.), Tarbiz, 31 (1961–2), 59–71. —— ‘Exile and Redemption in the View of the Generation of the Exiles from Spain’ (Heb.), Sefer hayovel leyitsh.ak baer (Jerusalem, 1961), 216–17. —— ‘The Generation of the Exiles from Spain on Itself’ (Heb.), Zion, 26 (1961), 23–64. bernáldez, a., Memorias del reinado de los Reyes Católicos, ed. M. Gómez Moreno and J. de Mata Carriazo (Madrid, 1962). bernfeld, s., Sefer hadema’ot (Berlin, 1924). blasco martínez, a., ‘Aportaciones documentales para el estudio del origen troncal de los Santángel’, in Lluís de Santàngel, 119–31. —— La judería de Zaragoza en el siglo XIV (Zaragoza, 1988). bonney, richard (ed.), Economic Systems and State Finance (Oxford, 1995). —— (ed.), The Rise of the Fiscal State in Europe c.1200–1816 (Oxford, 1999).

542

bibliography

borrás gualis, g. m., ‘Liquidación de bienes de los judíos expulsados de la aljama de Calatayud’, Sefarad, 29 (1969), 31–50. bravo, m.a a. del, Los Reyes Católicos y los judíos andaluces (Granada, 1989). cabezudo astrain, j., ‘La expulsión de los judíos de Ejea de los Caballeros’, Sefarad, 30 (1970), 349–63. —— ‘La expulsión de los judíos zaragozanos’, Sefarad, 15 (1955), 103–36. —— ‘La judería de Sos del Rey Católico’, Sefarad, 32 (1972), 89–104. —— ‘Noticias y documentes sobre los judíos zaragozanos en el siglo XV’, Sefarad, 14 (1954), 372–84. —— ‘Testamentos de judíos aragoneses’, Sefarad, 16 (1956), 136–47. cadiñandos bardeci, i., ‘La judería de Oña y su sinagoga’, Sefarad, 45 (1985), 55–67. —— ‘Judería y morería en Medina de Pomar’, Sefarad, 45 (1985), 237–80. —— ‘Los judíos de Belorado y sus contornos’, Sefarad, 54 (1994), 227–52. —— ‘Judíos y moros en Aranda de Duero y sus contornos’, Sefarad, 50 (1990), 47–66, 289–318. calzada i oliveras, j., ‘Les sinagogues de Girona’, in Homenatge a Lluís Batlle i Prats ⫽ Annals de l’Institut d’Estudis Gironins, 25 (Gerona, 1980), 375–93; repr. in Romano (ed.), Per a una història, i. 251–69. cantera burgos, f., ‘Los acuerdos concejiles y la aljama hebrea de Madrid’, Sefarad, 31 (1971), 377–88. —— ‘Don Isaac Abravanel estadista y filósofo’, Sefarad, 30 (1970), 53–9. —— ‘Don Ishaq Braunel: algunas precisiones biográficas sobre una estancia en Castilla’, in Salo Baron Jubilee Volume ( Jerusalem, 1974), i. 237–50. —— ‘Fernando del Pulgar y los conversos’, Sefarad, 4 (1944), 295–348; trans. as ‘Fernando del Pulgar and the Conversos’, in R. Highfield (ed.), Spain in the 15th Century, 1369–1516 (London, 1972). —— ‘La judería de Burgos’, Sefarad, 12 (1952), 59–104. —— ‘La judería de Calahorra (Logroño)’, Sefarad, 15 (1955), 353–72; 16 (1956), 73–112. —— ‘La judería de Miranda de Ebro (1350–1492)’, Sefarad, 2 (1942), 325–75. —— ‘La judería de San Martín de Valdeiglesias’, Sefarad, 29 (1969), 217–312. —— ‘Juderías medievales de la provincia de León’, Archivos Leoneses, 28/55–6 (1974), 85–155. —— ‘Juderías medievales de la provincia de Soria’, in Homenaje a Fray Justo Pérez de Urbel, OSB, 2 vols. (Silos, 1976), i. 445–82. —— ‘Las juderías medievales en el País Vasco’, Sefarad, 31 (1971), 265–327. —— ‘Los judíos expulsos de San Martín de Valdeiglesias’, Actas del primer Simposio de Estudios Sefardíes (Madrid, 1970), 23–32. —— ‘Los repartimientos de rabí Jaco aben Nuñes’ (with C. Carrete Parrondo), Sefarad, 31 (1971), 213–47. —— Sinagogas españolas (Madrid, 1955).

bibliography

543

—— ‘La usura judía en Castilla’, La Ciencia Tomista, 127 (1939), 5–26. —— and carrete parrondo, c., ‘La judería de Buitrago’, Sefarad, 32 (1972), 3–87. —— —— ‘La judería de Hita’, Sefarad, 32 (1972), 249–305. —— —— ‘Las juderías medievales en la provincia de Guadalajara’, Sefarad, 33 (1973), 3–44, 259–323; 34 (1974), 43–78, 313–86. —— and garcía abad, p. albano, Sefarad, 27 (1967), 39–63. —— and millás vallicrosa, j. m.a, Inscripciones hebraicas de España (Madrid, 1956). cantera montenegro, e., ‘Las juderías alavesas en la Baja Edad Media’, in La formación de Alava: 650 aniversario del Pacto de Arriaga (1331–1982) (Vitoria, 1985), 115–34. —— Las juderías de la diócesis de Calahorra en la baja Edad Media (Logroño, 1986). —— ‘Judíos de Torrelaguna (Madrid) a fines del siglo XV’, AIEM 19 (1982), 427–44. —— ‘Judíos de Torrelaguna: retorno de algunos expulsados entre 1493 y 1495’, Sefarad, 39 (1979), 333–46. —— ‘Los judíos en la historiografía riojana’, Cuadernos de Investigación Histórica, 10 (1983), 72. —— ‘Judíos y conversos de Torrelaguna (Madrid) en tiempos de la expulsión’, Estudios en memoria del profesor d. Salvador de Moxó (En la España medieval, 2–3; Madrid, 1982), i. 233–51. —— ‘Relaciones judeocristianas en la diócesis de Osma en el último tercio del siglo XIV’, in Ruiz Gómez and Espadas Burgos (eds.), Encuentros en Sefarad, 103–35. capsali, eliahu, Seder eliyahu zuta, ed. A. Shmuelevitz, S. Simonson, and M. Benayahu ( Jerusalem, 1976). carande, r., ‘La economía y la expansión de España bajo el gobierno de los Reyes Católicos’, BRAH 130 (1952), 213–56. —— Siete estudios de historia de España (Barcelona, 1971). caro, r. isaac, Toledot yitsh.ak (Constantinople, 5278 [1518]). caro baroja, j., Los judíos en la España moderna y contemporánea (Madrid, 1962). carreras artau, j., Relaciones de Arnau de Vilanova con los reyes de Aragón (Barcelona, 1955). carreras candi, f., ‘L’aljama de juheus de Tortosa’, Memorias de la Real Academia de Buenas Letras de Barcelona, 9, fasc. 3 (1928). carrete parrondo, c., ‘Los clérigos judaizantes de Huete’, Anuario de Estudios Medievales, 12 (1982), 412 ff. —— ‘Cobeña, aljama castellana en los albores de la expulsión’, Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies ( Jerusalem, 1975), 71–6. —— ‘La conversión de la comunidad hebrea de Maqueda en el siglo XV’, Sefarad, 32 (1972), 141–7. —— ‘El destino de la sinagoga zamorana de Benavente’, Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica, 30 (1981), 645–7.

544

bibliography

carrete parrondo, c., ‘La hacienda castellana de rabbi Meir Melamed (Fernán Núñez Coronel)’, Sefarad, 37 (1977), 338–50. —— El judaísmo español y la Inquisición (Madrid, 1992). —— Los judeoconversos de Almazán 1501–1505: Origen familiar de los Laínez (FIRC 4; Salamanca, 1987). —— Proceso inquisitorial contra los Arias Dávila, segovianos: un enfrentamiento social entre judíos y conversos (FIRC 3; Salamanca, 1986). —— Provincia de Salamanca (FIRC 1; Salamanca, 1981). —— El Tribunal de la Inquisición en el obispado de Soria 1486–1502 (FIRC 2; Salamanca, 1985). carriazo, j., ‘Asiento de las cosas de Ronda: Conquista y repartimiento de la ciudad por los Reyes Católicos (1485–91)’, Miscelánea de Estudios Árabes y Hebreos, 3 (1954), 14–39. castellarnau, j. m.a, ‘La sinagoga mayor de Segovia’, BRAH 35 (1899), 319–30. christian, w. a., Local Religion in Sixteenth Century Spain (Princeton, 1981). clavero, b., Usura: Del uso económico de la religión en la historia (Madrid, 1984). collis, j. c., Christopher Columbus (London, 1976). colmenares, diego de, Historia de la insigne ciudad de Segovia, nueva edición anotada (repr. Segovia, 1969–70). columbus, christopher, The Four Voyages, ed. and trans. J. M. Cohen (Harmondsworth, 1969), 238. conde y delgado molina, r., La expulsion de los judíos de la Corona de Aragón (Zaragoza, 1991). coronas tejada, l., Conversos and Inquisition in Jaén (Hispania Judaica, 7; Jerusalem, 1988). cubells i llorens, j., The Jews of Tortosa 1373–1493: Regesta of Documents from the Archivo Histórico de Protocolos de Tarragona ( Jerusalem, 1991). david, a., Kiryat sefer, 51 (1976), 325. dinur, b., ‘Emigration from Spain to the Land of Israel After the Persecutions of 1391’ (Heb.), Zion, 32 (1967), 161–72. doñate sebastià, j., and magdalena nom de deu, j. r., Three Jewish Communities in Medieval Valencia ( Jerusalem, 1990). dorman, m., Yehuda Abravanel: Conversations on Love (Heb.) ( Jerusalem, 1983). durán gudiol, a., La judería de Huesca (Zaragoza, 1984). edwards, j., Christian Córdoba (Cambridge, 1984). elliott, j. h., Imperial Spain 1469–1716 (London, 1963). —— The Revolt of the Catalans (Cambridge, 1963). era, e., ‘Storia della Sardegna durante il regno di Ferdinando il Cattolico’, in Fernando el Católico e Italia (Zaragoza, 1954), 55 ff.

bibliography

545

‘Este es el pleyto de los judios con el perro de Alua y de la burla que les hizo, nueuamente trobada por el bachiller Trasmiera, residente en Salamanca, que hizo a ruego e pedimiento de un señor’ (facs.), ‘Una colección de pliegos sueltos’, RABM 30/47 (1926), 409–24 at 409–16. farge, j. k., Biographical Register of Paris Doctors of Theology 1500–1536 (Toronto, 1980). fernández, alonso, Historia y anales de la ciudad y obispado de Plasencia (Madrid, 1627). fernández-armesto, f., Columbus (Oxford, 1991). ferro tavares, m.a j. pimenta, Os judeus em Portugal no século XV (Lisbon, 1982). fita, f., ‘Edicto de los Reyes Católicos (31 marzo 1492) desterrando de sus Estados a todos los judíos’, BRAH 11 (1887), 512–28. —— ‘La Guardia, villa del partido de Lillo, provincia de Toledo: Datos históricos’, BRAH 11 (1887), 373–431. —— ‘La judería de Segovia: Documentos inéditos’, BRAH 9 (1886), 270–93. —— ‘Monumentos hebreos’, BRAH 50 (1907), 81–96. foulché-delbosc, r., ‘Cancionero castillano del siglo XV’, NBAE 19 (1912), 79. freimann, a. h., Seder kidushin venisuin (Heb.) (Jerusalem, 1965). gampel, b. r., The Last Jews on Iberian Soil, Navarrese Jewry 1497–1498 (Berkeley, 1989). garcía casar, m. f., El pasado judío de Salamanca (Salamanca, 1987). giuffrida, r., sparti, a., and di matteo, s., Fonti per la storia dell’espulsione degli ebrei dalla Sicilia (Palermo, 1992). góis, damião de, Crónica do felicíssimo rei D. Manuel (Coimbra, 1949). gómez de somorrostro y martín, a., El acueducto y otras antigüedades de Segovia (Segovia, 1861). gómez iglesias, a., Libros de los acuerdos del concejo madrileño (Madrid, 1970). gómez-menor (fuentes), j., ‘Algunos datos sobre el cementerio de judíos de Toledo’, Sefarad, 31 (1971), 367–75. —— ‘Un judío converso de 1498: Diego Gómez de Toledo (Semuel Abolafia) y su proceso inquisitorial’, Sefarad, 33 (1973), 45–110. goñi gaztambide, j., ‘La Santa Sede y la reconquista del reino de Granada’, Hispania, 4 (1951), 43–80. gonzález gallego, i., ‘Algunos datos sobre los últimos años de las aljamas leonesas’, Archivos Leoneses, 21/42 (1967), 375–407. gonzález hernández, o., ‘Fray Hernando de Talavera: Un aspecto nuevo de su personalidad’, Hispania Sacra, 12 (1960), 252. graetz, h., Geschichte der Juden von des ältesten Zeiten bis zur Gegenwart (1853‒70), trans. into Heb. by S. P. Rabinowitz (1890‒9). grayzel, s., The Church and the Jews in the XIIIth Century (Philadelphia, 1933). guiral-hadziiosif, j., Valencia, puerto mediterráneo en el siglo XV (1410–1525) (Valencia, 1989).

546

bibliography

hacker, y., ‘Chapters in the History of Jewish Society in the Middle Ages’ (Heb.), in Sefer hayuval leya’akov katz ( Jerusalem, 1980). —— ‘A Group of Letters about the Expulsion of the Jews from Spain and Sicily and on the Fate of the Exiles’ (Heb.), Perakim betoledot hah. evra hayehudit biyemei habeinayim ( Jerusalem, 1980), 64–97. —— ‘A New Chronicle of the Expulsion of the Jews of Spain, its Causes and Consequences’ (Heb.), Sefer zikaron leyitsh. ak baer ⫽ Zion, 44 (1979), 219–20. hakohen, yosef, Sefer divrei hayamim lemalkhei tsarfat umalkhei beit ‘otman hatuger’ (Amsterdam, 1733). hale, j. r., War and Society in Renaissance Europe 1450–1620 (Baltimore, 1985). hayat, judah, Minh. at yehudah, perush lesefer ma’arekhet ha’elokut (Mantua, 1558). herculano, a., História da origem e estabelecimento da Inquisição de Portugal (Lisbon, 1975). hernando, teófilo, ‘Luis y Antonio Nuñez Coronel’, ES 21 (1969), 413–15. hess, a. c., The Forgotten Frontier (Chicago, 1978). hillgarth, j. n., The Spanish Kingdoms 1250–1516, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1976–8). hinojosa montalvo, j., ‘Sinagogas valencianas (1383–1492)’, Sefarad, 38 (1978), 293–307. —— ‘Solidaridad judía ante la expulsión: Contratos de embarque (Valencia 1492)’, Saitabí, 33 (1983), 105–24. hirschberg, h. z., A History of the Jews in North Africa (Leiden, 1974). huidobro y serna, l., ‘La judería de Pancorbo (Burgos)’, Sefarad, 3 (1943), 155–66. ibn verga, solomon, Shevet yehudah: hashemad hah. amishim ushenayim, ed. E. Shohat ( Jerusalem, 1947). ibn zakut, r. abraham, Sefer hayuh. asin hashalem, ed. Z. Filipowski (London, 1857). iglesias almeida, e., ‘Los judíos de Tui’, Sefarad, 47 (1987), 73–9. kamen, h., ‘The Mediterranean and the Expulsion of Spanish Jews in 1492’, Past and Present, 119 (1988), 30–55. kayserling, m., Geschichte der Juden in Navarra, den Baskenländern und auf den Balearen (Berlin, 1861). —— ‘Les Juifs dans le royaume de Léon’, REJ 37 (1889), 137 ff. klein, j., The Mesta (Cambridge, Mass., 1920), 275 ff. lacave (riaño), j. l., ‘La judería de Cascante’, Sefarad, 50 (1990), 319–34. —— Juderías y sinagogas españolas (Madrid, 1992). —— ‘Material Remains’, in Beinart (ed.), Moreshet sefarad, i. 452–73. —— review of P. Gruenbaum-Ballin, Joseph Naci, duc de Naxos (Paris, 1968), Sefarad, 29 (1969), 370–2. —— ‘Sinagogas y juderías extremeñas’, Sefarad, 40 (1980), 215–34. ladero quesada, m. a., ‘Actividades de Luis de Santángel en la corte de Castilla’, in Lluís de Santàngel, 103–18.

bibliography

547

—— Castilla y la conquista del Reino de Granada (Valladolid, 1967). —— ‘Dos temas de la Granada Nazarí’, Cuadernos de Historia, 3 (1969), 321–45. —— ‘La esclavitud a fines del siglo XV: el caso de Málaga’, Hispania, 105 (1967), 63–88. —— España en 1492 (Madrid, 1984). —— ‘Los genoveses en Sevilla y su región (siglos XIII–XVI): elementos de permanencia y arraigo’, Los mudéjares de Castilla y otros estudios de historia andaluza (Granada, 1989), 283–312. —— Granada después de la conquista (Granada, 1984). —— La Hacienda Real de Castilla en el siglo XV (La Laguna de Tenerife, 1973). —— ‘Los judíos castellanos del siglo XV en el arrendamiento de impuestos’, Cuadernos de Historia (Madrid), 6 (1975), 417–39. —— Milicia y economía en la guerra de Granada: El cerco de Baza (Valladolid, 1964). —— Población, economía y sociedad en el reino de Granada (Madrid, 1982). —— ‘Un préstamo de los judíos de Segovia y Ávila para la guerra de Granada en el año 1483’, Sefarad, 35 (1975), 151–7. —— El siglo XV en Castilla (Barcelona, 1982); pp. 143–67 are a reprint of ‘Los judíos castellanos del siglo XV en el arrendamiento de impuestos’, Cuadernos de Historia (Madrid), 6 (1975), 417–39. ladero quesada, m. f., ‘Apuntes para la historia de los judíos y los conversos de Zamora en la Edad Media (siglos XIII–XV)’, Sefarad, 48 (1988), 29–57. lagumina, b., and lagumina, g., Codice diplomatico dei giudei di Sicilia, iii/1 (Palermo, 1895). lamelas, d., La compra de Gibraltar por los conversos (1474–6) (Madrid, 1976). lea, h. c., A History of the Inquisition in Spain (New York, 1906). leibowitch, n. s., Rabbi Abraham Sab’a and his Books, Tseror hamor ve’eshkol hakofer (Heb.) (Brooklyn, NY, 1937). león tello, p., Archivo de los Duques de Frías (Madrid, 1955). —— ‘Disposiciones sobre judíos en los fueros de Castilla y León’, Sefarad, 46 ⫽ Volumen en Homenaje al Prof. Pérez Castro (1986), 279–93. —— ‘Documento de Fernando el Católico sobre la expulsión de los judíos en el señorío del Conde de Aranda’, Homenaje a Federico Navarro: Miscelánea de estudios dedicados a su memoria (Madrid, 1973), 237–48. —— ‘La judería de Ávila durante el reinado de los Reyes Católicos’, Sefarad, 23 (1963), 36–53. —— Judíos de Ávila (Ávila, 1963). —— Los judíos de Palencia (Palencia, 1967). —— Judíos de Toledo, 2 vols. (Toledo, 1979). —— ‘Legislación sobre los judíos en las Cortes de los antiguos reinos de León y Castilla’, Proceedings of the Fourth World Congress of Jewish Studies, ii ( Jerusalem, 1968), 56 ff.

548

bibliography

llorca, b., Bulario Pontificio de la Inquisición Española (Miscellanea Historiae Pontificiae, 15; Rome, 1949). Lluís de Santàngel i el seu temps: Congrès internacional, Valencia, 5 al 8 d’octubre 1987 (Valencia, 1992). loeb, i., ‘Un convoi d’exilés d’Espagne à Marseille en 1492’, REJ 9 (1882), 66 ff. —— ‘Le nombre des Juifs de Castille et d’Espagne au moyen âge’, REJ 14 (1883), 161 ff. —— graetz, g., and fita, f., ‘La Inquisición de Torquemada: Secretos íntimos’, BRAH 23 (1893), 369–433. lópez martínez, n., Los judaizantes castellanos y la Inquisición en el tiempo de Isabel la Católica (Burgos, 1954). lópez mata, t., ‘Morería y judería de Burgos’, BRAH 129 (1951), 335–83. lópez pita, l., and cantera montenegro, e., ‘Algunas notas sobre la sinagoga de Alfaro’, Sefarad, 47 (1987), 139–48. lunenfeld, m., The Council of the Hermandad (Coral Gables, Fla., 1970). —— Keepers of the City (Cambridge, 1978). mackay, a., ‘Hacienda y sociedad en la historia de España’, in Instituto de Historia de Simancas, Estado, hacienda y sociedad en la historia de España (Valladolid, 1989), 63 ff. —— ‘Popular Movements and Pogroms in Castile’, Past and Present, 55 (May 1972), 43–4. manor, d., ‘Towards the History of Rabbi Abraham Saba’ (Heb.), Meh.karei yerushalayim bemah. shevet yisrael, 2 (1983), 208–31. mariéjol, j. m., The Spain of Ferdinand and Isabella (New Brunswick, NJ, 1961). marín padilla, e., ‘Inventario de los bienes muebles del judío bilbilitano Salomon Ezi en 1492’, Sefarad, 48 (1988), 93–115. —— ‘Los judíos de La Almunia de Doña Godina, villa aragonesa de señorío, en la segunda mitad del siglo XV’, Sefarad, 49 (1984), 135–52, 263–306; 50 (1990), 85–127, 335–71. —— ‘Más sobre los Constantin de Calatayud’, Sefarad, 46 (1986), 317–23. marques, h. de oliveira, History of Portugal (New York and London). martínez millán, j., La hacienda de la Inquisición (1478–1800) (Madrid, 1984). marx, a., ‘The Expulsion of the Jews from Spain: Two New Accounts’, JQR 20 (1908), 240–71. —— Studies in Jewish History and Booklore (New York, 1944). mata carriazo, j. de, El Tumbo de los Reyes Católicos del Concejo de Sevilla, vol. v: 1489–1492 (Seville, 1971), 118–21. meyuhas ginio, alisa, De bello Iudaeorum: Fray Alonso de Espina y su Fortalitium Fidei (FIRC 8; Salamanca, 1998). milano, a., Storia degli ebrei in Italia (Turin, 1963). millares carlo, m., Paleografía española (Barcelona, 1921). mirambell belloc, e., ‘Los judíos gerundenses en el momento de la expulsión’, in Romano (ed.), Per a una història, ii. 653–66 (orig. publ.: Anales del Instituto de Estudios Gerundenses, 24 (1978), 5–18).

bibliography

549

moreno koch, y., Las Taqqanot de Valladolid de 1432: De iure hispano-judaico: un estatuto comunal renovador (FIRC 5; Salamanca, 1987). —— ‘La venta de sinagogas en Segovia al tiempo de la expulsión’, Sefarad, 46 (1986), 345–51. motis dolader, m. a., ‘La conversión de judíos aragoneses a raíz del edicto de Expulsión’, in Ruiz Gómez and Espadas Burgos (eds.), Encuentros en Sefarad, 217–52. —— ‘Documentos para el estudio de la expulsión de los judíos de Magallón’, Turiaso, 5, en homenaje a Teodoro García Azanar (Tarazona, 1984), 209–51. —— Documentos sobre los judíos de Borja (Zaragoza), 1455–1500 (Zaragoza, 1988). —— ‘La emigración de judíos aragoneses a Navarra en las postrimerías del siglo XV’, Príncipe de Vana, 49 (1988), 537–51. —— ‘Explotaciones agrarias de los judíos de Tarazona (Zaragoza) a fines del siglo XV’, Sefarad, 45 (1985), 353–90. —— La expulsión de los judíos de Zaragoza (Zaragoza, 1985). —— The Expulsion of the Jews from Calatayud 1492–1500:, Documents and Regesta ( Jerusalem, 1990). —— Los judíos aragoneses en la época del descubrimiento de América (Zaragoza, 1989). —— ‘Los judíos de Borja en el siglo XV’, Cuadernos de Estudios Borjanos, 19–20 (1987), 229 ff. —— ‘Los judíos de Magallón (Zaragoza) a fines del siglo XV y su expulsión’, Cuadernos de Estudios Borjanos, 17–18 (1986), 139–245. —— and ainaga andrés, m.a t., ‘Patrimonio urbanístico aljamial de la judería de Tarazona (Zaragoza): las sinagogas, la necrópolis y las carnicerías’, Revista de Historia de Jerónimo Zurita, 56 (1987), 93 ff. netanyahu, b., Don Isaac Abravanel, Statesman and Philosopher (Philadelphia, 1962). neubauer, a., Medieval Jewish Chronicles and Chronological Notes (Anecdota Oxoniensia, Semitic Series, 1/4; Oxford, 1887), 112. noonan, j. t., The Scholastic Analysis of Usury (Cambridge, Mass., 1957). o’callaghan, j. j., A History of Medieval Spain (Ithaca and London, 1975). orfali, m., and motís dolader, m. a., ‘Examination of the Texts of the General Edict of Expulsion from Spain and its Study’ (Heb.), Pe’amim 46–7 (1991), 148–68. peñalosa, luis f. de, ‘Juan Bravo y la familia Coronel’, Estudios segovianos, 1 (1949), 73–109. perani, m., ‘Appunti per la storia degli ebrei in Sardegna durante la dominazione aragonese’, Italia, 5 (1985), 104–44. piles ros, l., ‘La expulsión de los judíos de Valencia: Repercusiones económicas’, Sefarad, 15 (1955), 89–102. —— ‘La judería de Sagunto: sus restos actuales’, Sefarad, 17 (1957), 352–73. —— ‘Los judíos en la Valencia del siglo XV’, Sefarad, 7 (1947), 151–6. piskorski, w., Las Cortes de Castilla (Barcelona, 1977).

550

bibliography

prieto cantero, a., Casa y descargos de los Reyes Católicos (Valladolid, 1969). —— (a. prieto) and álvarez terán, c., Registro General del Sello, ix (Valladolid, 1965). pulgar, hernando del, Crónica de los Reyes Católicos, versión inédita por J. de Mata Carriazo, i (Madrid, 1943). rodrigues, m. a., ‘A inscrição hebraica de Gouveia’, O Instituto, 130 (1968), 5. —— ‘On a Hebrew Inscription Discovered in Gouveia (Portugal)’ (Heb.), Zion, 33 (1968), 203. rodríguez fernández, j., La judería de la ciudad de León (León, 1969). —— Las juderías de la provincia de León (León, 1976). romano, d. (ed.), Per a una història de la Girona jueva, 2 vols. (Gerona, 1988). romero, elena, ‘Algunas propiedades judías en el pago toledano de Algondrinejo’, Sefarad, 33 (1973), 357–66. roth, c., The History of the Jews in Italy (Philadelphia, 1946). ruiz almansa, j., ‘La población española’, Revista Internacional de Sociología, 3 (1943), 115–36. ruiz gómez, f., and espadas burgos, m. (eds.), Encuentros en Sefarad: Actas del Congreso Internacional ‘Los judíos en la historia de España’ (Ciudad Real, 1987). rumeu de armas, a., Nueva luz sobre las capitulaciones de Santa Fe de 1492 (Madrid, 1985). sánchez albornoz, c., España: un enigma histórico (Buenos Aires, 1956). —— ‘España y Francia en la Edad Media: Causas de su diferenciación política’, Revista de Occidente, 1 (1923), 310. sancho de sopranis, h., ‘Los genoveses en la región gaditano-xericense en 1460 a 1800’, Hispania, 32 (1948), 355–402. —— ‘La judería del Puerto de Santa María de 1483–1492’, Sefarad, 13 (1953), 310–24. santa cruz, alonso de, Crónica de los Reyes Católicos, ed. J. de la Mata Carriazo (Seville, 1951). santos canalejo, e. c. de, El siglo XV en Plasencia y su tierra (Cáceres: Institución Cultural ‘El Brocense’, n.d.). sanz arizmendi, a., ‘Índice del Tumbo de los Reyes Católicos’, Revue hispanique, 62 (1924), 1–376. secall güell, g., Les jueries medievals tarragonines (Valls, 1983). —— ‘Noticias de judíos aragoneses en el momento de la expulsión’, Sefarad, 42 (1982), 103–12. Sefer emek habakhah, ed. K. Alemblad (Uppsala, 1981), 61–2. Sefer hakabalah, ed. A. Neubauer (Oxford, 1888). senarega, b., De rebus Genuensibus commentaria anno MCDLXXXVIII usque ad annum MDXIV, ed. E. Pandiani (Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, 24/8; Bologna, 1929).

bibliography

551

serra ruiz, r., ‘Notas sobre el juicio de residencia en la época de los Reyes Católicos’, Anuario de Estudios Medievales, 5 (1968), 438–46. serrano y sanz, m., ‘Notas acerca de los judíos aragoneses en los siglos XIV y XV’, RABM, 3rd ser., 21/37 (1917), 324–46. —— ‘Noticias biográficas de Fernando de Rojas, autor de La Celestina, y del impresor Juan de Lucena’, RABM, 3rd ser., 6/6 (1902), 245–99. —— Orígenes de la dominación española en América (Madrid, 1918). soterraña, m.a de la, and postigo, martín, La cancillería castellana de los Reyes Católicos (Valladolid, 1959) suárez fernández, l., Documentos acerca de la expulsión de los judíos (Valladolid, 1964). —— La expulsión de los judíos (Madrid, 1969), 241–64. —— Los Trastámara y los Reyes Católicos (Madrid, 1985). tishby, y., Meshih. iyut bedor gerushei sefarad veportugal (Jerusalem, 1985). toledo, dr de, Cronicón de Valladolid ⫽ CoDoIn xiii (Madrid, 1848), 5–228. torre, a. de la, La casa de Isabel la Católica (Madrid, 1954). —— Documentos sobre relaciones internacionales de los Reyes Católicos, iv (Barcelona, 1962). —— and suárez fernández, l., Documentos referentes a las relaciones con Portugal durante el reinado de los Reyes Católicos (Valladolid, 1960). valdeavellano, l. g. de, ‘El Renovo’, Cuadernos de Historia de España, 57–8 (1973), 408–18. ventura subirats, j., ‘Documentos económicos de la Inquisición referentes a judíos conversos de Gerona (1490–1504)’, Cuadernos de Historia Económica de Cataluña, 14 (1976), 92 ff. vicens vives, j., Historia de la remensas en el siglo XV (Barcelona, 1945). vidal, j., Annales Sardiniae (Milan, 1645). vigón, j., El ejército de los Reyos Católicos (Madrid, 1968). vilanova, a., Antología literaria de autores españoles (Barcelona, 1964). yerushalmi, y. h., The Lisbon Massacre of 1506 and the Royal Image in the Shebet Yehuda (Cincinnati, 1976).

Page blank in printed edition

Index of People A

Abadias, Samuel 243 n., 244 n. Abarchicon, Abraham 102 n. Abdus, Simon 251 n. Aben Abid, Don Haim 16 Abenaçan, Isaac 307 n. Abenaçan, Yose 386 Abenaçan, Ysaque, see Medina, Gutierre de Abenacar, Ysaque, see Arias Dávila, Diego Abenaco, Isaac 391 n. Abenadavi, Yuçe 251, 383 n. Abenaex, Yuçe 504 Abenamias, Jacob 307–8 Abenamias, Mose 174 Aben Anco, Isaque 326 Abenasa, Isaac 399 Abenasa, Yose 147, 189 Abenatabe, Don Abraham 498–9 Abenatabe, Judah 498 Abenatabe, Mose 498 Abenate, Mose 465 Abenate, Ysaque 375 Abenazar, Isaac (Ça) 196 Aben Bueno, Abraham 186 n. Abençada, Abraham 317 n. Abençada, Samuel 317 n. Abençadoque, Ephraim 67 n. Abençadoque, Judah 67 n. Abencanyas, Açach 229 n. Abencara, Mose 241 Abencarax, Abraham 422 Abençebar, Jaco 67 n. Abendant, Ezmel 100 Abendavit, Abram 241 Abendino, Ezmel 103 Abenfarax, Isaac 433 Abenfarax, Yose 433 Aben Gaston, Samuel 204 n. Abengato, Jaco 67 n. Aben Habibi, Salamon 375 Abenhadar family 248 Aben Hayon, Symuel 433 Abenhumay, Yuce 67 n. Abenlabel, Toui 229 Abenlaben, Don Yose 184

Abenlopiel, Solomon 102 Abenmayor, Mose 246 n. Abenmayor, Shem Tob 186 Aben Núñez, Jacob 288 Abenpex, Mose 319 Abenrabi, Samuel 202 Abenrabi, Vidal 203 Abenraby, Mose 155 Abenrrodija, Meir 283 n. Abensaba, Levi 67 n. Abensabad, Ziza 251–2 Abensabad family 248 Abensba, Daui 67 n. Aben Simon, Jaco 163 Abenturiel, Don Salamon 125 Abenxuxen, Symuel 67 n. Abenxuxen, Ysaque 67 n. Aben Yaish, Suleima 433 Aben Yañes, Abraham 190 Aben Yañes, Jacob 190 Abenzaydon, Mose 241 Abin Dant, Ezmel 204 n. Abingaston, Samuel 100 Abnarrabi, Bonafos 202 Abnarrabi, Ezmel 102, 103 n., 243 n., 283 n. Abohab, Isaac 274 Abraha, Salamon 99 n. Abraham (son of Solomon Halevy Bakarat) 329 Abraham, Struch 238 Abravanel, Don Isaac: business activities 145 n., 502–9 Crown, relationship with 501–2 Edict of Expulsion 207 exile 491, 507 on expulsion 285 flight from Portugal 23, 501 loans to Crown 25 persons and places in debt to 515–18 (Table 9.1) role in community 490–1 tax-farming 29, 440 n., 450 n. Abravanel, Jacob, 501, 511–12, 514, 518 Abravanel, Joseph 23, 29

Abravanel, Samuel (Juan Sánchez de Sevilla) 501 Abravanel, Samuel (son of Don Isaac) 519 n. Abravanel, Yose: departure 513–14 grant of houses from Crown 437 guarantor 480 liquidation of business 511–14 partnership 450 in Plasencia 501 supreme tax-collector 510–11 tax-farming 440 n., 470, 488, 510 two of same name 510 Abravanel family 119 n., 438, 501–19 Abrollo, Judah 235 n. Abuacar, Çague (Isaac) 341–2, 404 Abulafi, Diego 344 Abulafi, Paloma 344 Abulafi (physician) 344 Abulafia, Don Bueno 157 n., 186–7 Abulafia, Mose 246 Abulafia, Samuel, see Gómez de Toledo, Diego Abusamel, Asach 243 n., 244 n. Abussmel, Joseph, see Abuzmel, Yose Abussmel, Juçe 243 n. Abussmel, Mosse 243 n. Abuzmel, Mose 202 Abuzmel, Yose (Chamorro) 103, 202, 203, 220 n., 243 Abzaradiel, Abraham 274 Açaban, Huda 375 Açaban, Menahem 375 Açamel (Camel), Yento 100 n., 238 Açeror, Simeon 415 n. Acosta, Álvaro de 245 n. Acosta, Diego de 253 n. Acosta, María de 393–4

554 Acuña, Fernando de 280, 281 n. Acuña, Don Martín 257 Adaña family 405 n. Adaroque, Solomon, see Alcázar, Fernando de Adaroque family 248 Adorno, Francesco 218 Adret, Galceran 243 Adueña, Doña 247, 248 n. Aff, Abraham 100 n., 238 Aff de la Plesa, Abraham 100 n. Afonso V, King of Portugal 4, 7 n., 122, 301, 416 n. Afroes, Saul 220 n. Agai, Yose 189 Agay, Simuel (Symuel) 189, 321–2 Agid, Judah 15 n. Agostín, Domingo (in Daroca) 98 Agostín, Domingo (mosén) 203, 228 Agotoguia, Lope de 180–1 Aguado, Juan 381 Águila, Doña Catalina de 73 Águila, Diego del 264–71, 301 Águila, Francisco del 151 n., 216, 271, 523 Águila, licenciado del 192 Águila, Sancho del 448 Aguilar, Çaq de 505 Aguilar, Count of 341 Aguirre, licenciado de 209, 475 Aguirre, Luis de 115 Agustín, Domingo 202, 226 n. Ahedo, Rodrigo de 105 Aholumbre, Mose 205 n. Aillón, Fernando de 387 Alaff, Asach 243 n. Alahejos, Francisco de 255 n. Alalu, Symuel 137 Alalu, Yuçe 137 Alazar, Joseph 393 Alazar, Mosse 232 n. Alba, Alonso de 246 n. Alba, dukes of 181, 182 n., 196 Albertyn, Lorenzo 484 Albo, Leon 98, 232, 234 Albuquerque, Duke of 167, 316 Albuquerque, Judah 168 Alcalá, Diego de 169 Alcalá, Juan de (notary) 176

index of people Alcalá, Juan de (tax-collector) 320 Alcalá, Luis de: city 459 n. debt collection 123, 282, 462–6, 468–9, 483 family 180 financial activities 470–1 guarantor 512 partnership 472, 478–9, 483, 489–90 property 434, 435, 439–42 tax-farming 282, 296 n., 435, 464, 471, 474, 478–9 Trujillo action 459 Alcantar Gutierre, Pedro de 67 n. Alcaraz, Diego de 71, 390 Alcaraz, Gonzalo de 321 Alcaraz, Francisco de (contino) 466–7 Alcaraz, Francisco de (repartidor in Granada) 31 n. Alcaraz, Rodrigo de 467 n. Alcázar, Fernando de (Solomon Adaroque) 369–70 Alcocel, Dr de 459 Alcocer, Dr de (chancellor) 211 n., 246 n., 255 n., 258 n., 315 n., 388 n., 480 n. Alcocer, Fernando de 421 n. Alcocer, García de 502 Alcocer, Juan de 481 Alcolumbre, Mose 232 n., 234 Alday, Juan de 444 Aldich, Jacob 243 n., 244 n. Aleburrial, Çenha 252 Aleburrial, Isaac 252 Alegre, Juan 421 Alegre, Samuel, see Plasencia, Pedro de Alegre (in lawsuit) 420–1 Alentienz, Abraham 229 Alentienz, Juçe 229 Alexander VI, Pope 222 n., 496, 526 Alfandari, Abraham 351–2 Alfandari, Don David 433 Alfandari, Isaac 107 n., 350, 351 Alfandari, Isaac (Peralejo) 355 n.

Alfandari, Mose, see Hurtado, Diego Alfandari, Rabbi 433 Alfandari, Violanta 351–2 Alfandari family 248 Alfandary, Yuçe 67 n. Alfara, Mose 422 Alfaro, Fernando de 200 Alfonso, Archbishop of Zaragoza 7 n. Alfonso, Bishop of Jaén 416 Alfonso, Count 293 n., 294 Alfonso, Juan 204 n. Alfonso V (El Magnánimo), King of Aragon 3, 99 Alfonso VI, King of León and Castile 259 Alfonso XI, King of Castile 67 Alfrangi, Moses 274 Algaroche family 248 Algazi, Yuçe 67 n. Alholu, Judah 251 n. Alisench, Abraham 243 n. Alitensi, Abraham 244 n. Almale, Shem Tov de 185 Almaxel, Abrahem 67 n. Almeli, Jehuda 232 n. Almendares, Antonio de 131 n., 162 n., 177 n., 189 n., 198 n., 300 n., 303 n., 304 n., 313 n., 314 n., 322 n., 401 n. Almereci, Juçe (Yose) 232 n., 233 Almeredi, Juçe 234 Almerich, Alfonso d’ 402 Almerich, Simuel 232 n. Almoguera, García de 163 Almorabet, Martín de 204 n. Almosyn, Abraham 243 n. Almuli, Jento 229 n. Alonso, Diego (magistrate of Cardiel) 388 Alonso, Diego (of Villar) 357–8 Alonso, Fernando (of Arandela) 398 n. Alonso, Fernando (in Cornago) 200 n. Alonso, Hernando 200 Alonso, maestre (of Puebla de Montalbán) 383–4 Alonso (of Malpartida) 361 Alonso, Marcos 326–7 Alonso, Martín (in Cañizar) 179

index of people Alonso, Martín (in Torre) 395 Alonso, Pero (of Ampudia) 401 Alonso, Pero (of Guzmán) 259–60 Alonso, Pero (of Las Vegas) 193 n. Alpegui, Mose 222 n., 241 Aluengo, Abraham 232 n. Aluff, Açach 244 n. Álvar, Pedro 360 Alvarado, Juan de 134 Álvares de Almada, João 288 n. Álvarez, Alonso (licenciado) 490 n. Álvarez, Alonso (of Llerena) 199–200, 326 n., 391 n. Álvarez, Catalina 16 n. Álvarez, Fernán (of Ávila) 193 n., 332 n. Álvarez, Fernán (of Laguardia) 162 n. Álvarez, García 351–2 Álvarez, Inés 68 Álvarez, Juan 314 Álvarez, Juan (brother of Fernán) 470 Álvarez, Juan (of Villazán) 349 Álvarez, Juan de (of Medina de Pomar) 134 n. Álvarez, Leonor 502 n. Álvarez, Luis 355 n. Álvarez, Mari (widow of Diego de Sosa) 248 n. Álvarez, Miriam (Mari) (widow of Salamon Zobre) 360–1 Álvarez, Pedro 266 n. Álvarez Çaço, Pero 388 Álvarez de Castro, Mari 68 n. Álvarez de Frómista, Diego 480 n. Álvarez de Hamusco, Antón 211 Álvarez de la Fuente, Hernand 523 Álvarez de la Peña, Per (Yuçe de la Fuente) 139 n. Álvarez de Paredes de Nava, Fernando 187–8 Álvarez de Toledo, Fernán: debt 470 debt collection grant 506

documents drafted by 56 n., 57 n., 59 n., 60 n., 62 n., 64 n., 91 n., 94 n., 108 n., 110 n., 136 n., 138 n., 143 n., 149 n., 159 n., 170 n., 214 n., 219 n., 221 n., 248 n., 251 n., 278 n., 295 n., 296 n., 298 n., 299 n., 305 n., 317 n., 322 n., 323 n., 325 n., 342 n., 356 n., 462 n., 512 n. loan order 156 royal secretary 34, 38 n., 94 n. Senior baptism 413 n. smuggling order 300 synagogue order of donation 76 tax investigation 459 Álvarez de Toledo, Don Fernando, Count of Oropesa 377–8 Álvarez de Toledo, Juan 506 n. Álvarez Maldonado, Rodrigo 14, 15, 16 n., 148 n., 315, 427 n. Álvarez Romano, Juan 196 Amarash, Don Abraham 25 n. Amarax, David 422 Amarillo, Diego 324 Amarillo family 248 Ambron, Yose 205 n. Ambrosio de Negrón, Juan 211 n., 219 Ambrosio de Negrón, Juan Antonio 219, 220 n., 221 n. Ambrun, Juçe 234 Ameze, En 186 Amigo, Juan 502 Amigo, Solomon 252, 303 Amigo, Urosol 252, 303 Anaya, Francisco de 495–6 Andino, Captain 218, 275, 380 Anduba, Antonio de 388 Andújar, Antonio de 175–6, 310 Ángulo, Fernando 83 Aninay, Adret 202, 243 n., 244 n. Aninay, Astruc 227, 243 n., 244 n. Aninay, Leon 99 Anmarabi, Vital 243 n.

555 Antonius, Dr 380 n. Ara, Jaime de 230 Arali, Yuçe 266 n. Aran, Yuçe del 303 n. Aranda, Count of, see Jiménes de Urrea, Lope Aranda, Francisco de 398 n. Aranda, Gonzalo de 64 n., 355 n. Aranda, Juan de 504 n. Aranda Quintanilla, Luis de 105 n. Arantel, Ysaque 67 n. Arari, Yose del 163 n. Arce, Juan de 189 Ardia, Fernández de 234 Ardit, Mose (in Sagunto) 241 Ardit, Mose (in Valencia) 205, 222 n. Arditi, Abraham 229 n. Arenas, Rodrigo de 350 Arévalo, Alonso de 262, 264–5, 300, 301 Arévalo, Gómez de 369 Arévalo, Doña Isabel de 105 n. Arévalo, Juan de 477 Argilet, Todroz 231 Argilet family 403 Argüello (in Guadalajara) 353 Argüello, Martín de 258, 390 n. Arias, Diego 432 Arias, Elena 15 n. Arias, Francisco 322 Arias, Juan 441 Arias Dávila, Diego (Ysaque Abenacar): abattoir management 104 n. accountant to Enrique IV 414 lawsuit 72 n. Senior partnership 443 singing voice 88 n. trial for heresy 43 n., 427 n. wives 88 n. Arias Dávila, Juan 88 n., 414, 432 Arias de Ávila, Don Juan 505, 509 Arias Maldonado, Francisco 189 n. Arias Maldonado, Rodrigo 356 Ariño, Onon de 103 Armeu, Salamon 229 n.

556 Aroyo, Rodrigo del 176 n. Arragel, Jaco 319–20, 334–5, 402 Arragel, Moses 81 Arragel family 319–20 Arroes, Saul 243 Arrouas, Ysaque, see Gómez, Fernán Arruesi Mores, Çulema 283 n. Arruet, Abraham 236 Artieda, Alonso de 234 Artieta, Iñigo 277, 400 Aruech, Açach de 232 n. Aruete, Heli 395 n. Aruete, Isaac 395 n. Aruete, Jacob 395 n. Arzila, Tristán de 400–1 Asamel family 237 n. Asayol family 248 Ascona, Pedro 83 Asserate, Yuçe 67 n. Astori, Vidal 4, 418 Asturias, Pedro de 171 Atalaya, Rodrigo 295 n. Atejar, Yose de 200 n. Atia, Isaac 17 Atorox, Isaac 232 Atortox, Mose (Moses) 100 n., 238 Avalos, Guiomar de 194–5 Avellaneda, Doña de 257 Avenas, Gabriel de 282 Avenayut, Abraham 202 Aven Bolat, Salamo, see López de Tudela, Antón Avenbueno, Mose 67 n. Avendaño, Isaac 465 Avendaño, Suleiman 465 Avendaut, Ezmel 231 Avendavir, Mosse 233 Avenida, Alonso (Rabbi Ley) 381 Avennuño, Mose 448 Avenosa, Namias 392 Avenruecas, Abraham 247, 248 n. Aven Zemerro, Mose 467 Ávila, Abraham de 433 Ávila, Alonso de 442 Ávila, Antonio de 26 Ávila, Cristóbal de (executor) 465, 466 Ávila, Cristóbal de (prosecutor and receiver of Jewish property) 130, 265 n., 293 n., 307, 348

index of people Ávila, Fernando de 64 n., 355 n. Ávila, Francisco de 73 Ávila, María de 493 n. Ávila, Pedro de 323 Ávila, Rodrigo de (escríbano of Ciudad Rodrigo) 264 n., 266 n., 267 n., 269–70, 271 Ávila, Rodrigo de (in Seville) 368 Ávila, Don Samuel de 433 Ávila, Yose de 200, 326 n., 391 n. Aviñones, Abraham 372 Ayages, Abraham 243 n. Ayala, Diego de (converso) 352 Ayala, Diego de (magistrate) 162 n., 252, 304 Ayala, Diego de (suitor against Nuñez) 303–4 Ayala, Ortuño de 262–3 Ayllon, Juçen 67 n. Ayo, Diego de 308 Azafrán, Alonso 115 Azamel, Judah 101, 203 Azamel, Salamon, see Pérez de Bolea, Fortún Azamel, Yento 202 Azamel, Yumez 174 Azlor, Bartolomé de 100 Aznar Guallart, Juan 202

B

Baço, Mose 283 n. Badajoz, Francisco de 159 n., 161 n., 164 n., 180 n., 182 n., 196 n., 197 n., 246 n., 368 n., 388 n. Baer, Yitzshak 42, 418, 525 Baes, Pero 340 Baeza, Gonzalo de 470 Baeza, Juan de 186 Baeza, Pedro 108 Bahalul, Jacob 251 n. Bal, Pedro de 102 Baladi, Pera 243 n. Balaguer, F. 290 Bali (in Burgos) 161 Balid, Moses 116 Baqrat, Abraham 290 Baqua, Yose 225 n. Baquex family 393 Baqui, Isaac 133 Barahona, Iñigo de 71–2 Barbut (of Sagunto) 240 n.

Barchellon, Meir 295 n. Barchillón, Don David 419 n. Barchillón, Ephraim 433 Barchillón, Meir 433 Barchillón, Solomon (in Trujillo) 423 Barchillón, Don Suleiman (mayordomo in Ciudad Rodrigo) 76 n. Barientos, Fernando de 201 n. Barnaldo de Queros, Alonso 171 n. Barrantes Maldonado, Alonso 287 Barrientos, Francisca de 493 n. Barrionuevo, Alfonso de 435, 437 n., 438, 439, 442 n. Barrionuevo, Juan de 129 n. Barrionuevo, Pedro de 15 Barselay, Symuel 94, 295 n. Basán, Sancho de 466 Bautista, Juan 251 n. Beçerril, Cristóbal 307 n., 347–8 Bechacho, Isaque 73 Béjar, Duke of 359 Belhorado, Mose de 319 Belmonte, Alfonso de 169 Belshom, Esdras 238 Beltrán, Diego 152 Beltrán, Nicolás (smuggler) 314 Beltrán, Nicolás (Don Uiçen (Eçan) Bienveniste) 464, 492 Beltrán de Guzmán, Hernán 64 n., 352, 355 n. Benade (in Peñafiel) 157 Benade, Yose 157 Benamias, Abraham 283 n. Benarraui, Jacob 283 n. Benavante, Diego de 432 n. Benavente, Count of 185, 247 Benavente, Diego de 494, 497 Benavente, Francisco de 488–9 Benavides, Fernando de 471 n. Benavides, Francisco de 187–8 Benavides, Gómez 188 n. Benavides, Juan de 256, 277, 327, 371–2 Benbesat, Abraham 100 n. Bendegat, Açach 100 n. Benditas, Namias 243 n.

index of people Benedict XIII, anti-pope 3, 69, 81, 98 Benevenest, Bonastruc 99 Benítez, Andrés 158 Benítez, Pedro 151 Benito, Juan de 257 Benofilla (Benosilla), Saraiya 243 n., 244 n. Ben Shelomo, Abraham 491 n. Ben Solomon Ardutiel, Abraham 276, 279 n. Benvenist, Bonastruch 238 Benvenist, Samuel 238 Benveniste, Benvenist 243 n. Benveniste, R. 109 Beque, Isaac 254 Berça (Belsa), Pedro 231 n. Berdancha, Miguel 205 Bermejo, Juan 199 Bermejo, Pedro 451 Bernaldes, Pero 395 Bernáldez, Andrés 40 n., 278, 283, 286, 357, 523 Bernaldino (in Mombeltrán) 374 Bernat, Nicolau 228 n. Berruga, Mayr 358–9 Berza, Pero 231 Besudo, Isaac 274 Beteta, Jorge de 9 n., 421 Bicha, Pedro 244 Bienvenida (wife of Levi Ibn Shem-Tob) 422 Bienveniste, Abraham 2–3, 414, 445, 446 n. Bienveniste, Abraham (grandson of above) 414, 443, 445–6 Bienveniste, Don David 180–1 Bienveniste, Don Joseph 414 Bienveniste, Judah 107 n., 350 Bienveniste, Don Meir 299 Bienveniste, Mose 168 Bienveniste, Nesy 317–18 Bienveniste, Samuel 299 Bienveniste, Don Uiçen (Eçan), see Beltrán, Nicolás Bienveniste, Vidal 414, 443 Bienveniste, Don Vidal 446 n. Bienveniste de Calahorra, Abraham 298, 299 Bienveniste de Calahorra, Don Meir 299

Bienveniste de Calahorra, Rabbi 25 n., 387 n. Bilbao, Juan de (in Santo Domingo de la Calzada) 254 Bilbao, Juan de (in Vitoria) 190 Biton, Abraham 205 n. Biton, Solomon 15, 16 n. Biulayugua, Bartolomé 243 n. Bivach, Joseph 203 Blanchetto family 218 Blanco, Juan 395 Blanes, Vidal de 240 n. Bloch, Yose 101 Boabdil, ruler of Granada 30, 31 Bobadilla, Beatriz de, Marchioness of Moya 415 n., 432 n. Bobadilla, Beatriz de (wife of Andrés de Cabrera) 416 n. Bobadilla, Francisco de (commendador of Villarrubia) 172 Bobadilla, Francisco de (regidor of Segovia) 462 Bobadilla, Isabel de 415 n. Bocalán, Alfonso 138 n., 293 n. Boccanegra family 218 Boccanegra (in Gibraltar) 275–6, 374 Bocos, Toribio de 83 Bogia, King of 242 Bohordo, Lázaro 173, 315 n. Bolaño, Juan de 246 n., 392 n., 393 n. Bona, Eladona 243 n., 244 n. Bonafed, Solomon 4 Bonanat, Mose 232 n. Bonet, David 98, 101 Bonifacio (assistant to Abraham Senior) 425 Bonjua, maestre 403 Bordalba, Vicente de 100, 104, 203 Bovilleja, Diego Alonso de 376–7 Bovilleja, Juan Alonso de 376–7 Bracamonte, Alonso de 442 Bracamonte, Diego de 438 n., 442 Brado, Salamon 185

557 Braga, Francisco de 324 Bragança, Duke of 23 Bravaldo, Agustín de 222 n. Bravo, Alfonso 257 Bravo, Fernand (debtor) 271 Bravo, Fernando (of Burgos) 338 Bravo de Mendoza, Juan 476 n. Brazo, Martín del 395 Brihuega, Diego de 169 Brihuega, Fernando de 393 n. Broso, Juan de 204 n. Brun, Martín 205 n. Buduerna, Pedro de 440 Buendia, Antonio de 77 n. Bueno, Aben 186 Bueno, Cid 15 n. Bueno, Juan 444 Bueno, Shem Tob 140 Bugales, Samuel 243 n. Buitrago, Juan de 248 n. Burgalés, Pedro de 189 Burgarello, Guiraldo 221 n. Burgos, Dr Diego de 302 Burgos, Juan de 255 n. Burisa, Jorje de 221 n. Bustamante, García de 105 Bustamante, Lope de 134

C

Caballero, Juan 248 n. Caballero family 248 Cabañas, Francisco 237 Cabeza (Cabeça), Andrés 160 n., 298 n., 299 n. Cabezudo Astrain, J. 38–9 Cabrera, Alonso de 432 n. Cabrera, Don Andrés de 416 Cabrera, Francisco de 156, 157 n. Cabrera, Juan de (Archdeacon of Toledo) 252 Cabrera, Juan de (regidor of Segovia) 482, 483 n. Cabrera, Ponce de 61 n., 316, 483 Cabrero, Johan 109 Cabrón, Pedro 278 Caças, Yuçe 362 Cáceres, Diego de (in Béjar) 74 Cáceres, Diego de (in Talavera) 447 Cáceres, Diego de (of Valladolid) 378–9

558 Cáceres, Isaac de 450 Caçes, Mose 171 n. Cachopo, Isaac 17 Cachopo, Jacob: case of Juan de Talavera 424, 428 exile appeal 20 identity 136 n. interest petition 430 454 segregation issue 10 Cádiz, Marquess de 218 Calahorra, Bienveniste de 159–60, 190 n., 191 Çalama, Abraham (of Dueñas) 137 Çalama, Abraham (of Torrelaguna, maestre Enrique) 319, 381, 386 Çalama, Don Çag 137 Çalama, Salmon 137 Calderón, Álvaro 480 Calderón, Antonio de 64 n., 355 n. Calderón, César 491 Calderón, Gil 88 Calderón, Juan (Abensabad, Ibn Shabat) 251–2, 405 n. Calderón, Rodrigo de 348 Calixtus III, Pope 23 n. Calvo, Carlo 235, 243 Camaño, Moses 73 Cámara, Juan de 376 Camaraz, Juan de 398 n. Camargo, Rodrigo 395 Camazón, García 395 Camazón, Rodrigo 395 Camel, Yento, see Açamel, Yento Campo, Gonzalo del 377 n. Campo, Pedro del 473–4, 491 Campo, Sancho del 451 Campo, Vitores del 451 Cañizares, Aparicio de 394 Cantala, Juçe 236 Cantera Burgos, Francisco 82, 115, 501 Çantorio, Martín 498 n. Capdevilla, Pedro de 104 Capilla, Jaime 230 Capuço, Joseph 241 Carande, Ramón 20 Carassona, Nin de 280 n. Caravaja, Gonzalo de 487 Caravajal, Doña María de 210 n., 364 n., 488 Carcamo, Juan de 420 n.

index of people Cardenas, Alfonso de 5 Cárdenas, Fernando de 31 n. Cárdenas, Gutierre 473 n. Cardenas, Juan de (Abenadavi) 251, 383 n. Cárdenas, Manuel de 31 n. Carigas, Alonso de 354 Carillo, Álvaro de 249 n. Carillo, Leonor 249 n. Carillo, Niffa 244 n. Carlón (Maldonado) 367–8 Carmona, Rodrigo (Alonso, Francisco) de 257, 379 Carmoy, Jaime 100 Carnio, Alonso 220 n. Carnoy, Jaime 204, 230, 231–2 Carnoy, Juan 231 Caro, David Isaac 184 Caro, Isaac, Rabbi 524 Caro, Isaac (of Segovia) 184 n. Caro, Simuel 232 n. Caro, Yuda 177–9 Carreño, Alonso (director of Crown property in Cartagena) 176, 220 n. Carreño, Alonso (receiver of Jewish property in Murcia) 388 Carrich, Abraham 244 n. Carrillo, Alfonso (Abraham Gavizon) 344 Carrillo, Álvaro 345 Carrillo, Astruc 283 n. Carrillo, Gonzalo 477–8 Carrillo, Juçe 236 Carrillo, Rodrigo 344 Carrión, Diego de 175, 467–8, 480 n. Cartagena, Alonso de 82 Caruch, Jaco 100 n. Caruch Trigo, Jaco 238 Casado, Alonso 395 Casasola, Bernaldino de 435, 437, 438, 439, 442 Castañeda, Rodrigo de 136, 146 n. Castano, Yose 171 Castel, Jacob 222 n., 241 Castelli, Solomon 241 Castilla, Alonso de (tax subcontractor) 451 Castilla, Don Juan de 246 n., 380 n. Castillo, Alonso del (prosecutor for Jewish property) 107 n., 128,

162, 153–4, 308, 310, 311, 397 n. Castillo, Álvaro del 180 n. Castillo, Diego del 90 Castillo, Dr del (magistrate of Plasencia) 513 Castillo, Fernando del 147–8 Castillo, Don Juan de (Dean of Seville) 211 n. Castillo, Juan del (of Segovia) 194 Castillo, Juan Alonso del (escríbano) 106 n., 140 n., 155 n., 174 n., 341 n., 375 n., 376 n., 377 n., 390 n. Castillo, Luis del, see Pérez del Castillo, Luis Castillo, Don Pedro del (corregidor): activities 527 Council of the Kingdom 222 n. Crown debt orders 199, 222 n. Crown tax-collection order 472 property return issues 344 synagogue sale 92 Castillo, Pedro del (magistrate) 480 Castrenon, Isaac, see Sánchez, Juan Castrenon, Jacob, see Martín, Alonso Castrillo, Mose de 146 Castro, Antonio de 68 Castro, Benito de 88 Castro, Dionisio de 203 Castro, Gonzalo de 185 Castro, Juan de 188 n. Castro, Yose 16 n. Castro de Espanache, Alfonso de 296 n., 317–18 Castroverde, Velasco de 8 Catalán, Yose 424, 426 Catan, Joan 240 n. Catherine, Queen of Navarre 282, 284 n. Catherine of Lancaster, Queen Regent of Castile 1 Cattaneo, Francesco 31 Cavaller, Solomon (Salamo) 205, 222 n., 241 Cavero, Pedro 230 Cediel, Fernando 392–3

index of people Cedosillo, Mose 202 Ceinos, Fernando de 148 n. Ceinos, Sancho de 85 n. Çenha, Doña 307 n., 348 n. Cenisero, Juan de 308 Cepeda, Pedro de 127 Cereceda, Juan de 83 Çerfati, Abraham 505 Çerulla, Samuel 25 n. Chacón, Arnate 256, 315–16 Chacón, Gonzalo 417 Chamiço, Vasco 358 Chamigo, Vasco, see Cohen, Mose Chamorro, Alfonso 16 n. Chano, Carlos de 466 Chapel, Abraham 67 n. Chapinero, Judah 185, 247 Chapinero, Yose 185, 247 Chaqon, Açach 245 Chávez, Diego de 376 Chávez, Juan de 376 Chávez, Luis de 295 Chávez, María de 376 Charles V, Emperor 71, 286, 496 Charles VIII, King of France 279 n. Chico, David 200 Chiquito, Juan 256, 315 Çidbuena (of Ávila) 193 n. Cifuentes, Antonio de 319 Cifuentes, Count de, see Silva, Juan de Çinha, Doña (of Medina del Campo) 433 Çinha, Doña (sister of Diego Arias) 414 n. Cisneros, Fernando de: documents drafted by 61 n., 74 n., 77 n., 79 n., 93 n., 135 n., 137 n., 138 n., 142 n., 146 n., 153 n., 157 n., 163 n., 164 n., 167 n., 168 n., 185 n., 186 n., 188 n., 194 n., 196 n., 213 n., 215 n., 216 n., 247 n., 316 n., 318 n., 341 n., 358 n. investigation at Guadalajara 63 Clara, Doña (in Ávila) 438 Clara, Doña (mother of Pedro de Madrid) 343 Clara, Doña (sister of Abraham Senior) 439

Clemente, Felipe 62 n., 107 n., 301 n., 319 n., 362 n. Coalla, licenciado de 467, 472, 490 Coelio, Ephraim 185 Cogolludo, Fernando de 393 Cohen, Abraham (of Murcia) 201 Cohen, Abraham (residence unknown) 211 Cohen, Abraham (of Trujillo) 295 Cohen, Aljahor 235 Cohen, Ça 246–7 Cohen, David 79 n., 346 Cohen, Isaac, see Núñez de Mendoza, Álvaro Cohen, Meir 486 Cohen, Mose (of Aranda de Duero) 243 n. Cohen, Mose (in Toledo) 67 n. Cohen, Mose (Vasco Chamigo) 358 n., 363, 487 Cohen, Samuel (of Murcia) 221 Cohen, Samuel (tax-collector) 184 n. Cohen, Solomon 187 n. Cohen, Yento 241 Cohen family (in Trujillo) 433–4, 455, 463–4 Cola, Andrés de 347 Coll, Miguel 100, 238 Colmenar, Ambrosio del 373 Colmenar, Pedro del 373 Colmenares, Alonso de 304 Colom, Tomás 243 n., 244 Coloma, Juan de: career 38 n. conversion guarantee 245 n. Edict of Expulsion 34, 36–7, 38–9, 54 Edict of Expulsion from Sardinia 39 n., 280 Granada edict 31 n. influence on conversions 237 instructions on registry of Jewish property 229 n. letters from Ferdinand 44–5 orders drafted by 182 n., 258 n., 281 n., 364 n., 365 n., 366 n., 368 n., 369 n. royal secretary 34, 83 n.

559 Columbus, Cristóbal 526 Cominete, Judah 375 Comineto, Abraham 471 Comineto, Yose, see Fernández, Antonio Comir, Pedro 205 n. Conde y Delgado Molina, R. 36 Conejo, Salomon 235 n. Conernejo, Diego 176 n. Constantin, Solomon 103 Constantos, Bonafos 283 n. Contador, Rodrigo 451 Coral, Juan del 216 Coral family 248 Corcos, Abraham 305 Corcos, Yuda 305 Córdoba, Antonio de 105 Córdoba, Diego de 256 Córdoba, Gonzalo de 420 n. Çorita, Pedro 249 n. Cornejo, Antonio de: activities 527–8 Crown debt order 198 Crown property return orders 358–9, 360, 373 robbery investigation 255 Cornejo, Martín 495–6 Cornixa, Aben 379 n. Coronel, Beatriz 500 Coronel, Cristóbal 499 Coronel, Francisca 499–500 Coronel, Luis 472, 496 Cort Namias, Samuel de 283 n. Coruña, Count of, see Suárez de Mendoza Costa, Álvaro de 301 Cotes, García de: Burgos protection order 212 debt inquiries 124 n., 127, 128 n., 161, 184 n., 189 n., 200, 359 n., 464 n. property evaluation 213 n. smuggling investigations 309, 310 Trujillo debt inquiry 464 Villa del rio Pisuerga debt inquiry 199 Coutinho de Borba, Vasco de 276 Covarrubias, Fernando de 81–2 Covarrubias, Gonzalo de 64, 355 n.

560 Coveña, Juan 173 Creçiente, Elvira 352 Creçiente, Yuda 352 Cresçent (in Burgos) 161 Cresçiente, Huda 77 n. Cuba, Pedro de 211 Cuéllar, Alonso de 340, 341 Cuéllar, Gonzalo de 437 Cuéllar, Luis de 472 Cuéllar, Don Mose de 289 n. Cuéllar, Mose de 248 n. Cuéllar family 248 Cuello, Martín 320 Cuenca, Diego de 246 n. Cuenca, Pedro de 79 n., 246 n., 247 n. Cuero, Sancho del, see Ruiz del Cuero, Sancho Cuevas, Antonio de 162, 390 n. Çulema, David 422 Çulema, Yose 422 Curi, Juçe 232 n. Çurujano, Jacob 332 n.

D

Daça, Solomon 15 n. Dalmati, Benahe 241 Dasa, Rodrigo 323 Davalos, Alonso 92 Davalos, Fernando 92 Dávalos, Francisco 343 David (in Peñafiel) 157 David (in Sigüenza) 175 Dávila, Gómez 378 Dávila de Villanueva, Cristóbal 302 Daza, Abraham, see Enríquez, Juan Daza, Juan 184 Delgadillo, Bernaldino 192 Delgado, Fernán 459 Delmati, Menahem 222 n. Deza, Juan de 476 Diablo, Luis del 211 n. Días de la Vicuña, Pero 190 Díaz, Alonso 374 Díaz, Beatriz 308, 312 Díaz, Elvira 375 Díaz, Fernando 348 Díaz, Francisco 307 n., 348 n. Díaz, Inés 385–6 Díaz, Juan (of Badajoz) 365 Díaz, Juan (of Puente del Arzobispo) 369

index of people Díaz, Juan (of Valle de Toranzo) 176 Díaz, Lope 348 Díaz, Lorenzo 308, 312 Díaz, María 395 n. Díaz, Marina 458 Díaz, Pero 388 Díaz, Rodrigo 348–9 Díaz, Sancho 307 n., 348 n. Díaz de Acuña, Alonso 275–6, 374 Díaz de Alcocer, Juan 296 n., 479 Díaz de la Torre, Pero (Pedro): commissioner for Jewish property 317–18 smuggling investigation 296, 304 tax adjudications 459, 479, 480 n., 481 Trujillo dispute 433 Díaz del Castillo, Fernando 255 Díaz de Pastrana, Alonso 319 Díaz de Puebla, Diego 469 Díaz de Ríos, Antón 381 Díaz de San Miguel, Rodrigo 176 n. Díaz de Uriondo, Pedro 96 Díaz family (in Medina del Campo) 492–3 Díaz Laínez, Ruy 151 n. Diego, Mose 185 Diego (physician in Coruña) 398 n. Diego (silversmith in Segovia) 16 n. Domingo, Juan 98 Dominguez, Diego 471 n. Dominguez, Juan 471 n. Dominguez Barrueco, García 130 Dominguez de Rodillana, Alonso 129 n. Donado, Cristóbal 361 Donantes, Don Suleiman 15 n. Donatis, Baru de 505 Dorador, Beltrán 369 Dorman, Menachem 502 Dosay, Juan 39 n., 40 n. Duart, Juan 239 Duarte, Juan 466 Dueñas, Rodrigo de (of Medina del Campo) 484

Dueñas, Rodrigo de (of Mombeltrán) 256, 276, 312 n., 371 n., 372–3 Duran, Joseph 241 Duran, Solomon 241 Durango, Martín 458 Durán Gudiol, A. 290 Dusay, Iuan 280

E

Egas, Antón 115 Egas, Enrique 115 Egas, Rodrigo 448–9 Eimeric, Jordi Miquel 225 n. Ejea, Juan de 228 n. El Antón, Juan 176 n. Elazar, Rabi 243 n., 244 n. Encinas, Fernando de 125 Enciso (Encisco) (magistrate) 297–8, 368 n. Enrique, Don (comendador) 294 Enrique, Don, Infante of Aragon 225 n. Enrique II, King of Castile 67–8 Enrique III, King of Castile 120, 121 Enrique IV, King of Castile: appointments 264 n., 301, 416 Cortes of Toledo 120 court 417 death 4 heir 301 physician 4 n., 329 reign 1, 2, 3, 89, 414 sister’s exile 19 wars 23 n. Enrique, maestre (physician of Medina del Campo) 347 Enrique, maestre (of Torrelaguna), see Çalama, Abraham Enrique, viceroy of Aragon 35, 36, 37 Enríquez, Don Alonso (almirante) 422 n. Enríquez, Alonso (corregidor of Badajoz) 199–200, 326, 365 n., 391 Enríquez, Don Juan 294 Enríquez, Juan (Abraham Daza) 151 n. Ephraim (in Burgos) 161 Ephraim (in Extremadura) 185

index of people Erembito, Clies 243 n. Escalante, bachiller de 174 Escalona, Duke of, see López Pacheco, Diego Escóbar, Andrés de 160, 190 Escudero, Alonso 251 n. Esdra, Arabi 244 n. España, Alonso de 418 Español, Bartolomé 234 Espés, Ramón de 230 Espina, Alonso de 3, 7, 19, 23 n., 28 n., 429 Espindola, Angelina d’ 402–3 Espinosa, Pedro de 301 Esrillo, Haym 67 n. Esrillo, Solomon 67 n. Estallo, Simuel 232 n. Estella, Menahem de 345 Estrada, Vicente 238 Estudilio, Gómez de 491 Exea, Martín d’ 283 n. Exuen, Samuel 100, 231 Ezdra, Mahi 243 n. Ezi, Solomon 235

F

Fabara, Juan de 234 Fadueña, Doña (wife of Mose Najera) 157 n., 187 n. Fahardas, Osua 243 n. Fajardo, Doña Yseo 221 Fajardo family 221 n. Falco, Francesc 99 Falcón, Gómez 339 Falcón, Graviel 339 Falcón, Jaco 339 Falcon, Shem Tob 101, 203 Farache, Mose 137 Farache, Solomon 171 Farache, Don Symuel 137 Farache, Yuçe 137 Farag, Yento 100 n. Faraig, Abraham 205 n. Faraig, Nathan 240 n. Farides, Beatriz de 355 n. Fema, Samaya 244 n. Ferdinand I (of Antequera), King of Aragon 1, 3, 99 Ferdinand of Aragon, King of Spain: accession to throne of Castile 4 Christians’ debts to Jews 201, 205

compared to Sennacherib 520 decrees on return and conversion 329–31, 332–3 Edict of Expulsion (1492) 32, 33, 38, 43–5, 207–8, 520–1 expansion policy 242 Granada entry 29–30 implementation of Edict 223–5 Inquisition policy 18, 19, 22, 223 investigation into expulsion conduct 227–8 Jewish policy 1, 4 marriage 1, 19 Muslim policy 1 Navarre policy 283 order to León 369 orders registration of Jewish property 36 ransom money 24 recognition by Pope 22 Senior relationship 461, 472, 512 in Seville 7 smuggling policy 292 title 39–40 n., 526 views on expulsion 43–5 Zaragoza grant 104 n. Fermosa, García de 266 n., 267, 268 n. Fernández, Alonso (of Madrid) 440 Fernández, Alonso (of Malpartida) 487 n. Fernández, Antonio (Yose Comineto) 471 Fernández, Diego (cobbler of Monroy) 393 Fernández, Diego (in Corral de Almaguer) 399 Fernández, Gabriel 353 Fernández, Garci 15 Fernández, García 146 n. Fernández, Gonzalo 80 Fernández, Juan (in Plasencia) 362–3 Fernández, Juan (in San Bartolomé de los Piñares) 178 n. Fernández, Juan (witness) 504 n. Fernández, Martín 162 n.

561 Fernández, Pasqual 178 n. Fernández, Velasco de 394 Fernández Alegre, Juan 300, 336–7 Fernández Coronel, Francisco 497 Fernández Coronel, Pedro 414 n. Fernández de Amusco, Juana 184 n. Fernández de Campavillo, Pero 381 Fernández de Carrión, Sancho 77 n. Fernández de Eredia, Juan 103 Fernández de Heredia, Juan 202 Fernández de la Pacheca, Juan 482 Fernández del Castillo, Gonzalo 143 n., 211, 364–5 Fernández de Madrid, Alonso 440 n. Fernández de Madrid, Pedro 201 n. Fernández de Mancilla, Miguel 88 Fernández de Morales, Antón 160, 299 n., 387 n. Fernández de Paredes, Francisco 179 n. Fernández de Peñalosa, Nuño 424 n., 425 Fernández de Rincón, Pedro 451 n. Fernández de Soga, Gutierre 176 n. Fernández de Toledo, Gonzalo 317 n. Fernández de Torremocha, Benito 381 Fernández de Torro, Pedro 255 n. Fernández de Velasco, Bernardino, Duke of Frías 56 n., 197 Fernández de Velasco, Pedro, Count of Haro 21, 26 n., 298 n., 430, 455 n. Fernández de Villalpando, Álvar 429, 430 Fernández Gallego, Gonzalo (alcalde of royal court) 197

562 Fernández Gallego, Gonzalo (licenciado): appeals court 123, 160 n., 163 n., 175 n., 176 n., 178 n., 198 n., 209, 220 n., 257 n., 297, 314 n., 348 n., 363 n., 389 n. Benavente case 489 house 400 n. implementation of Edict 216 n. return issues 390 n., 401 n. smuggling investigation 293, 296 n., 299, 305 n., 306, 313 n., 317, 318, 324 n., 325 n., 326, 327 smuggling trial 308 Fernández Heredia, Juan 245 Fernando II, King of León 95 Fernando, licenciado 444 n. Fernando, maestre 367 Fernando (el tuerto) 324 Fernéz de Madrid, Pero 391 n. Ferrante I, King of Naples 281 n. Ferrer, Miguel 15 Ferrer, Vincent: city of Valencia 102 influence 1, 3, 12, 429 Jewish policy 12, 69, 429 Toledo church 91 Ferrero, Diego 347 Ferrizu, Joan (León, Mose de) 283 n. Ferrizuel, Joseph 259 Fichel, Juçe 101 Figueroa, Juan de 448, 495, 506 Flamenque, García 171 Flores, Diego de 271 Flores, Juan 303 n. Flórez, Diego 156 n. Flórez, Juan (in Laguardia) 211 Fonseca, Antonio de 362, 511, 518 Fonseca, Juan de 277–8 Fonseca, Rodrigo de 502 Fostero, Martín 205 n. Fragoso (pirate) 278 Francés, Jacob 485 Francés, Juan 237 Francés, Miguel 237 Francés, Pedro 237 Francés, Samuel 485

index of people Franch, Lauda (Jaime) 243 n. Franchis, Leonardo de 218 Francho, Ahin 243 n. Francis, Ephraim (father of Pedro de Pastrana) 399 n. Francis, Ephraim (of Huete) 249–50 Francis, Pedro 236 Francis, Samuel 249 Francisca (wife of Juan del Castillo) 386–7 Franciscis, Girolamo de 221 Franciscis, Sebastiano de 218, 221 Franco, Alonso 182 Franco, Fernando 182 Franco, Samuel (of Frómista) 274 Franco, Samuel (in Zaragoza) 102 Franco, Solomon 200 n. Franco, Yose 432 Francolin, Juan 343 Fránquez, Juan 344 Franquis, Bernat de 222 n., 241 Fresno, Francisco del, see González del Fresno Frevant, Jerónimo 31 Frías, Duke of 197 Frías, Pedro de (hosier) 353, 355 n. Frías, Pedro de (vicario) 386 Frías, Sancho de 344, 345, 528 Fuente, Alonso de 482 n. Fuentes, Juan de 420 Funes, Gonzalo de 338 Furillo, Mose 243 Furtado, Antonio 300

G Gabizon, Abraham, see La Vega, Fernán de Galanis, Alfonso 379 n. Galarza, Juan de 16 n. Galdino (agent) 484 Galfon, Abraham, see Suárez, Fernando Galfon (Galhon), Isaac 90 n., 192, 193–4 n. Galfon, Jacob, see Suárez de la Concha, Pero Galfon, Levi, see Suárez, Cristóbal

Galfon family 312–14, 338 Galhon, Yose 192 n. Gallat, Açay 100 n. Gallego, Diego 355 Gallego, Gonzalo 266 n. Gallego (magistrate) 247 n. Gallur, Amram 229 n. Galon, Jacob 172 Gamara, Cristóbal de 467 Ganton, Isaac 75 Gaon, Jacob 298 n. Gaon, Samuel Benjamin 116 n. Gaona, de (son of creditor) 186 Garces, Juan 338 García, Alonso (of Badajoz) 364–5 García, Alonso (of Segovia) 478 García, Álvar 398 García, Alvira 355 n. García, Antón 178 n. García, Bartolomé 324 García, Diego (father of Juana) 351 García, Diego (of La Fuente) 274–5, 380–1 García, Fernán 440 García, Francisco 353, 355 n. García, Isabel 355 n. García, Juan (cobbler) 178 n. García, Juan (escríbano) 150 García, Juan (of Guadalajara) 355 n. García, Juan (el mozo) 173 García, Juan (of Torrelobatón) 367–8 García, Juana (widow of Juan Muñoz) 173 García, Juana (wife of Alonso de Medina) 17 n., 248 n., 343, 350–1 García, Juana (wife of Juan García Burujón) 59 n. García, María (of Colmenar) 382–3 García, María (of La Almunia) 236 n. García, Martín (of Brihuega) 169 García, Martín (brother of Pedro Núñez de Santa Fe) 397 García, Martín (convert and priest) 403

index of people García, Martín (el Ronquillo) 398 n. García, Martín (in San Bartolomé de los Piñares) 178 n. García, Martín (son of Astruc Aninay) 227 n. García, Miguel 396 García, Pablo 237 García, Pedro 386 García Burujón, Juan 59 n. García de Benavante, Juan 136 García de Castro, Dr (oidor) 68 García de Colmenar, Alonso 373 García de Cota, Antonio 478 García de Cotes, Pedro 298–9, 528–30 García de Janusilla, Juan 162 García de la Fara, Martín 178 n. García de la Torre, Francisco 16 n. García del Maeda, Juan 444 García del Mercado, Diego 247 García de Nos, Pero 178 n. García de Villalpando, Antonio 33 n., 132–3 García el Blanco, Alonso 355 n. García González, Manuel 30 n. García González (widow of Miranda) 389–90 García Gumiel, Pero 396 García Hurtado, Juan 146 n. García Torillo, Pedro 355 n. Garçon, Hayn 74 Garido, Juan 353 Garrixo, Joan de 116 Garson, Abraham 257 Garson, Alonso 485–6 Garson, Joseph 32 n., 274 Garzón, Joseph 519 n. Garzón, Juan 451 Gastón, Mose, see La Torre, Francisco de Gaveso (Gaueso), Meir 249 n., 345 Gavizon, Abraham, see Carrillo, Alfonso Gemila, Doña 343 Gemila (daughter of Jacob Galfon) 332 n.

Gemila (sister of Meir Melamed) 192 n. Gentile, Francesco 218 Gil, Pero 195 Gil Mogollón, Hernán 395 Ginillo family 218 Gito, Yento 100 n. Glera, Jaime de 231 Godoy, Juan de 506 n. Góis, Damião de 287 Golluf, Elazar 218 Golluf family 240 n. Golonón, Don Solomon 476 n. Gomara, Gómez 420 n. Gomes, Pero 276 Gómez, Alfonso 230, 231, 232 n. Gómez, Alonso (of Losar) 360 Gómez, Alonso (of San Martín) 385 Gómez, Alvaro 344 Gómez, Beatriz 339 Gómez, Benito 166–7 Gómez, Diego 480 n. Gómez, Fernán (smuggling investigator) 293, 300, 311 Gómez, Fernán (Ysaque Arrouas) 384–5 Gómez, Fernando (son of Benito) 166 n. Gómez, Francisco 360 Gómez, Gabriel 366 Gómez, Juan (husband of Mari) 344 Gómez, Juan (in Villar) 357 Gómez, Lucrecia 344 Gómez, Martín (of Frómista) 176 Gómez, Martín (of Losar) 360 Gómez, Nicolas 257 n., 324 n. Gómez, Pedro 282 Gómez, Pero (David Taçarte) 315 Gómez, Pero (of Mora) 506 n. Gómez, Ruy 480 n. Gomez Botycaris, Fernand 67 n. Gómez de Agreda, Fernando 427–8 Gómez de Artiaga, Pero 339 Gómez de Ávila, Francisco 493 n. Gómez de Ayala, Ruy 169 Gómez de Benavante, Alvar 467

563 Gómez de Benavante, Diego 494 Gómez de Eseja, Fernán 474 Gómez de Isola, Ruy 169 n. Gómez de la Cueva, Fernán 160, 298 n., 299, 309, 387 n. Gómez de la Fuente, Juan 360 Gómez de la Torre, Juan 373–4 Gómez del Castillo, Diego 189 n., 321–2 Gómez de Santa Fe, Francisco 363 Gómez de Santa Fe, Juan 363 Gómez de Santa Fe, Pedro 363 Gómez de Setúbal, Pero (corregidor of Murcia) 197, 211 n., 222, 388, 530 Gómez de Setúbal, Pero (corregidor of Palencia) 141 Gómez de Sevilla, Lázaro 61 Gómez de Solis, Fernán 200, 295 n., 326 n., 391 n. Gómez de Toledo, Diego (Samuel Abulafia) 25 n., 344 Gómez de Torrijos, Gutierre 468–9 Gómez Sarmiento, Diego, Count of Salinas 83 Gona, Juda 243 n. González, Alonso (in Villadiezma) 141, 142 n. González, Alonso (weaver) 324 González, Bárbara 370 González, Beatriz (sister of Diego de la Frecha) 367 González, Beatriz (widow of Ysaque Abenate) 375 González, Beatriz (wife of Abraham Lumbroso) 193 n. González, Catalina 72 n. González, Diego (of Miranda de Castañar) 258 González, Diego (priest in Bembibre) 74 González, Diego (secretary of Cardinal) 259 González, Elvira (widow of Yuçe Caças) 362

564 González, Elvira (wife of Diego Arias Dávila) 88 n., 415 n., 476 n. González, Fernando 248 n. González, Francisco 374 González, Gaspar 266 n. González, Gimon 367 González, Gracia 258 González, Luis (Abraham Adaroque, procurador) 248 González, Luis (of Borja) 237 González, Luis (royal secretary) 97 n., 168 n., 242 n. González, Luis (of Zafra) 390 González, Martín 475 González, Nuño (of Miranda de Castañar) 389 González, Nuño (of Torre) 395 González, Pedro (of Ávila) 72 n. González, Pero (of Colmenar) 383 González, Pero (the younger) 372–3 González, Ruy (of Plasencia) 363, 364 n. González, Ruy (of Puebla de Montalbán) 383 González Castejón, Juan (or García) 174 González Cortesero, Alvar 141 n., 154 n. González de Cuenca, Diego 416 González de Curiel, Alfonso 163 González de Grijalda, García 478 González de Guadalajara, Diego 504 n. González de Illescas, Gonzalo: Council of the North and Ports 129 n., 130 n., 133 n., 148, 158 n., 164 n., 170 n., 172 n., 185 n., 186 n., 188 n., 189 n., 190 n., 191 n. debt issues 129 n., 132 n., 141 n., 142 n., 144 n., 145 n., 147, 153 n., 167 n. farming contract adjudication 491

index of people implementation of Edict 213 n. Royal Council 85 n., 134 n., 135 n., 141 n., 491 smuggling investigation 299 tax-farming adjudication 494 González de la Fuente, Pedro 157 González de la Plazuela, Sancho 62–3, 107 n., 168 González de la Puebla, Ruy 17 n., 427 n., 429 González de la Reina, Juan 313 González de León, Pedro 438 n., 439 González del Fresno, Francisco 72, 179 n. González del León, Pedro 434 n., 437 n. González del Lomo, Alonso 177 González de Madrid, Diego 440 González de Madrid, Pero 456 González de Mendoza, Pedro, abbot of San Bernardos 503 González de Mendoza, Pedro, Cardinal: Abravanel relationship 23, 502, 507 income 507 petition for returnee 341–2 property 90 secretary 259 Senior’s baptism 413 n., 461 synagogue grants 87, 90 synagogue issues 92 González de Mesón, Juan 483 González de Mirabel, Pero 486 González de Miranda, Pero 83 González de Molina, Francisco (licenciado) 425, 426 González de Monzón, Fernando 477 González de Palencia, Dr Fernán 141, 144 González de Peral, Juan 248 n. González de Sepúlveda, Luis: contino 81 n. debt cases 119, 507, 508

implementation of Edict 262–5, 271 Malamed–Guillén case 81 n., 119 n., 264 n., 480 smuggling investigations 301, 325 synagogue cases 81, 93 n. González de Turégano, Nuño 424 n., 425 González Gallego, Isidor 289 González Rosquido, Gómez 482 n. González Ruano, Pero 179 Gonzalo, licenciado 33 n., 247 n. Gordillo (mason) 260 Gordún, Sancho de 231 Gormesano, Abraham, see Martínez, Pero Gotyna, Soli 283 n. Grado, Fernando de 468 Gran de Terrades, Pere 99 Granell, Jaime 227 n. Grellón, Juan 220 n. Grillo, Juan 221 n. Grimalde (Genoese shipowner) 240 n. Grimaldi, Agustín de 222 n. Grizio (Gricio, Grisio), Gaspar de 38 n., 189 n., 321 n., 322 n., 334 n., 405 n. Guadalajara, Jerónimo de 354 Guadalajara, Pedro 352 Guadalupe, Dr de 194 n. Gualda, Juan de 257 Gucina, Luis de 175–6 Guerrero, Isaac (son of Abraham) 421 Guerrero, Isaac (son of Simon) 421 Guevara, Juan de 188 n. Guibera, Don Carlos de 221 Guillén, Gómez 81 n., 119 n., 264 n., 296 n., 459, 480 Gundisalves, licenciado 135 n. Gurrea y Gil de Palomar, Don Martín de: implementation of Edict 225–6, 231, 233–4, 237, 253 loan to Huesca community 204, 230 Gutiérrez, Alonso (assistant to prosecutor) 304 Gutiérrez, Alonso (escort) 303

index of people Gutiérrez, Alonso (in Toledo) 67 n. Gutiérrez, Alonso (treasurer) 209 Gutiérrez, Fernán 358 Guttiérez, Fernand 391 Gutiérrez, Fernando 440 Gutiérrez, García 112–13 Gutiérrez, Juan (Don Meir) 322 Gutiérrez, Juan (valuer) 441 Gutiérrez, Martín 301–3 Gutiérrez, Pedro (alcaide) 440 n. Gutiérrez, Pedro (of Plasencia) 198 Gutiérrez de Escalante, Ruy 309 Gutiérrez de la Caballeria, Alonso 181 n. Gutiérrez de Madrid, Alonso 181 n., 474 Gutiérrez de Toledo, Juan 440, 441 Gutiérrez de Valdelomar, Gonzalo 141 n., 144 Gutiérrez Manuel, Diego 146 n. Gutiérrez Tello, Juan 139 n. Gutina, Açachi 202 Guzmán, Diego de 294 Guzmán, Enrique de, Duke of Medina Sidonia 218, 274, 380 Guzmán, Inés de 196 n. Guzmán, Don Luis de 81

H

Habrullo, Samuel 243 n. Hadida, Yuçe 245 Halcón, Yose 174–5 Halevi, Judah 259 Halevi, Samuel 91, 92 Halevy Bakarat, Solomon 329 Hamon, Joseph 32 n. Hamon, Moses 32 Harache, Don Meir 199 Harache, Santo 247 n. Harache, Yom Tob 190 Harache, Yose 199 Harache, Yuçe 137 Haro, Andrés de 448 Haro, Count of, see Fernández de Velasco, Pedro Haro, Diego de 502 Haro, Juan de 502

Haro, Rodrigo de 502 Hayat, Judah 278–9, 522 Hayete, Abraham 67 n. Hayun, Abraham 281 Henares, Francisco de 438 n. Heredia, Beatríz de 88 n. Herida, Andrés de 163 n. Hermosa, Luis de 355 n. Hernández, Fernán 466 Hernández, Miguel 324 Hernández Coronel, Francisco 457 n., 462, 471, 472, 474 Herrador, Antonio 251 n. Herrera, Andrés de (escríbano) 220 n., 347 n., 348 n., 363 n. Herrera, Andrés de (resident of Herrera) 489 n. Herrera, Antón de 379 Herrera, Antonio de 146 Herrera, de (in Valencia de Alcántara) 323 Herrera, Francisco de 361 Herrera, García de 299, 309 Herrera, Juan de 266 n., 271 n. Herrera, Juan Alonso de 489 n. Herrero, Antón 193–4 n. Hiniesta, Gonzalo de 434, 437, 438 n., 439 Hinojosa, Álvaro de 295 Hita, Pedro de 259 Hojeda, Alonso de 7 Homedes de Heredia, Álvaro de 237 Horcanos (moneychanger) 348, 492 Horozco, Pedro 375 Hortis de Çarate, Juan 421 n. Hortuno, Juan 169 n. Hospital, Bernardino del 234 Huesque, Samuel 482–3 Hurtado, Diego (Mose Alfandari) 248, 355 n. Hurtado, Diego (Ysaque Varquete) 77 n. Hurtado de Mendoza, Don Diego 75, 248 n., 419 n. Hurtado de Mendoza, Honorato (Onorato): debt issues 138, 139 n. implementation of Edict 211 Jewish property issues 88 n. returnee issues 349 Husiel, Yose 157 n.

565 I

Ibáñez, Gonzalo 106 Ibn Alfahar, David 511 Ibn Aroio, Meir 350 n. Ibn Cabra, Don Yose, see La Cabra, Martín de Ibn David, Don Isaac 169 Ibn Farax, Isaac, see Osorio, Pedro Ibn Farax, Yuçe 262 n. Ibn Habib, Jacob 274 Ibn Meir, Don Isaiah Sayas 249, 345 Ibn Meir, Don Joseph (Yose) 249, 345 Ibn Nahmias, Don Mose 246 Ibn Nuñez, Jacob 4, 25 n. Ibn Salama, Sasson 248 Ibn Santo, Shem Tob 468 Ibn Sasson, Samuel 180 n. Ibn Shem-Tob, Levi 422–3 Ibn Shem Tob, Mose 415 n. Ibn Shemtov, Yose 443 n. Ibn Shoshan, Yuçe 293 n. Ibn Simon, Judah 507 Ibn Verga, Solomon 207 n., 279, 502 n., 524–5 Ibn Yehiah ben Don Shlomo, David 273 n. Ibn Yuñez, Abraham 254 Ibn Yuñez, Jacob 254 Ibn Yuxen, Yuçe 138 n. Ibn Zadok 172 Ibn Zemero 451 Ibn Zemerro, Mose 468 Ibn Zemeru, Isaac 143 Illescas, Alonso de 489 n. Illescas, Francisco de 421 n. Illescas, Juan de 276, 277 n., 481 Infantado, Duke of, see López de Mendoza, Don Iñigo Inglés, Santiago 176 Innocent VIII, Pope 24 n. Isaac, Levi 99 Isabel (wife of Diego in Segovia) 16 n. Isabel (wife of Francisco López) 394 n. Isabella, Queen of Portugal 43, 334, 337, 471 n. Isabella of Castile, Queen of Spain: accession 4 decrees on return and conversion 329–31, 332–3

566 Isabella of Castile (cont.): decree on sale of communal property 57–8 Edict of Expulsion (1492) 32, 33, 38, 43, 207–8, 521 Granada entry 29–30 Jewish policy 1, 4, 22 marriage 1, 19 Muslim policy 1 ransom money 24 recognition by Pope 22 Segovia exile 19 Senior relationship 416, 461 in Seville 7 smuggling policy 292 title 39–40 n., 526 Toledo edict (1492) 110 Torquemada’s memorandum to 28–9 views on Inquisition 43 Isaque, Izaque 196–9 Israel, Gabriel 24, 379 Italiano, Pantaleon 498 n.

J Jaco, Don (of Aldeanueva del Camino) 196 Jacob (physician) 329 Jacob (of Villalón) 184 Jaçoci, Mosse 229 n. Jaime, Antón 238 Jaime (physician of Tauste) 233 Jarada, Pedro 467 Jaso, Juan 98 Javali, Mose 423 Jayat family 157 n. Jean d’Albret, King of Navarre 282, 284 n. Jen, Fernando 346 Jen, Mose 346 Jerez, Diego de 114 Jerez, Francisco de 294 Jerez, Rodrigo de 384 Jiménes de Urrea, Lope, Count of Aranda 43–5 Jiménez Coronel, Lope 492 Jiménez de Cisneros, Francisco 502 n., 509 n. Jiménez de Vera, María 230 n. Joan, Antonio 241–2 João II, King of Portugal 23, 272, 273, 501 Johanes, Dr 380 n. Juan II, King of Aragon 1, 5, 34

index of people Juan I, King of Castile 67 Juan II, King of Castile 1, 2, 3, 89 Juan, Crown Prince: accountant 481 death 398 implementation of Edict 255 n. secretary 197–8, 297, 314, 325–6 Juana, Doña, wife of Enrique II 67 Juana la Beltraneja 4, 7 n., 9, 122, 301 Juçen, Rabbi 234 Judah (in Almanza) 190, 247 Judah, Barbut 205 Júlia, Sibilla 99 Justiniano, Pedro Juan 221 n.

L

Labadía, Pedro 204 n. La Barrera, Rodrigo de 323 n., 366 Labastida, Juan de 62, 77, 107, 113–14 La Bastide, Pedro de 301 La Caballería, Alfonso de 102, 208, 225 n., 273 n. La Caballeria, Bensilay de 420 La Caballería, Fernando de 102 La Caballería, Jaime de: Hermandad magistrate 103 implementation of Edict 228, 234, 245 Jewish property issues 103, 202, 236 n. payments for escorts 226 n. La Caballeria, Meir de 420 La Cabra, Martín de (Don Yose ibn Cabra) 69 n. La Calle, Alonso de 168 La Cámara, Fernández de 317 La Carra, Juan Enrique de 283 n. Lacave, J. L. 75 La Coelio, Haim de 185 La Corsa, Rodrigo de 444 La Cruz, Alonso de 148 La Cruz, Fernando de 373 La Cruz, Pedro de 16 n., 148–9, 315 n. La Cueva, Enrique de 349 La Cueva, Pedro de 428 n. Ladero Quesada, M. A. 24–5

La Frecha, Diego de 367 La Fuente, Aparicio 451 n. La Fuente, Juan de 374 La Fuente, licenciado de 444 n. La Fuente, Yuçe de, see Álvarez de la Peña, Per Lagem, Abraam 205 La Guarra, Pedro de 209, 475 La Hija, family de 248 La Hoz, Juan de 148 n. La Hoz de Almuña, Juan de 483, 487 Laínez, Francisco 271 Laínez, Pero 377 Laitha, Pedro 243 n. La Linda, Diego de 171–2 La Mesa, Juan de 167 La Mota, Juan Alonso de 81 La Muela, Diego de: Senior relationship 475 n. tax-collection 432 tax fraud suit 472 tax investigations 459, 468, 469, 473, 489, 497 Lanaja, Martín de 204 n., 230 La Parra, Juan de: orders drafted by 61 n., 62 n., 63 n., 68 n., 69 n., 70 n., 77 n., 80 n., 82 n., 86 n., 87 n., 89 n., 92 n., 93 n., 94 n., 95 n., 96 n., 106 n., 107 n., 112 n., 115 n., 124 n., 156 n., 164 n., 166 n., 169 n., 198 n., 221 n., 245 n., 327, 332, 246 n., 250 n., 256 n., 276 n., 302 n., 305 n., 308 n., 313 n., 315 n., 322 n., 325 n., 326 n., 327 n., 340 n., 341 n., 347 n., 349 n., 351 n., 358 n., 363 n., 364 n., 372 n., 373 n., 379 n., 397 n., 400 n. secretary 34 La Peña, Ambrosio de 74 La Peña, Antonio de 427 n., 428–9 La Peña, Luis de 360 La Peña, Pedro de 320, 334–5, 402 La Puente, Juan de 10 n. La Puerta, Diego de 398 n. La Puerta, Rodrigo de 296 n., 459 La Rabiça, Yuce 229 n.

index of people Laredo, Juan de 433 n., 439 La Riasga, Martín de 181 n. La Rivera, Juan de 154 La Rocha, Fernando de 111 La Rocha, Gómez de 512 La Rúa, Fernando de 374 La Rúa, Francisco de 360, 374 n. La Serna, Doña Inés de 69 Las Heras, Francisco de 159, 160 n. Laso de la Vega, Pedro 90–1 Las Osas, Pedro de 460 La Torre, Antonio de 488 La Torre, bachiller de 470, 480 n. La Torre, Benito de 67 n. La Torre, Enrique de 369–70 La Torre, Fernando de 434 La Torre, Francisco de (Mose Gastón) 366, 395–6, 398–9 La Torre, Juan de 140 n. Launata, Juan de 205 n. La Vega, Fernán de (Abraham Gabizon) 384 La Vega, Sebastian de 253 n. Lazar, Rabbi 400 Ledesma, Gonzalo de 245 n. Lediçia, Doña (in Ávila) 155 Lediçia (in Peñafiel) 187 n. Lemos, Count of, see Osorio, Juan de Leo, Levi 238 León, Alonso de (of Uclés) 382 León, Alonso de (of Vélez) 376 León, Antonio de 354 León, Fernando de (of Coruña del Conde) 396 León, Fernando de (tax-collector) 499 León, Francisco de 260, 295, 325, 498 León, Isaac de 274 León, Juan de (cardinal’s provisor) 386 León, Juan de (from San Esteban de Gormaz) 216–17 León, Juan de (pronotary in Toledo) 81 León, Lope de 474 León, Mose de, see Ferrizu, Joan

León, Pedro de (of Huete) 249, 345 León, Pedro de (of Sigüenza) 434 León, Rodrigo de 451 León, Tristán de 368 n. León, Yose de 421 Leonor (daughter of Meir Gaveso) 345 León Tello, Pilar 59, 65, 73, 289 Lerma, Bernaldino de 77 n., 106–7, 310 Lesar, Rabbi 465 Levi, Duenya 203 Levi, Jacob (of Calatayud) 235 n. Levi, Jacob (of Olmedo) 449–50 Levi, Mira 103 Levi, Rabbi 278 Levi, Salamon (of Soria) 255 Levi, Solomon (of Cornago) 200 Leviçia (daughter of Jacob Tubi) 350 Ley, Rabbi 381 Leyba, Don Juan de 165 Leyba, Ladrón de 455 n. Leza, Juan de 162 n. Librero, Mose 185 Lillo, Dr del 420 n. Lisano Bertolucci, Dr María del Mar 75 Llerena, Fernando de 324 Lobatón, Sebastián de 311, 320–1, 326 n., 391–2 Lobel, Shemaya 4 n. Lodoso, Juan de 161 Lodoso, Rodrigo de 161 Lo Nieto, Samuel 231 Lope, maestre (physician) 329 Lope, maestre (physician of Hita) 394 n. López, Adam 383 López, Alonso (of Alcalá de Henares) 174–5 López, Alonso (of Ávila) 174 López, Alonso (of Gonilla) 389 López, Alonso (of Mombeltrán) 373 López, Ambrosio 373 López, Diego (in Béjar) 324 López, Diego (of Uclés) 382

567 López, Elvira (daughter of Solomon Senior) 492 López, Elvira (wife of Diego de Villarreal) 92 López, Fernán 276–7 López, Fernando 390–1 López, Forcen 403 López, Francisco (of Alcalá de Henares) 386 López, Francisco (of Hita) 394 López, Francisco (licenciado) 105 n. López, Gaspar 355 n. López, Inés (of Corral de Almaguer) 399 López, Inez (trial) 502 n. López, Iñigo (of Plasencia) 358 López, Iñigo (of Toledo) 344 López, Juan (of Béjar) 324 López, Juan (of Urueña) 357 López, Pero (of Ávila) 193 n., 332 n. López, Pero (informer) 276–7 López, Pero (of Urueña) 357–8 López, Ruy 449, 470 López, Sancho 378 López, Tomás 389 López Coronel, Iñigo: conversion 481 debt collection 488 family dispute 472 father’s estate 476, 484 lawsuit 492 n., 494–5 Segovia regidor 489 Segovia residency 500 tax-collection 489–90 tax-farming 483, 484–5 López de Aillón, Francisco 382 López de Ayala, Diego 447 López de Ayala, Iñigo 221 López de Ayala, Pedro 151 López de Ayala, Ruy 15 López de Burgos, Andrés 417–18 López de Calatayud, Fernán 184 López de Caravajal, García 486 López de Chinchila, Gonzalo 22 López de Cuéllar, Gonzalo 16 n.

568 López de Gricio, Gaspar 157 n. López de Herrán, Diego 83 López de León, Iñigo 248 n. López de Marondo, Juan 276 López de Medina, Ruy 401 López de Mendoza, Don Iñigo, Duke of Infantado 340, 354, 371, 495, 504, 506 López de Perea, Diego 355 n. López de Pinedo, Juan 83 López de Queros, Diego 355 n. López de San Miguel, Alonso 194 López de San Miguel, Diego 68 n., 444 n. López de Trujillo, Diego 15 López de Tudela, Antón (Salamo Aven Bolat) 403 López Gallego, Diego 375 López Mendoza, Iñigo 32 López Pacheco, Diego, Marquess of Villena 180 n., 446 Loro, Juçe 232 n. Loro, Salamon 205 n., 232 n. Los Pandos, Juan de 176 Los Pandos, Rodrigo de 176 n. Lozano, Mingo 397 n. Lozoya, Marquess of 437 n. Lucena, Carlos de 467, 489 Lucena, Juan de (of Ciudad Real) 506 Lucena, Juan de (mayordomo) 502 Lucena, Juan de (printer) 502 n. Lucero, Fernando 71 Ludovico, licenciado 178 n. Luengo, Jacob 169 Luis, Juan 304 Luis, licenciado 355 n. Lumbroso, Abraham (died in Segovia) 314 Lumbroso, Abraham (exile from Segovia) 16 n., 25 n., 173 Lumbroso, Shem Tob 16 n. Lumbroso, Don Solomon 16 Lumbroso, Yose 16 n., 415 n., 443 n. Lumbroso family 16 n. Luna, Count of 192

index of people Luna, Countess of, see Osorio, Isabel Luna, Doña María de 504–5 Luna, Ximeno de 231 Lunbroso, Don 247 Luzón, Francisco de 460 Luzón, Juan de: activities 211 Cea investigation 128, 261 n. Edict of Expulsion 33 n. Frómista debt issue 146 León debt issue 506 Mansilla loans investigation 141, 144 Paredes investigation 140 release of Jewish prisoners 247 Sahagún debt investigation 158

M

Macho, Yose 202 Machoro, Bueno 433 Madrid, Diego de 441 Madrid, Francisco de (of Ávila) 357 Madrid, Francisco de (chanciller) 136 Madrid, Juan de (crossbowman) 353 Madrid, Juan de (notary) 232 n. Madrid, Pedro de 343 Madrigal, Nicolás de 484 Maeda, Pedro de 444 Magallón, Pascual de 282 Magaña, Francisco 355 n. Mahir Caracosa, Belsom 99 n. Majo, Juçe (Yose) 100 n., 238 Maldonado, Arias 471 Maldonado (Carlón) 367–8 Maldonado, Juan (of Santa Olalla) 357 Maldonado, Juan (of Zamora) 385 Maldonado, Pedro de: activities 530–2 Jewish debts 124, 171, 198 return of Jewish property 358 n., 361, 362, 364 n., 401 smuggling investigations 295, 310, 311, 322 n., 323, 324–5 Maldonado, Rodrigo de 473

Maldonado de Quemagoros, Juan 258 Maldonado de Talavera, Rodrigo 296 n., 413 n., 469, 479, 489 Malequi (Milaqui), Salamo 241–2 Malmalique, Abraham 31 n. Malo, Jaime 103–4 Malpartida, licenciado 211 n. Maluenda, Pedro de: activities 532 implementation of Edict 211 Jewish property issues 61 returnee issues 385 smuggling investigation 305–7, 310 Mañan, Mose 141–2, 145, 188 Mançanell, Samuel 205 n. Mancilla, Antonio de 194 n. Manilla, Judah 235 n. Manresa, Juan 461 Manrique, Abraham 345 Manrique, Diego 17 Manrique, Donça 345 Manrique, Iñigo 74 Manrique, Pedro, Duke of Nájera 159, 165, 282, 395, 448, 454, 455 n. Manrique, Rodrigo 326 Mansilla, Rodrigo de 66, 317 n. Mansur, Muley 279 n. Manuel I, King of Portugal 43, 299, 320, 334, 471 n. Manuel (tanner in Guadalajara) 78 n. Mar, Andrea de 221, 222–3 Marañon, Fernando 474 Marcado, Pedro de 209 n. Marga, Jaume 241 Mari (daughter of Ysaque Taimiz) 344 María (of Puente del Arzobispo) 371 María (widow of Juan Garido) 353 Mármol, Alonso del: business activities 180–1 decrees and orders drafted by 10 n., 25 n., 26 n., 61 n., 63 n., 90 n., 96 n., 106 n., 112 n., 124 n., 139 n., 148 n., 151 n., 159 n., 160 n., 161 n.,

index of people 162 n., 168 n., 169 n., 172 n., 173 n., 176 n., 193 n., 194 n., 197 n., 200 n., 211 n., 213 n., 222 n., 252 n., 257 n., 259 n., 262 n., 271 n., 318 n., 320 n., 338 n., 344 n., 345 n., 346 n., 347 n., 349 n., 352 n., 353 n., 354 n., 355 n., 356 n., 357 n., 360 n., 361 n., 363 n., 365 n., 375 n., 376 n., 378 n., 380 n., 382 n., 383 n., 384 n., 385 n., 386 n., 387 n., 393 n., 396 n., 399 n., 400 n., 504 n., 514 n. edict of segregation 8 n. tax case 480 n. Mármol, Bernaldo del 256 Mármol, Lorenzo 509 Marquina, Juan del 95 Martel, Pedro 102 Martín, Alonso (Jacob Castrenon) 405 n. Martín, King of Aragon 1 Martín, Mencia 487 n. Martín, Pedro 255 n. Martín, Velasco 197 n. Martín (the wool-comber) 395 Martínez, Andrés 301 Martínez, Diego (of Calahorra) 400 Martínez, Diego (of Castrojeriz) 188 n. Martínez, Diego (of Coca) 375 Martínez, Francisco (of Huete) 249 n. Martínez, Francisco (son-inlaw of Yose Ibn Meir) 345 Martínez, Francisco (son of Isaac Abenasa) 399 Martínez, Jorge 136 Martínez, Juan (of Ampudia) 401 Martínez, Juan (receptor of Santa Cruz) 228 Martínez, Juan (son of Diego) 350 Martínez, Juan (in Vitoria) 95, 96, 116 Martínez, Luis 266 n., 269 Martínez, Pero (Abraham Gormesano) 338

Martínez Araya, Pero 390 n. Martínez de Aguilera, Antón (Antonio): activities 399 n., 532 debt issues 137 n. financial investigation 211 Jewish property issues 85 returnee issues 398, 399 n. Martínez de Aguilera, Juan 146 Martínez de Álava, Diego 144 n., 428 n. Martínez de Araya, Pero 162 Martínez de Fernando, Pedro 146 n. Martínez del Parral, Alonso 113 Martínez de Préxamo, Pedro 23 n. Martínez de Santa Fe, Pedro 107 n., 153 n., 396 n. Martínez de Santiago, Diego (Yuça Vidal) 349–50 Martínez de Sylvestre, Fernand 381 Martínez de Ulibarri, Juan de 80, 96 n. Martínez de Valgañón, Juan 395 Martínez de Valgañón, Pero 394–5 Martínez Pajón, Juan 250, 379–80 Martínez Pulgaro, Juan 377 Marx, A. 413 Marzen, Bernardo 240 n. Marzen, Bernat 205 Masón, Fernando 184 n. Matanza, Fernando de 186 Matanza, García de 186 Matas, Jaime de 235 n., 236 Mateos, Pero 358–9 Maymaran, Yose, see Sánchez, Benito Mazuelo, Alonso de 247 n. Mazuelo, Francisco de 193 n., 309, 488–9 Mazuelo, Lesmes de: activities 532–3 Jewish property and debts in Segovia 166, 193 n., 488 returnee issues 488 smuggling investigations 309, 313, 314 son 193 n., 488

569 Mazuelo, Pedro de 151–2, 250, 387, 399 Mediavilla, Fernando de 162 n. Medina, Alonso de 17 n., 343 Medina, Diego de (bachiller) 181, 352 Medina, Diego de (converso) 355 n. Medina, Farax de 354 Medina, Fernando de 489 n. Medina, Gutierre de (Ysaque Abenaçan) 347–8 Medina, Jaco de, see Pérez, Fernán Medina, Juan de 381 Medinaceli, Duke of 394 Medina Sidonia, Duke of, see Guzmán, Enrique de Medinilla, Ortega de 83 n. Medrano, Diego de 87–8 Meir (physician of Ávila) 193 n. Mejía, Diego 323 n., 366 Mejía, Francisco 392 Mejía, Gaspar 488 Mejía, Jorge 365, 440 n., 479 Melamed, Abraham, see Pérez Coronel, Juan Melamed, Jacob 476 n. Melamed, Jamila 476 n. Melamed, Meir (Fernán Pérez Coronel): accountant of Crown Prince 481 baptism ceremony 413, 461 career 475 conversion 56, 245, 481 death 473, 483 debt collection 462–3, 469 expulsion question 481 family 475, 476, 481, 483 father-in-law’s guarantee 450 guarantor of ransom money 24, 431 lawsuits 477–8 name 413, 461–2 property 437, 475 Royal Council appointment 481–2 Segovia position 482 sons 260, 472, 481, 483–90 tax-farming 29, 119 n., 185 n., 264 n., 296 n., 443, 448, 451, 478–80

570 Melandres, Antonio 355 n. Melandres, Guiomar 355 n. Melandres, Mayor 355 n. Melandres, Salvador 355 n. Melandrez, Isabel 355 n. Mellado, Francisco 256, 276, 312 n., 371 n., 372 n. Meme, Simeon 422 n. Meme, Simon 267 n., 274 Meme family 267 n. Mena, Ruiz 363–4 Menbroso, Isaac 489 Mendes Cicioso, João 288 n. Méndez, Tomás 259–60 Mendoza, Antonio de (in Guadalajara) 78 Mendoza, Antonio de (in Segovia) 340 Mendoza, Juan de 236 Mendoza, Onorato (Honorato) de, see Hurtado de Mendoza, Honorato Meneses, Fernando (magistratecommissioner) 348, 349 Meneses, Fernando de (in Miranda) 258 Mercadal, Pedro de 297 n. Mercado, Diego de 185 Mercado, María del 307 n., 348 n. Mercado, Pedro del 163 n., 175 n., 176 n., 324 n. Mercado, Rodrigo del: authority 108 n. complaint against 222 Jewish debts 123, 129 Jewish property in Guadalajara 76, 79, 107–8, 343 n. Jewish property registration 59, 63–6, 92 Jewish property of returnees 351, 355, 392 Jewish property in Torrelaguna 195 methods 211 smuggling investigations 295–6, 309, 316–17, 319, 320 Merga, Jaime 222 n. Mesme, Abraham 422 Mesquita, Martín 282 Miedes, Gonzalo de 402 Mier, Gutierre de 128 n., 199 Mijancas, Samuel de 116 n.

index of people Milano, Solomon 282 Milano, Yose 282 Millás Vallicrosa, J. M. 115 Mineca, Leonardo 221 n. Mingolla, Diego de 75 Mior, Leon 243 n. Miranda, Countess of 258, 389 Miranda de Duero, Fernando 281 n. Mishini, Yeshaya 273 n. Moddena, David 285 n. Molcho, Juçe (of Calatayud) 235 n. Molcho, Samuel 365 n. Molcho, Yuçe (of Badajoz) 365 n. Molena, Juan 225 n. Molina, Francisco de 430 Molón, Miguel 202 Monclús, Jaime 38 Monje, Pedro 355 n. Monrós, Lluís de 225 n. Monroy, Fernando de 514 Monsoriu, Pedro 205 Montalvo, Hinojosa 102 Montanedo, Luis de 192 Montelagudo, Count of 341 Montemayor, Bernaldino 356 Montemayor, Francisco 356 Montemayor, Iñigo 356 Montemayor, Juan de (the elder) 356–7 Montemayor, Juan Alonso de 356 Montenegro, Captain 275 Montesa, Martín (Yose Paçagon) 235 n. Montoya, Alonso de 261 Monzón, Gonzalo de 180–1, 440, 441 Mor, Joan de 103 Moradillo (in Alcalá de Henares) 386 Morales, Alonso de 181 Morales, Antón de 300, 337 Morales, Fernando 434 Morano, Yuça 319 Moras, Pedro de 204 n. Moratans, Ishmael 116 Mordehay, Solomon Isaac 282 Moros, Pedro de 230, 231 Morote, Fernando 392 Moscoso, Gómez de 391 Mose (of Carrión) 190, 247 Mose (in Castrojeriz) 158

Mose (of Pedraza) 197 Mose (in Valladolid) 247 Motis Dolader, M. A. 37, 227, 233, 290 Moya, Marchioness of, see Bobadilla, Beatriz de Moya, Marquess of 448–9 Moych, Abraham 100 n. Muça, Haym 134–5 Muela, Diego de 432 n. Munça, Joshua 183–4 Mundaño, Antonio 194 n. Muño, Antón de 175 Muños, Yose de 157 Muñoz, Antón 315 n. Muñoz, Diego 350 n. Muñoz, Juan 173 Mur, Gerónimo de 228 Murçia, Salamon de 232 n. Murcia, Sio (Sayo) de 232 n., 234 Murcia, Vidal de 234 Murçia Mayor, Açah de 232 n. Murillo, Miguel de 8 Muso, Francisco de 176

N

Naçi, Simuel 299 Nahim, Mose 323 n., 365 Nahon, Mose, see Ruiz, García Nájera, Abraham 491 Nájera, Álvaro de 451, 480 Nájera, Duke of, see Manrique, Pedro Nájera, Mose 157 n., 170, 315 n. Namias, Vsua (Joshua) 393 n. Navarro, Bartolomé 373 Navarro, Gómez 378 Navarro, Lorenzo 451 n. Navarro, Luis 236 n. Navarro, Menahem 377–8 Navarro, Miguel 475 Navarro, Pedro 237 Navarro, Rodrigo 378 Nazir, Jento 229 n. Neçi, Don (cloth merchant) 191 Negro, Agustín de 221 n. Negrón, Tadeo 220 Negrona, La 222 Netanyahu, B. 514 Nieto, Martín 360 Nieto, Rodrigo 369, 370 Nieva, Count of 360, 373, 374

index of people Nieva, Pedro de 148 n. Niño, Luis 327 Novallas, Juan de 204 n. Núñez, Alonso 354–5 Nuñez, Álvar 246 Nuñez, Andrés 266 n., 269, 303–4 Núñez, Aparicio 395 Núñez, Catalina 185 Núñez, Constanza 397 Núñez, Diego 355 n. Núñez, Dr Francisco (abbot of Husillos): Council of the North and Ports 130 n., 133 n., 158 n., 164 n., 172 n., 186 n., 191 n. debt issues 132 n., 142 n., 144 n., 153 n., 167 n., 188 n. Medina del Campo appeal 129 n. Royal Council 85 n., 135 n. witness 421 n. Núñez, Francisco (accountant) 470 Núñez, Francisco (in Alcalá de Henares) 386 Núñez, Francisco (Amigo) 252, 303–4 Núñez, Francisco (of Fuentidueña) 364 Núñez, Francisco (regidor of Madrid) 480 n. Núñez, Hernán 344 Núñez, Juan (of Gumiel de Hizán) 141 n., 154 n. Núñez, Juan (of Mérida) 326, 391 n. Núñez Coronel, Fernán, see Senior, Abraham Núñez Coronel, Luis 490 n., 492 n., 493–6 Núñez Coronel, Pero 348, 492–3 Núñez Coronel, Tomás 497 Núñez de Calahorra, Juan 153–4 Núñez de Madrid, Fernán 61–2 Núñez de Mendoza, Álvaro (Isaac Cohen) 79, 181 n., 346 Núñez de Santa Fe, Alonso 397–8

Núñez de Santa Fe, Pedro (Yose de Valladolid) 396–8 Nurueña, alcalde de 427

O

Oblado, Mateu de 204 n. Ocaña, Juan de (bachiller) 425 Ocaña, Juan de (converso) 399 Olanda, Ochoa de 473 Olivares, Juan de 303 Olmedo, Alonso de 266 n., 270 n. Olmedo, Francisco de 239 Ome, Rodrigo 300 Oñate, Count of 200 Ora Bona, Abraham 101, 203 Ora Bona, Solomon 203 Orabuena, Gento 232 n. Orbona, Abraham 283 n. Ordaz, Diego de 368 Ordaz, García de 368 Ordaz, Pedro de 253 Ordóñez, García 485 Ordóñez, Juan 105 Orejón, Nuño 15 Orellana, Ali de 295 n. Orense, Antonio de 199 Orense, Rodrigo de 15, 17 n. Orfali, M. 37 Oropesa, Count of, see Álvarez de Toledo, Don Fernando Oropesa, Dr de 211 n., 246 n., 255 n., 315 n. Oropesa, Hernando de 45 n. Orovida, Doña 259 Orozco, Hernando de 64 n., 355 n. Ortega, Juan de 308 n., 457 n., 459 n. Ortega, Luis 469 Ortiz, Juan 347 Ortiz, Pedro 275 n., 380 n. Ortiz de Valderrama, Juan 59 Osas, Diego de 317 Osorio, Isabel, Countess of Luna 195, 298, 368 n. Osorio, Juan 79 Osorio, Juan de, Count of Lemos 79 n., 181 n., 246, 346 n. Osorio, Pedro (Isaac ibn Farax) 262 n. Osua (of Laguardia) 161

571 Overo, Bernardino 355 n. Oviedo, Juan de 496

P Pablo, maestre (in Medina del Campo) 250, 347 Paçagon, Brahem 235 Paçagon, Çalema 235 Paçagon, Mose 235 n. Paçagon, Samuel, see Verozpe, Carlos de Paçagon, Yose 229 n. see also Montesa, Martín Paçagon family 235 Padilla, Juan de 266 n., 267, 270 Páez, Álvar 256, 315 Páez, Fernando 250 Paganos, Diego de 162 Pájares, Francisco de 180 n. Pajón, Abraham, see Tajón Pajón, Juan, see Martínez Pajón Palache, Abraham 343 n. Palache, Huda 343 Palache, Yuça 343 n. Palacios, Pedro 232 n. Palencia, Isaac 235 n. Palencia, Pedro de 266 n., 270 Pallego, Alonso 266 n. Paloma (wife of Álvar Núñez de Mendoza) 346 Palomeque (Palomeco), Pedro 88 n., 323 n., 466 Palos, Luis 200 n. Pañes, Pedro 475 n. Panigel, Yose 282 Pantoja, Gutierre 69 Papa, Gento 101 Paral, Yose 116 n. Pardal, Abraham 253 Paredes, Alfonso de 189 Paredes, Beatriz de 376 Paredes, Francisco de 389 n. Paredes, Sancho de 294, 311 Pareire, Andrés 116 Pareja, David de 345 Pareja, Jaco de 344, 345 Pareja, Meir de 344 Parias, Alonso 502 Parias, Martín de 502 Parsa, de (of Almagro) 181 n. Pastrana, Pedro de (of Guadalajara) 355 n. Pastrana, Pedro de (Francis) (of Huete) 250

572 Pastrana, Pedro de (of Pastrana) 399 n. Paternoy, Gonzalo de 228 Paz, Antonio de (in Salamanca) 138 n., 293 n. Paz, Antonio de (son of Yuçe Arali) 266 n. Paz, García de 250, 379–80 Paz, Gutierre de 362 Pazagon, Salamon 232 n. Pedro I, King of Castile 106 Pedro (blacksmith of Laguardia) 162 n. Pedrosa, Juan de: Carrión case 467–8 Council of the North and Ports 130 n., 164 n., 170 n., 172 n. debt issues 167 n. return issues 388 n. robbery case 258 n. Senior family cases 472, 490 Peligro, Juan 395 Peligro, Miguel 398 Pelote, Juan Martín 395 Peña, Diego de 324 Peñalosa, Rodrigo de 16 n. Peralonso, Rodrigo 174 Peralta, Miguel de 228 n. Peraman, Johan de 232–3 Peramán, Juan de 98 Perández de Heredia, Martín de 226 n. Perato, Martín de 504 Perdoniel, Isaac 31 Perdoniel family 31 n. Perea, Doña Beatriz de 201 Peres, Pedro 204 n. Perespina, Don Pedro 85 Pérez, Antón 415 n. Pérez, Cristóbal (muleteer) 251 n. Pérez, Cristóbal (notary of Segovia) 424 Pérez, Diego (of Plasencia) 358 Pérez, Diego (of Segovia) 437 Pérez, Fernán (Jaco de Medina) 355–6 Pérez, Fernán (moneychanger) 498 Pérez, Francisco 389 Pérez, Isabel 347 Pérez, Juan (alcalde in Salamanca) 88 n.

index of people Pérez, Juan (procurador in Medina del Campo) 347 Pérez, Juan de (converso in Ciudad Real) 502 Pérez, Luis 377 Pérez, Martín 171 Pérez, Miguel 103 Pérez, Rodrigo 498 Pérez Almazán, Miguel 225 n. Pérez Coronel, Alfonso 497–8 Pérez Coronel, Alonso 260 Pérez Coronel, Fernán, see Melamed, Meir Pérez Coronel, Juan (Abraham Melamed): business dealings 485–6 Carvajal complaint against 364 n. family quarrels 472, 489–90 inheritance from father 484 Jewish debt issues 486–8 mill inheritance 475 n. name 481, 484 regidor of Segovia 484, 486 Riocandio case 476 tax-collection 489 tax-farming 483–4 Pérez de Alcalá, Alonso 508–9 Pérez de Almazán (Almaçen), Miguel 111 n., 235 n. Pérez de Baradas, Juan: debt issues 125, 180 n. implementation of Edict 211, 220, 221 investigation of 211 Jewish property issues 113 returnee issues 347 Pérez de Bolea, Fortún (Salamon Azamel) 237 Pérez de Coronel, Juan 363 Pérez de la Fuente, Juan 156, 179 n., 180 n. Pérez de las Carreras, Juan 482 n. Pérez de la Vega, Juan 384 Pérez del Castillo (Castilla), Luis: documents drafted by 64 n., 71 n., 85 n., 154 n., 199 n., 314 n., 319 n., 339 n., 346 n., 355 n., 359 n., 360 n., 362 n., 365 n., 370 n., 373 n., 374 n., 376 n., 379 n.,

380 n., 382 n., 385 n., 390 n., 504 n. property purchase 77 Pérez de Lequeitia, Diego 143–4 Pérez del Olmo, Juan 248 n. Pérez de Medina, Juan 366–7 Pérez de Meneses (Mieses), Diego 309, 348 n., 451, 459, 462 n. Pérez de Meneses (Mieses), Fernán (Fernando): Gutiérrez case 302 judge and receiver 55, 130, 307, 348, 390, 492–3 property sales 451, 482 quarrel with saddlers 55 smuggling investigations 309 synagogue case 88 n. Pérez de Meneses, Juan 293 n. Pérez de Monteagudo, Fernando 102 Pérez de Rojas, Garci 115 Pérez de Salamanca, Jerónimo 136 Pérez de San Miguel, Gutierre 176 n. Pérez de Sotomayor, Antonio de 64 n., 355 n. Pérez de Vargas, Francisco: accusations against 293–4, 300–1 debt cases 138 n., 210 n., 488 returnee cases 355, 363, 364 Pérez de Vicuña, Pedro 33 n., 131, 132 Pérez Dialmazan, Miguel 335 n. Pérez Jarada, Gonzalo 295 n., 488 n. Pérez Juan Borizo, Esteban 471 n. Pernía, Martín de 85 Peternoi, Gonzalo de 203 Philippus, Dr 380 n. Piamento, García 444 Piamento, Juan 444 Piara, Joseph de 99 n. Pilo, Yuça 67 n. Piña, Fernando de (Lumbroso) 314, 340 n. Pinella, Bartolomé de 155 Pinello, Poleo 221 n.

index of people Pinelo, Bernardo 317 Pinelo, Francisco 24 n., 211 n., 219, 274, 413 Pinelo, Gabriel 220 n. Pisa, Isaac de 281 Pizarro, Cristóbal 210 n., 364 n., 488 Plasencia, Alonso de 416 n. Plasencia, Diego de (Jacob, converso) 405 Plasencia, Diego de (procurador) 362 Plasencia, Pedro de (Samuel Alegre) 361 Pliego, Alonso 269 n. Plinias, Simuel 232 n. Polanco (Polenco), Luis de: appeals court 123, 176 n., 178 n., 209, 220 n., 297, 314 n., 348 n. cases 163 n., 175 n., 198 n., 220 n., 257 n., 308, 313 n., 324 n., 363 n., 389 n., 390 n. Pollequinos (ironsmith) 433 Polo, Miguel 169 n. Ponce, Dr 258 n. Ponce, messir 300 Pones, Isaac de 235 n. Porcel, Diego 64 n., 355 n. Porras, Álvaro de 93, 463–4 Porras, Gonzalo de 167 n. Porras, Juan de 292 n., 323–5, 365–6 Portal, Montug de 243 n. Portillo, Antonio del 90, 192 Porto, Juan 154 Portocarrero, Doña María de 446 Portugal, Don Álvaro de 143 n., 380 n., 502 n., 508–9, 514 Portugal, Juan de 196, 216 Portugués, Yose 420 Portugués, Ysaque 420 Pozo, Juan del 395 Prado, Juan del 103 Prado, Mose 67 n. Prado, Pedro del 457 Prieto, Juan 141 n. Proaña, licenciado 444 n. Provençal, Juan 402 Pueblo, del (magistrate of Almazán) 151 n. Puertocarrero, Don Fernando de 458

Puertocarrero, Don Pedro 182, 463 n. Pulgar, Hernando del 20, 286 Pulgar, Miguel del 174

Q

Quemada, García de 153 Quintanilla, Alonso (Alfonso) de: Burgos lawsuit 190–1 chief accountant 128, 416 chief accountant of kingdom 129 Council of the North and Ports 129, 148, 185 n., 189 n., 190 n. debt issues 128–30, 134 n., 135 n., 141 n., 145 n., 147, 148, 153 n. Edict of Expulsion 33 n. Hermandad position 457, 459, 481 implementation of Edict 213 n., 215 n., 216 n., 247 n., 261 n. Royal Council 129, 134 n., 141 n. Quintanilla, licenciado de 488 Quirós, Diego de 355 n. Quirós (Quirot), Juana de 249, 345

R

Rabiça, Anem 232 Rabiça, Mosse 234 Raenas (Rahenas), Simuel (Samuel) 232 n., 234 Rafart, Jordi 99 Rahenas, Jacobico 204 Rahenas, Mose 204 Rahenas, Samuel, see Raenas Ramero, Alfón 448 Rami, Miguel 232 n. Rami, Salamon 232 n. Ramírez, Alfonso (judge) 348 n. Ramírez, Alonso (informer) 313–14 Ramírez, Alonso (returnee) 366 Ramírez, Diego (magistrate of Cornago) 200 Ramírez, Diego (of Torre) 395 Ramírez, Juan (converso) 345–6

573 Ramírez, Juan (escríbano) 113 n., 139 n., 152 n., 180 n., 303 n., 320 n., 364 n., 388 n., 396 n., 399 n., 401 n., 402 n. Ramírez, Juan (informer to the Crown) 313–14 Ramírez, Juan (mayordomo) 502, 509 n. Ramírez, Juan (notary of Sabada) 232 n. Ramírez, Juan (receiver of fines) 256 Ramírez, Juan (in Torre) 395 Ramírez, Pedro 395 Ramírez, Sancho 339 Ramírez Coronel, Alfonso 498–9 Ramírez de Lucena, Juan 502 n. Ramírez de Tovar, Juan 505–6 Ramírez de Villaescusa, Alonso (or Francisco) 68, 146, 176, 444 n., 534 Ramírez de Villaescusa, Don Diego 256–7 Ramírez de Zamora, Nuño 477 Rasera, Martín de 235 n., 236 Reglado, Juan 353 Reina (sister of Alfonso Pérez Coronel) 497 Reina, Doña (daughter of Rabi Yose) 155 Reina, Doña (wife of Yuda Caro) 177–9 Revenga, Johanes (Juan) de 18 n., 35 n. Rey, Alonso 324 Rey, Domenico 221 Rey, Juan 324 Rey, Marco 221 Rey, Martín 324 Rey, Mateo 220, 221 n. Rey, Pedro 324 Riaza, Juan de 195 Ribadeniera, Hernando de 472 n. Ribadeo, Count of 43–5 Ribera, Beatriz de 368 Ribera, Diego 355 n. Ribera, Juan de: activities 159 n., 160 n., 534–5

574 Ribera, Juan de (cont.): Calahorra adjudications 106, 160, 165 investigations 166 n., 338, 395 n. Logroño case 356 Rica, Doña 383 Riglos, Miguel de 205 n. Río, Fernando del 468 Río, García del 475 n. Río, Gonzalo del (contino) 61 Río, Gonzalo del (treasurer of the Hermandad) 458–9 Riocandio, Juan de 444, 475–7 Riofrío, Diego de 339 Ríos, Juan de 169 Risaldi, Jerónimo 317, 318 Roa, García de 464 Robad (Robada), bachiller 323 n., 466 Robledino, Pedro de 471 n. Robles, Fernán de 466 Robles, Gómez de 81, 93 n., 119, 264 n., 507–8 Robrada, bachiller 88 n. Robres, Alonso junior 471 n. Roca, Nicolau 99 Roda, Rodrigo de 221 Rodrich, Solomon (Salamo) 243 n., 244 n., 402 Rodrigo, Miguel 482 n. Rodrigo Chiquete, Pedro 395 Rodríguez, Alonso (Jaco Rosillo) 405 n. Rodríguez, Alonso (son-in-law of Fernández Alegre) 300, 336–7 Rodríguez, Alonso (of Torre) 395 Rodríguez, Àlvar 195 Rodríguez, Antón (of Herrera de Pisuerga) 249 Rodríguez, Antón (of Puente del Arzobispo) 370 Rodríguez, Francisca 370 Rodríguez, María 366 Rodríguez, Mencía 77 n. Rodríguez Caballero, Álvaro 77 n. Rodríguez de Aranda, Alfonso 187 Rodríguez de Castro, Juan 323, 363 n. Rodríguez de Peñalver, Diego 388

index of people Rodríguez de Raina, Catalina 154 n. Rodriguez de Santa Cruz, Juan 176 Rodríguez Fernández, J. 288 Rodríguez Gallego, García 503 Rodríguez Vala, bachiller 255 n. Rogat, Juçe 232 n. Rogel, bachiller 257 Rojas, Pedro de 379 n. Rojas, Sancho de 106 Romane, Diego de 88 n. Romani, licenciado Diego de 323–4, 325 n. Romanyera, Francesc 99 Romi, Juçe 235 n. Ropos, Samuel 195 Rosillo, Jaco, see Rodríguez, Alonso Royz, Gerónimo 237 Rubio, García 467 Rubio, Toribio 379 Rueda, Diego de 352 Rufyn (in Toledo) 67 n. Ruis, Juan 103 Ruis de Montalbo, Diego 472 n. Ruiz, Bartolomé 174 n. Ruiz, Cristóbal 369 Ruiz, Fernando 395 Ruiz, García (Mose Nahon) 365 Ruiz, Gonzalo 266 n. Ruiz, Sancho 257 Ruiz de Calcena, Juan 38 n., 226 n. Ruiz de Castañeda, Bartolomé 55 n., 105 n., 146 n., 155 n., 175 n., 180 n., 193 n., 200 n., 251 n., 258 n., 336 n., 347 n., 361 n., 362 n., 366 n., 367 n., 368 n., 379 n., 380 n., 381 n., 386 n., 387 n., 389 n., 402 n. Ruiz de Castro, Juan 9 n. Ruiz de Cuero, Sancho 397 n. Ruiz de Herrera, Hernan 222 n. Ruiz de la Cámara, Alonso 348, 444 n., 492–3 Ruiz de la Costa, Bartolomé 79 n.

Ruiz del Cuero, Sancho 129 n., 130 n., 137 n., 141 n., 144 n., 147 n., 150 n., 167 n., 172 n., 190 n., 213 n., 247 n., 254 n., 346 n., 349 n., 350 n. Ruiz de Mojares, Pero 416 Ruiz de Montalvo, Diego 149 n. Ruiz de Olmedo, Alfonso 210 n., 488 Ruiz de Villapadierna, Diego 171–2 Rumatón (of Belinchón) 392

S

Saba, Abraham 272, 274 Sadicar, Salamo 243 n., 244 n. Sahagún, Alfonso de (procurador) 358 n. Sahagún, Alonso de 298 n., 487 Sahagún, Juan Alonso de 160, 190 Sahagún, licenciado de 79 n., 181, 247 n., 346 n. Sala, Andrés 487 n. Salabert, Domingo 103 Salamanca, Alonso de 323 n., 366 Salamon, Don (in Ávila) 155 Salazar, Juan de 167 n., 265–6, 270–1, 301 Salazar, Doña Leonor de 210 n., 364 n., 488 Salcedo, Juan de (Rabi Yento) 217 Salmerón, Alfonso de 257 Salmerón, Diego de 151, 160, 299 n., 310, 387 Saltón, Beltrán del 209, 474, 475 Salvador, Jaume 240 n. Salvador, Pau 243 Samuel (in Buitrago) 75 Samuel (physician) 180 n. San Cebrián, Beltrán de 474 Sancedo, Fernando 391 Sánchez, Alfonso (treasurer) 240 n. Sánchez, Alonso (of Malpartida) 358–9 Sánchez, Alonso (priest of Cabrilego) 129–30

index of people Sánchez, Alonso (tax-farmer) 511 Sánchez, Benito (Yose Maymaran) 405 n. Sánchez, Diego (of Aldeanueva) 196 Sánchez, Diego (of Gumiel del Mercado) 346 Sánchez, Fernán (muleteer) 251 n. Sánchez, Fernando (tanner of Carabaña) 60 n., 392 Sánchez, Francisco 380 Sánchez, Gabriel (converso) 218 Sánchez, Gabriel (in Huesca) 100 Sánchez, Gabriel (treasurer) 228 n. Sánchez, Gil 339 Sánchez, Juan (Isaac Castrenon) 405 n. Sánchez, Juan (judge in Frómista) 187–8 Sánchez, Juan (in Malpartida) 487 n. Sánchez, Juan (notary in Valencia) 205 Sánchez, Juan (tax-farmer) 511 Sánchez, Luis 20 Sánchez, Martín 366 Sánchez, Mateo 487 n. Sánchez, Medina 364 n. Sánchez, Miguel (of Valderas) 197 n. Sánchez, Miguel (on tax register) 474 Sánchez, Pedro (Basque shipowner) 277, 327, 372 Sánchez, Pedro (cobbler in Salamanca) 88 n., 323 n. Sánchez, Pero (debtor) 196 Sánchez Arjona, Fernán 482 n. Sánchez de Calahorra, Garci 153, 491 Sánchez de Carrión, Alonso 504 Sánchez de Castro, Díaz 193 n. Sánchez de Castro, Gonzalo: appeals court 123, 162 n., 163 n., 175, 176 n., 198 n., 209, 220 n., 257 n., 297, 300, 314 n., 337, 348 n., 363 n.

Arzila case 400 Benavente case 489 Coronel lawsuit 494–5 debt issues 189 n. return issues 390 n., 401 n. smuggling investigations 304 n., 307, 311, 313 n. Sánchez de Ceinos, Juan 127 n., 132 n., 133 n., 134 n., 135 n., 146 n., 184 n., 191 n., 198 n., 199 n., 212 n., 216 n., 261 n., 262 n., 263 n., 302 n., 338 n., 357 n. Sánchez de Cuenca, Fernán 392–3 Sánchez de Frías, Pero 15 n., 73 Sánchez de Illescas, Gonzalo 457 n. Sánchez de la Concha, Pero 149 n. Sánchez de la Cueva, Fernando 340–1 Sánchez de la Cueva, Francisco 340–1 Sánchez del Portal, Pedro 162 n. Sánchez del Valle, Bartolomé 373 Sánchez de Medina, Juan 175 Sánchez de Montiel, Sancho 143 n. Sánchez de Pero Marta, Pero 235 n. Sánchez de Pero Sánchez, Alonso 451 Sánchez de Quesada, Día: activities 535–7 case of Juan de Talavera 427 crossing-point investigation 293 n. family 482 implementation of Edict 211, 216 Jewish communal property issues 61, 89 Jewish debt issues 123, 148, 149, 166, 167 n., 172–3, 192–4, 315 n., 316, 483 return and conversion issues 339–40 smuggling investigations 302, 311, 316, 318

575 Sánchez de Revecha, Diego 140–1 Sánchez de Ribillo, Miguel 249 n., 345 Sánchez de Sevilla, Juan, see Abravanel, Samuel Sánchez de Valdemoro, Pedro 87 Sánchez de Valladolid, Francisco 505 Sánchez de Vallehermoso, Juan 469 Sánchez de Vargas, Pedro 199 Sánchez Gallego, Alfonso 167 n. Sánchez Macaro, Pero 266 n. Sánchez Pareja, Fernán 72–3 Sánchez Roldán, Pedro 106 Sandino, Juan 97 Sangüesa family 100 San Juan, Juan de (of La Coruña) 327 San Juan, Juan de (of Torre) 395 San Martín, Gonzalo de 105 San Martín, Juan de 8 San Pedro, Antonio de 182 San Pedro (investigating magistrate) 75 San Román, Francisco de 415 n., 432 n. Santa Cruz, Alonso de 286–7 Santa Cruz, bachiller de 176–7 Santa Cruz, Cristóbal de 376 Santa Cruz, García de 151–2, 387 Santa Cruz, Juan Bautista de 376 Santa Cruz, Pedro de 471 Santander, Diego de 25 n. Santángel, Jaime de 221–2 Santángel, Juan de 230 n. Santángel, Luis de 24 n., 211 n., 218–19, 274, 413 n., 505 Santesteban, Álvaro de 73 n., 155, 211 Santesteban, Diego de 379 Sant Feliu, Francisco de 239 Santiago, Gabriel de 366 Santiago, Juan de 366 Santillán, Fernando de (contino) 449 Santillán, Fernando de (tax-collector) 462 Santo, Samuel 157

576 Santo Domingo, Fernando de 26 Santo Domingo, Juan de 190 San Vicente, Juan de 204 n., 232 n. San Vitores, Lope de 200–1 Saona, Juan de 399 Saragossa, Don Judah 15 Saragossa, Don Levi 148 n. Saragossa, Samuel 16 n., 148–9, 315 n. Sariesa, Juan de 116 Sariesa family 116 n. Sarmiento, Juan 395 Sauarro family 248 Sayet, Yush (Juçe) 243 n., 244 n. Scola, Miguel 99 Segovia, Antonio de 467 Segovia, Gonzalo de 473 n. Segovia, Hernando de 475 n. Segovia, Juan de 172, 193 n. Segura, Juan de 354 Seínos, Juan Sancho de 33 n. Sema, Saraya 243 n. Senarega, Bartolomeo 521 Senior, Abraham (Fernán Núñez Coronel): alguacil of Segovia 416–17 on Andalusian expulsion 21–2 arrest 474 badge exemption 6, 418–19 baptism ceremony 413, 461, 512 blood libel 28 career 414–16 case of Juan de Talavera 424–8 castellanos tax 452–6 conversion 56, 88, 114, 245 court rabbi 4, 418 death 473 debt collection 123, 462–3 debts 181 n. Edict of Expulsion 38, 207 expulsion and conversion 460–9 family 414 n., 415, 462 n., 472, 493, 500 financial activity 61 n., 469–75 guarantor 512; of ransom money 24, 431 investigation 296 n. as magistrate 419–23

index of people name 413, 461–2 property 434–9, 513 public service before conversion 428–34 roles 419, 428 Segovia residence 15–16 segregation issue 18 signature 500 synagogue 88 tax-collection 23, 416, 418, 443–52 tax-farming 4, 29, 223, 443–52, 502 treasurer of Hermandad 5, 456–60, 510 will 473 Senior, Solomon 415, 419, 425, 490–2 Senior family: badge exemption 419 exemption from orders and restrictions 419 genealogy 415 origins 413–14 Sepúlveda, Luis de (comendador of the order of Calatrava) 252 Sepúlveda, Luis de (contino), see González de Sepúlveda, Luis Serano, Isaac 228 n. Serrano, Abraham 249 n., 345 Serrano, Geronimo 344 Serrano, Moses Israel 101 Serrano, Yose 340 n. Serrano y Sanz, Manuel 289–90 Serro, Salamon 99 Sertrapo, Juan 386 Sevilla, Francisco 434 n. Sevillano, Abraham 450 Sey, Daniel 243 n. Shemaia, Rabi (in Cuéllar) 167 Shemaya, maestre 417, 418 Shem Tob (of Murcia) 420 Shem Tob (of Villalón) 184 Sierra, Pedro de 444 n. Sijena, Ramón de 204 n. Silton, Jento 403 Silva, Juan de, Count of Cifuentes 276 n., 277, 368 Silva, Leonor de 249 n. Silva, Tristán de 465 Silvera, Diego de 369

Simon (of Cuéllar) 340–1 Simuel, Salamon 99 Sixtus IV, Pope 7, 14, 22 Sobrado, Abraham del 184, 185 n., 465 n. Sobrado, Isaac del 185 Sobrado, Judah del 465–6 Sobrado, Samuel 185 n. Sobrarias, Juan 525 Sobrino, Fernando 303 n., 304 Socorro (in Gumiel del Mercado) 154, 212 n., 215 Soer, Huze de 154, 212 n., 215 Soer, Samuel de 154, 212 n., 215 Solanes, Andrés 205 Solis, Fadrique de 476 n. Solís, Gómez de 200 n. Solis, Lorenço 343 n. Solomon (in Albarracín) 245 Solomon (in Plasencia) 198 Solomon, Samuel 238 Solorzano, Pedro 395 n. Soria, Alonso de (magistrate) 136 Soria, Alonso de (ward in home of Pedro Núñez) 398 n. Soria, Diego de 266 n., 269 n., 270 Soria, Fernando de 356–7 Soria, Juan de (secretary of Crown Prince) 197–8, 297, 310, 314, 325–6 Soria, Juan de (of Torrelaguna) 381–2 Soria, Pedro 345 Soriano, Yose 78 n. Sos, Español de 234 Sosa, Diego de 248 n., 419 n. Sosa, Fernando de (of Torrelaguna) 318 Sosa, Fernando de (Israel Yndepetral) 379 Sosa, Lope de 245–6, 349 Sosa, Pablo de 318 Soto, Diego de 157 Soto, Francisco de (of Ávila) 513 n. Soto, Francisco de (of Segovia) 435, 436, 437 n., 438 n., 439, 442 Soto, Gonzalo de 157 n.

index of people Soto, Isaac de 153 Soto, Juan de 157 Soto, Judah de 154, 215 Soto, Martín de 403 Soto, Mose de (in Dueñas) 137 Soto, Moses de (in Aranda de Duero) 153 Soto, Rabi de 152 Soto, Samuel de (in Aranda de Duero) 141 n., 152–4, 155, 212 n., 214–15 Soto, Samuel de (son of above) 152 Soto, Samuel de (creditor of council of Gumiel de Hizán) 140–1 Soto, Samuel de (in Gumiel del Mercado) 154 Soto, Yose de (in Aranda de Duero) 153, 212 n., 215 Soto, Yose de (in Gumiel del Mercado) 154 Soto family 347 n. Sotomayor, Antonio de 64 n., 355 n. Spital, Bernaldino 103, 202, 226 n., 245 Struc, Benvenest 99 n. Struc, Vidal 99 n. Suárez, Cristóbal (Levi Galfon) 312, 332 n. Suárez, Fernán (contino) 66 Suárez, Fernán (official) 293, 300, 312 Suárez, Fernando (Abraham Galfon) 312, 313–14, 332 n. Suárez, Fernando (of Toledo) 92 Suárez, Francisco 355 n. Suárez, Juan 364 Suárez, Luis 355 n. Suárez de Alcalá, Pedro 481 Suárez de la Concha, Pedro (Jacob Galfon or Galhon): loans 172 n., 173 n.; to Crown 25 n. name 312 return and conversion 192–3 n., 312, 332, 338–9 smuggling trial 312–13 Suárez de Mendoza, Bernaldino, Count of Coruña: accountant 354

claims for compensation 63–5, 79 n., 107, 352 n. Guadalajara returnee’s house 351 vassals 397 n. Suárez de San Pedro, Pedro 170–1, 311, 322 Suárez de Villalobos, Pero 171 Suárez Fernández, L. 288, 453 Suazo, García de 151, 271 Suleiman, Don (in Casarrubios) 433 Suriano, Jacob 78 n. Surillo, Mose 220 n.

T Taçarte, David, see Gómez, Pero Tafia, Gómez de 508 n. Taimiz, Ysaque 344 Tajón, Abraham 250, 379–80 Talavera, Diego de 504 n. Talavera, Dr de 468, 480 n. Talavera, Fernando de 444 Talavera, Hernando de 23 n., 32, 45, 246 n., 520 Talavera, Juan de (of Novés) 388 Talavera, Juan de (of Segovia) 424–8, 491, 492 Talavera, Pedro de 101–2, 116 Talavera, Yose 424–8 Tállez, Alonso 138 Talvo, Juan 353 Tamayo, Francisco 358 n., 361 Tamo (Tamannio), Don Moses 25 n. Tapia, Antonio de 16 n. Tapia, Gabriel (Graviel) de 81, 93 n., 119, 264 n., 508 Tapia, Gómez de 424–5 Tarfon, Ysaque 386 Tarigo, Solomon 103 n. Tárrega, Alonso de 64 n., 355 n. Tarrich, Abraham 243 n. Tarrillo, Mish 243 n. Tasarte, Don David 16, 148, 315 Tavira, Alfonso de 149 Tavira, Álvaro de 323 n. Tejedor, Una 162 n. Téllez, Alonso 92–3, 383

577 Téllez Girón, Alonso 468–9 Téllez Girón, Don Juan, Count of Urueña 157 n., 187 n. Téllez Girón family 383 n. Tello, Eviatar 116 n. Tendilla, Count of 32, 246, 249, 249 n. Terades, Juan de 238 Teros, Struc 99 n. Thoro, Jacob 232 n. Tian (in Ejea de los Caballeros) 232 Tishby, Y. 522 Tobar, Diego de 88 n. Toledano, Judah 31 n. Toledo, Diego de 196–7 Toledo, Dr de 199 n. Toledo, Fernando (barber) 64 n., 355 n. Toledo, Fernando (witness) 421 n. Toledo, Fernando de (silversmith) 77 n. Toledo, Giomar (Guiomar) de 193 n., 332 n. Toledo, María de 193 n., 332 n. Toledo, Martín de 195 Toledo, Sancho de 317 Tomás, Bernaldino 277, 327, 371–2 Toque, Bartolomé 176 n. Toralle, Juan de 467 Tordesillas, Alonso de 305 n., 306, 385 Toro, Cristóbal de 62 n., 78, 168, 340 n. Toro, Francisco de 94 Toro, Gonzalo de 17 n. Torquemada, Fernando de 139 n. Torquemada, Tomás de: address to 26 Ávila cemetery 111 badge decree 6 Cohen case 79 n., 181 n. conversions 245 n. deportees 227 Edict of Expulsion 34–7, 42 n., 45, 208, 520 expulsion postponement 22 extension granted by 243 n., 244 grant of release 246 Inquisition position 18

578 Torquemada, Tomás de (cont.): intervention legend 208 memorandum to Isabella 28–9 Segovia house 428 Senior relationship 431–2 Trujillo synagogue grant 94 Torre, Diego de 173 Torre, Juan de 369 Torrellas, Juan de 226 n. Torrero, Pedro 104 Torres, Alfonso de (of Aranda de Duero) 396 n. Torres, Alfonso de (bachiller): activities 537–8 debt investigations 140–1, 152–3, 154 implementation of Edict 215 return and conversion issues 346 Torres, Diego de 195 Torres, Juan de 434 n. Torres, Lope de 64, 354–5 Torres, Luis de 195 Tovi, Abraham 189 Tovi, Solomon 187–8 Tovi, Yose 188 n. Traja, Juan de 164 n., 167 n., 170 n., 172 n. Trancas, Abraham 426–7 Trapero, Gonzalo 174 Trejo, Gutierre (bachiller) 378 Trejo, Gutierre de (in Burguillos) 15 Treviño, Juan de 451 n. Trigo, Salamo 243 n., 244 n. Triguero, Antonio 398 n. Triguero, Francisco 190–1 Trinidad, Martín Alfonso de 196 Tris, Pero 228 n. Trujillo, Juan de 17 Tubi, Jacob 350 Tubi, Yose 350 Turian, Açach 232 n.

U

Ubeda, Alonso de 399 Uceda, María de 355 n. Ulloa, Doña María de 466 Ulloa, Rodrigo de 332 n. Urosol (widow of Solomon Daça) 15 n.

index of people Urosol (wife of Isaac Zaragosi) 483 Uziel, Abraham 157, 170 Uzziel, Rabbi 454 n.

V

Vaca, Bartolomé 379 n. Vaca, Francisco 216 Vaca, Jerónimo 293 n. Vaca, Juan 195 Vaca, Pero (maestresala) 213 Vaca, Pero (suitor) 451 Vado, Guillén del 457 Váez de Castilblanco, Pero 276 Valdeiglesias, Martín de 504 Valderas, Fernando de 167 n. Valderrama, Juan de 172, 276, 451 Valdesero, Gonzalo 80 Valencia, Abraham (Fernando de Valencia) 307 Valencia, Ali de 361 Valencia, Juan de 399 Valencia, Pedro de 60 n., 392 Valensi (Balensi), Samuel 272 n., 274 Valladolid, Francisco de 176 Valladolid, Gonzalo de 266 n., 267–8 Valladolid, Jerónimo de 398 Valladolid, Juan de (silversmith) 191–2 Valladolid, Juan de (witness) 268 n. Valladolid, Yose de, see Núñez de Santa Fe, Pedro Vallejo, bachiller 131, 132 Valles, Diego 502 Valloria, Pero de 401 Valsorga, Miguel de 236 Vanegas, Lorenzo 465 Vaquedano, Lope de 372 Vaquix, David 419 n. Vaquix, Eliezer 419 n. Vaquix, Isaac 419 n. Vaquix, Joseph 419 n. Vaquix, Don Vda 419 n. Vaquix, Doña Vellida 419 n. Vaquix, Don Yom Tob 419 n. Vargas, Diego de 196 Vargas, Francisco de, see Pérez de Vargas Vargas, Juan de 361–2 Varquete, Ysaque, see Hurtado, Diego

Vassurto, Cristóbal de 239, 240 n. Vaz, Estêvão 299 Vázquez, Antón 490 n. Vázquez, Diego 168 Vázquez de Aillón, Juan 66, 67 n. Vázquez de Sosa, Fernando 372 Vega, Juan de 140 Vegas, Juan de 266 n., 270 n. Velaguas, Antón de 205 n. Velasco, Juan de 415 n. Velasco, Don Luis de (in Belorado) 395 Velasco, Don Luis de, Duke 165 Velasco, Don Sancho de 165 Velilla, Don Bueno 191–2 Vellida, Doña (of Trujillo) 448 n. Vellida, Doña (of Vélez) 375 Velliza, Fernando de 425 Vera, Diego de 294, 323 Vera, Lope de: debt issues 123, 124, 156, 177–9, 180 n. Jewish communal property issues 68, 73 n. smuggling investigations 311 Vera, Sancho de 365 n. Verdugo, Juan 111 Vergesan, Abraham 238 Veros, Alvaro de 363–4 Verozpe, Carlos de (Samuel Paçagon) 235 n. Viçoso, Gonzalo 266 n. Vida, Doña 372 Vidal, maestre 283 n. Vidal, Mose (Moses) 99 n., 238 Vidal Yuça, see Martínez de Santiago, Diego Vidas, Samuel de 426–7 Viejo, Fresno 433 Vielsa, Jaime de 231 Vilanova, Miguel de 238 Villacañas, Alonso de 174 Villaescusa, Alonso de 477 Villafaña, Fernando de 266 n. Villafaña, Francisco de 268 Villafañez family 253 Villalobos, Pedro de (creditor) 486

index of people Villalobos, Pedro de (racienero) 322 n. Villalobos, Rodrigo de 363–4 Villalobos, Valasco (Velasco) de 363, 364 n. Villalón, Dr de 388 n. Villamayor (mayordomo) 167 Villamino, Diego de 503 Villañega, Diego de 88 n. Villanueva, Luis de 440, 441, 457, 479 Villareal, Fernando de (in Madrid) 440 Villareal, Fernando de (tax-farmer) 181 n. Villarreal, Diego de 92 Villarreal, Fernando de 509 Villarreal, Lope de, 265 n., 301 n., 325 Villarreal, Martín Alonso de 343 Villasandino, Dr de 302 Villasiega (Villasyega), bachiller Diego 323 n., 466 Villegas, Pero de 82 Villena, Brigida de 375 Villena, Diego 375 Villena, Marquess of, see López Pacheco, Diego Villena, Rodrigo de 180 n. Villoslada, Juan de 145 n. Vincent Ferrer, see Ferrer, Vincent Viseu, Duke of 501 Vitoria, Cristóbal de: documents prepared by 64 n., 85 n., 143 n., 151 n., 154 n., 169 n., 174 n., 175 n., 180 n., 181 n., 197 n., 222 n.,

250 n., 256 n., 276 n., 312 n., 322 n., 335 n., 339 n., 349 n., 352 n., 361 n., 364 n., 370 n., 371 n., 372 n., 374 n., 383 n., 394 n. receiver of Jewish property and debts 466 Silva debt case 465 Vitoria, Diego de 458 Vitoria, Juan de 319, 386 Vivanes Asmal, Samuel 203 Vives, Juan 235 n. Vxena, Juan de 251 n., 252 n.

X

Xenebilla, Juan de 162 n. Xixena, Ramón de 230–1 Xuen, Isaac 403 Xuen, Samuel 204 n.

Y

Yáñez, Pedro 474 Yáñez, Pero 353 Yáñez de Alcocer, Fernán 512 n. Yavetz, Joseph 279 Yndepetral, Israel, see Sosa, Fernando de Yniesta, Gonsalo de, see Hiniesta, Gonzalo Yniesta, Gutierre de 484 Yntiesta, Francisco de 438 n. Yonto, Don 433 Yose, Rabbi 450 Yose, Rabbi (in Ejea de los Caballeros) 233 Yose, Rabbi (physician) 329 Yose, Rabi (in Ávila) 155 Ysaque, Don (in Ávila) 155

579 Ysaque (silversmith of La Coruña) 326–7 Ysasua, María de 372 Yuça (of Alcaraz) 390 Yuçe (in Dueñas) 137 Yuçe (in Teruel) 245 Yuda ( fisico) 157 n. Yuda, maestre (in Oñate) 372 Yvañes, Lorenço 266 n.

Z

Zacut, Abraham 274, 285 Zadique, Ysaque 60 n., 392 Zafra, Fernando de 30 n., 31–2, 38 n., 307 n. Zamora, Cristóbal de 97 Zamora, Juan de 16 n. Zapata, Juan (in Zaragoza) 103 Zapata, Juan de (in Palencia) 15 Zapata, licenciado 321 n., 335 n. Zapata, Pedro 450 Zapata, Péz de 470 Zapata, Rodrigo 482 n. Zapata Hidalgo, Pedro 231 n. Zapatero, Juan 169–70 Zaragosi, Isaac 483 Zaragoza, Fernando de 81 Zaragoza, Samuel 415 n. Zarco, Mose 339 Zobre, Salamon 360 Zorita, Gonzalo de 246 Zunava, Jaco(b) 232 n. Zuñiga, Don Álvaro de 446, 460, 511 Zuñiga, Don Juan de 323 Zuñiga, Don Pedro de 368 Zurujano, Juan 312

Index of Places A Abadía: return and conversion 363–4 smuggling 323 Africa, North: destination 241, 274 Jewish communities 242 Agreda: collection of Christians’ debts to Jews 174 synagogue 70 Aguilar de Campoo: Jewish–Christian credit 127–8 return and conversion 366 smuggling 308, 312 Aillón, return and conversion 382 Albacete, collection of Christians’ debts to Jews 169 Albarracín: conversions 245 expulsion 22, 42 Alcalá de Henares: abattoirs 105 collection of Christians’ debts to Jews 174–5 return and conversion 385–7 Alcaraz: return and conversion 390 synagogue 71 Aldeanueva del Camino, debts of Jews to Christians 196 Aldehuela, private debts of Christians to Jews 158–9 Alfaro: collection of Christians’ debts to Jews 165–6 return and conversion 338 segregation 15 synagogue 71 Algete, smuggling 319–20 Almanza, debts of Jews to Christians 190

Almazán: private debts of Christians to Jews 151–2 return and conversion 387–8 smuggling 300 Almería: Jews expelled from Granada 31 surrender 23, 30 Almodóvar del Campo, Inquisition court 18 n. Almonacid de la Sierra, deportees from 243 Ampolia, departure from 243–4 Ampudia: alcaides 213 return and conversion 401–2 Amusco, Jewish–Christian credit 135–6 Andalusia: expulsion 21 n., 210, 430–1 religion 7 segregation 15 Aragon: abattoirs 108–9 baking ovens 108 cemeteries 116–17 deportee convoys 224 (Table 5.1) destination of deportees 268 Edict of Expulsion 33, 38; implementation of 223–44 Jewish–Christian credit 201–6 Jewry in 1474 2, 4 persecutions (1391) 2 population 5 return and conversion 402–3 segregation 15 size of Jewish community 289–90 synagogues 70, 97–8

Aranda de Duero: expulsion from 45, 214 private debts of Christians to Jews 152–4 return and conversion 400–1 synagogues 71–2 Aranda de Moncayo, deportees from 243 Ariza, deportees 241 Arronches, border crossingpoint 272 Arzila, deportees in 275–6 Astorga: size of Jewish community 289 smuggling 297–8 Asturias, collection of Christians’ debts to Jews 176–7 Asturias-León, credit system 122 Ávila: abattoir 105 blood libel 28 cathedral church 67–8 cemetery 111–12 collection of Christians’ debts to Jews 177–81 convent 73 debts of Jews to Christians 194–5 Edict of Expulsion 36 Inquisition court 18 n. Jewish–Christian credit 124 Jewish community 25 n. La Guardia trial 18 n., 26 n. loans to Crown from Jews 24 Moorish community 25 n. private debts of Christians to Jews 155–6 return and conversion 394 robbery of Jews 256 segregation 14, 15 Senior family 413, 417 Senior property 438 size of Jewish community 289

index of places smuggling 315–16 synagogue 72–3 taxation 25 n. Avilés, return and conversion 383

B Badajoz: border crossing-point 262, 270 cemetery 111 debts of Jews to Christians 182–3 decree on Jewish communal property 57–8 return and conversion 364–6 segregation 15 smuggling 292, 325–6 Balearic Islands: Inquisition court 18 n. Jewish community 13 n., 223 n. Barcelona: decree on return 329–31 Edict of Expulsion 36 Jewish community 4, 13 n., 223 n. population 5 n. port 239 Baza, fall 23 Béjar: destination of deportees 268 synagogue 74 Belalcázar, Inquisition court 18 n. Belinchón, see Villelcho Belorado: return and conversion 395 taxation 454–5 Bembibre, synagogue 74 Berlanga: return and conversion 375 robbery of Jews 259–60 Biel, deportees from 227 Boadilla del Camino, collection of Christians’ debts to Jews 176 Bonilla de la Sierra, Jewish communal property 69 Borja: conversions 245 departure from 236–7 destination of deportees 268 expulsion from 38

Bragança, border: crossing-point 272 Brihuega, conversions 250 Briviesca: destination of deportees 268 petition against tax 26 Buitrago (del Lozoya): conversions 248 returnees 405 synagogues 74–5 Burgos: debts of Jews to Christians 186, 190–1 destination of deportees 268 Edict of Expulsion 36 Jewish–Christian credit 127 Jewish community 4 private debts of Christians to Jews 159–60 return and conversion 338 Burguillos, segregation 15 Burriana, synagogue 98

C

Cabezuela, local authority 359 Cáceres: destination of deportees 272 return and conversion 401 segregation 9 synagogues 75 Cádiz: expulsion 20 port 278 smuggling 296–7 Calahorra: baking oven 106 cemetery 110 collection of Christians’ debts to Jews 165–6 debts of Jews to Christians 190–1 private debts of Christians to Jews 159–60 return and conversion 400 smuggling 307–8 synagogue 75 Calatañazor, Jewish–Christian credit 132–4 Calatayud: departure from 234–6 deportees from 241, 243 expulsion from 38 Inquisition in 235 Carabaña, return and conversion 392–3

581 Carrascona, cemetery 113 Carrión de los Condes: Jewish–Christian credit 135–6 segregation 15 Cartagena: collection of Christians’ debts to Jews 175–6 port 274, 278, 289 n. Castellón de la Plana, synagogue 98 Castelo Rodrigo, border crossing-point 272 Castile: abattoirs 104 attempts to settle accounts before departure 125–39 baking ovens 104 cemeteries 111–16 collection of Christians’ debts to Jews after expulsion 161–82 Cortes 5–6, 10–12 court rabbi 2, 418 debts of Christians to Jews 182–201 departure by sea 274–9 destination of deportees 268 dominion of papacy 7 Edict of Expulsion (1492) 33, 35–6 exploitation on border (Ciudad Rodrigo) 261–71 implementation of Edict 244–61 Jewish–Christian credit 118–25 Jewish plot issue 3 Jewry in 1474 1–4 passage from Castile into Portugal 272–4 persecutions (1391) 2 population 5 private debts of Christians to Jews 142–61 public debts to Jews 139–42 regulation of Jewish community 5–6 return and conversion 338–402 segregation 8–10 size of Jewish community 288–9 synagogues 70 tax-collection system 452

582 Castrojeriz, return and conversion 349–50 Castroverde de Cerrato, private debts of Christians to Jews 160 Catalonia: population 5 n. ports 239 Cea: fears of robbery 261 Jewish–Christian credit 128–9 Cebreros, collection of Christians’ debts to Jews 177–81 Cerezo, petition against tax 26 Ciudad Real: Inquisition court 18 n. Jewish community 13 taxation 23 Ciudad Rodrigo: border crossing-point 261–71 cemetery 112–13 prison 247 return and conversion 355–6 smuggling 300–3 synagogue 76 Cobeña, return and conversion 387 Coca: return and conversion 375 smuggling 315 Colmenar, return and conversion 382–3 Constantinople, fall (1453) 3, 23 n. Córdoba: Inquisition court 18 n. population 5 n. segregation 10 Cornago, debts of Jews to Christians 200–1 Corral de Almaguer: return and conversion 399 segregation 18 Coruña, return and conversion 396–8 Cuéllar: collection of Christians’ debts to Jews 166–7 return and conversion 340–1 smuggling 316

index of places Cuenca: cemetery 113 Inquisition court 18 n. returnees 335

D Daroca: expulsion from 38 synagogue 98 Dueñas, Jewish–Christian credit 137–8

E Ejea de los Caballeros: departure from 232–4 expulsion from 38 names of community 232 n. representatives from Huesca 231 synagogue 98 Elche, return and conversion 377 Epila, expulsion from 45 Escalona, return and conversion 384 Estremera, return and conversion 392 Extremadura, debts of Jews to Christians 185

F

Ferrol, smuggling 292 Fez: destination 276 exiles in 251–2, 279 returnees 329 Frómista: debts of Jews to Christians 187–90 private debts of Christians to Jews 145–6 Fuentes de Ebro, deportees from 241, 243 Fuentidueña, return and conversion 364

G

Galicia, smuggling 326–7 Gerona: bishop of 36, 37 cemetery 116 departure from 238 expulsion from 35 synagogue 98–9

Gibraltar: conversos 21 deportees 275 Gouveia, synagogue 273, 336 Granada: conquest 1, 21, 23, 29–32 expulsion of Jews from 21, 30–2 Ferdinand and Isabella enter 29–30 Jewish population 30 n. kingdom of 12 war against 13, 17, 22–6, 423 n. Guadalajara: butchers’ shops 106–8 cemetery 113–14 collection of Christians’ debts to Jews 168 Jewish communal property 62, 63–5 Jewish houses 64 return and conversion 350–5, 406 robbery of Jews 259 segregation 15, 17 Senior family 413 synagogues 76–9, 340 n. taxation 62, 453 Guadalupe: baptism of Senior 461 cemetery 114 conversions 245 Inquisition court 18 n. Jewish communal property 62–3 ordinance on sale of communal property 56 taxation 23 Guadix, conquest 23 Guevara, debts of Jews to Christians 200 Gumiel de Hizán, public debts to Jews 140–1 Gumiel del Mercado: private debts of Christians to Jews 154 return and conversion 346 sale of property 215

H Haro, collection of Christians’ debts to Jews 175 Herradón de Piñares, debts 179

index of places Herrera de Pisuerga, conversions 249 Hita, return and conversion 393–4 Hortigosa, private debts of Christians to Jews 159 Horumbrada, collection of Christians’ debts to Jews 168 Huesca: conversion to Judaism 18 n. departure from 230–2 deportees from 227 destination of deportees 268 Inquisition court 18 n. number of deportees 290 synagogues 100 Huete: conversions 249–50 Jewish communal property 62 return and conversion 344–6 riot 213 synagogue 79 taxation 62

I Illueca: deportees from 243 returnees 405

J Jaca: departure from 230–2 synagogues 100 Jadraque, collection of Christians’ debts to Jews 169 Jaén: diocese 20 expulsion 20 Inquisition court 18 n. kingdom 15 Jarandilla: conversions 250 return and conversion 379–80 Játiva, deportees 241

L La Almunia de Doña Godina, departure from 236 La Fuente del Maestre, return and conversion 380–1

La Puebla, Jewish–Christian credit 125 Labastida, synagogue 80 Laguardia: collection of Christians’ debts to Jews 161–2 synagogues 80 Laguna, debts of Jews to Christians 191–2 Larache, deportees in 276 Laredo, port 268 Ledesma: conversions 245 debts of Jews to Christians 194–5 return and conversion 349 León: debts of Jews to Christians 195–6 destination of deportees 272 return and conversion 368–9 smuggling 297–8 synagogues 80–1 Lérida, Inquisition court 18 n. Lillo, debts of Jews to Christians 199 Lisbon: forced baptism 43 n. port 278 smuggling 292 Llerena: debts of Jews to Christians 199–200 Inquisitionary tribunal 27 n. return and conversion 379 sale of property 482 taxation 450–1 Logroño: collection of Christians’ debts to Jews 165–6 return and conversion 356–7 Lucena, robbery of Jews 256 Lumbreras, private debts of Christians to Jews 159

M Madrid, Jewish communal property 62 Madrigal, Cortes (1476): badge decision 6, 418 Hermandad renewal 7 n.

583 interest decision 5–6, 121, 122, 125, 130, 132, 150, 155 taxation 449 Magallón: departure from 237–8 expulsion from 38 synagogue 100–1 Málaga: fall (1487) 23, 24 Jews expelled from Granada 31 port 278 ransom of Jewish prisoners 24, 278 n., 431 return and conversion 379 Mallén: border crossing-point 283–4 expulsion from 38 Malta, implementation of expulsion 281 n. Mansilla: private debts of Christians to Jews 144–5 public debts to Jews 141–2 Maqueda: conversions 81 n., 251–2 debts 119 returnees 405 synagogue 81 taxation 452 Marseilles, arrival at 244 n. Medinaceli, Jewish–Christian credit 125 Medina de Pomar: destination of deportees 268 Jewish–Christian credit 134–5 petition against tax 26 Medina del Campo: assessment of property 213 n. conversions 250 debt collection 464 evictions 55–6 fairs 41 n., 191, 464 Jewish–Christian credit 129–32 population 5 n. return and conversion 347–9 Senior family 413 smuggling 307 Melgaço, border crossingpoint 272

584 Mérida, smuggling 326 Mesta, taxation 445, 448, 479, 504, 510 Miranda de Castañar: conversions 252 return and conversion 389–90 robbery of Jews 258–9 smuggling 303–5 Miranda de Ebro: cemetery 114 synagogue 81–3 Mombeltrán: return and conversion 372–4 robbery of Jews 256 Monroy, return and conversion 393 Montalban, taxation 446 Moradiella, private debts of Christians to Jews 154–5 Morón de Almazán, Jewish–Christian credit 125 Mula, return and conversion 388–9 Murcia: collection of Christians’ debts to Jews 175–6 debts of Jews to Christians 201

N

Naples, destination 241, 279, 280, 281 Navamorcuende, return and conversion 363 Navarre: asylum and expulsion 281–4 borders 209 departure for 229 deportees 226 expulsion (1498) 235 n., 284 Jewish community 162 Jews from Spain 165, 177 population 5 n. return and conversion 332–3, 402–3 Novés, return and conversion 388

O Ocaña: conversions 251

index of places smuggling 320 taxation 453 Ojocastro, return and conversion 394–5 Olivença, border crossing-point 272 Olmedo: private debts of Christians to Jews 147–8 segregation 10 n. taxation 449–50 Oña: debts of Jews to Christians 183–4 synagogue 83–4 Oñate, return and conversion 372 Oran, destination 241, 274–5 Oropesa, return and conversion 377–8 Osma, returnees 335 Oviedo, smuggling 297–8

P Palencia: Inquisition court 18 n. Jewish–Christian credit 135–6 robbery of Jews, 255 segregation 15 synagogue 84–5, 212–13 taxation 23 Palermo 281 n. Pancorvo, synagogue 82, 83 Paredes de Nava: debts of Jews to Christians 189 public debts to Jews 140 Pastrana, synagogue 86 Pedraza, debts of Jews to Christians 197–8 Pedrosa de Redible, private debts of Christians to Jews 161 Peñafiel: debts of Jews to Christians 186–7 private debts of Christians to Jews 156–7 return and conversion 364 Pina, deportees from 227 Pisa, destination 241, 281 Plasencia: collection of Christians’ debts to Jews 170–1 debts after expulsion 486–7

debts of Jews to Christians 198 Jewish–Christian credit 124 return and conversion 358–63, 406 smuggling 322 synagogue 86 taxation 510–11 Ponte d’Eume, smuggling 292 Portugal: border crossing-points 261–2, 272–4, 293 borders 209, 210 Edict of Expulsion (1496) 42–3, 320, 334 entrance duties 272, 273, 291 invasion of Castile 4 Jews from Spain 165, 177, 210 numbers of Jews entering 287–8 passage into 272–4 persecution of Jews (1496–7) 273 relations with Castile 23 returnees 329, 336–7 transfer of money to 292 war with 23, 154, 301 Puebla de Montalbán: return and conversion 383–4 returnees 405 Puebla de Sanabria, smuggling 293 Puente del Arzobispo: return and conversion 369–71 smuggling 320–1 synagogue 87 Puerto de Santa María, port 278

R

Real de la Vega, tax order 29 Roa, robbery of Jews 257–8 Ronda, fall (1485) 23, 24

S Sagunto: departure from 239–40, 241–2 port 226, 239 synagogue 101 Sahagún: conversions 247

index of places Jewish–Christian credit 135 private debts of Christians to Jews 158 synagogue 87 Sahelices de los Gallegos, smuggling 293 Salamanca: destination of deportees 268 Jewish–Christian credit 138–9 synagogues 87–8 Saldaña: fears of robbery 261 return and conversion 371 Salinillas, smuggling 307–8 San Bartolomé de los Piñares 177–81 San Martín de Valdeiglesias: community size 288–9 return and conversion 384–5 San Yuste, private debts of Christians to Jews 158–9 Sanlúcar de Barrameda, port 218, 274 Santa Cruz, return and conversion, 376 Santa Olalla, return and conversion 357 Santo Domingo, collection of Christians’ debts to Jews 165–6 Sardinia: Edict of Expulsion 39 n. implementation of Edict of Expulsion 279–81 Segovia: cemetery 114 collection of Christians’ debts to Jews 165–6; after the expulsion 172–3 community 10 community council 16 community property 17 convent 60–1 debts of Jews to Christians 192–4 Inquisition 18 n., 432 Jewish community 25 n. Jewish–Christian credit, loans to Crown from Jews 24 private debts of Christians to Jews 148–9

return and conversion 338–40 sale of Jewish communal property 61 segregation 15–16 Senior family 15–16, 413, 416–17 Senior property 437–8 smuggling 312–14 synagogues 88–90, 490 taxation 25 n., 61, 432 war supplies 25 Señuela, Jewish–Christian credit 125 Sepúlveda, return and conversion 377 Sesma, deportees 241 Seville: expulsion of Jews 21 Ferdinand and Isabella in 7, 19 housing 9 Inquisition court 18 n. population 5 n. religion 7 smuggling 296–7 Sicily, implementation of Edict of Expulsion 279–81 Sigüenza: collection of Christians’ debts to Jews 175 Inquisition court 18 n. Jewish–Christian credit 125 returnees 335 synagogue 90–1 Soria: departure from 217 private debts of Christians to Jews 159–60 return and conversion 336–7 robbery of Jews 255 segregation 8–9, 15 smuggling 298–300 synagogue 91 war supplies 25 Sos del Rey Católico: departure from 234 deportees from 227 synagogue 101 Spain, population 5 n.

T Talamanca de Jarrama, collection of Christians’ debts to Jews 173

585 Talavera de la Reina: Jewish assets 60 return and conversion 363 size of Jewish community 289 smuggling 320–1 taxation 23, 446 Tarancón, return and conversion 375 Tarazona: cemetery 116 collection of Christians’ debts to Jews 174, 203 expulsion from 38 synagogue 101–2 Tarragona: departees from 244 port 239 Tauste, expulsion from 38 Tembleque, collection of Christians’ debts to Jews 174 Teruel: conversions 245 expulsion 22, 42 n. Inquisition court 18 n. Tlemcen, destination 276 Toledo: butchers’ shops 108 cemetery 110, 115 city 2 Cortes 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 41–2, 70, 84, 120, 210 debts of Jews to Christians 182–3, 196–7 Inquisition court 18 n. Jewish–Christian credit 123 Jewish communal property 59, 65–7 population 5 n. return and conversion 341–4 size of Jewish community 289 smuggling 316–18 synagogues 91–2 taxation 446 Tordesillas: Jewish–Christian credit 126–7 monastery of Santa Clara 68 Toro: Jewish–Christian credit 138 synagogue 92–3

586 Torralba, private debts of Christians to Jews 158–9 Torre: collection of Christians’ debts to Jews 169–70 return and conversion 395–6 Torre de Mormojón: debts of Jews to Christians 188–90 Jewish–Christian credit 135–6 private debts of Christians to Jews 147 return and conversion 398–9 smuggling 321–2 Torregalindo, collection of Christians’ debts to Jews 163–5 Torrelaguna: debts of Jews to Christians 195 return and conversion 381–2 smuggling 318–19 Torrelobatón, return and conversion 366–8 Torrijos: debts 119 returnees 405 synagogue 93 Tortosa-Ampolia: departure from 234 n., 243–4 port 226, 239 Trujillo: building dispute 433–4 cemetery 115 return and conversion 376–7 Senior’s magistracy 423 smuggling 294–6 synagogue 93–4, 433–4 taxation 453, 455, 459 Tui, synagogue 94–5 Tunis, destination 401 Turégano, synagogue 95

U Uclés, return and conversion 382 Uncastillo, deportees from 227 Urueña, return and conversion 357–8

index of places V Valdarcete, return and conversion, 392–3 Valdemaqueda, conversions 252 Valderas, debts of Jews to Christians 186 Valdezcaray Tortosa, destination of deportees 268 Valencia: Inquisition 18 n., 513 kingdom of 239 population 5 n. port 239 synagogue 102 Valencia de Alcántara: robbery of Jews 260 smuggling 323–5 Valencia de Don Juan, debts of Jews to Christians 196 Valladolid: city 2 debts of Jews to Christians 184–5 Inquisition court 18 n. Jewish communal property 68 population 5 n. return and conversion 378–9 robbery of Jews 256–7 Royal Council 84, 143 taxation 68 Valmaseda: expulsion policy 21–2, 26 n., 42, 430–1 marriage restrictions 21 n. Vélez, return and conversion 375–6 Venice, exiles in 279 Villa del río Pisuerga, debts of Jews to Christians 199 Villafáfila, debts of Jews to Christians 186 Villafranca de la Puente: return and conversion 380 taxation 446 Villafranca del Bierzo, smuggling 292 Villalón, Jewish–Christian credit 135–7 Villalosada, private debts of Christians to Jews 159 Villalpando, debts of Jews to Christians 186

Villapadierna, collection of Christians’ debts to Jews 171–2 Villar, return and conversion 357–8 Villarrubia, collection of Christians’ debts to Jews 172 Villasilos, private debts of Christians to Jews 157–8 Villelcho (Villincho, Belinchón): Jewish communal property 59–60 return and conversion 375–6 Vitoria: cemetery 115–16 debts of Jews to Christians 190 synagogue 95–6

Z Zafra, return and conversion 390–2 Zamora: border crossing-point 262, 270 destination of deportees 272 Jewish communal property 61 return and conversion 385 smuggling 305–7 synagogue 96–7 taxation 61 Zaragoza: abattoir 108–9 baking oven 108 cemetery 117 community 3 departure from 229 deportees from 241, 243, 244 destination of deportees 268 Edict of Expulsion (1492) 33, 37–8 expulsion 22, 42 Inquisition 18 n., 233 monastery 60 names of exiles 229 n. population 5 n. segregation 15 synagogues 102–4

General Index A abattoirs: abandonment on segregation 12, 104 established in synagogue building 85 income from 64, 104 location 104 ordinances 108–9 ownership 92 rebuilding 12 taxation 65, 104 in Zaragoza 108–9 agriculture 404, 405 alcaides 8, 14 alcaldes 56 alcaldes de la sacas 209 alguaciles 56, 57 annuities: for charitable purposes 58–9 disputes over 62–3 juro de por vida 60

B

badge, Jewish 6, 29, 418–19, 492 baking ovens 104, 430 baptism 330, 331 baths, ritual 12, 58 Black Death (1348) 3 blood libel 28 books: account-books 156 Inquisition policy 232–3 removal permitted 41 n., 233, 235, 240 of returnees 342, 398, 404 n. shipment 244 surrender demanded 232–3, 238 border-crossings 261–71

C

caballeros 9, 56, 57 cattle, removal forbidden 41 n. cemeteries: dispossession 10 fate 110–17 location 55 sale forbidden 57 segregation 12 n. clergymen 170 clerks 57, 70

coins: removal: forbidden 32 n., 291; permitted 283, 513 robbery of 255 smuggled out 170, 177, 197, 220, 222–3, 245, 291, 294 continos (continuos) 59, 61, 66 conversions: in 1391 2 in 1492 244–53, 274–8 in 1497 334 see also return and conversion conversos: chartering ships 218–19 effects of conversion 253 Inquisition 13, 18–19 Jewish influence on 14, 20–1, 26, 35, 42, 45 leave Granada 30 propaganda against 3, 26–9 returning from exile 298, 306–7 reverting to Judaism 7 segregation 9 treatment on return 335–6 trials 14 n., 216, 248, 406 see also return and conversion corregidores: appointment 14 Crown order on returnees 335 defence of deportees 253 expulsion supervision 41, 210–11 Jewish communal property 56–7, 61, 62, 64 Jewish debts 119, 145, 149 robbery of Jews 254 costume: badge, Jewish 6, 252 court dress 2 Jewish 3, 6, 252 papal bull 14 n. Torquemada’s memorandum 28–9 Council of the North and Ports: Jewish debt issues 131, 133, 145, 150, 156, 159, 183, 185–8, 191–2 Council of the Santa Hermandad: debts to 130 expulsion role in Aragon 14, 41, 210 renewal 4–5, 7 n. role 7 n., 210 segregation role 17 Senior relationship 421

588

general index

Council of the Santa Hermandad (cont.): tax 26, 457 taxation role 25 treasurer 5, 456–60 credit, Jewish–Christian: attempts to settle accounts before departure 125–6 in Castile 118–26

D debts: attempts to settle accounts before departure 125–6 collection 56 n.; after expulsion 161–82, 462–3 Crown 60, 69 after Edict of Expulsion 118–19, 123–5 freezing 124, 193 of Jews to Christians 182–92; after expulsion 192–201 private debts of Christians to Jews 142–61, 333, 463 public debts to Jews 139–42 sold to Christians 164 departure: conversations about 216–17 fees for 239, 262, 263, 284 by land 229–38, 253–74 by sea 238–44, 274–9 tribulations of 253–61 deportees from Aragon 223–9 departure by land 229–38 departure by sea 238–44 destinations 226, 241, 281 escorts 224 (Table 5.1) robberies of 227–9 deportees from Castile 253–61 departure by land 253–74 departure by sea 274–9 destinations 268, 272, 281 destinations 226, 241, 268, 272, 281, 290 Dominican order 19, 27–8, 111, 496 donkeys, removal forbidden 291 dress, see costume

E Edict of Expulsion (1492): analysis of structure 38–41 arenga 40 drafting 41–3 implementation 14; in Aragon 223–44; in Castile 244–7; in Sardinia and Sicily 279–81 the order (facsimile) 46–8 organizing the departure 218–23 promulgation 33–8, 56, 125, 161, 183, 207

publication 118, 125, 191 road to implementation 207–18 sanctions 45 secrecy 208 n. signature 32, 38, 44, 207 as solution to religious and public problems 244 text and translation 49–54 time limit 33–4, 35–6, 244, 280 views of Catholic monarchs 43–8 Edict of Expulsion from Andalusia (1483) 9, 20–1, 42 education, Jewish 3 escorts: appointment of 215, 225–6 cost of 226, 254, 284 of deportee convoys from Aragon 224 (Table 5.1) investigation of conduct 227–8 robbery by 227–8, 257 expulsion of Jews from Spain: blame for 45 causes 35 contemporary descriptions 520–6 date 290 deportee convoys from Aragon 224 (Table 5.1) first discussed 3 last day in Spain 161 numbers expelled 284–90

F

fares, payment of 241 food: on journey 284 on voyage 240 fueros (privileges) 55, 145

G

Genoese merchants 123, 165 n., 218–23, 333, 498 n. gold: removal: forbidden 41 n., 231, 291; permitted 283 smuggled out 170, 177, 197, 220, 231, 291, 294 grain: prices 147–8, 175 removal forbidden 41 n., 291 tax 230, 503 n. gunpowder, removal forbidden 41 n., 291

H Hermandad, see Council of the Santa Hermandad

general index horses, removal of: forbidden 41 n., 260, 291 permitted 283 hospitals 58 household articles: example of 260 removal permitted 291 houses of study: building 55 dispossession 10 fate of 58 housing, segregation 8–9, 12–16, 29, 212

I

Inquisition 18–22 blames Jews for expulsion 45 in Calatayud 235 conversos 13 Edict of Expulsion (1492) 41 Edict of Expulsion from Andalusia 20, 22 in Ejea de los Caballeros 232–3 establishment 7–8, 17, 32, 34, 45 expulsion from Aragon 210 expulsion from Castile 210 implementation of Edict of Expulsion 229 n. noting reversion to Judaism 397–8 Senior relationship 458–9 Suprema 18 trials of conversos 14 n., 216, 248, 406 views of Isabella 43 interest, lending money at: Cortes decision (1462) 120 Cortes decision (1476) 5–6, 121, 122, 125, 130, 132, 150, 155 credit arrangements in Spain 119–22 fraude de usura 6, 120–1, 125, 132, 149, 164, 172, 178–9, 191, 193, 195–6, 366 proofs of 158 rates 141 n. Senior’s influence 430, 453–4

J jewels: removal: forbidden 41 n., 291; permitted 513 smuggling 291 judges 56, 57, 70 juros 60, 228 juros de por vida 60, 66

L

land and buildings 55–60 land grants 55 Lateran Council, Fourth (1215) 6 law, Jewish 3 leaders, community 56 Libro llamado el Alboraique 27

589

loans 60–9 attempts to settle accounts before departure 125–6 Castilian system 122–3 clergy, role of 170 to Crown from Jews 24–5 see also interest

M

manuscripts, removal permitted 291 meat: kosher slaughter 104 sale of 104 storage 104 n. taxes, see taxation mikvaot, see baths, ritual moneylenders 153 n., 159 Moors (Muslims): conversions 500 costume 28 funds for wars against 423 n., 454 population 11–12 property sold to 237, 361 sale of mosques 84, 212 segregation 9, 10, 12, 17, 41 n. Spanish policy 1 status 403 tax-farming 511 mortgages 63 mosques: building of 10 conversion of synagogues into 93 dispossession of 11 sale of 84 mules, removal of: forbidden 291, 304 permitted 283 Muslims, see Moors

N

nobility, and Jewish property 56 n. notes of exchange 291, 333 nursemaids 14 n.

O

Order of Santiago 5 ovens, baking, see baking ovens oxen 509

P

physicians 343, 404 pirates 241, 278, 281 poor houses 12 population size 5 n. promissory notes 118–19, 333 propaganda against Jews and conversos 3, 26–9

590

general index

property, communal: decree on sale 57–8 expropriation 17 land and buildings 55–60 loans 60–9 ordinance on sale 56–7 registration 229 synagogues, houses of study, and ritual baths 69–70 property, personal: Crown assent to return of 407–12 (Table 7.1) illicit seizure 253–4 listing 229 removal forbidden 41, 231, 291 repurchase 330–1, 333, 404

R

ransom money 24 rape 256, 276 regidores 28, 56, 57, 70 return and conversion 329–37, 403–6 Aragon 402–3 baptism 331 Castile 338–402 Crown assent to return of property 407–12 (Table 7.1) destinations 405 returnees 405–6 time limit 333, 335 treatment on return 335–6, 406 robbery of deportees 227–9, 230, 253–61, 400 Royal Council: implementation of Edict of Expulsion 209 interest investigations 454 Jewish debt issues 84, 124, 125, 129, 143, 149, 161, 164, 183 Melamed’s membership 481 returnees cases 404 smuggling issues 301–2

S

saddlers 55 saffron 375 segregation: from conversos 7–8 decisions of Cortes in Castile 5–6, 10–12 dress regulations 6–7 edict of (1480) 9, 10–12, 69–70, 84, 149, 212 effects of 12–18 housing 8–9, 12–16, 29 shepherds 254, 255, 445–6 shipowners 240–1, 274–9 ships, chartering 219, 402 silk, removal permitted 31 n., 41 n., 291

silver: removal: forbidden 41 n., 230, 291; permitted 283 smuggled out 170, 177, 197, 220, 231, 291, 294 slaves 201 smugglers 254–5, 256, 292 smuggling 291–4, 327–8 discovery of 209 n. persons appointed to investigate 309–11 (Table 6.1) returnees 403–5 sorcery 423, 427–8 synagogues: building of 9, 10, 55, 70, 273 dispossession of 9–11 fate of 69–70 sale of: forbidden 57; permitted 212

T

Talmud 26, 27, 232, 235 taxation: albaquía 458 alcabala 23 n., 63, 65, 66, 95, 106, 145, 446, 475, 503 alcabala registry 192 almojarifazgo 447 annual levy (cabeça de pecho) 23, 60, 61, 68 border taxes 211–12 castellanos tax 23–4, 25–6, 452–6 cuedillo 448 dos pedidos a treynta e seys monedas 446 duties on kosher meat and wine 13, 23 n., 60, 61, 62, 69, 104, 105 export duties 264, 269 fraud 451, 452, 472 grazing taxes 447 half-service tax (medio servicio) 23, 60, 61 hatred of tax-collectors 452 Hermandad 26, 457 Jewish payment 3, 23, 475 Jewish tax-collectors 6, 29, 223 Jewish tax-farmers 475; see also Senior, Abraham martiniega tax 67 montazgo 446, 447 pledged by Crown to pay annuities 60 portazgo 262, 263, 447 service tax (servicio) 23, 60, 61, 446, 447 sisa tax 13, 109 tercia tax 498–9, 503 transit tax 266, 284, 291, 445–6 textiles: duty on 25 n., 269 removal permitted 291 robbery of 277

general index tombstones 70, 82, 83, 110–16 Torah: crowns and ornaments for scrolls 74, 88, 101, 103–4 garment 231 scrolls 88, 98, 202, 233, 234, 238 Tortosa, Disputation of (1413–14) 1, 2, 3, 69 trade, segregation regulations 16 trial, right to 421

U usury, see interest

V

Valladolid Regulations 2, 6 veedores 2, 62 vehicles, removal forbidden 291 visitadores 12

W

weapons, removal forbidden 291 wine: casks 392 tax on, see taxation wineskins 240

591