Roth (Norman)_The Jews and the Muslim Conquest of Spain

The Jews and the Muslim Conquest of SpainAuthor(s): Norman RothSource: Jewish Social Studies, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Spring, 1976), pp. 145-158Published by: Indiana University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4466922 .

Accessed: 24/04/2013 09:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Indiana University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Jewish SocialStudies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.52.23.12 on Wed, 24 Apr 2013 09:57:24 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=iupress

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4466922?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


The Jews and the Muslim Conquest of Spain

by Norman Roth

In the spring or summer of 711, Tariq ibn Ziyad landed with a Berber force on the shores of Al-Andalus and began the invasion that was to result, in a few short months, in the conquest of most of Spain and the end of the tot-

tering Visigothic kingdom. It is scarcely possible to ascertain with complete accuracy the details of this invasion. The Arabic sources disagree as to the exact date, as well as to the number of troops involved-with most author- ities stating 7,000, but others saying 12,000.1 Most sources agree that the

invading force was composed mostly of Berber troops, newly converted to Islam after the conquest of North Africa, with only a few Arabs participating.

Much has been written about this invasion which was destined to change the course, not only of Spanish but, to a great extent, of all medieval Euro-

pean history. In spite of the availability of excellent translations and studies of the Muslim sources, however, many writers have concentrated their attention almost exclusively on the far less detailed and less reliable Christian sources written, for the most part, many centuries after the event. As a result a good deal of mythology has grown up concerning the Muslim conquest of

Spain. Not the least interesting part of that mythology is the role allegedly played by the Jews in that conquest. Jewish and non-Jewish historians alike have asserted that the Jews were involved in a "conspiracy" that led directly to the Muslim invasion and that they then eagerly lent their aid in the con-

quest. The "Father of Jewish History," Heinrich Graetz, already mentioned the

plot of the Jews of Visigothic Spain, noting that in 694 they purportedly "entered into an alliance with their more fortunate brethren in Africa, with the intention of overthrowing the Visigothic empire," and were "probably" aided in this attempt by the Muslims. The plot was discovered and, according to Graetz, all the Jews of Spain, Septimania, and Narbonne were made slaves.2

Nahum Slouschz, following Graetz, wrote that in 589 a "large number"

A detailed account, synthesizing earlier sources, is given in al-Maqqari (al-Makkari), The History of the Mohammedan Dynasties in Spain, trans. Pascual de Gayangos (London, 1840-43), I, 250-51. Cf. the accounts of Ibn Hayyan, ibid., p. 267; Ibn Khaldun and Ibn Khatib, ibid., p. 268. Cf. also the account of the Akhbar Majmu'a (the "Anonymous of Paris," or "Anonymous of Cordoba"), Ajbar Machmua ... ed. and trans. Emilio Lafuente y Alcantara (Madrid, 1867), pp. 20-21.

2 Geschichte der Juden (Leipzig, 1895), V, 140; English trans., History of the Jews (Philadelphia, 1894), III, 108. See also Graetz, "Die westgothische Gesetzgebung in Betreff der Juden," Jahresbericht des jidisch-theologischen Seminars. 'Fraenckelscher Stiftung' (Breslau, 1858), pp. 17, 29.

145



146 JEWISH SOCIAL STUDIES

of Jewish refugees fled the persecution of the Visigothic kings and went to

Morocco, and that the Jews of North Africa, who at "various times" had

emigrated from Spain, made "common cause" with the Muslim Tariq (whom Slouschz goes so far as to suggest was Jewish himself). The victorious Muslims in 711 were "everywhere supported by the Jews," to whom the Muslims confided for safekeeping "every city" which they conquered. The first invad-

ing force (under the Berber Tariq in 710) consisted, according to Slouschz, of Muslim and Jewish Berbers, and their success can only be explained by as-

suming that there were "Jewish accomplices" in Spain aiding tfeir victory. The Jews of the Maghrib "planned the conquest of the Peninsula in effect with the aid of their Berber coreligionists, and not the Musulmaris, as certain authors believe."3

In an interesting article entitled "The Fall of the Visigothic Power in

Spain," R. Dykes Shaw noted the Visigothic persecution of Jews and the

attempt to "uproot them entirely from Spanish soil .... And yet the race

irrepressibly persisted. Everywhere bands of Jews were to be found secretly nursing feelings of hatred against their oppressors, and ready to hold out the hand in any direction that promised revenge. They thus added a real peril of conspiracy and sedition to the whole tottering fabric of society, and much alarm was created at the seventeenth council of Toledo (694) by the dis-

covery of their intrigues with their brethren in North Africa, and with the Berber tribes who had given these brethren asylum."4 Referring to the con-

quest of Toledo, he says: "The Jews . . . gave him [Tariq] access to the city, and indeed the leading inhabitants had already deserted it." Again, he refers to the "ever-willing Jews" as providing garrisons for the conquered cities.5

This myth was not without its followers in Spain. Enrique Florez, the eminent eighteenth-century scholar who was, in part, the editor of the im-

portant collection of sources entitled Espana sagrada, wrote in his dedication to Ferdinand VI: "De V. Mag. es la gloria de la pureza de la Fe que la Iglesia conserva en sus Dominios, contradecida desde el tiempo de los Godos la

perfidia Judayca .... 6 A more contemporary scholar, the eminent Arabist, Pascual de Gayangos, wrote:

The practice so universally observed by the invaders of intrusting to the Jews the defense of the cities and fortresses taken from the Christians, would, in the absence of any other fact, show that a previous understanding must have long existed between them and the Berbers under the orders of Tarik. . . . That the Jews of the Peninsula had at different times been suspected of holding communication with those of Africa,- that in the reign of Egica they had actually been accused, and to all appear- ances convicted, of inviting the Arabs to make a conquest of Spain,-is sufficiently attested by the national writers. I have shown elsewhere on the authority of Ibn

3 "Hebreo-Pheniciens et Judeo-Berberes," Archives Marocaines, 14 (1908), 324, 388, 395-96; and "Judeo-Hellenes et Judeo Berberes," ibid., pp. 412 and 409.

4 English Historical Review, 21 (1906), 214. s Ibid., pp. 226-27. 6 EspafIa Sagrada (Madrid, 1754-), IV, f. 5 (unnumbered).



Muslim Conquest of Spain 147

Khaldun, that most of the Berber tribes inhabiting the northern shores of Africa professed the Jewish religion .... Hence, on the invasion of Spain by the Berbers, the Jews, who expected to be delivered by them from the state of oppression in which they lived, every where made common cause with them.7

In the place to which Gayangos referred he says: "The Berbers, too, were sunk in the grossest ignorance; a few only professed Christianity. A considerable proportion still worshipped idols, but the greatest number professed Judaism, a circumstance which the reader must bear in mind, as it will be found to have powerfully contributed to the invasion and con-

quest of Spain by the Mohammedans" (italics added).8 He in fact does not cite Ibn Khaldun at all in the note here quoted, but the remark to which he apparently refers is in Ibn Khaldun's Histoire des Berberes (tr. de Slane, Paris, 1925-56, 4 vols., I, 177): "There were then among [the tribes] those who professed the Jewish religion; others were Christians, and others pagans .... " On the other hand, Ibn Khaldun rejected the "absurdity" of the opinion that all Berbers were descendants of Abraham (p. 182); and again, he spoke of "a part of the Berbers" who professed Judaism (p. 208). The complex question of the "Jewishness" of some of the Berber tribes remains to be dealt with more fully.

Dozy seems merely to have repeated these assertions when he stated that in 694 the Jews of Spain planned a "general insurrection with their coreli-

gionists" in Africa, "where several Berber tribes professed Judaism, and where

Jews exiled from Spain had found a refuge."9 Antonio Ballesteros10 notes the conflicting views of those, like Jules Tailhan, who held that the Muslims alone initiated the conquest and the others, like Aureliano Fernandez-Guerra and Eduardo Saavedra, who argued a "Witizan conspiracy" to recover the

throne, but without any discussion of the views of these scholars on the

Jewish participation in this presumed conspiracy. 1

Among contemporary scholars who lend their support to the thesis, Stanley Payne says that Jews "eagerly collaborated" with the Muslims; and states matter-of-factly that "Jews sometimes assisted the Muslims, and a detachment of Jewish soldiers (perhaps related to Hispano-Jews exiled to the

Maghreb) accompanied the invaders."12 We may note at the outset that while the degree of Jewish "collaboration" after the invasion had begun may be

open to debate, we are aware of no single source that could possibly be in-

7 al-Maqqari, History, I, 531, n. 18. a Ibid., p. 511, n. 15.

9 Reinhardt Dozy, Histoire des Musulmans d'Espagne (Leiden, 1861), II, 27-28; rev. and ed. E. Levi-Provencal (Leiden, 1932), II, 35-36.

10 Antonio Ballesteros, Historia de Espafia (Barcelona, 1919) I, 502 ff. 1 On the views of the historians mentioned, see Solomon Katz, The Jews in the Visigothic and

Frankish Kingdoms of Spain and Gaul (Cambridge, Mass., 1937; rpt. New York, 1970), pp. 116-17. Cf. especially Eduardo Saavedra, Estudio sobre la invasidn de los arabes en Espaia (Madrid, 1892), pp. 57-58; Aureliano Ferandez-Guerra, Caida y ruina del imperio visigdtico espaiola (Madrid, 1883).

12 Stanley Payne, A History of Spain and Portugal (Madison, Wisc., 1973), I, 18.




terpreted to suggest that Jewish troops, Berber or otherwise, came with the invaders.

Somewhat more cautiously, Gabriel Jackson merely suggests that the in-

vading troops were "welcomed" by a "large proportion of the ruling aristo-

cracy [?] and the Jews."13 S. M. Imamuddin states that the Jews planned a rebellion and invasion with the Berbers in 694.14 Perhaps the most inter-

esting, because of its originality, is the account of Albert Bagby:

When King Witiza, who favored tolerance for the Jews, was deposed in favor of the warrior-noble Rodrigo, the sympathizers of King Witiza-mainly the entire Jewish population, but also a few Christian noblemen-conspired to rid the kingdom of

Rodrigo's rule. Count Julian, a Jew, hated Rodrigo.... Although Rodrigo's troops numbered 100,000, his army was routed because of rampant treachery on the part of his Jewish troops and followers of Witiza. In a single, decisive battle, Visigothic Spain became the Moorish Spain of Al-Andalus, and the course of Spanish history was

changed completely-largely due to the treachery of one well-placed Jew and his fel- lows. (Italics added.)15

Indeed, the "treachery" must have been of enormous magnitude to result in the defeat of an army of no less than "100,000 troops" facing, even if we

accept the largest figure, only 12,000 Muslims! Of course, these figures are

enormously exaggerated-as is common in most medieval chronicles. The

legend of Witiza "favoring tolerance" for the Jews originates (significantly enough, in view of what we shall discover with regard to this source) in the

thirteenth-century Chronicon Mundi of Lucas of Tuy, and of course it has

long been recognized that "his testimony has no value on this point.16 It has

already been stated that there is no evidence of any Jewish participation in the invading Muslim forces, and there is certainly no evidence of "Jewish troops" among Roderick's forces. The claim of Count Julian's Jewishness must join Slouschz's equally dubious claim for the Jewishness of Tariq. (Not everyone in history is Jewish.) In spite of the relatively large amount of material that has been written about Julian we are still uncertain of his ori-

gins. Called variously in the Arabic sources "Julian" or "Ilyan" (even "Wul-

yan"? or "Ulyan"?, and "Bilyan" in the Fath al-Andalus), he is invariably referred to as ar-Rumi (literally, "The Byzantine"-but in Arabic terminol-

ogy of the period, this could designate a Christian generally). He was count or governor of Ceuta and by no means, of course, Jewish. 7

13 Gabriel Jackson, The Making of Medieval Spain (New York, 1972), p. 10. 14 S. M. Imamuddin, Some Aspects of the Socio-Economic and Cultural History of Muslim Spain

(Leiden, 1965), p. 14. 1 s "The Jew in the Cantigas of Alfonso X, El Sabio," Speculum 46 (1971), 685 n. 37. 16 Katz, pp. 21-22 and n. 1. 17 Cf. the bibliography on Julian cited by Miquel Barcelo in Islamic Studies 9 (1970), 189 n. 27;

and also John Harris Jones, trans., The History of the Conquest of Spain (Gottingen and London, 1858; rpt. New York, 1969), pp. 47-56. In referring to de Slane, trans., Histoire des Berberes, I, Ap- pendix II, 346, Jones neglected to mention the most important information there: that Julian and his son "Melka-Bitro" (Pedro) were Christians "of Gothic origin." (Cf. also A. Gateau in Revue Tuni- sienne, 25 [1936], 77-83).




Before undertaking an examination of the sources for the conquest itself, it is necessary at this point to examine briefly the supposed rebellion of the

Jews in 694.18 It would appear that the policy of Egica toward the Jews was not entirely one of unrelieved persecution, and that his early legislation

(even if, according to Katz, it "aggravated the legal inferiority of the Jews,") was considerably more liberal than that of his predecessor. (It would appear that the subject of this king's relation to the Jews has by no means been ex- hausted and could well profit from a fresh treatment.) Ballesteros somewhat

excessively portrayed Egica as "benign and generous with the Jews, but they, ungrateful to their benefactor [sic], faithless to the oath which they had given, and conspiring with their coreligionists of Africa against the security and existence of the Visigothic nation, obliged the monarch to take severe measures which warded off for some time the Muslim invasion."l 9

In his introductory statement to the XVIIth Council of Toledo in 694, Egica accused the Jews of conspiring with "Hebrews in areas across the sea"

against the kingdom. The Jews at that time were supposedly either expelled or sold into slavery as a result of the Council's decree.20 However, it should be noted carefully that in the absence of independent sources testifying to the condition of the Jews at the time, we are in no position to say whether, or to what extent, this decree was in fact carried out; and, secondly, that Katz and others do not seem justified in concluding from the very limited evidence available that the Jews conspired to "deliver Spain to the more tolerant Moors."21 In fact, a number of things mitigate against accepting at face value the evidence of the speech which Egica made to the Council. In the first place there is the fact that Egica had shown himself inclined to a somewhat more tolerant attitude to the Jews, at least by not renewing the law requiring forced baptism of all the Jews in the kingdom. Secondly, what assurance in fact did the Jews of that time have that the Muslims would be

any more tolerant of them than their Visigothic masters? (In fact, the record of the treatment of Jews by conquering Mulsim forces-in spite of their legally "protected status" as ahl al-Qitab, "people of the Book", or ahl al-dimma, "protected people" living in accord with privileged agreement, shows little favorable treatment. Muhammad himself was quick to become a persecutor of the Jews and demand their expulsion from all Arabia; and in the conquests of the Byzantine countries, Egypt, and Africa, the Jews seldom found that

they had reason to welcome their "liberators." The very fact that they re-

18 Cf. briefly Katz, pp. 20-21. Ballesteros, I, 497, and cf. p. 554, is not entirely correct in sug- gesting that the legislation of Egica and the XVIth Council of Toledo was directed against baptized, or converted, Jews only. On similar errors that have been made with regard to Receswinth, cf. Katz, Ap- pendix II, pp. 157-58.

19 Ballesteros I, 497. Fortunately, current Spanish historical scholarship is for the most part free of this kind of polemic.

20 Concilium Toletanum XVII, in Gian Domenico Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum ... (rpt. Paris, 1903-27), XI, col. 94; cf. tit. VIII, cols. 101-02. See also Jose Amador de los Rios, Historia social, politica y religiosa de losjudios de Espana (rpt. Madrid, 1975), I, 99-100; and Katz, pp. 21 and 59.

21 Katz, p. 21. Katz cites as his source Shaw's article (mentioned above).




ceived tolerant treatment during the conquest of Al-Andalus is probably due to the Berber nature of the invading forces, though not because the latter were Jews but because they were only recently converted to Islam.22) Again, there is no solid evidence other than the very late testimony of Ibn Khaldun and other late Muslim writers that any of the Berbers of North Africa were in fact Jewish; and there is absolutely no firm evidence that the Jews of Visi-

gothic Spain had any contact with them at all. Finally, those authors who advocate a "Jewish conspiracy" in the invasion seem not to take into account the fact that all of the Jews in Spain were supposed to have been enslaved under the Visigoths before the invasion.

Perhaps most consequential is the disturbing fact, ignored for the most

part, that there was already an earlier invasion (or at least a planned invasion) of Al-Andalus by Muslim forces, perhaps around 676 or 677, the date is uncertain. This invasion or attempted invasion is attested not only in Muslim sources but apparently in Christian sources as well.23 This casts even more doubt on any "Jewish conspiracy" in the eventual Muslim conquest itself which would now appear to have been the result of long-deliberated policy.

We turn now to an analysis of the principal sources of the conquest, in order to see what they have to tell us of Jewish involvement. Since the primary, and by far the most reliable, sources are Arabic, a brief summary of the process of historical tradition employed by Muslim writers may be bene- ficial. Muslim scholarship was based on a zealous reverence for tradition

(matn)-a series of "relators" (rawis) passing down, orally or in writing, the sources of information recited to them. The isnad was thus the line of tradition set forth by the historian on which he based his account and by which he claimed not only authenticity but authority (hadit).24 The whole system resulted in a superior historiography the likes of which is not to be found in Christian Europe until the modern era. Each authority is cited by name, and as far as possible his "relation," or account of the events, is recorded verbatim. The early Muslim historians knew to distinguish hearsay evidence from eyewitness accounts and, where there is a difference of opinion as to the facts related, we often find a statement, "Allah knows what is the true account," or the like.

22 For a brief general account of the treatment of Jews in the Arab conquests of the seventh century, see Salo W. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews (New York, 1957-), III, 86 ff. Cf. also the Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam, s.v. "Ahl al-Kitab," and the bibliography cited there.

23 M. Saghir Hasan al-Ma'sumi, "The Earliest Muslim Invasion of Spain," Islamic Studies, 3 (1964), 97-102; Miquel Barcelo, "Some Commentaries [sic] on 'The Earliest Muslim Invasion of Spain'," ibid., 9 (1970), 183-90. Note especially the remarks in n. 17 of the latter article, on traditions of prophecies which circulated in Egypt regarding the conquest of Spain. The fact that the initiators of such traditions may have included Jews converted to Islam does not, nevertheless, suggest any support for the "Jewish conspiracy" theory.

24 Cf. the description of this process in Rhuvon Guest, Introduction to al-Kindi, The Governors and Judges of Egypt (Leiden and London, 1912), p. 15; also Charles Torrey, Introduction to al- Haqam, The History of the Conquest of Egypt, North Africa and Spain (New Haven, 1922). Cf. also sections ii and iii of the article "Hadith" in the Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam.




The major Muslim sources from which we derive significant information

concerning the invasion and the part played by the Jews in the conquest are:

1. Akhbar Majmu'a, an anonymous collection of sources completed in its final form in the second decade of the eleventh century, but parts of which date from the

eighth and ninth centuries.25 2. 'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'Abd al-Haqam (Egyptian, ca. 803-870,) author of the earliest

known chronicle of the invasion.26 3. Abu Baqr Muhammad Ibn al-Qutiyah (Cordoba, d. 977).27 4. Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Musa Abu Baqr ar-Razi (ca. 977).28 5. 'Isz al-Din Ibn al-Atir (ca. 1160-1233).29 6. Ibn 'Idari.30 7. Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406).31 8. al-Maqqari (d. 1631-32).32

A detailed analysis of these sources results in a remarkably coherent and generally consistent account of the invasion and conquest of Spain. This is not to deny that there are obvious mythical elements and embellishments in this account, but for the most part these are readily apparent and they by no means approach the kind of wild stories and polemic which mar the later his- tories of the Almohade and Almoravid periods and make many of them virtually unreliable as sources of the Spanish Reconquest.

25 Ed. and trans. Lafuente (op. cit.). Cf. R. Dozy, Recherches, 2nd ed. (Leiden, 1860), I, 40-57; and especially the indispensable work of C. Sanchez-Albornoz, El "Ajbar Maymu'a" (Buenos Aires, 1944). (The "errors" to which Sanchez refers, p. 42, do not at all effect the account of the conquest.) In spite of the thorough work on dating done by Sanchez-Albornoz and by Julian Ribera, Fuat Sezgin, Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums (Leiden, 1967), I, 363, No. 5, continues to follow Carl Brockel- mann in dating the work as a whole in the tenth century!

26 (Jones, ed. and trans., Conquest of Spain). The Arabic text was also edited by Torrey, op. cit. There is a recent Spanish translation by Eliseo Vidal Beltran, Conquista de Africa del Norte y de Espana (Valencia, 1966).

27 Julian Ribera y Tarrago, trans., Historia de la conquista de Espania de Aben al-Cotia (Madrid, 1926) and a partial French translation by A. Cherbonneau in Journal Asiatique, ser. 8, 5 (1856), 428-82.

28 Cf. Pascual de Gayangos, "Memoria sobre la autenticidad de la Cronica denominada del moro Rasis," Memorias de la Real Academia de la Historia, 8 (1852). The text exists in a thirteenth-century Portuguese translation, and the part dealing with the conquest is translated in Apendice II of Gayangos. The importance of this chronicle has become increasingly apparent, and Sanchez-Albornoz, especially, has contributed numerous significant studies on it. It is inexcusable to find Imamuddin stating; "An- other history, The Moor Rasio or Ruzif [sic], based on the Christian chronicles and some other un- important works [sic] is full of ridiculous stories and mentions only the names of some Muslim kings of Cordova." "Sources of Muslim History of Spain," Journal of the Pakistan Historical Society, 1

(1953), 370-a generally worthless article. 29 Edmond Fagan, trans., Annales du Maghreb et de l'Espagne (Algiers, 1898; 2nd ed., 1901). 30 The indispensable al-Bayan al-Mugrib (Histoire de l'Afrique et de l'Espagne) was first edited

(not translated, as sometimes stated) by Dozy and Levi-Provencal (Leiden, 1848-51) in two volumes, followed by a third volume (Paris, 1930). It was re-edited and revised by G. S. Colin and Levi-ProvenSal (Leiden, 1948). The French translation by Fagnan appeared in Alger in 1901.

31 Histoire des Berberes, trans. M. de Slane (Paris, 1925-56, 4 vols.). A Spanish translation was begun but not completed by Osvaldo Machado, "Historia de los Arabes de Espafa," Cuadernos de Historia de Espana, IV (Buenos Aires, 1946), which I have not seen. On Ibn Khaldun, see the excellent study by M. Mahdi, Ibn Khaldun's Philosophy of History (London, 1957).

32 Gayangos, trans. History of the Mohammedan Dynasties of Spain.




The first thing to be noted in the accounts of the invasion as compiled by al-Maqqari (the chief source for the earlier accounts) is that the principle cause of the invasion is attributed to a quarrel between Julian and Roderic. "Every historian that we have consulted," al-Maqqari says, "alludes more or less explicitly to a certain quarrel between these individuals, which led to the invasion of the Arabs."33 The exact details of this quarrel are not clear, but it is probable that in any event it resulted in Julian leading an exploratory invasion force, perhaps in conjunction with the small expedition under Tariq which landed in 710. Al-Maqqari and his sources make no reference to Jews being in any way involved either as a cause of the invasion, or as participating in the invading force; nor do al-Haqam, the Akhbar Majmu'a, or any of the other early Arab sources make any such reference.

The sequence of events after the initial landing of Tariq's forces in 711 is even more difficult to reconstruct with absolute certainty. The chronicle of

al-Haqam differs here substantially from the others, relating that Musa ibn Nusayr, the governor of North Africa under whose orders the campaigns of the invasion were carried out, "set out for Andalus in Rajab of the year 93" 14 April-14 May 711) with the "chiefs of the Arabs, the commanders, and the leaders of the Berbers."34 Then, citing "traditions of Othman and oth-

ers," he states that Tariq landed after Musa and that soldiers from Cordoba came to meet him but were routed. Roderic came to their rescue from To- ledo and the Christian and Muslim forces fought a decisive battle at Shedunia.35 Mugheyth (Mugit) ar-Rumi is first mentioned as the commander of Tariq's cavalry. Mugit is said to have proceeded to Cordoba while Tariq advanced on Toledo.

The Akhbar Majmu'a first mentions Mugit in regard to the conquest of Cordoba which he is said to have captured with 700 cavalrymen. Afterwards

Tariq sent a detachment to capture Granada and this force "found there

many Jews." They gathered all the Jews of the capital (i.e., Granada, capital of Elvira), and "left them with a detachment of Muslims, the bulk of the

troops continuing their march. The Muslims were accustomed, whenever

they conquered any district, to gather all of them in the capital city. This

they did in Granada, capital of Elvira, and not in Malaga, capital of Rayya, because there they did not encounter Jews nor (other) inhabitants . . .," the residents having fled the city.36

33 Ibid., pp. 250, 255, 265, 268. Gayangos suggests that the statement about the quarrel is true of Arab historians after the eleventh century, but earlier historians "if they mention Ilyan (Julian) at all, say nothing about his misunderstanding with Roderic" (p. 513, n. 29). However this is incorrect, as Ibn Qutiyah mentions it (Ribera's translation, p. 5, and cf. p. 435), as do the Akhbar Majmu'a and other early sources.

34 Jones, History of the Conquest, p. 21. Beltran, Conquista, p. 45, and Gateau, Revue Tunisienne (1935), 250, more correctly translate "clients and Berber chiefs"-i.e., converts to Islam.

35 More correctly, Shidunah. Jones, History, tentatively identified it (correctly) as "Medinah Sidoniah," capital of the district Kurah Shidunah (p. 58, n. 13). The "Othman" who is named here as the source for al-Haqam's account is 'Utman ibn Salih, an Egyptian (761-835).

36 Lafuente, Ajbar Machmua, pp. 23 and 25. Cf. also Gayangos, "Cr6nica del moro Rasis," pp.




Having captured Cordoba, Mugit gathered together the Jews "to whom he had entrusted the custody of the city." There is no mention of the Jews in the conquest of Toledo. Musa ibn Nusayr is said to have arrived in Rama- dan 93 (12 June-11 July 712) with 18,000 soldiers (!) and to have taken Seville after several months' siege. He, too, "confided the custody of the city to the Jews," and proceeded to Merida.37

Ibn al-Atir agrees with his sources in stating that Musa arrived in Rama- dan and, following the route of Tariq, took "Medinat ibn-es-Selim" (?) and marched to Carmona, "the most fortified town of the country." He then proceeded to Seville, "one of the most populated towns of Spain, and one of the most remarkable for its antiquity," which he captured after several months of siege, "and installed in it Jews in order to replace the inhabitants who had fled." There is no mention of Jews in Cordoba, but he adds that when Tariq found Toledo abandoned, "he installed there Jews-together with a certain number of his soldiers," while he marched on Guadalajara.38

The Portuguese translation of the chronicle of ar-Razi makes no reference to the Jews in the capture of Seville; although by comparison with the Akhbar Majmu'a, which utilized the original of ar-Razi, the Jews were certainly mentioned in the original source. However, the translation does relate that when "Tarif" (sic, i.e., Tariq, a confusion often found in the later sources) came to Toledo, all the Christians had left and fled to a city at the foot of the mountains, named Medinat al-Meyda (= Sp. mesa 'table') after the "table of Solomon" which was found there. The Jews came to Tariq and begged him (!) to give them a place to live, and he "thought it best" to give them Toledo.39 Sanchez-Albornoz has suggested that, since this account is not in the Akhbar Majmu'a, "its presence in the text of Razi obliges us to conclude" that Ibn al-Atir had taken his account of the capture of Toledo from ar-Razi, directly or indirectly.40 Nevertheless, it does not "oblige us to conclude" anything of the sort since the only similarity between the account of Ibn al-Atir and that based on ar-Razi is that Tariq found Toledo deserted, a fact substantiated by other sources as well; and it is patently clear that the Portuguese translator of ar-Razi was here engaged in some fanciful reconstruction (though the myth of the "table of Solomon" is of course common to all the Muslim chronicles).

Al-Maqqari, too, relates that after capturing Cordoba, Mugit "assembled all the Jews in the city and left them in charge of it, trusting them in prefer- ence to the Christians, on account of their hatred and animosity towards the

28-30. As Lafuente notes, by the names of the capitals given it is possible to date this portion of the Akhbar Majmu'a in the eleventh century, the time at which they first became "capitals" of the respec- tive provinces.

37 Ibid., pp. 27 and 29. The source is undoubtedly the chronicle of ar-Razi. 38 Fagnan, Annales, p. 47. 39 Gayangos, "Cronica del moro Rasis," pp. 76, 72 (emphasis added). Cf. the account of Rodrigo

of Toledo cited ibid., p. 76, n. 1. 40 "Rasis fuente de Aben Alatir," Bulletin Hispanique 41 (1939), 15.




latter." The Muslim forces then conquered Granada and "the citadel of this

latter place they intrusted to the care of the Jews, and this practice became

almost general in the succeeding years; for whenever the Moslems conquered a town, it was left in custody of the Jews, with only a few Moslems, the rest of the army proceeding to new conquests; and where Jews were deficient a

proportionately greater body of Moslems was left in charge. This plan was

equally adopted with regard to the district of Rayah (Rayya), to which

Malaga belonged." (It is not difficult to see here that al-Maqqari is dependent on the Akhbar Majmu'a, and ultimately, ar-Razi). He then informs us that

Tariq, according to Ibn Hayyan, reached Toledo "and found it deserted."

Tariq "collected together the Jews of the place and leaving behind a body of his troops in charge of the city, marched with the remainder in pursuit of the

fugitives."41 When Musa himself arrived (Ramadan 93, or Rajab according to some-

al-Maqqari may betray here a knowledge of the chronicle of al-Haqam, which

alone (?) gives the latter date), he captured Seville after a long siege and "collected the Jews in the citadel and left a body of his own troops in defense of the place, he himself passing on to Merida."42

Turning now to the Christian chronicles, we are somewhat disappointed if we expect them to shed any new light on the events of the conquest. As noted earlier, Christian historiography of the Middle Ages by no means ap- proached that of the Muslims, nor were their sources as prolific and as accur- ate. The very early medieval Spanish chronicles are usually mere lists of kings with only a few essential events sketched in to fill out the chronology of the

year.43 It is not until the early part of the thirteenth century that we find a

source of importance for the events of the conquest, Rodrigo Ximenes

(Jimenez) de Rada, archbishop of Toledo (ca. 1180-1247). Rodrigo knew Arabic and utilized as a source (among others) the chronicle of ar-Razi in the

original. His history survives in two versions, the Latin original and a four-

teenth-century translation into Spanish.44 Following his Arabic sources, Rodrigo recounts the quarrel of Julian and

Roderic, and that "Muca Avenocair" (Musa ibn Nusayr) sent "a Moor Rafet Averencara" ("Rafet" apparently a transposition of Tarif; the second name

41 History of the Mohammedan Dynasties, I, 280. Gayangos's opinion, p. 530, n. 3, that Tariq and

not Mugit captured Cordoba, is unsupported by all the sources. 42 Ibid., pp. 280-82 (conquest of Toledo); p. 284 (Seville). 43 See, e.g., Rafael Ballester y Castell, Las fuentas narrativas de la historia de Espana durante la

edad media (Palma de Mallorca, 1903), p. 71. 44 Latin text in A. Schott(us), Hispaniae Illustratae (Frankfort, 1608), II, 25-194. The Spanish

translation attributed to Gonzalo de la Hinojosa (bp. of Burgos, 1313-1327) was published in Coleccion de documentos ineditos para la historia de Espana, 105 and 106 (1893). (Menendez Pidal has chal-

lenged de la Hinojosa's authorship of this translation.) A modern Spanish translation by A. Paz y Melia, ibid, 88 (1887), was published as a separate monograph, Estoria de los Godos (Madrid, 1887), with identical pagination. Only the first 241 chapters of the Spanish version are of Rodrigo's chronicle. This version contains much material lacking or abbreviated in the Latin Text.




is "Abu Zora'ah" in al-Maqqari; cf. Pseudo-Isidore's "Abuzara"45) with

Julian and a force of 100 horsemen and 4,000 Berbers. Tariq then sent

"Moieyatrom" (Mugit ar-Rumi) to attack Cordoba, and another force to

Malaga and Granada.46 "Mogeyt then left in the town [Cordoba] the Jews who lived there, with the Moors who remained there in order to settle it and

guard the place." Rodrigo then describes the attack on Granada, where the

troops of "Tarif" (Tariq) "fought a long time, and at last took it, and forti-

fied it with Moors and Jews who lived there."47 We will reserve for the present one final Christian source, to turn our

attention for comparison to an interesting Jewish account. If medieval Chris- tian historiography was poor in comparison to the Islamic, theJewish sources for the most part are considerably worse than either. Unfortunately, we

possess no Jewish source whatever, not even the briefest casual reference,

contemporary with the conquest that even mentions it. The first important Spanish Jewish chronicle, that of Abraham ibn Daud (1160-61), does not mention the conquest at all. His silence is all the more disappointing since he was self-consciously an "historian" and knew Arabic and Latin well. In addi-

tion, he would have had access to the archives and chronicles of Cordoba and Toledo.48 It is not until the fifteenth century, after the exile of the Jews from Spain, that we find a Jewish chronicle that discusses the Muslim con-

quest of Spain, the Emek ha-Bakhah [Vale of Tears] of Joseph ha-Kohen.49

Although of no intrinsic value as a source of the events, it is interesting to see the account which he gives. He repeats the story of Julian's quarrel with

Roderic, which results in Julian's joining forces with the "Ishmaelites" (an

expression coined, as Rodrigo of Toledo tells us, by Lucas of Tuy) and the invasion of Spain in 718, the year given also in Rodrigo's chronicle, but of course not in the Arabic chronicles. Joseph continues:

And the king Roderic died and did not leave after him an heir in his family, and the Ismaelites fought against Toledo many days. And on the Sunday before their Easter the people of the city went out to pray and the besiegers set an ambush for them and came in haste to the city and captured it, and many were smitten by the sword, and the rest of the people and the Jews who were found there were taken away into captivity by the enemy at that time; and a garrison was placed in the city, and [the Muslims] went out and fell upon the people in the field, and many were killed and the rest taken captive. Only the 'riders of the horses' [i.e., caballeros, 'aristocrats']

45 Isidore Pacensis, Chronicon, sec. 34, (Espana sagrada, VIII, 290). Cf. al-Maqqari, History, I, 265; Gayangos discusses the errors associated with this name, ibid., p. 517, n. 7.

46 "Estoria de los Godos," ed. and trans. Paz y Melia, pp. 51 and 57. 47 Translation of de la Hinojosa, pp. 204-05. 48 See the scholarly edition and translation by Gerson Cohen, Sefer ha-Qabbalah, The Book of

Tradition (Philadelphia, 1967). 49 Hebrew text ed. M. Letteris (Cracow, 1895); German trans. M. Wiener, Emek habacha (Leipzig,

1858). On the author, cf. Steinschneider, Die Geschichtsliteratur der Juden (Frankfurt, 1905), pp. 101 ff.




and the heads of the city escaped the slaughter at that time. These feared that the

king would be angry with them [which king is not clear, since we are told above that Roderic died without heirs], and they said, 'The Jews were the source of our trouble and gave us into the hands of the Ismaelites,' and the king became angry against the

Jews, and the people were aroused ...50

This account is of interest in that, written centuries after the events it relates and after the time of the Christian chronicles, it nevertheless preserves some of the details (such as the Christians going "out into the field" on Palm Sun-

day, and the accusation that the Jews gave the city to the Muslims) of Rod-

rigo's account, taken from Lucas of Tuy. It cannot, of course, be ascertained whether the author actually made use of the chronicle of Rodrigo, or perhaps of the Primera Cronica General, or whether he was dependent on oral traditions that still circulated among the Christian population of Spain (his account has a definitely apologetic character).51

We come finally to the Chronicon Mundi written by Lucas of Tuy in the

monastery of San Isidoro de Leon between the years 1197 and 1204 (closer to the earlier date).52 As it has come down to us, the chronicle contains later

interpolations and corruptions. Lucas himself, who used earlier minor chronicles as partial sources, had no qualms about corrupting his sources, confus-

ing facts and inserting his own ideas and fictions. In addition to the Latin

text, there exists also an early Spanish translation of considerable importance.53

Lucas says nothing of any Jewish collaboration with the Muslims to over- throw the Visigoths, nor does he mention the Jewish garrisons in Cordoba, Granada or Seville which, as we have seen, Rodrigo culled from his Arabic sources. Lucas knew no Arabic. What is of primary concern in the account of Lucas is the conquest of the city of Toledo, of which he says the following:

Urbs quoque Toletana multarum gentium victrix Ismaelitis triumphis victa succubuit

per proditionem Iudaeorum, quia fortior [et] rebellior fuerat. Nam dum Christiani in die ramis palmarum ad ecclesiam sanctae Leocadiae extra urbem regiam ob reverentiam tante solemnitatis ad audiendum verbum Domini convenissent, Iudaei qui proditionis signum dederant Sarracenis, Christianis claudentes portas Sarracenis aperuerunt. Ideo fidelis Toletanus populus inermis inventus extra urbem gladio deletus est.54

50 Ed. Letteris, p. 20; Wiener, p. 7. 51 Cf. Primera cronica general, ed. R. Menendez Pidal (Madrid, 1906; 2nd ed. 1955), I, 315, 317.

The account of the Jewish garrisons in Cordoba, Granada, and Seville is taken verbatim from the chronicle of Rodrigo.

52 The chronicle was written at the order of Doia Berenguela, wife of Alfonso IX of Ledn. They were married in 1197 or 1198 (cf. Espana sagrada XXXV, 261; Luciano Serrano, Obispado de Burgos (Madrid, 1935), II, 148, n. 1; but see J. Gonzalez, El reino de Castilla en la 4poca de Alfonso VIII Madrid, 1960 I, 725). The marriage was annulled in 1204. There is considerable evidence to favor the earlier date; cf. also Julio Puyol, ed. Cronica de Espana por Lucas obispo de Tuy (Madrid, 1926), p. v.

53 Puyol, ed., Cronica. In spite of the claims made for an earlier date of this translation, Puyol concludes on linguistic grounds that it cannot predate the middle of the fifteenth century.

54 Chronicon mundi, end of Bk. III, in Schott(us), Hispaniae Illustratae, IV, 70-71.




The Spanish text is roughly equivalent:

Y tanbien la cibdad de Toledo, vencedora de muchas gentes, cayo vencida en los vencimentos de los ysmaelitas por la traycion de los judios y porque mas fuerte y mas reuelde auia seydo. Y mientre los christianos el dia de Ramos veniesen juntos a la

yglesia de Sancta Leocadia, fuera de la cibdad, por reuerencia de tanta solempnidad, para oyr las palabras del Senor, los judios, que auian dado senal de traycion a los

moros, cerraron las puertas a los christianos e abrieronlas a los sarracines;y el pueblo toledano, fiel a Dios, fallado sin armas fuera de la cibdad, fue(ron) destruydo(s) por cuchillo.55

This account was quoted in the name of Lucas in the chronicle of Rodrigo of

Toledo, and from there it was taken almost verbatim into the Primera Cronica

General. 6

What remains to be considered is the extent to which this story of the

Jewish "treachery" at Toledo may be accepted as authentic. It has certainly been accepted as such by some, among whom are the well-known writer of

Toledo, Gustavo Becquer, and-somewhat more suprisingly-no less an au-

thority than Salo Baron.57 Baer, on the other hand, rejects it as medieval

"anti-Jewish propaganda," while Katz only mentions Lucas of Tuy and Rod-

rigo in a general manner and correctly points out that such charges of Jewish "betrayal" and treachery were by no means unique or limited to Spain.58 Ashtor (E. Strauss) rejects the story completely. Among other reasons, he

points out that according to Ibn al-Atir, Toledo was conquered in the year 92 A.H., the last day of which corresponds to 18 October 711, and therefore could hardly have taken place anywhere near Palm Sunday. On similar

grounds, Saavedra rejected the story, noting that it would have required a

siege of many month's duration, which is incompatible with the other historical evidence.59

55 Puyol, Cronica, p. 270. "And also the city of Toledo, conqueror of many peoples, fell under the conquests of the Ismaelites because of the treason of the Jews, and because it had been stronger and more rebellious. And while the Christians were coming together on Palm Sunday at the church of San Locadia, outside the city, for an observance of great solemnity, in order to hear the word of the Lord, the Jews, who had given a signal of treason to the Moors, closed the gates to the Christians and opened them to the Saracens; and the people of Toledo, faithful to God, found unarmed outside the city, were destroyed by the sword."

56 Ed. Menendez Pidal, I, 316; cf. the translation of de la Hinojosa, p. 206. The version of the Primera crdnica was probably an independent translation from the Latin, of course.

57 Gustavo A. Becquer, Historia de los templos de Espana. Toledo (Avila, 1933), pp. 69-70.

Baron, Social and Religious History, III, 92, apparently relates the account of the capture of Toledo from the Christian sources; but adds that "such active revenge of decimated Spanish Jewry on their

Visigothic oppressors need not be doubted," while correctly warning against the "legendary accretions and gross exaggerations" of later Christian chroniclers. But as we have demonstrated here, the entire

story is an exaggeration of later Christian chroniclers-more precisely, of Lucas of Tuy. 5s Yitzhak Baer, A History of the Jews in Christian Spain, trans. Louis Schoffman (Philadelphia,

1966), I, 23; Katz, Jews in Visigothic Spain, p. 117. 59 E. Ashtor, Korot ha-Yehudim be-Sefarad ha-Muslamit (Jerusalem, 1966), I, 11, 270 n. 5. (An

English translation of Ashtor, The Jews of Moslem Spain, is currently being published by the Jewish Publication Society; vol. I appeared in 1973). Ashtor summarizes some of the sources and older




Most telling of all, of course, is the fact that Lucas is the first "source"- over 400 years after the event-to relate this story. Not one single Arabic source mentions it. In fact, as we have seen, most of them agree that the city was already abandoned by its Christian inhabitants when the Muslim troops arrived. It is certainly not the first nor the only example of falsified facts in Lucas's chronicle. We may quite safely conclude that we are dealing with a

pure invention on the part of Lucas which he manifestly did not find in any earlier source which has come down to us.

It is not difficult to detect the reason for his fabrication. Lucas of Tuy was a notorious antisemite who lost no opportunity, either in his chronicle or in his other writings, to make any attack he could against the Jews, no matter how absurd. In addition to a few other falsified charges against the

Jews that are to be found in his chronicle, Lucas condemned the Jews severe-

ly in his anti-Albigensian tract, De Altera Vita. (It would seem, in fact, that in some places in this work he confused the Jews-deliberately?-with the

Albigensians.60 ) Further work must be done on the question of the Albigensian influence

in Spain, the general anti-Jewish polemic of Lucas's writings and the actual situation of the Jews during the reconquest before we will be in a position to

attempt even a guess at the reasons for his position which is virtually unique for the Spain of his time in the bitterness of its polemic.

However, it is hoped that this brief analysis will serve to correct some of the misinformation and inaccuracies concerning the role of the Jews in the Muslin conquest of Spain.

scholarly views, but adds nothing of importance to the discussion. Cf. also Saavedra, Estudio sobre la invasion, p. 79.

60 There is an English translation of a brief passage from this work in Baron, Social and Religious History, IX, 57-58 (where read "thirteenth-century" for "fourteenth").



Documents

Roth (Norman)_The Jews and the Muslim Conquest of Spain