Review: Cohen's "The Friars and the Jews"

Author(s): Norman Roth

Source: The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, Vol. 74, No. 3 (Jan., 1984), pp. 321-325
Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1454203
Accessed: 02/09/2010 11:24

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upenn.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Pennsylvania Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Jewish Quarterly Review.

http://www.jstor.org
 COHEN'S THE FRIARS AND THEJEWS-ROTH 321

COHEN'S THE FRIARS AND THE JEWS*

THIS IS A difficult book to review. The author is an important young scholar,

whose ability to deal with Church sources is almost without parallel among con-
temporary Jewish historians. The book, however-his doctoral dissertation-is
published here with apparently little or no revision. The difficulty is certainly not
the writing style, which is lucid and flowing; the book does not read like many
other dissertations. However, it represents too hasty a treatment of a complex and
important subject.
It ought to be obvious to students of medieval Jewish history that the crux of
most anti-Jewish polemic and other activity (e.g., the Crusades in Europe, the
disputations in France and Spain, the Inquisition, and most polemical literature)
was the monastic movement, and particularly the orders of the Franciscan and
Dominican friars. Yet this subject has been almost completely ignored, aside from
the very fine work of Peter Browe (Die Judenmission im Mittelalter [Rome,
1942]; some, but by no means all, of the other relevant works are listed in Cohen's
bibliography). It is disappointing that even in Spain, where more scholarship is
devoted to Jewish studies than in any other country, nothing in the way of syn-
thesis has been done on the question of Jewish attitudes and of the activity of the
friars, although there have been some fine studies on individuals and on various
disputations and polemical works.
The present volume is thus certainly welcome as a beginning investigation into
a field which needs considerable work. However, it is only a beginning, and not a
book which lives up to its promise. The chief difficulty is that the book is shallow
and superficial throughout.
One very brief chapter (chap. 2) is devoted to explaining to the reader the
nature of the mendicant orders and the rise of the Inquisition! Considering the
many hundreds of articles and books that deal with the beginnings of the Inquisi-
tion, this approach (and the limited bibliography consulted on this subject) is
naive in the extreme. The whole problem of the supposed Jewish relationship to
the Cathar and Albigensian heresies, and the involvement of the Orders in com-
batting them, is casually dismissed in a couple of pages.' A subsequent chapter on
"The Spread of Inquisitorial Activity," although devoted almost exclusively to
Spain, hardly begins to do justice to this subject with regard to Aragon-Catalonia

* Jeremy Cohen: The Friars and the Jews

(Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University
Press, 1982). Pp. 264 + Appendix, Bibliography, Index.
' See
my "Jews and Albigensians in the Middle Ages: Lucas of Tuy on Heretics
in Leon," Sefarad, 41 (1981 [1983]), 71-93, and the bibliography in the notes
there.
322 THE JEWISH QUARTERLYREVIEW

alone; and like most writers, the author ignores altogether the early origins of the
Inquisition in Castile and Leon. The author's lack of knowledge of the Spanish
language is certainly a handicap in undertaking such a study, but even important
Hebrew sources dealing with the Jewish response to the Inquisition, and also
revealing much about Jewish attitudes to the friars, are not discussed here (nor
were the important documents in Baer's volumes of sources consulted).
A chapter on "The Attack on Rabbinic Literature"recites once again the story
of the condemnation of the Talmud in Paris, as well as of Maimonides' Guide.
There is little that is new here for the informed reader, and both these subjects
need fresh and competent treatment.
The most serious problems have to do with the area in which the author is
weakest-medieval Spain. There is not one word in the book about Juan Gil
(Joannes Aegidius) de Zamora, the most important Franciscan in Spain in the
13th century. Not only was his position of power in the Spanish government such
that he certainly deserves mention, but he also wrote many works in which there
are frequent references to Jews. Most of these are in Latin, and thus could have
been consulted by the author, although some are in Spanish, as is most of the
secondary literature on Zamora. Alfonso de Madrigal, called "Tostado," the lead-
ing Franciscan of the 15th century, is also missing. His relationship to the Jews is
of tremendous significance, and there is considerable literature on him.
Even more serious is the completely inadequate treatment of Ram6n de Pefia-
fort (not Raymond de Pefaforte!), author of the Decretals and one of the chief
authors of the Siete Partidas, the important code of law composed for Alfonso X
of Castile which is not even mentioned in the book. What we are given is a brief
summary of his life, part of which is far from correct. The only apparent justifica-
tion for including him in the book seems to be his supposed connection with the
Summa contra gentiles of Thomas Aquinas (which, in spite of the considerable
attention given to it here, contains no anti-Jewish polemics at all, nor any refer-
ence to Jews; the author might have discussed Aquinas' relationship to, and
dependence on, Maimonides, however), and with the Barcelona disputation-a
connection already discussed, however inadequately, by Baer.
This, however, is by no means the full story. It ought to have occurred to
authors long before Cohen that since Ramon de Pefiafort was the author of the
Decretals, he deserves fuller study in this regard, particularly with respect to his
other writings. This has not been done, nor has there yet been an adequate analy-
sis of the references to Jews in either the Decretum of Gratian or the Decretals,
which takes into account such things as sources and intent of the various laws.2

2
I have an article in the press on "Jews in Canon Law: Decretum and Decre-
tals," to be followed, hopefully, by articles on other canon law collections in
Spain. There are, of course, references to canon law dealing with Jews in several
books and articles, particularly those of Grayzel. However, the detailed treatment
and approach suggested here has been lacking.
 COHEN'S THE FRIARS AND THE JEWS-ROTH 323

Nor has any writer investigated the other works of St. Ram6n to see if they con-
tain references to Jews (they do, and they are of great significance), or to consider
the significance of all this with regard to the Siete Partidas.3 Of all this there is
not a hint in this book. The fact that Ramon clearly played a major role in
changing the previously quite favorable attitude to, and treatment of, Jews
throughout Spain, and not just in Aragon-Catalonia, is not even suggested. While
Cohen does indeed mention the importance of Ramon's role, albeit in a limited
sphere of influence, the lack of investigation into the sources mentioned above
prevents the detailed treatment which should have been expected.
The treatment of the other most important Dominican in Spain at this time,
Ram6n Marti (so), is also weak. To cite only one example, it was not Marti but
Ram6n de Pefiafort who asked Thomas Aquinas to write the Summa contra gen-
tiles. This has been.debated ever since the early work of the great Spanish scholar
Asin Palacios,4 and has generated an important bibliography, which, along with
other questions (including the probability that Marti was a disciple of Albertus
Magnus), Cohen overlooked. He also missed Andre Berthier'sfundamental study
on Marti.5

3
This, too, is the subject of an article in progress in which I demonstrate the
direct influence of Ram6n's other writings on the Partidas. Dwayne Carpenter of
Columbia University has in press a monograph on the Jews in one Titulo of the
Partidas.
4
Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, ed. Adolfo Robles Sierra (Madrid, 1967-68;
2 vols.), the important introduction to this edition by Jose M. de Garganta, and
the authoritative statement of Anton Pegis in the introduction to his English
translation of the Summa contra gentiles (Univ. of Notre Dame, Indiana, 1975), I,
20-21. Cohen, (p. 130, end of n. 2) notes that there was considerable opposition
to the view of Peter Marc, editor of Aquinas' Liber de veritate, that Marti was the
one who urged Aquinas to write the Summa; yet Cohen himself then says that
this may have been true! See the debate between Miguel Asin Palacios, "El aver-
roismo teologico de Santo Tomas de Aquino," in Homenaje ac don Francisco
Codera (Saragossa, 1904; reprinted in his Huellas del Islam [Madrid 1941] and
Louis Getino, La 'Summa contra gentiles'y el 'Pugio fidei' (Vergara 1905), both
of which seem to have escaped Cohen's attention. Carrerasy Artau, whom Cohen
apparently did consult, already discussed this at great length (Historia y filosofia
espanola, I, 162-67), and showed conclusively that Marti has extensively plagia-
rized the Summa contra gentiles in the first part of his Pugio fidei. See also
L. Robles, "En torno a una vieja polemica entre el 'Pugio fidei' y San Tomas
Aquino," Revista espanola de teologia, 34 (1974), 321-50; 35 (1975), 21-41, and
J. M. Casciaro, El dialogo teologico de S. Tomas con los musulmanos y los udios
(Madrid 1969); neither of which is mentioned by Cohen.
5 Andre Berthier, "Raymond Martin, frere precheur," Ecole Nationale des
Chartes. Position des theses soutenues par les eleves de la promotion de 1931. On
Marti as a probable student of Albertus Magnus see Pedro Ribes Montane, "San
Alberto Magno, maestre y fuente del apologista medieval Ram6n Marti," Antho-
logica annua, 24-25 (1977-78), 593-617. It goes without saying that the major
324 THE JEWISH QUARTERLYREVIEW

While the time has surely come for Jewish historians to put an end to what
Prof. Salo Baron has aptly termed the "lachrymose conception of Jewish history,"
and also to do away with the dangerous and inaccurate myth that the popes were
"enemies" of the Jews in the Middle Ages, it is strange to read here that Marti's
anti-Jewish polemic was "a radical departure from the long-standing official atti-
tude of the Church towards the Jews," to the effect that they merit toleration
because they live peacefully with Christians (p. 156). This view, apparently ex-
pressed by a glossator on canon law, certainly is not confirmed by other sources,
including canon law itself.6 Furthermore-and here the author is by no means
alone-statements concerning the "official attitude of the Church" are simply
meaningless. What was "the Church"? Are the relatively benign and tolerant
views of Gregory I, or the hostile and discriminatory regulations of IV Lateran, to
be considered official policy of "the Church"(both are cited almost side by side in
canon law)? It seems possible to say that like any bureaucracy the Church was
composed of individuals with differing attitudes in various periods, and that there
is no clear and simple "policy" or "attitude" of the Church toward Jews. What-
ever is said must be qualified carefully with regard to the period and to the cir-
cumstances which called forth a particular statement.
Toleration, as we understand it today, is not really a term that would have been
understandable in the Middle Ages. It is best to avoid such sweeping generaliza-
tions altogether, and to refer to specific texts in support of a point (while not
ignoring those which appear to contradict it).
The somewhat more adequate treatment of Ramon Lull is again marred by lack
of awareness of the same studies concerning Marti mentioned earlier, which deal
also with Lull. Again, it is difficult for one who is not familiar with the Spanish
language to write about Spanish figures. There is a wealth of literature on the
important subject of Lull's relationships with Jews.

bibliographical omission in Cohen's work is the failure to consult all (or perhaps
even any) of the original sources on Ramon de Pefiafort, which are all in Latin. In
spite of Cohen's concentration on the Pugio fidei, his exposition adds little, if
anything, to what was done by Robert Bonfil in Tarbiz(1971). The time has come
for a serious and detailed treatment of this important work.
6
It should be clear that my objection here is to the view that there was a
"long-standing" position of "the Church" in favor of the toleration of Jews. It is
doubtful whether anything in Church sources could be cited to sustain such a
position. Even the well-known letter of Alexander II to the bishops of Spain,
ca. 1063, merely warns against killing Jews, thus making a distinction between
Muslims and Jews, since the latter have shown they are prepared to live in servi-
tude to the Christians (J. P. Migne, Patrologia latina, CXLVI, 1386-87; cited in
Decretum c. 11, C. XXIII, qu. 8). Neither this, nor Gregory I's important injunc-
tion against forcible baptizing of Jews, nor the Sicut Judaeis which protected the
status quo in regard to Jews could possibly be interpreted along the lines of what
Cohen suggests here.
 COHEN'S THE FRIARS AND THEJEWS-ROTH 325

The same lack of familiarity with the Spanish language and with Spanish
scholarship is probably the reason why there is no mention of Bernardo Oliver.7
Although an Augustinian, and thus perhaps not within the scope of this book, the
relationship of his important anti-Jewish polemics to the work of the Dominicans
in Spain is well known, and should at least have received some comment here.
The Friars and the Jews is a well written book and makes interesting reading. It
is, perhaps, a welcome introduction to an area which deserves more serious
research. For undergraduate students it may serve as a helpful book if used with
caution. The full story of the "mendicant orders" and the Jews, however, particu-
larly in medieval Spain, remains yet to be told.

University of Wisconsin NORMAN

ROTH

7 El tratado "Contra caecitatem iudaeorum "defray Bernardo Oliver, ed. Fran-

cisco Cantera Burgos (Madrid, 1965).

VIVIANO'S STUDY AS WORSHIP*

VIVIANO'SSTUDYAS WORSHIPis one of a flurry of books written in the last decade

by New Testament scholars who seek to integrate Rabbinic literature with their
own discipline. The book rests on two theses. The first, spelled out only in the
second half of Chapter III, considers the relationship of Jesus to the Pharisees.
The author writes:

"Jesus did not simply reject the religious values of the Pharisees of his day ...
On the contrary, he shared their deep love of Torah.... As party affiliations
go, there seems little doubt that he felt closer to the Pharisees than to any
other group in contemporary Judaism.... On the other hand ... he opposed
their halachic interpretation of the law on many points (pp. 171f.)."

This view is substantially a correct reading of Jesus in the light of Rabbinic

sources and is not a new one. Viviano aptly cites Bowker, Vermes, Neusner, and
even Albert Einstein in support of this thesis (p. 174, n. 40).
It is Viviano's second thesis which leads the book awry. He compares Christ-
ology with what he calls Torah-ontology. He is quite correct in holding that the
relationship of the disciples to Jesus finds a convincing parallel in Rabbinic

* Benedict Thomas Viviano. Study as Worship:Aboth and the New Testament

(Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity, XXVI). Leiden: Brill, 1978. Pp. xi + 227;
with indices.