Missionary merchant& Three medieval anti-Jewish works from Genoa

Ora Limor

Despite the fact that Jews were not allowed to live in medieval Genoa, three anti-Jewish alorks were

written in that city. TheJirst two zeorks describe

religious disputations between Genoese merchants and Jews in .Ilediterranean port cities, one in

Ceuta in 1179 and the other in :\lujorca in 1286. The third and latest ajork comprises a collection of

anti-Jewish arguments, based on biblical andpost- biblical Jez&sh literature. An attempt to dejine the cultural and social milieu from ulhich these works originated, uncovered various obvious and less obvi-

ous connections between them. While there is a close literary connection between the first tzeo disfmta-

tions, the notarial documents in the Genoese ar- chives also reoeal commercial connections betabeen

the protagonists of these two disputations and the xriter of the third polemical work. In addition, the

jirst two disputations are quite exceptional ax’thin

the genre of polemical literature, both in their plot and in the nature of their arguments. The pro- tagonists of these disfiutations are lay Genoese mer- chants, who are described as more capable oj‘de-

fending their faith than monks and clerics. Hence,

The many works which medieval Chris- tians wrote contra Iudaeos are generall! grouped according to the literature which serves as their source material, on the basis of a typology suggested by Amos Funken- stein a few years ago ( 1968: 125-6; 197 1:373-4). According to this classifica- tion, “traditional” works, which relied sol- ely on the authority of the Bible are called “works of the old type”, as distinct from later works which began to be written in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries and \vhich, in addition to the Bible, based their argu- ments on the Talmud and on philosophical reasonings.

In this article, it is my intention to examine three unknown or relati\rel?- un- known works. Their particular interest does not lie solely in their contents or in the authorities on which they are based, but in their geographical origin and in the occupa- tion of their protagonists. These three bvorks were written in medieval Genoa, and they were related to merchants or to people close to the vvorld of commerce. The starting- point of this discussion is thus social and geographical and not literary as is generall), the case, and yet nevertheless we shall find at its conclusion that this social and geo- graphical singularity expresses itself also as a cultural singularit)-, and that these yual- ities cannot in fact be separated. In other words, the classical polemicist against the

J ews, whether in historical or literar) works, is a learned monk or priest, for onl)

Journal of hkdieval History 17(1991) 35-51 03041181/91/$03.30 0 1991 -Else\-irr Science Puhlishcrs B.1.. (North-Holland)

these xjorks reveal a new and little known aspect

of inter-religious controtiersy, and also contribute to

our knowledge of the culture of the Italian cities in the thirteenth century.

35

these Lvere generally considered capable of

debating with the Jews and contending with

their erudition. Dieses Knrnpfes Ritter sind

Kajmzinel- und Rnbbiner, wrote Heinrich

Heine ivhen describing in a poem a religious

disputation which took place in medie\.al

Toledo (Disputation, 1851). Here in these

xrorks, on the other hand, it is not a priest

or a monk but a secular merchant ~vho con-

fronts the Jews and succeeds in the cntcr-

prisc, and for that reason these works are

not only interesting ivith regard to the stud)

of inter-religious contro\rersics, but also

with regard to the stud!~ of the culture of the

mediaeval tit)- and especiall)- of the sclf-

confidence of Italian merchants in the Alid-

die Ages.

Alanuscript ;1 III 19 in the libraq- of the

University of Genoa is entirel!. de\.oted to

the controversy against the .JeM.s (Limo1

1985,1:29-M, 159-62; Limor forthcoming).

It comprises t~‘o \vorks. The second is the

lcttcr of Petrus Damiani to Honestus, con-

taining a series of argument5 against

Judaism (Reindel 1983:63-1023, \\hilc the

first, xvith \vhich \,ve are concerned here. de-

scribes a disputation between a Genoese

merchant? Guglielmo Alfachino, and a <Jell

in Ceuta (North Africa) in the year 1179.

Unlike the letter of Damiani, which is a

xvell-known polemical work, the second

Lvork, M-hi& \ve shall call “The Disputation

of Cleuta”, after the city lvllere it took place,

is completel>- unknokvn to scholars of the

subject. It exists, as far as \ve know: in onl)

one manuscript, Mhicli is that in the lihrar)

of the Universit) of Genoa, it has nevel

been published,’ and in academic literature

it has been mentioned only three time5 -

txvice in articles dealing with the learning of

Gcnoese merchants and once in a book de-

aling Ivith the history of the Jews in the tit)

(Re\,elli 195 1: 19; Borlandi 1963:228-g;

Brizzolari 197 1:39-40). On no occasion

ha1.e the scholars considered the content of

the \,vork, and it is therefclrc Lvorth our \vhile

to give its main outlines here.

The data concerning the star), of’ the dis-

putation of Ceuta is to bc found at the tjc-

ginning and end of the work. Briefly-, it is as

follo\\~s: a Genoese, Guglielmo Alfachino,

disputes in Ceuta \vitll a \.cry ivise.Jc\v call-

ed Xhraham concerning the nature of the

true faith. At the end of the ivork. the ,Jw.

admits that hc is con\.inccd 1~~. Xlfachino’s

arguments and axks to t)e t;aptised. ;11-

facliino sug,qests that the baptism slio~~lcl

take place in the local church, but the %Je\\.

is frightened quonim ,\fussumuti isti mali et jv.c.rimi .nmt mlde (I,’ lnior forthcoming), and

tic fear5 that if the>. came to hear of it both

the %Je\v’s and the C:hristian’s li\.cs vx)uld be

in danger. He expresses the conviction that

,Jesu5 Christ would certainI!- grant his being

baptised in the riwr \\.hcrc he himself re-

cei\~cd baptism, and lie sails w,itli all his

farnil!. in a Genoese ship going to Jerusalem

and i5 baptiscd in the,Jordan. In the cour5e

of the disputation, Alfachino points out that

1179 years had alread!- passed since the

RIcssiali, \vlioni all the prophets had

foretold, \vas re\.ealed, and one has thcrc-

fhre to conclude that the disputation of

C:euta took place in the )‘ear 11’79, eight

years before the fall of‘SJerusalen~ to Saladin.

The Jew was thus able to 1eal.e I\luslim

Cieuta and tra\.cl to the C:hristian HOI?.

1,and in order to be baptised.

In the period under discussion North Af-

36

rica was ruled by the Almohades, who were

famous for their religious fanaticism (Hop-

kins 1958:60-70; Le Tourneau 1970:21 l-37;

Dufourcq 1955). Both Christian and Jewish

religious life was forbidden. A religious dis-

putation between a Jew and a Christian

would have to have taken place secretly.

Conversion was allowed only to Islam,

while conversion to another religion could

have led to a death penalty,’ as the Jew

indeed hints in the disputation.

The religious fanaticism did not, how-

ever, disturb the commercial relationships

with Europe, and the Almohades even en-

couraged these relationships. From Genoese

notarial documents we learn of vigorous

trading contacts between Genoa and Ceuta

in the last decades of the twelfth centur)

(Krueger 1933; Abulafia 1977:154-71). The

Disputation of Ceuta reveals an unknown

aspect of these contacts.

From the point of view of the polemic it-

self, there are no special innovations in the

disputation of Ceuta. The subjects it treats

are the most usual ones in such debates, and

the biblical verses quoted are also among

those which are most customary. Many of

them can be found in Isidor’s work De jde

catholica contra Judaeos (IvIPL 83:452-538),

which was the chief storehouse from which

mediev,al polemicists drew their arguments,

and others are taken from the biblical com-

mentaries accepted at that period, which

are generally based on Jerome. The first

subject to be debated is the preferability of

baptism to circumcision. Alfachino then

passes to the subject of the Messiah: he

speaks of his birth from a virgin and at-

tempts to demonstrate from the book of

Daniel that the Messiah had to come at the

time when Jesus came, investigates the sub-

ject of the Messiah’s divinity and the dura-

tion of his kingdom and insists on the idea

that the commandments of the Law were to

be abrogated in his time. He then quotes a

long series of prophecies which are given a

Christological interpretation in order to

prove that Jesus’s life-story and everything

connected with the crucifixion had been

prophecied in detail in the Bible. This col-

lection of quotations was mostly taken from

the above-mentioned work of Isidor. But

despite the massive reliance on Isidor and

on the accepted biblical exegeses, there are

some new features in the work, or ones, at

any rate, which are not taken directly from

the known literature of the subject: for in-

stance, the discussion of the verses from the

Book of Proverbs: “There be three things

which are too wonderful for me, yea, four

which I know not. The way of an eagle in

the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock;

the way of a ship in the midst of the sea;

and the way of a man with a maid” (Prov.

30:18-g), or a portent which Alfachino in-

cluded among the proofs of the coming of

the Messiah and which is not to be found

in the known polemical literature.”

The chief novelty of the work, howev,er,

is the personality of the protagonist. Gug-

lielmo is not specifically identified by his oc-

cupation, but his stay in Ceuta shows him

to have been a merchant, and, indeed, a

search in the State Archives of Genoa re-

veals a series of documents testifying to the

commercial activities of a merchant called

Guglielmo Alfachino in Genoa and its trad-

ing ports in the last half of the twelfth cen-

tury, or, to be more exact, from 1158 to

1205. The documents were written by four

different notaries. Some of them record

transactions in which Alfachino himself was

37

invol\-ed, and in others he served as witness

to the transactions of others (for example:

Chiaudano 1933:34, 96, 97, 126, 145:

1940:91. 130). A document of the ).ear 1158

bears lvitness to Xlfacliino’s intention of

travelling to the Crusader kingdom, and the

da). after it he made his Ivill (Chiaudano

and Moresco 1935:23i, 238). The \vill of

*Julia, Alfachino’s knife. is also in the

Genocsc archives (Hall. Krucgcr and

Reynolds 1938:394). Xmong the documents

of a later period, there are tww ~~n~wvzcln

contracts of’ Ila)~ 1203 betw.een ;Ufacliino

and the sons of the Streiaporco farnil).

(Hall-Cole. Krueger, R elncrt and Reymlds

1940:8, 85). The significance of this fact Lvill

become clear later. This scrics of’ docu-

ments, Mhicti is of necessity \.er!. incom-

plctc. fbr only a small part of the notarial

documents which xvere lvritten at that

period has survived and come down to us,

testifies to the fact that Guglielmo Alfachino

leas a \\,ell-kno\vn merchant in Genoa, that

he had a long life. and that his farnil!, o\vned

propert). in the city. Alan)- documents Lvcrc

dra\vn up in ~!~lmzo Aljd~ini (for example

Chiaudano 1940:91). It lvould be clifflcult

to describe the personality of this Alfacllino

from the evidence contained in the notarial

documents, but in the disputation he is re-

vealed as competent and knowledgeahlc,

\$ith a rhetorical gift and poxvers of persua-

sion, so that theJew tells him:

L7rl-e tcstilictrr tihi, quad. si pmsihilc r5sct. ut C:hris-

tiani omnes conx~cnirent in unum. et his omnibus clue

tilli opposui ei% oplx~‘suisscm, non michi \,itlctur ram

mpimter ,“‘SS’ rrspondclT ‘~“Cn’~dmodllm 111 w111s

miclli rrspndisti (I,imor forthcoming).

Xlfachino is thus described not only as pre-

vailing over his partner in dialogue, but as

being a more competent disputant than all

the other Christians in the world put to-

gettier, \tliich is quite a compliment fbr a

merchant!

The second disputation in\.ol\ing Gcnocsc

merchants is a little better known than its

predecessor. and in its time it ~~1s apparent-

l>, quite fa1nous. It describes a series of dis-

putations held in llajorca in the )-car 1286

het\\.een the Genoesc merchant Inghetto

Chntardo and sc\~eral learned ,Jews. ’

‘I’lic Disputation of hlajorca is almost

three tinics as long as the pre\.ious one, is

more complicated in its action and is more

original and interesting from the point 01‘

\iciv of content. hIoreo\.er, Lvliilc the Diapu-

tation of Ccuta has conic clo~~i to us in only.

a single manuscript. sexntcen diKerent

manuscripts of the Disputation of‘ Alajorca

ha1.c been fbund, in addition to t\$ o old

printed editions. and refcrcnces to se\.eral

additional manuscripts v.hicli liaw lxen

lost. X11 the manuscripts \\‘ere copied in

Ital) in the f‘ourteenth and fifteenth cen-

turics. and the printed editions \vere pub

lishcd in \‘enicc - one in 1,524 and the other

in 1672 (I,imor 1983.1: 159-229; Limo1

fortl~coming). In \.ic\\. of its \vide circula-

tion, one may- lx surprised at the neglect of‘

this vwrk in the research literature of‘

polemics, especiall>- as from man)- points of

\ie\v it is a particularl>- original and in-

tercsting Lvork.

The Disputation of hlajorca is cli\.iclcd

into four parts of uneclual length, like foul

acts of a pla)., each of \z.llich begins Lvitli the

Lvords cmtigit quad - “it happened that . ..“.

X11 four parts of the disputation arc sited in

hlajorca, in \.arious locations conncctecl

kvitll Inghctto CIontardo’s commercial ac-

tivities there. and in cacli of them lit cle-

bates with various .Je\t-s. In the first part.

38

Inghetto disputes with a rabbi who is sim-

ply called “Rabi” in the text, and after-

wards with a magister called Moshe David.

His disputation began on the first of May

1286 in the Genoese loggia in Majorca, and

continued in the magister’s residence on the

same day and on the following Sunday. In

the second part, Inghetto disputes with As-

truth Isayah, a learned Jew who had appar-

ently come to Majorca from Catalonia.”

This disputation takes place a few days after

the disputation described in the previous

part, and it ends with Astruch’s baptism.

This section is the most dramatic part of the

work, and it includes, in addition to the ar-

guments with which Inghetto succeeds in

convincing Astruch, a detailed description

of the events leading up to his baptism and

an account of the reaction of the Majorcan

Jewish community as well as of two mira-

cles which accompanied the events.

The third part consists of a series of short

disputations of Inghetto with the “Rabi”

and with the magister Moshe David. In

these debates, Inghetto prevails ov:er the

magister, but the latter delays baptism. In

the fourth part Inghetto and the converted

Jew Philippus - formerly Astruch Isayah -

debate in Inghetto’s house with a learned

Jew who has come to Majorca recently and

whose name is not given.

The disputation of Majorca revolves

around the question of whether Jerusalem

would be rebuilt by the Jews. According to

the rules of the disputation which both sides

agree to, Inghetto would submit to circum-

cision if the Jews could succeed in convinc-

ing him that they would rebuild Jerusalem.

All the main points at issue between Jews

and Christians are subsequently treated

within the general framework of this ques-

tion.

From the point of view of the arguments

used, the Disputation of Majorca, like the

Disputation of Ceuta before it, is a work of

the “old” type according to the accepted

classification. Both Inghetto and the Jews

debating with him use only biblical

authorities to support their arguments, de-

spite the fact that at the time when the work

was written, the controversy on the Talmud

was at its height (Cohen 1982; Chazan

1989). Inghetto convinces Astruch and the

magister of the truth of the Christian relig-

ion through the use of biblical v.erses alone.

If one analyses Inghetto’s arguments and

especially the long series of verses with

which he supports them, it is hard to find

much originality in them, and that, no

doubt, is why the Disputation of Majorca

was neglected by historians of inter-religi-

ous polemic. However, when one carefully

examines the things he says, the way in

which he presents his arguments, the

rhetorical devices he uses and his general

tone, it is soon apparent that the Disputa-

tion of Majorca is very different from Chris-

tian anti-Jewish disputations as they are

known to us. This difference derives, in our

opinion, from the personality of the pro-

tagonist - or, that is to say, from the fact

that the Christian speaking here is a mer-

chant and not a priest or a monk, and that

the origin of the disputation of Majorca is

an Italian city and not a cathedral or a

monastery. And indeed, the theme of the

“missionary merchant”, which we already

find in the Disputation of Ceuta, is devel-

oped in the Disputation of Majorca where

it becomes a main subject and constantly

39

.Just as in tfle Disputation of Ceuta, the

triumph of the merchant over the .Je\vs be-

comes a general victory o\.er tfic. profes-

sional polemicists - the pricsth and the

monks. \Yflatc\.er the). can do, he can do

better.

Like Gugfiefmo Affachino, Inghetto Con-

tardo, the protagonist of the Disputation of

Alajorca is a fiistoricaf chractcr. Tfiis fact

flas been knoivn to Gcnoese historians fat

some !.ears (Reveffi 193 1: 16-9; Borlandi

1963:229; Brizzofari 19’7 1:40-f : Cedar

1976:-H-1: I,itnor 1985, f:(in). X carcfuf

search in tflc archives of the city of Genoa

has brought to fight a vcr)’ interesting

character. fiiffy invof\.ed in the fife or the

tit),. Kine notarial documents of‘ the 1280s

mention Inghctto. either as a I\-itncss to the

transactions of other mercfinnts or as 3

part\. to a contract. Three documents of‘

1288 tell LIS afx)ut his commercial acti\.itics

at La Kocheffe in Franw.” In one of the

documents. Inghetto is mentioned together

lvith his brother Simon C:ontarcfo, ~~1~0 also

appears in a long series of notarial docu-

ments.’ There are also other tncmbers of‘thc

Contarclo famif\, mcntioncd in tfle tlocu-

ments (Care 1895-96:292n; Bafard 1973:306,

342-43). In addition to these notarial docu-

ments, there is a long parchment document

in the diplomatic section of the Gcnoese

State Xrchi\.es containing records of a court

case ivhich took place in the to\vn of Nimes

in 1282.” The document r-elates to a conflict

\t-hich took place hetkveen the Tuscan and

Lombard merchants resident in the to\vn

and tfle tww Genoesc consuls, the first of

\\,hom \vas Ingflctto Chntardo. Inghetto

took up a strong position in the dispute,

leading to his arrest and the arrest of tfle

sccotid consul - a step \\.hich brougfit ahut

tflc cxpufsion of the Fforentinc tnercflant:,

from Genoa. It appears hotn the records,

that tfle dispute created quite a stir in the

cflicf Italian merchant cities, and that In-

gfirtto. wfio \\xs tfir main figure in this af-

fAir, adopted a \$yrous stand kvflich caused

tflc TLISGUI cities to retreat. Inghetto’s tit).

Genoa, stood lxhind him tflroughout the

afhir. and it is rcasonabfc to suppose that

21s a result his nanle \vas knonn in the

I\leditcrranean ports xvith ivflich Genoa had

relations. In addition to these records, in

the trcasur). of- the small church of‘ San

Alarco on tfic old .jctt! of Genoa, tficrc is a

hautifLl1 parchment document of 1344 stat-

ing that in his will of the hurth of Februar\

13 12 Inghctto Contardo fef‘t a sum of monty.

for the buifcfiqg of a r,cll,ellnnicI in the cfiurcfi.

The grant \vas confirmed in 1316 b!. In-

ghetto’s brothers Simon and Lucfietto, ant1

in 1344 Bcnccfetto C:ontardo, \vho ~~1s

perfialx Inghetto’s son, came to an agree-

ment lvitli the rector of the church conccrn-

ing tfle huifding of the ca~ellnnin.” It \vas not these events bve ha\-c clc-

scribed, ho\vc\-er. which made Inghctto

fi~tnouS in fiis tit),. AA,qostino Giustiniani.

who in the sixteenth century wrote the chronicles of Genoa, described in his book Inghetto’s disputation in Majorca, on the basis of a work which he said he had seen in the Carthusian monastery in Genoa, and which was probably one of the manuscripts of the Disputation (Giustiniani 1537,3:103). Giustiniani briefly described the extraordi- nar!’ feat of the Genoese merchant, and it was because of this that Inghetto was now mentioned in the histories, eulogies and genealogical records of the city of Genoa. Inghetto’s name and a very brief account of his disputation were henceforth to be found in all these sources, but they all borrowed from each other and they all originated with Giustiniani’s chronicle and not with the original account of the disputation, al- though several copies of it existed in the li- braries of the city (Limor 1985,1:4-6; Limor forthcoming).

Close to the period of writing of the Dispu- tation of Majorca, another polemical work was written in Genoa. It was known as Vic- toria Porchetti, which was the title given to it by the same Genoese historian, Agostino Giustiniani, who published it in Paris in 1520 (Giustiniani 1520). In the preface which he added, Giustiniani stated that its author was a Carthusian monk from Genoa named Porchetto Salvaygo, which explains the title. One must suppose that a manu- script of this work, like the manuscript of the Disputation of Majorca, was a\Tailable to Giustiniani in the Carthusian monaster) when he searched in the library there for material for his history. This library has un- fortunately long ago been dispersed, and it is therefore difftcult to ascertain what part the Carthusian monastery played in the

polemical literature of Genoa. \2:ere the two works in the library by chance, or was the monastery actually instrumental in their composition?

Victoria Porchetti is quite a voluminous work containing much source-material and many arguments against Judaism, arranged in order of subject-matter. The many learned “proofs” that are found in the work are taken from the Bible, the Talmud and later Jekvish literature, and these, in fact, are based on the Pugio Fidei, the well-known work b) the Spanish Dominican friar Raj,mundus nlartini (Raymundus hlartini 1687) - the most important thirteenth-cen- tury work of anti-Jewish polemics and Christian Hebraism. Both in its content and its character, Porchetto’s work is very differ- ent from the two other works we have de- scribed. \\‘hereas the disputations of Ceuta and of Majorca have a clear and interesting story and development, Porchetto’s Lvork has no literary setting. It does not describe a disputation which is purported to have taken place, but is a collection of arguments for the use of the polemicist. 1Ioreover, while the Disputation of Majorca is a dispu- tation of the “old” type, using only biblical arguments, Porchetto’s work definitely be- longs to the new type of disputation which developed in the thirteenth century, using arguments based on post-biblical Jewish lit- erature. In other words: Inghetto’s disputa- tion is not a disputation of experts - that is, of people who have specialised in polemics. The arguments one finds there are well known and do not require any special train- ing. The biblical verses which are quoted are ones which are quite usual in polemical literature. A Christian merchant with a knowledge of the basic concepts of his reli-

41

gion could have picked up these proofs and

arguments from sermons in church and dis-

cussions with <Jews in the course of his com-

mcrcial activities, and Inghetto indeed de-

clares in his disputation that that is how he

acquired his knowledge. I0 Porchctto’s \\-ork

on the other hand, is a learned, “profes-

sional” disputation for Which the lvritcr

needed to have a specialised knrnvledge of

polemics. That, howw.cr, does not mean to

sa)- that Porclletto possessed a first-hand

kno\\rledge of the later Jelvish literature.

hlost prohabl~~, he had 110 kno\vledge of

Hcbrev. or knew only a few \vords and es-

pressions, and derii-ed his kno\vledgr from

the book of Alartini, and )-et, even assuming

that is the case. it is cloul~tful \\,hcthcr lit

could ha\,c written the book \t.itllout an\.

knoivledge ofSJudaism ~~~hatsoc\~cr.

The connection bet\\~cen the “popular”

disputation of the merchant - the clisputa-

tion of hlajorca ~ and Porchctto’s lcarncd

disputation is not, Iioxve\.er, limited onl) to

the geographical and chronological proxin-

it? of the tlvo \vorks (both Ivere Ivritten in

Genoa at the end of the thirteenth centur) ).

Here too a search in the State Xrchi\.cs in

Genoa has turned ~113 an exciting disco\.er!-.

In one of the documents dealing lvitll Itl-

ghetto’s commercial activities at La

Rochelle, none other than Porchetto Sal-

\~a).go declared that llc received fi-on1 In-

,ghetto Contardo the su111 of se\-ent!.-fi)ur

pounds, tv.elve solidi and ten dinars in the

currency of Tours - a su111 Lvhich Inghetto

I,rouglit him ;IS an emissar\- from I,a

Rocllellc (I,imor 1985.1:32). Thus, Inghctto

Chntardo and Porclletto Sal\.a),go kne\\, one

anotllcl and had commercial contacts.

\\7hile the chronicler Giustiniani stated that

Porchetto was a Carthusian monk. \ve learn

from the chronicle of, Jacopo da \‘aragine.

the bishop of Genoa \vho \vrotc the flmious

Legenda a4u~e~, about Porchctto Sal\.a).go

\vho engaged in diplomatic activities and

it-as the Genoese en\w). in the pcace-negoti-

ations \vitli \‘enice in 1295 ( Alonleone

1941: 103). “Sal\-a!.go”, it should be noted,

kvas tlic name of the r2lbqo - the commer-

cial financial and political family associa-

tion characteristic of the Genoesc trading

nobilit) - of the Strciaporco family, one of

the leading families in Genoa in the thir-

twnth ccntur). (Bianchi and I’oleggi

1%0:230-l ). The document w.rittcn by the

notar!. Enrico Gugliclmo Rubeo on 2 1 ,Junc

1288 makes it clear that in addition to his

other acti\.ities Porchetto also engaged di-

rcctl\. or inclirectl\ in commerce. and that

he \\‘a~ an accluai;itancc and trading prt-

ner of Inghetto C:ontardo.’ ’ Did Porclletto

enter the nioiiastcr!~ iii his final )-ears and then \\ritr his hook. or did he engage ind-

rcctlv in trade \\,hile he ~vas a monk, or clid

sc)~llc other Genoese Carthusian monk write

the \\.ork and ascrilx it to a \\.ell-kno\\x

figure in his tit!? At this stage, it is difIicult

to decide t)etwwn these \xrious pas-

sihilities. It is clear. at an>- rate, that there

~12s a grcatcr connection hetcveen these two

Genocsc i\wrks of the end of‘ the thirteenth

centur) than ilirrel~- their subject matter.

\Ve ha\-e ilow reached the point \vlicrc ~vc’

ought to examine the evidence conccrniiig

the social and litcraq. connection bet~vccn

the three Genoese polemical \\wrks \ve ha\-t

discussed. Rct\\wn the disputation of GLIR-

lielmo Ahchino and that of Inghetto Con-

tardo there L\ ~1s a space of about ;t hundred

years, but at the same time there can be no doubt about the similarity of their social background and subject-matter. \l:e have already touched on the central motif of the two works - the theme of the missionary merchant who is more capable of undertak- ing missionary activities than anyone else. This motif provides the main connection be- tween the two disputations, making them into two chapters in the history of the cul- tural development of the merchants of the city. Not only are the two disputations con- nected with merchants, but in both cases the writers (who remain anonymous, unlike the chief characters) are at pain to stress the superiority of the merchants as polemicists to all other people. This, however, is not the only similarity between the disputations of Alfachino and Inghetto. In addition to the similarity of the subject-matter, the cir- cumstances of the disputation and the figure of the central character, a few passages in the Disputation of nlajorca are taken from the Disputation of Ceuta: in two places, there is a verbal transcription and in others a direct influence (Limor 1985,1:29-34, 159-62; Limor forthcoming). One of the transcribed passages is a lengthy discussion of the verse in ProVerbs, chapter 30 vve have mentioned, to which Alfachino gives a Christian interpretation, and another is a discussion of the foods permitted and prohi- bited b>- the Mosaic law - a subject which vvas one of the mainstays of inter-religious controversy. The connection between the two works is thus closer than might appear at first sight, and it is all the more signifi- cant in view of the fact that the writer of the Disputation of Rlajorca, did not, as far as we know, draw his material directly, or at any rate, verbatim, from an)- of the man\

other polemical works which existed, either because he was unacquainted with them or else because he did not feel them to be con- genial, since all of them were written by learned men of the church. On the other hand, he felt at ease with the Disputation of Ceuta which was conducted by a merchant and written in his own city, and when he came to write the Disputation of Majorca, he used it as a model.

The identification of the verbal transcrip- tions from the Disputation of Ceuta shows the Disputation of Majorca in a new light. It is no\v clear that the latter is not an exact account of a disputation as it actually took place, but that the writer, when he sat down to write the Disputation of Majorca, was assisted by the literary material which was available. At the same time, however, one should stress that the Disputation of Majorca vv:as not merely an amplification of the Disputation of Ceuta. The passages transcribed from the Disputation of Ceuta constitute only a small part of the entire \vork (about 1200 words out of a total of 20,000). Most of the Disputation of nlajorca is not taken from the Disputation of Ceuta or from an)- other known work. Both the narrati\:e setting and the polemical content are original and rooted in the historical en- irironment and the mentality which the speaker - whether the writer or the main character - shares or is familiar with.

These observations also naturallp raise the question of the historical authenticity of the Disputation of Majorca, and inciden- tally of the Disputation of Ceuta as well. The ascription of various exploits to histor- ical characters was something quite com- mon in medieval literature, and especially in the Italian nordln of the thirteenth and

43

fi)urteenth centuries. Boccaccio and Sac-

chetti, for instance, made contemporar~~

mcrcliants central characters in their

stories. The USC of historical characters ,ga\rc

the story credibilit) and made it into a tra-

dition. The lvriters of the disputations \vc’

are concerned kvith also placed them \jitllin

tlic cultural setting \4,itli \vhicli tlic)- were

familiar, hot11 kvitll regard to the literary nar-

rati1.e and wit11 regard to the theological con-

tent. But at the same time one should rc-

memhcr that the Disputations of Ceuta and

of AIajorca are not pure fiction. The) pro-

fess to Ix historical - that is, \\wrks in \vhich

the facts described are closer to the “ohjcc-

tivc” facts. In these Lvorks, and cspcciall~ in

the Disputation of Alajorca, in addition to

a great deal of rcfcrcncc to contcmporar!.

c\wits (fijr example, a quite estensi\,c’ rcfer-

ence to the disputation of Barcelona 1263

(I.imor 1983,2:X-5) there arc arguments

\I-liicli a merchant might Iia1.e used hut

~vhich a monk might ha\.r hesitated to

cinplo~~.” E\.en if the \vritci-s fkbricatcd tlic

details of the star). the!. did not in\.ent the

main characters or the sort of kvords the)

put in their niouths. Inghetto and Alfachino

said things in these lvorks \vhich, if the)- did

not actual11 sa)’ them, the>. might \,vcll lia\~

said. The lvorks purported to describe a dis-

putation \\.hicli after a certain time ivas

lvritten dcnvn, but the), could also ha\,e been

the product of the imagination of a gifted

Lvriter who found an anecdote about a mis-

sionarv mm-chant Lvliicli u’as current in his

tit). and attached it to a merchant with

cvhom he \vas familiar. \Vith regard to the

disputations, the point \vliicli seems to us

significant here is that iii both cases tlic

Lvork faithfully reflects the cultural uni\.crsc

of the merchant, \z~hich indicates that the

author himself belonged to the same cul-

tural milieu as his protagonist - that is, the

upper Genoese bourgeoisie. This is a point

\,\‘c shall return to later in this stud\..

Let us now return to the ohious ‘and the

less obvious connections hetwecn tlic tlircc

Genoese polemical xvorks \ve have discuss-

ed. In the case of Xlfhchinos’s and In-

ghetto’s disputations one could point to the

close literar\, connection t,etx\eeii the t\ro.

The notarial documents in the Gcnoesc ar-

clii\.es 1iaI.e not at this stage re\.ealecl an\

additional connection het\veen the f;imilies

\\.liicli the IUY~ merchants t~elongrcl to, hut

these documents. 0111~~ part of \\hich, MT

should remember, has COIIIC’ tlo~vn to us.

clcarl\. slio\v a connection bet\t.ecn :\I-

facliii;o and Streiaporco (Salvaygo), the

third clement of our star\. In the thirteenth

ccntur\. I . as 1j.e are from the documents.

their t\\w fhmilics \vcrc linked 11) tics ofmar-

riage (Cancellieri 198 1: 14-l ). As the date

of \\.riting of the Disputation of Ccuta is un-

knwvn to us, it is difficult to sa>- if the con-

nection \vas established earlier or later, but

it certainl!, existed at the time \vhen l’iclorin

Porchetti was written. and it xvas of‘ a per-

sonal nature \\hich ma)- ha\-e underlied

their common interest in the JeLvish prob-

lem. Guglielmo Xlfachino, 1i.e learn from

the documents at the beginning of the thir-

teenth century liad comnercial contacts

\t-itli tlic Strciaporco (Sal\ra)-go) farnil)

(Hall-Cole, Krucgcr-, Reinert, and Re)-nolds

1940:8,85), and in the 1280s Porchetto Sal-

\-a)-go had commercial contacts with In-

ghetto CIontardo, as CL’P ha\,e alread)

pointed out.

Another link in the chain of relationships

between the families we have considered

was the aforementioned church of San

Marco. In 1173, six years before the date

given for the disputation of Ceuta, the

Streiaporco family built the church of San

Marco in the jetty of Genoa (De Simoni

1948:51-6). To this very same church, In-

ghetto left a large sum of money in his will

a hundred and forty years later. In the

document which has been kept in the

church, the man who executed the will is

called “the patron Benedetto Contardo”.13

Did the Salvaygo family involve themselves

in the affairs of the church they had founded

together with the Contardo family whose

sons were its “patrons”?

The information we receive from the var-

ious archival documents which have been

discovered in Genoa is to a large extent elu-

sive, and it is hard to determine its exact

limits. At any rate, they seem to suggest

that the Alfachino, Contardo and Salvaygo

families were well known in medieval

Genoa, and that the connection between

them, which seemed at first sight to be lim-

ited to literary matters, was also of a social

and commercial nature.

The three texts we have considered, in addi-

tion to their unique contribution to our un-

derstanding of the relationship between

Christians and Jews in the Middle Ages,

also throw light on an interesting aspect of

the Italian merchant aristocracy which, at

the period when the works were written,

was socially, culturally and politically in the

ascendant (Kedar 1976). In Genoa, these

merchants began at that time to leave their

mark on various areas of culture, most of

which were directly or indirectly connected

with trade and commerce. Thus, when

Giovanni Mauro di Carignano, the rector of

the aforementioned church of San Marco,

drew one of the first nautical maps, and

another priest, Rufinus, compiled a botani-

cal dictionary, they both received consider-

able assistance in gathering information

from merchants and from foreigners who

had come from far away. Boccaccio men-

tions a Genoese astronomer, Andalo di

Negro, who made observations in various

places in the world and refused to rely on

hearsay alone. In Genoa or one of its depen-

dencies in the first decade of the fourteenth

century, a Latin-Persian-Cumanic dictio-

nary was compiled for the use of merchants

and missionaries who travelled to faraway

places (Kedar 1976: 12-3). The world of

commerce and the world of the missionaries

were in general closely interconnected. The

enterprising merchants, of whom Marco

Polo was the prototype, always sought to

combine profits in this world with gaining

merit in the world to come, and they made

it their business to convert the heathen they

met in the course of their commercial ac-

tivities. The close connection between mer-

chants and missionaries included a similar-

ity of outlook. Both left their own localities

and travelled to distant places where they

met unfamiliar people with whom they en-

tered into negotiations. These negotiations

required certain gifts, especially the gift of

speaking, or, in other words, powers of per-

suasion. They had to sell their particular

merchandise and therefore had to persuade

their partners in dialogue that their goods

were better than any others. In the accounts

of thirteenth-century voyages, the mis-

sionaries generally followed in the wake of

the merchants, and people often connected

the two activities.

45

Anti-Jcw,ish disputation conducted 11).

mercl~~nts may indeed have been unus~~al

in the literature of polemics, I\-liicli x\-as

mainl!- the province of‘ priests and monks,

but it \vas II)- no means c~traordinar)- when

5~~11 in the light of the cultural devclopmcnt

of Italian merchants in general and those of’

Genoa in particular. This \vas cspcciall!.

true in \.ie\\, ol‘ the cultural mission \\,hicli

nlerchants often took upon tllemscl\.cs as

thq, set ofrfbr distant places, as though tlw)-

Lvere a kind of ambassador forgiq bridges

lxmveen difl‘erent cultuws. Anti-,Je\\ish

polemics is generall?- regarded as a subject

in itself’ and a scparatc cattyor). and thus

disputations in\ml\-ing merchants SCCIII like

a11 alien gmvth. This no longer appears to

lx tlic ca5sc. liowe\.er, when oiic‘ considu3

inter-religious polemics as a cultural

phenomenon iiitegrall~~ rclatcd to all lllc

cultural plicnonicna of the period. It is not

surprising that. at a period \\,licn the nicer-

chants consciousntx was grmving. tlieii

disputations hcamc not onI>. paiieg)-rics 01‘

tlic licroic merchants hut also a fi)mi of‘

criticism of the traditional lwarers of‘ cul-

ture. the priests and the monks. At tllc time

\\.hcn thcsc Genoese polemical \\ arks \\.cI‘c‘

\vritten, the merchant5 l~cl alread\ gninccl

political and economic doniinancc in tticil

city. As ;I result their self-conficlcncc and

their consciou5nebs of‘ tlicil- o\\m worth also

increased in the splicrcs of‘culturc and rcli-

gion, and this is rcflcctcd in the litrrar!. pro-

duction \\hich Ive lla\.c hcrc.

Bccausc cncountws \vitll .Jtws fbrrncd

part of the nicwliants’ Ii\-es, it is Iiardl\- SLIY-

pl-ising if this anti-Jewish polemical litcra-

ture ~2s \vritten in Genoa, despitr tlic fact

that at the time ~vllen thcsc \\wrks mere writ-

tc11 them wcrc no ,Jr\\.s living in Choa

\vliatsoc\.cr (Staglieno 1876: Roth 19X);

Zazzu 1974 and 19i5). Medic\21 Genoa

~25 a niaritinic po\ver \vitli areas under its

control and a great deal of influcncc. If the

Genoesc merchants did not meet ,Je\vs in

their tit) , the)- must undouhtcdly ha\-e met

them in the Alediterrancan ports in ~vhich

tlic! traded, including hlajorca and CIeuta.

.And, a5 \z-c lia\,r seen, it \vas preciseI>. \\,lirii

the) \vel-e far fi-onn Iionic that the!- \vt‘rc‘ fill-

ed I\-it11 a spirit of pro5cl\.tisnl and a drsire

to impart their religion to tliosc ~\.lio did not

\.ct accept it.

Thus fhr \\ze l1aL.e gi\ren little consideration

to the plenlical content of‘ thew sol-ks.

.l’liis content is rcall>. a subject f‘or a srp-

ratr discussion, and Il~lY \\‘C shall olll~-

touch on certain outstanding points b.liicli

art dircctl) conncctcd \\ith the socio-cul-

tural f‘eatures we ha\-e considered. EL-rn

these features, it 5l10~1lc1 he pointed out. arc’

only. to Ix fbund in the disputations of‘Gug-

lielnlo ,Ilfachino and Inglletto C:ontardo.

I i’c~/oricr Podwtfi, hving ;I learned disputa-

tion, is of‘ a quitv clilhcnt cllaractcr.

\Vc lia\.c alread) di~awi attention to the

fact that tlic t\\‘o m~rcl~ants‘ clis~~utation

ha\-e a decidedI>. amateurish qualit).. It is

particular1). significant that the) contain lit-

tic‘ kno\\~lcclgc tllat ;I la). Christian could not

acquit-c. The! take no accoLl1lt \v11atsoc.\c1

of‘ post-bil,licnl _Je\$i?rh literature, as this

ncedccl a kncnvlcdgv \\hicll tllr Christian ac-

quirccl spccificall>- fi)r polrmical work. Not

C\TII the \\x~rcl T~~ln~rrd is nlentionecl in these

\\wl-ks, tlrspitr the hct that the disputation

of‘ I\lajorcn took place in 128ti, one gcncra-

tion aliu- tlic disputation of Karcelotia and

two generations after the disputation of Paris. The same can be said with regard to philosophical arguments.

In both disputations - both the disputa- tion of Ceuta and the disputation of Majorca - the Jews express amazement at the wisdom of the Christian. In the disputa- tion of Majorca, the ,Jews try to prevent Astruch Isaj,as from speaking with In- ghetto: . . . sedpro nostro consilio non eum queratis

...> they say, multum bene novit legem (Limor 1985,2:83). In Majorca as in Ceuta, the

Jews remark on the rhetorical talents of their Christian adversary, and they find it hard to believe that he is only an ordinar) merchant. In both cases, astonishment is expressed both at the extent of the mer- chant’s knowledge and at his powers of per- suasion. \Z’e shall proceed to examine both these characteristics.

Inghetto and Alfachino’s proficiency in the Scriptures is v.er>’ impressive. The) knovv many verses of the Bible and have a v-erse or v’erses to match every one of their arguments. Alfachino quotes from seven- teen books of the Bible and Inghetto from fourteen. Impressive though their knowl- edge of the Bible is for a merchant, however, it is less impressive Mhen compared with that displayed in other polemical works of the period. Alfachino and Inghetto 1lav.e far less knowledge of the Bible than learned churchmen, as can be demonstrated even b)- a comparison of the number of books and verses which the), are able to quote (Limor 1985,l: 18-2 1) . hIoreov,er, man)- of the bibli- cal sources givren in Alfachino are taken from Isidor’s work, and Inghetto relies heavil), on verses to be found in the Catholic liturgy, especially those from the Book of Psalms, which were likely to be better

known to the layman than any other part of the Scriptures. From both works one gains the impression of someone who acquired his knowledge casually and at second hand. Here, perhaps, one should point out that a reading of the two disputations does not in- dicate two levels of speech - the level of the protagonist and that of the author. These are definitely not works written by scholars who for literary reasons connected them with merchants.

Inghetto and Alfachino do, however, dis- play powers of persuasion - Inghetto far more than Alfachino. The difference be- tween the two works in this respect provides an excellent illustration of the development of culture among the merchants of the city. The disputation of Majorca is far more skil- fully written, and the merchant’s personal- it), is far more developed than in the previ- ous work. Inghetto is complimented by the Jews on his rhetorical talents: Bogs pre- dicator esses they tell him (Limor 1985,2:73). It should be pointed out, howev:er, that In- ghetto is a natural rhetorician, and one can find no evidence that he had a theoretical knowledge of the art of rhetoric - the ars

praedicandi - which was developing at that period and which was expounded in dozens of books to aid the preacher, including ad- vice on giving sermons and a collection of examples generally taken from the classical models of rhetoric (Murphy 198 1). In- ghetto’s talents of persuasion derive from his personality and his occupation, and not from any particular study. Proverbs, para- bles, rhetorical devices - all these eff.>l:ts which are acquired in the course of experi- ence are also to be found in him. One does not, however, find the fixed and carefully- moulded structures of the ars praedicandi

47

kvhich are the result of special study. Al- fachino and Inghetto both represent a kind of popular preacher and like many artists of a popular kind the)- succeed in achie\ring through their enthusiasm \\-hat others fail to achieve through study.

An examination of the arguments \vhich the merchants put to theJeM-s reveals subtle diff‘erenccs from the usual content of‘ polemics and significant changes in style, and here. too, the disputation of nlajorca is the more de\rcloped and interesting of the t\vo kvorks. Alost of the arguments put for- Ivard by the two merchants are to hc found in the earlier literature of polemics, and the)- are in effect the classical arguments of‘ Christian polemics against _Judaism. Famil- iar arguments, ho\ve\.ei-, are presented, cspeciall), in the disputation of AIajorca. in fi-esh and original trays. This is shoed, first of all, b>. the great \Atalit)- of the lan,guagc, and by the stress ivhich is laid on the rele- vance of the matters under discussion to the particular time and place. This is particu- larl?- noticeable in the most commonplace arguments such as the attacks on the+Jewish dietar)- lalvs and on circumcision. Both these sut!jects are introduced 1,). Inghetto in a li\,ely \vay and Lvith the use of \-aried techniques of persuasion. He uses argu- ments of different kinds like lveapons \\-hich rcinforcc one another and spices his dis- course with sayings and illustrations bvhich are taken from his familiar environment. In- ,ghetto does not adress himself indifferentl>~ to all.Jews in all times and places, but solel). to his partners in dialogue. Tu rmimre ne.c-

cis, he tells the .Jc\v (Limor 19&5.2:2). B>. these words, hc is implying that the .Je\j, does not understand the true nature of the ,1losaic commandments, which 1lai.e to be

understood allegoricall>., and ~vhen the law states that the eating of animals iihicli chew the cud (ruminate) is permitted, this should be understood s)mbolically as a reference to people ~vho know how to distinguish bc- twwn good and evil. The idea is b) no nleans original and it is also to be found in Thomas Aquinas (Summa Thcologica 1.2, qu. 102, art. 6). but Inghetto, 110 doubt in- tending to strengthen his argument, sa).s: Tu .scis. o Iudee, quad in lingua fua Hebtx~~~

t-utnittnre/m dixertwre intelligitur . .Id hoc ittlel-

li,gettdunt quad hornitleJ. yui belle discetxmt. itrr

homutt CI rnnlo debent discemere . ( Limor 1985,2:~). In 1,atin the Lvord runzitme, in ad- dition to its primar) meaning of chclving the cud, also has the meaning of “reflec- tion”, and this meaning also passes into other European languages, but it does not elist in HcbrcLv. The claim that this mean- ing exists in Hcbrelv also is an original ad- dition b>. Inghetto, \vho in his desire to strengthen his argument and get closer to his partners in dialogue goes from 1,atin to Hebreav and ends up Lvith a mistake. In this passage and others the popular character of tlie disputation goes together with cn- thusiasm in argument. This erroneous argu- mcnt is the result of Inghetto’s lvisli to es- press things in a \\YI)’ that ivould be more familiar to the JCL<. and better understood 1,). him.

Now that \\-e haw broached the subject of’ the dietar). la\vs, it is also Lvorth pointing out that its centralit). both in the disputa- tion of Ccuta and the disputation of hlajorca testifies to a genuine contact with ,Je\vs. Inghetto’s and Alfachino’s .Je\vs are not abstract entities but people of flesh and blood who are peculiar in that the) refitse to eat lvith C:hristians. This impression of‘

authenticity is also conveyed by the fact

that in these works abstract questions of

faith are not given a place of great impor-

tance. The question of the Trinity, for

example, is debated only in the third part

of the disputation of Majorca, while in the

disputation of Ceuta it does not appear at

all.

Thus, throughout the disputation, Inghetto

takes small steps towards his partners in

dialogue, obviously with the aim of remov-

ing divisions and gaining the others’ confi-

dence, for as a gifted merchant he knows

very well that persuasion is always based on

confidence, and that it is easier to influence

people and persuade them to change their

positions if one begins with mutual

trust rather than confrontation (Parsons

196351).

A result of all this is that from the literar)

point of view the two Genoese merchants’

disputations are more interesting and more

agreeable to read than most works of polem-

ical literature, and from the historical point

of view, apart from the fact that they reveal

a new and little-known aspect of inter-religi-

ous controversy, they also contribute to our

knowledge of the culture of the Italian cities

of the thirteenth century. These works, de-

scribing the exploits of heroic merchants,

famous sons of Genoa who were able to de-

bate with learned Jews and win the argu-

ment, reflect the new social and cultural

situation coming into existence in the Ital-

ian cities, and provide a fascinating expres-

sion of it as well as celebrity for its distin-

guished representatives, the educated la)

merchants.

Generally, the gifts of persuasion of the

missionary merchants take the form of a

powerful rhetoric which may be seen as an

authentic expression of the communications

aspect of urban culture. The city is a cross-

roads where buying and selling goes on at

every level. As in commercial negotiations

or legal debate, everything, in these dispu-

tations, depends on the power of persua-

sion, and the merchants according11

mobilize all their rhetorical talents when

they try to persuade the Jews. The)- ex-

press the familiar arguments in an effective

wa)-, and they sometimes take the liberty of

saying things which were less usual - things

which churchmen would perhaps not have

dared to say. Thus, Inghetto is somewhat

disrespectful of major Christian symbols

such as crosses and images,14 and on the

other hand he emphasises the importance of

common moral principles such as respect

for the sanctity of life and stresses the basic

common position of Jews and Christians.

This approach is reflected in Inghetto’s ac-

tual words:

Quoniam inter nos et vos non est disscncio nisi de

1Icssia. quem nos dicimus \vmisse ct ~70s dicitis lrenire

dehcrc. Nos vero et vos unum deum adoramus,

creatorcm celi et terre. Respondete michi si creditis

clued aliquis bonus Christianus qui lcgaliter et fideli-

ter \,ivat secundum legem vestram condempnatur. Rcsponderunt Iudei: In veritate non (Limor

1985.2:75).

Notes

ASG: Xrchivio di Stato di Geneva

.ULSP: /\tti della Societa Ligurc di Storia Patria I i\ critical edition of The Disputation of Ceuta:

Limor forthcoming. ? This is the Muslim law (Goitein 1971:305; Fat-

tal 1958:163-74). \Vhile in other times and in other places the ikluslim authorities might have ignored

such a conversion. this could not have been the case

in Almohadic Ceuta. On the Jews in Ceuta see Corcos

49

Literature

Fcrrvtto. A. 1924. Giovanni blauro di C~arignano rct-

tore di S. hlarco. cartografo e scrittore, 1291-1329.

ASLSP .52:31-52.

Funkenstein. 11. 1968. Changes in the patterns of

Christian anti-Jewish polemics in the 12th ccntur):

Zion 33: 125-44 (in Hebrew).

Funkcnstein, i-\. 197 1, Basic types of Christian anti-

,Je\vish polemics in the hliddlc Ages. \‘iator 2:373-

82. Giustiniani, .\. (cd.) 1.520. Victoria Porchctti adxer-

sus impios Hrhrros. Paris.

Giustiniani, ;\. 1337. .!nnali drlla rcpuhlicn di

Gcno\ a. Geneva.

Goitein. S. 19il. .I meditc-rrancan society. 2. Bcrk-

lev. Hali. nl. IV., H. Cl. Krueger. and RL. Reynolds (eels.)

1938. Guglielmo Cassinese (1190-92). Notai

liguri de1 sec. X11.2. Gene\-a.

Hall-C:olc. .\I. \\‘.. H. C:. Krueger, R. G. Reincrt. and

R. L. Rcyiolds iecls.) 1940. Giovanni di Guiherto

(1200-l 1). Notai liguri de1 sec. X11,5. Grnova.

Hopkins, .J. F. P. 1958. ;Llediexxl LIuslim go\wnrncnt

in Bnrbarv. London.

Kcdar, B. Z: 1976. hIcrclmnts in crisis: Genocsr and

ITenctian men ofaftairs and thr fourteenth-centur)

clrprcssion. Nelv Haven.

Krurger. H. Ci. 1933. Genocsc trade xvith Northwwt

Africa in the tlbelfth centurv. Speculum 8:377-95.

Limor, 0. 1985. The Disputa;ion of hlajorca 1286, a

critical edition and introduction. Jrrusalcm. (I,atin

text and Hebrew introduction.)

Limor. 0. forthcoming. Die Disputation zu Ceutn

( I 179) und clie Disputation zu Mallorca ( 1286);

Zw.ci anti;jiidischc Schriftrn aus dem mittelalterli-

scl~rn Genua. .\lGH. Quellen zur Gcistrsgrs-

chichtr cles XIittelaltrrs. Miinchen. hIonlronr, G. 1941. Iacopo da \-aragine c la sua

cronaca cli Geno\x dnllr origini a bIC:C:SC:\~II.2.

Rome.

blurph!. J. J. 1981. Rhetoric in the RIicldle Ages.

Bcrklev.

Parsons. ‘T. 1963. On the concept of influcncr. Public

opinion quarterI\- 27:37-62.

Ra) mundus RIartini. 1687. Pugio fidei adx,ersus

blauros ct Iudaeos. (rcpr. Farnborough. England

1967).

RPgn6, ,J. 1978. History of the Jr\vs in ;\ragon. rcgesta and documents. 1213-1327. In: Y. .bsis and A.

Cruzmnn ~ccls.). Jerusalem.

Reindcl. K. (rd.) 1983. Die Bricfe des Prtrus Da- minni, 1. I\lGH, Dir Briefs der Deutschen Kaiser-

xit. 4. lliinchcn.

Revelli. P. 1951. La cultura dri mercanti gcnovesi e

C:ristoforo (~olo~~~lx~. ;\tti della accademia ligure di

scienze e lettere 8:6-35.

Roth. C:. 19X. Genoese Jews in the thirtrenth CCII- tury. Speculum 2.5: 190-7.

Simoni. L. dr. 1948. Lr chiese di Genoxx. Geneva.

Staglirno. nI. 1876. DcFli Ebrei in Geno\a. Giornale

ligustico di nrclleologla. storin c belle nrti 3: 173-86:

394-415.

Tourneau le, R. 1970. North .\frica to the sixteenth

ccntur\, In: P. XI. Holt. X. K. S. Lamhton and

B. Lelvis (cds.) The Cambridge history of Islam,

2. Camhridgc.

Znngcmeistcr, Ct. 188i. Pauli Orosii historiarum ad-

vcrsum Paganos lihri septem. CSEL 5. \‘irnnn.

Zazzu, G. 1974. Genovn c gli Ehrei nel basso mrdio

eve. Rassc~yt mensile di Israel? 40:284-302.

ZULU, G. 19/J. .Juifs clans Ir trrritoirr Genois au has

mqcn rige. Proceedings of the sixth world congress

of,Je\vish studies, 2: 143-31. Jerusnlcm.

51