180

Erwig, Egica

[680-687 excluded the death-penalty. The Twelfth Council of Toledo accepted them in full.

By the use of similar methods, Erwig induced this Council-summoned within three months of his consecration not only to sanction his usurpation and accept the false pretext that Wamba had become a monk of his own free will and had charged the metropolitan of Toledo to anoint him (Erwig) as his successor, but also to defame the memory of Wamba, to forbid his restoration, and to proclaim the person of Erwig and his family sacred and inviolable (Council XIII, Canon Iv). Erwig was so desirous of ingratiating himself with the dangerous elements of the nation that he pardoned, not only those who had been punished in Wamba's time for their share in the rebellion of Paulus, but also all those who had been branded as traitors during the reign of Chintila, restoring to them the property, titles, and civil rights which they had forfeited (Council XIII). The second canon of the same Council continued this policy; it laid down rules for the protection of the nobles, officials of the palace, and free-born men, in their suits, so as to prevent the arbitrary degradation and confiscation of property which the kings were wont to order. But this was not the first time that the Visigothic legislation dealt with this point, and established guarantees of this nature. In 682, Erwig, by means of these laws and others, made a revised edition of the Liber Judiciorum or Judicum.1

Before Erwig died in 687, he named as his successor Egica, a relation of Wamba and his own son-in-law; and in November of that year Egica was duly elected king. Notwithstanding the oath which he had taken in the presence of Erwig to protect the family of his predecessor, he at once divorced his wife Cixilona, degraded Erwig's other relations, and punished the nobles who had taken the most prominent part in the conspiracy which deprived Wamba of the throne; on the other hand he favoured the partisans of Wamba, whom Erwig had persecuted. This behaviour naturally led to another rebellion of the unruly section of the Visigothic nobles. In the fifth year of Egica's reign,

If we are to judge by the issue of the pretentious edict, which is preserved in Law 1. Lib. I. tit. 2 of the Forum Judicum, this revised edition was made in order to recast all earlier legislation, and the new laws in order to prevent "the numerous lawsuits and varied interpretations, opposition to the enforcement of the law, and the want of decision and stability in the judgment of the court." In place of all this it was intended to "substitute clearness for uncertainty, utility for harmfulness, mercy for the death-penalty, and to abolish the obscurities, and supply the deficiencies of the law." But, in reality, very little of this was accomplished, for the essential part of the new edition of the Liber rests on that of Receswinth, with the exception of a few amendments of earlier laws, and the addition of some new ones, amongst others those referring to the Jews (tit. 3 of Lib. x11), and one bearing on military service (9th, 2nd, Lib. 1x). Of the Code of Erwig, three copies have been preserved. These date from the ninth and tenth centuries, the most important being that of the Paris MS. 4418.

693-694]

Persecution of the Jews

181

a conspiracy was discovered of which Sisebert, metropolitan of Toledo, was the leader. The aim of this conspiracy was to slay the king, his sons, and five of the principal officials of the palace. The metropolitan was deprived of his see, excommunicated and sentenced to exile for life, with the confiscation of all his property.

It seems that, during the reign of Egica, there was another more serious conspiracy, directed, not against the king, but against the Visigothic nation. Egica himself denounced it in the royal tomus which he presented to the Seventeenth Council in 694, saying, with reference to the Jews, that, "by their own open confession, it was known, without any shadow of doubt, that the Hebrews in these parts had recently taken counsel with those who dwelt in lands beyond the sea (i.e. in Africa), that they might combine with them against the Christians"; and when accused, the same Jews confirmed before the Council the justice of the charge. What was the cause and what the aim of this conspiracy? The cause may very well have been the legislation recently made by Egica with regard to the Jews, which, though very favourable to the converts who made sincere profession of the Christian Faith-seeing that it exempted them from the general taxes (munera) and from the special payments made by Jews, allowed them to possess Christian slaves and property, and to trade-was unfavourable to the non-baptized and to those who observed the rites of the Jewish Faith, they being burdened with all the taxes from which the first were exempted. We do not exactly know the aim of the conspiracy, although the understanding with the Africans and what happened later in the reign of Roderick give us reason to believe that it was intended to help the Muslims to make another invasion. The Council, regarding the crime as proved, decreed in the eighth canon that all the Jews in the Peninsula should be reduced to slavery and their goods confiscated; it authorised the Christian slave-owners to whom they were consigned to take possession of their sons at the age of seven, and educate them in the Christian Faith, and eventually marry them to Catholics. This law was not enforced in Visigothic Gaul.

During the reign of Egica, the Visigothic code was revised for the last time (693–694).2 After the manner of his predecessors, Egica

1 Afterwards converted into Law xvIII. Lib. XII. tit. 2 of the Forum Judicum. To judge from the allusion to this revision in the royal tomus presented to the Sixteenth Council, it might be thought that it was an attempt at extensive reform, but it was not so. The revision consisted in a brief amendment of a few of Erwig's laws, and the addition of the new ones made by Egica. The eighteen chapters extracted from nomo-canon, referring to points of public law (the election of sovereign, etc.), which appear as an introduction in manuscripts of later date than the seventh century, are attributed by some scholars to Egica, but this view is rejected by others who, like Zeumer, do not even believe that, during the reign of Egica, anything was added to the edition of Erwig but Erwig's own laws. After the time of Egica, possibly after the fall of the Visigothic power, there appeared a new edition of

182

Policy of Witiza

[701-709

admitted his son Witiza to a share of the government, entrusting to him the north-west, of which the capital was Tuy; he also stamped the effigy and name of Witiza, together with his own, on the money which was coined. Witiza was therefore allowed to succeed his father without opposition (701). The reigns of Witiza and the two following kings are very obscure. We have but scanty information, and that distorted with legends and partisan inventions. Thus, Witiza has been represented as the wickedest of kings and as a man addicted to every vice. From the testimony of the anonymous chronicler of the eighth century and of the Arab historians from the ninth century onwards, it appears that he was the exact opposite. A critical examination of the sources shews that he was an energetic and benevolent king.

Witiza began by proclaiming an amnesty, which included the nobles who had been condemned by Egica. This produced an excellent effect, but did not suffice to prevent a fresh rebellion, when Witiza, following the example of his father, admitted his son Achila or Agila to a share in the government, entrusting to him the provinces of Narbonne and Tarragona under the charge of a noble, probably called Rechsind, who may have been a relative. We do not exactly know why this policy did not succeed. The chroniclers tell us little, till we come to Lucas of Tuy, who wrote in the thirteenth century, and is the first to allude to it. But we know that conspiracies were formed, that Witiza was obliged to dissolve some meeting or Council, whose attitude had given cause for uneasiness; that, according to the evidence of the anonymous Latin chronicler, he quarrelled with Bishop Sindered, a man of exceptional piety, and lastly, that he punished some conspirators, amongst others Theodofred, duke of Cordova, whom he blinded, and Pelagius, another noble, whom he banished. This Pelagius, mentioned in the chronicle of Albelda of the ninth century is possibly the son of Fafila, or Fairla, duke of Cantabria who had been banished from court during the reign of Egica, and who was slain by Witiza himself when governor of the northwest provinces - and therefore most likely Pelagius of Covadonga, who would naturally be opposed to Witiza as the murderer of his father. Witiza managed to escape all these dangers and died a natural death in Toledo at the end of 708 or beginning of 709. Archbishop Roderick, a chronicler of the twelfth century, is the first to relate the legend that Witiza was deposed and blinded. Shortly before his death, the Muslims again invaded the Spanish coast, and were driven back by him. According to Isidore of Pax Julia, Witiza also defeated the Byzantines, who during the reign of Egica had attempted to reconquer some of the cities of southern Spain. Witiza was succeeded by Achila; he, together with his two brothers, Olmund and Artavasdes, and his uncle, Bishop Oppas (the Don Oppas of the legend), were the males of the family of

the Forum Judicum, a work of private initiative, known by the copyists of the eighth and following centuries. It is now known as the Vulgata.

710]

Roderick

183

the late king. Immediately a revolution broke out, for the nobles refused to acknowledge the new king. They produced a frightful state of confusion, but did not at first succeed in deposing him. Finally, the ringleaders met in council in the spring of 710, and elected Roderick (Ruderico), duke of Baetica. Soon afterwards, Roderick defeated the army of Achila, who, together with his uncle and brothers, fled to Africa, leaving the duke of Baetica in possession of the throne.

The reign of Roderick - the title of Don assigned to him by the later chroniclers is a pure anachronism is still more legendary than that of Witiza, and partly from the same cause the false reports spread by political enemies, who were afterwards to be the victors, and partly the Moorish invasion and the fall of the Visigothic kingdom. The last king of the Visigoths is enveloped in legends from his first action as a king (the legend of the Tower of Hercules) until after his death (the legend of the Penance). The most important of all is that known as the legend of Florinda, or La Cava (the harlot), which thoroughly explains the invasion of the Muslims and the cause of their expedition to Spain, which resulted in the destruction of the Visigothic kingdom. We therefore have the story in two forms.

1. The connivance of Julian whoever he may have been with the Muslims, in order to effect the conquest of Spain; Julian being actuated by purely political motives, and his daughter having no connexion with the matter.

2. The explanation of Julian's connivance with the Arabs by the insult which he had sustained at the hand of Roderick.

The first Christian writer who mentions the count, and calls him Don Julian-the Don, as in the case of Roderick, is an anachronism—is the monk of Silos, who wrote at the beginning of the twelfth century. In our days it is generally admitted that this individual was called (not Julian but) Urban or Olban, and this opinion is supported by the reading of the most ancient text of the anonymous Latin chronicler, and by the Arab historians Tailhan and Codera. There is considerable difference of opinion as to who this Urban was. Some think that he was a Visigoth, others a Byzantine, but all are agreed that he was governor of Ceuta. Neither of these hypotheses can be maintained, because there is no certain evidence that Ceuta then belonged to the Byzantine Empire - still less to the Visigothic kings. Nor can the title rum given to Urban by the Arab chroniclers, which might mean a Gothic or Byzantine Christian, be taken in a definite sense. On the other hand, the anonymous Latin chronicler, as also Ibn Khaldun and Ahmed Anasirí Asalauí, state that Urban "belonged to the land of Africa," to the Berber tribe of the Gomera, that he was a Christian and lord or petty king of Ceuta. Whoever he was, the monk of Silos is the first of the Spanish chroniclers to mention him, and to represent him as taking any part in the conquest of Spain; according to the earlier chroniclers, the

184

The Story of Count Julian

[708-711

only people who helped, or rather were helped by, the Arabs, were the sons of Witiza, whom Roderick had deposed. Hence, the connexion between the person of Urban and the fall of the Visigothic State is now generally held by scholars to be a mere legend, perhaps derived from some Arab historian.

The second element of the legend, viz. the violation of the count's daughter, is even more doubtful. The offence committed by Roderick against the count is also, by some of the early chroniclers, attributed to Witiza, and the later chroniclers are not clear whether it was the daughter or the wife of Julian or Urban. Moreover, the monk of Silos is the first ro relate this part of the legend; and the name of La Cava, by which the count's daughter is now generally known, appears for the first time in the fifteenth century, in the untrustworthy history of Pedro del Corral. Nevertheless, the more cautious of the modern critics do not consider the question as definitely settled.

A third explanation, intermediate between the two, has been set forth by Saavedra, the historian and Arabic scholar, and its main outlines are at present more or less generally accepted. He believes that, even granting that Roderick did commit this offence, it had no connexion with the help given by Julian to the Arabs. According to him, Julian was a Byzantine governor of Ceuta, and received assistance from Witiza in 708, when his city was attacked by the Muslims, and was therefore bound to the Visigothic king by ties of gratitude and possibly of self-interest. On the death of Witiza, when Julian was again attacked by the Arabs, he surrendered to them on condition that, during his lifetime, he might continue to hold the city of Ceuta under the supreme authority of the Caliph. When Achila was deposed by Roderick, he sought help from Julian, who helped him by making a preliminary expedition to Spain, which was not successful. Then the family of Witiza had recourse to the Muslim chiefs, who were more powerful than Julian, and after long negotiations, thanks to his intervention, they succeeded in obtaining the support of the Arab troops of Africa, and thus managed to defeat Roderick. This connexion between the Muslims and the sons of Witiza is confirmed by all the chroniclers, and forms a trustworthy starting-point for the history of the invasion. The final attack was preceded by two purely tentative expeditions, of which the first, that attributed to Julian, was made in 709, and the second, a year later, was controlled by an Arab chief called Tarif, who merely laid waste the country between Tarifa and Algeciras, and did not succeed in obtaining possession of any stronghold.

In 711, a large force of Muslim troops, commanded by Tārik, the lieutenant of Mūsā, governor of Mauretania, who was accompanied by the count Julian or Urban of the legend, took the rock of Gibraltar, and the neighbouring cities of Carteya and Algeciras. When the enemy had thus secured places to which they could retreat, they advanced on