We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 October 2009
Ghettoization stimulated sixteenth-century Italian Jewry to develop larger and more complex political structures, because the Jewish community now became responsible for municipal tasks. This development, however, raised theological objections in Catholic circles because Christian doctrine traditionally forbade the Jewish people dominion. It also aroused hostility among the increasingly centralized governments of early modern Europe, who viewed Jewish self-government as an infringement of the sovereignty of the state. The earliest appearance of the term “state within a state,” which has become a shorthand expression for the latter view, was recently located in Venice in 1631.
1. Baron, Salo W., A Social and Religious History of the Jews, 2d ed., 18 vols. (New York and Philadelphia, 1952–1983), 14:119.Google Scholar
2. Katz, Jacob, “A State Within a State: The History of an Anti-Semitic Slogan,” Proceedings of the Israel A cademy of Sciences and Humanities 4 (1971): 29–58Google Scholar. For the Venetian chapter of this expression, see Ravid, Benjamin C. I., ‘“A Republic Separate from All Other Government’: Jewish Autonomy in the Seventeenth Century,” in Thought and Action: Essays in Memory of Simon Rawidowicz on the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of His Death [Hebrew], ed. Alfred A., Greenbaum and Ivry, Alfredl (Tel Aviv, 1983), pp. 53–76.Google Scholar
3. For the history of Venetian Jewry, see Roth, Cecil, Venice (Philadelphia, 1930)Google Scholar; Pullan, Brian, Rich and Poor in Renaissance Venice (Cambridge, Mass., 1971)Google Scholar; Ravid, Benjamin, “The Socioeconomic Background of the Expulsion and Readmission of the Venetian Jews, 1571–1573,” in Essays in Modem Jewish History: A Tribute to Ben Halpem, ed. Malino, Frances and Albert, PhyllisCohen (Rutherford, 1982), pp. 27–55Google Scholar; , idem, “The Establishment of the Ghetto Vecchio of Venice, 1541: Background and Reappraisal,” Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress for Jewish Studies, vol. 2 (Jerusalem, 1975), pp. 153–167Google Scholar; and , idem, “The First Charter of the Jewish Merchants of Venice,” AJS Review 1 (1976): 187–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Fraterna de Botteghieri. This organization is unknown from other sources, and the identity of the Botteghieri is unclear. See , Ravid, “A Republic,” pp. 54, 65.Google Scholar
5. This magistracy concerned itself with the proper distribution of political power among the state′s numerous organs. See Lane, Frederic C., Venice: A Maritime Republic (Baltimore and London, 1973), p. 100.Google Scholar
6. Lonigo left little for historians. His Sul paironato del doge di Venezia sulla chiesa di S. Marco was published in Venice, 1865. Its frontispiece refers to Lonigo as consultore in iure. Lonigo also appears, together with Micanzio, in a manuscript of the Marciana library; IT MS. Cl. VII, Cod. MDCLIX, n.p.
7. See Bouwsma, William J., Venice and the Defense of Republican Liberty (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, 1968), p. 358, and the literature cited there in note 77.Google Scholar
8. It was not unusual for the authorities to examine Jewish statutes. For example, in 1604 Samuel Luzzato brought the Italiani synagogue′s “book of statutes and regulations” (libro delli parti el regolationi) to the Cattaveri. See A rchivio di Stato di Venezia (ASV), Vfficiali al Cattaver (Cattaver), b. 246, fol. lv, 27.IX.1604; b. 245, fol. 82v, 16.XII.1613. The community was also accustomed to providing translations. Marco Moise Jonah succeeded Samuel Spiera to the office of community secretary and translator. See Min-Halleviyyim, Itzhak, Medabber Tahpuchoth. ed. Carpi, Daniel (Tel Aviv, 1985), p. 73Google Scholar. See also Carpi, Daniel, ed., Pinkass Va′ad K.K. Padua. 1577–1603 (Jerusalem, 1974), pp. 514Google Scholar, 521. The community provided the government with two substantially identical translations of the statute, by R. Leone Modena and by Jacob Levi. See Ravid, “A Republic,” pp. 67–70, 74–76. Medieval Jewry law forbade Christian courts from accepting translations made by only one Jew. See Stow, Kenneth R., Catholic Thought and PapaUewry Policy 1555–1593 (New York, 1977), p. 110.Google Scholar
9. Una Repubblica da ogn′altro Dominio separata. See Ravid, “A Republic,” p. 71. Half a century later, Isaac Cardoso uses the same phrase: “like a Republic apart.” See Yerushalmi, YosefHayim, From Spanish Court to Italian Ghetto (New York, 1971), p. 383.Google Scholar
10. , Ravid, “A Republic,” pp. 73–74. His role is mentioned in Itzhak Min-Halleviyyim, p. 72. Venier and Micanzio belonged to a circle of Paolo Sarpi′s friendsGoogle Scholar. See Cozzi, Gaetano, “Galileo Galilei, Paolo Sarpi, e la societa veneziana,” Paolo Sarpi tra Venezia e I′Europa (Turin, 1979), pp. 155–156, 166–167, 193, 225–227.Google Scholar
11. Modena, R. Leone referred to the book as the “book of the Large Assembly” (libro Ml′universita′ grande) when questioned by the Avogador. The name “large book” (libro grande), which Modena used in his translation of the statute, is apparently an abbreviation. See Ravid, “A Republic,” p. 67.Google ScholarSimonsohn, Cf. Shlotno, “Hitargenut ha-shilton ha-autonomi ha-Yehudi bi-Mantua 1511–1630,” Zion 21 (1956): 170.Google Scholar
12. Cattaver, filza 242.1 am grateful to the Central Archives for the History of the Jewish people (CAHJP) for making their microfilm of this text (HM2487b), as well as others to be cited later, available to me. I am focusing on this book for my Ph.d. dissertation at Harvard University, and am preparing an annotated edition for publication.
13. Micanzio′s dates are 1570–1654. For a full biography, see Benzoni, Gino, Storici e politici veneti del cinquecento e del seicenlo, ed. Benzoni, Gino and Zanato, Tiziano, 2 vols. (Milan and Naples, 1982), 2:733–756 (vol. 35 of La Letteratura Italiana, Storia e Testi). His biography of Sarpi is called Vita del Padre dell′ordine de′Servi e theologo delta Serenissima Republica de Venetia (1658).Google Scholar
14. Micanzio′s letter on Jewish self-government is containted in a collection of his works in the Querini Stampalia library of Venice, MS. IX, 16 (=370), folios 230r–237r. I would like to thank Professor Gaetano Cozzi for bringing this text to my attention. Professor Cozzi has told me that the text will be published at some future date. My thanks also to the Querini Stampalia library, for providing me with a film of the text.
15. See note 65, below.
16. Libro Grande, fols. 45r–v.
17. ASV, Consultori in lure, busta 44, p. 193r. The text is due to be published by Antonella Barzazi Tonetti in Studii Veneziani.
18. ASV, Avogaria di Commun, Misc. Civile, b. 331, “Ebrei 1496–1637,” p. 20r.
19. See , Ravid, “A Republic,” p. 74.Google Scholar
20. See , Ravid, Economics and Toleration in Seventeenth Century Venice (Jerusalem, 1978), p. 104.Google Scholar
21. Colorni, Vittore, Legge ebraica e leggi locali (Milan, 1956), pp. 335–337Google Scholar; Bonfil, Reuven, Ha-Rabbanut bi-ltalia bi-tekufat ha-Renaissance (Jerusalem, 1979), p. 141Google Scholar, n. 31, 143–144; Ravid, “A Republic,” pp. 55–56, 59. A copy of the 1628 document appears in ASV, Compilazione Legge, b. 188, fol. 840r (CAHJP IHM5339). An earlier supplication by the heads of the Jewish Strazzaria guild to judge disputes between members appears in Cattaver, b. 246, fol. 173v, 24.1.1611. The Cattaveri approve, provided that both parties agree to this form of litigation and that executive power remain solely in Cattaveri hands. The government′s fears of the seditious fruits which the Jewish prohibition of recourse might bear were borne out in the aftermath of the Venetian fire of 1513. Some Jews apparently participated in the looting that ensued, and an excommunication was issued prohibiting anyone from informing on the looters. Tensions ran high in the community, as several community leaders opposed the excommunication. See Schmeruk, Honne, “Ha-Shir al ha-serefah bi-Venezia li-Eliahu Bahur,” Koves al Yad 6 (1966): 345–368.Google Scholar
22. ASV, Inquisitorato agl′Ebrei. b. 19, fol. 37v, 14.1.1616 (CAHJP HM5376a): “La audatia di molti hebrei e accresciuta tanto che pocco stimando I′interesse della giust:a, et giurisdition de magistrati si fano lecito che deposto ogni timore, Di creare tra di loro magistrati, et sententiare et condanare assumendosi quella auttorita che non e a loro propria ma di Rapresentanti elletti dall′Ecc:mo Maggior Cons:o come sono V.V.S.S. Il:me et altri Cl:mi Mag.ti quando quelli che da loro hebrei sono condanati non vogliono star alle sentenze ricorrono alle loro scomuniche et maleditioni con quelle sforciatamente li astringono a stare alii loro giuditij et li impediscono con queste vie diaboliche che non possono venire a condolersi avanti li magistrati cristiani.”
23. ASV, Senato. Terra, filza 231, 8.XII.1618 (filed under 14.XII.1618): “Al capitolo 3 della condotta vecchia sotto quelle parole di poter viver col ritto loro, questi non solo lo eseguiscono quanto alle loro sinagoghe, ma anco sotto questo pretesto di vivere hanno introdotto che sotto pena di scomuniche et maledicioni more hebreorum, astringono hebrei a rimoversi da litti civili et criminali et per forza le fanrto rimettere in Giudici hebrei, quali poi le giudicano, tolendo le autorita a magistrate et erigendo tra loro tribunali et guidici formano (per cosi dire) una nova Republica. Pero parmi si debba dechiarire che detto ritto loro s′intendi quanto alle sinagoghe et non quanto al giudicare cose appartenenti a qual si sii magistrato di questa citta.” Professor Brian Pullan very kindly provided me with this text. The text refers to the charter periodically granted the German and Italian Jewish population of Venice. The charter was valid for a specified term, towards the end of which the community had to petition for renewal. At that point a new charter was formulated, and was evaluated by the three government offices intimately involved with Jewish affairs: the Cattaveri, Cinque Savi alia Mercanzia, and Sopraconsoli. The clause cited by Barbarigo is the charter′s only reference to Jewish autonomy. This contrasts rather sharply with the charter granted the Levantine and Ponentine communities, beginning in 1589, which defined the boundaries of their jurisdiction. See Ravid, “First Charter,” p. 206.
24. Professor Reuven Bonfil has argued, correctly in my opinion, that the Jewish judicial process in Venice, among other communities of Renaissance Italy, was limited to arbitration, which had a basis in medieval law. See Ha-Rabbanut, pp. 135–161. The terms “courts” and “judges,” therefore, should be understood to refer to courts of arbitration. This rule is applicable to the Libro Grande statute that mentions the judicial function of rabbis (“pratichar nelle corti,” fol. 181v). It is also applicable to the testimony on Venetian Jewish jurisprudence taken in a 1579 court case in Mantua. A local witness testified that in Venice the Jews appoint three men, called in Hebrew bet-din, who dealt primarily with matters of personal status. R. Jacob b. Abraham (Baruk Cohen), a Venetian rabbi, testified that the Jewish courts had no need of confirmation by a Christian magistrate. The first statement indicates that the term bet-din was used in reference to courts of arbitration. These, of course, were recognized by the state, as the second statement declares. See Simonsohn, Shlomo, History of the Jews in the Duchy of Mantua (Jerusalem, 1977), p. 356, n. 130.Google Scholar
25. ASV, Inquisitorato agl′Ebrei, b. 19, fol. 123v (CAHJP HM5376a): siche non possono ricercar alii magistrate Civiti et Criminalj.
26. Colorni, Legge ebraica, pp. 316, 330; Bonfil, Ha-Rabbanut, pp. 135–140, 255–256.
27. Shohat, Azriel, “Inyane missim vi-hanhagot sibbur bi-kehillot Yavvan bi-meah ha-16,” Sefunot 11 (1973): 321Google Scholar. See also Ettinger, Samuel, “The Beginnings of the Change in the Attitude of European Society Towards the Jews,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 7 (1961): 210–211.Google Scholar
28. , Colorni, Legge ebraica, p. 324.Google Scholar
29. , Simonsohn, Mantua, p. 356; Colorni, Legge ebraica. p. 341. Mantua′s liberal policy continued after the readmission of the Jews. In 1632 the duke of Mantua approved a communal statute forbidding recourse to state courts. See Simonsohn, p. 358.Google Scholar
30. , Ravid, “First Charter,” pp. 199, 206.Google Scholar
31. Bonfil, Cf., Ha-Rabbanut. p. 140, n. 29.Google Scholar
32. Libro Grande, fols. 107r–109r, 26.VII.1613.
33. Cattaver, b. 245, fol. 60v, 21.VIII.1613.
34. Libro Grande, fols. 179r–v, 1.IX.1616; Cattaver, b. 245, fols. 248r–249r, 11.VIII.1616.
35. Micanzio makes no reference to the Italiani community of Venice because he limits his discussions to the picture of the community that emerges from the Libro Grande, which only deals with these three communities. Most of Micanzio′s remarks about the nature of the Venetian Jewish community are identifiably based on the Libro Grande, and others are based on information received from the unnamed rabbinical consultant. In general, he avoids basing his observations on personal impressions of Jewish life in Venice, though his motive for this policy is unclear.
36. The remarks about the “Jews of Italy” are not based on the Libro Grande, no matter how the text ought to be filled in, and their degree of detail suggests that they were told to Micanzio by the rabbi with whom he consulted. Micanzio has responded to the charge that the Jews do not identify with the Venetian nation by disqualifying the argument from ethnic nomenclature, but he has not argued against the charge per se. Patriotic sentiments do not appear in Jewish literature of this time and place. Shlomo Simonsohn concluded from the fact that Jews bequeathed sums to the Mantuan municipal hospital and donated to Christian charities that the Jews “felt themselves natives and citizens of their country.” See his Mantua, p. 527.
37. Quod fit Principe sciente et paciente. The source for this maxim has eluded me.
38. On the Venetian government′s relations with societies and confraternities, see Finlay, Robert, Politics in Renaissance Venice (New Brunswick, 1980), pp. 47–48Google Scholar; Mackenney, Richard S., “Trade Guilds and Devotional Confraternities in the State and Society of Venice to 1620” (Ph.d. diss.. University of Cambridge, 1982), pp. 61, 307. This has recently been published under the title Trademen and Traders (London, 1987). See also Brian Pullan, Rich and Poor.Google Scholar
39. Alcun Principe ha voluto questa briga.
40. This characterization of the excommunications and taxes contained in the Libro Grande is incorrect. The Libro Grande discusses taxes raised for the loan banks which the community was obligated to erect and administer, but makes no mention of taxation for intracommunal purposes, which must have been accomplished through other mechanisms. Micanzio′s distortion of the Libro Grande, suits his theological argument, which would not be served by admitting that the community′s taxes served the state′s interests.
41. In the thirteenth century Alexander of Hales anticipated Micanzio′s distinction between toleration of Jewish rites and practices on the one hand, and their confirmation on the other. See Chazan, Robert, Church, State and Jew in the Middle Ages (New York, 1980), p. 48.Google Scholar
42. This point apparently hinges upon Micanzio′s earlier claim that, for theological reasons, the state cannot place itself in a position that might entail confirmation of unchristian doctrines.
43. Micanzio writes that he is appending a copy of the most severe form of the Jews′ excommunication to his letter. Such an appendix is not included in our manuscript. The absence of the appendix does not prove that the treatise was or was not submitted to the Senate.
44. Micanzio does not mean to imply that excommunication is meaningless; only that religions are mutually isolated systems, and that an excommunication cannot spill over from one religion to another.
45. Micanzio quotes John 16:2.
46. See Modena, Leone, She′elot u-teshuvot Zikne Yehuda, ed. Simonsohn, Shlomo (Jerusalem, 1957), p. 43Google Scholar. See also Shilo, Shmuel, , s.v. “Majority Rule,” Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1971), 11:806–807Google Scholar; Baer, Yizhak, “Ha-Yesodot ve-hahathalot shel irgun ha-kehillah ha-Yehudit bi-yime ha-benayim,” Zion 15 (1950): 37 ff.Google Scholar
47. Internal application of fines might suggest the arrogation of sovereignty, but their application towards state projects or offices would support the argument that Jewish selfgovernment is beneficial to the state.
48. This was true of communities and confraternities in general. The record book of Padua′s Jewish community forbids anyone to reveal the slightest detail of any community statute to non-Jews. See Carpi, Pinkass, p. 289. On confraternities, see Rivlin, Beracha, “Ha-Hitargenut li-ezra hadadit bi-Italia ben ha-meot 16–18” (Ph.d. diss., Hebrew University, 1985), p. 281.Google Scholar
49. Part of a Libro Grande statute on this subject translates as follows: “No one in the community shall get any mandate (mandalo) nor obtain any order (prdine) from any magistracy in this city, in order to flee and escape from being elected to any office” (fol. 123r, 5.II. 1614).
50. Libro Grande, fols. 49v–50r.
51. I Corinthians 6. Micanzio makes the same point in his Annotazioni e Pensieri, in response to Robert Bellarmine′s claim, from the I Corinthians text, that the church possesses supreme temporal power: “Nowadays the republic lets the geto have a constitution of its own, which decides, judges.” Micanzio then mentions the Venetian practice of installing bailiffs, with judicial authority, in several mercantile centers. “If they [i.e., litigants] choose to submit to this justice, they do so. Who can claim that the same is not done among litigants in every family?” See Slorici e politici veneli del cinquecento e del seicento, pp. 766–767. The I Corinthians precedent was also noted by Baer, “Ha-yesodot,” p. 4.
52. The community′s 1607 constitution on assessors and the assessment process appears in the Libro Grande, fols. 18v–41v.
53. Francesco Sansovino wrote, in his Venetia cilia nobilissima, et singolare (Venice, 1604), that the Jews preferred Venice to any other part of Italy: “Living in most singular peace, they enjoy this country almost like a true Promised Land.” See Bouwsma, Republican Liberty, p. 117. The statement that members of the community′s Large Assembly had to have been married for at least a year does not appear in the Libro Grande and may be without foundation. Note his oligarchic characterization of the Jews′ Large Assembly.
54. The community′s control of housing was not a new issue. A Libro Grande statute on this subject (fols. 45v–47r) refers back to one promulgated by R. Meir b. Isaac Katzenellenbogen in 1541, when the ghetto vecchio was established. See Isserles, R. Moses, Responsa, ed. AsherZiv (Jerusalem, 1970), pp. 248–263, and Ravid, “Ghetto Vecchio.” In 1606 the Venetian Jewish community was accused of usurping governmental jurisdiction on account of its adjudication of rental disputes. See Colorni, Legge ebraica, pp. 372–374. This issue appears again in Barbarigo′s text, cited above. It also comes up after the Libro Grande affair. See Ravid, “The Establishment of the Ghetto Nuovissimo of Venice,” in the forthcoming Memorial Volume for Vmberto Cassuto (Jerusalem).Google Scholar
55. The information about the different categories of rentals is not taken from the Libro Grande, and may have come from Mjcanzio′s rabbinical consultant.
56. On the plague in Venice, see Paolo Preto, “Le grandi pesti dell′eta moderna: 1575–77 e 1630–31,” in Venezia e la Peste, (Venice, 1979), pp. 123–27, 141–48. See also Leone Modena′s autobiography, ftayye Yehudah, ed. Carpi, Daniel (Tel Aviv, 1985), pp. 84–86Google Scholar; , Ravid, Economics and Toleration in Seventeenth Century Venice (Jerusalem, 1978), pp. 83–85.Google Scholar
57. Libro Grande, fols. 228v–231r.
58. Ibid, fols. 239v–240r. The defendant is Rabbi Judah Saltaro da Fano, author of Mikveh Israel (Venice, 1607). See Nepi, Hananel and Mordechai S., Girondi, Toledot Gedolei Yisra′el (Trieste, 1853), p. 193. The incident in question took place in Tammuz of 1621.Google Scholar
59. The Libro Grande regulations for the structure and function of the community′s Small Assembly do not assign that body a judicial function. Micanzio testifies, correctly, to the dearth of judicial material in the Libro Grande. There is, therefore, no basis for Cecil Roth′s assertion that the Small Assembly acted as the community′s court. See his Venice, pp. 128–129.
60. Micanzio may be alluding to his letter, mentioned earlier. See note 17.
61. ...d′incongruita, di frasi dure, barbare, di essagerationi ridicoli, impossibili. inosservabili (fol. 236v).
62. The material discussed and cited above testifies to the inaccuracy of this contention.
63. cervelli duri, pertinaci (fol. 236v).
64. li discoli di Gheto cost pelulanli, licentiosi, e contumasi (fol. 237r).
65. Micanzio′s rabbinical consultant is not identified explicitly, but could have been Leone Modena. Modena mentions the ghetto rabble a few times in his autobiography; see pp. 43, 69. He also discusses the disorder in the ghetto during the plague of 1630–31; see p. 85. Additionally, Micanzio probably knew Modena. First, Modena mentions his reputation among Christian nobles and dignitaries several times in his autobiography. Second, Modena completed his Diffessa in 1627, and when he submitted it for publication, it came before none other than Micanzio. See Ancona, Clemente E., “Attachi contro il Talmud di Fra Sisto da Siena e la risposta, finora inedita, di Leon da Modena, Rabbino in Venezia,” Bolletino dell′istituto di sloria della societa e dello stalo Veneziano 5 (1963–1964): 323. Third, Modena was one of two community members ordered, in the initial stage of the Libro Grande affair, to prepare a translation into Italian of the statute forbidding recourse to magistrates, and was clearly considered an authority. See Ravid, “A Republic,” pp. 54–55, 67–69. Micanzio′s rabbinical consultant was apparently a talented apologist. He appears to have deeply influenced Micanzio, since some of the treatise′s key points are ultimately attributed to the rabbi. The notions that a distinction ought to be made between the Jews′ spiritual discipline and coercive power, and that a community cannot survive without some form of coercive power, as well as the appeal to the antiquity of Jewish law, are some examples. Nevertheless, Micanzio did not assimilate the rabbi′s point about the state′s ineptitude at law enforcement into the main body of his presentation, probably for fear of offending. This boldness of expression lends some support to the suggestion that Modena was Micanzio′s rabbinical consultant. Modena′s writing is generally assertive and colorful, and he often reveals a lack of tactical humility or diplomacy. For example, he writes that if Christians treat Jews badly, they are not to be considered brethren, and it is permitted to cheat them. See his Diffessa, p. 319.Google Scholar
66. Stow, Catholic Thought, pp. 112–113, 120–121, 152–164. See also Bonfil, Ha– Rabbanut, pp. 135–139, 144–145. The legal brief in defense of Jewish arbitration mentioned on p. 138 is suggestive of the Micanzio text. The Shuda de-Dayyane statute of 1677 Mantua was a continuation of the effort to define the place of Jewish jurisdiction within the general legal system. See Simonsohn, Mantua, pp. 361–366.
67. Bouwsma, Republican Liberty, pp. 47, 353,445. On the interdict, see also Benzoni, Ginb, Venezia nell′eta del la controriforma(Milan, 1973), pp. 50–78.Google Scholar
68. William J. Bouwsma, “Venice, Spain and the Papacy: Paolo Sarpi and the Renaissance Tradition,” in The Late Italian Renaissance (1525–1630), ed. Eric Cochrane (New York, Evanston, and London, 1970), pp. 359 –360, 367, 371.
69. Bouwsma, Willim J., “Venice and the Political Education of Europe,” in Renaissance Venice, ed. J. R., Hale (London, 1973), p. 446.Google Scholar
70. Bouwsma, Republican Liberty, pp. 65, 103–104, 106–107.
71. Bouwsma, “Political Education,” pp. 446, 459, 460. King Louis X of France also used Rome as a precedent and rationale for tolerating the Jews in 1315, as did Duke Emanuele Filiberto of Savoy in 1572. On Louis X, see Chazan, Church, Slate and Jew. p. 80; on the duke of Savoy, see Moses Lanes, “Documents et Notices sur I′histoirepolitiqueet litterairedes Juifs en Italie,” Revue des etudes juives 5 (1882): 232–233. Isaac Cardoso also used Rome to argue for toleration of the Jews. See his Ma′dot ha-Ivrim, ed. and trans. Yosef Kaplan (Jerusalem, 1971, from the Spanish ed. of 1679), p. 108.
72. Bouwsma, Republican Liberty, pp. 81–83, 115–117.
73. Bouwsma, “Venice, Spain and the Papacy,” p. 373.
74. Katz, Jacob, Out of the Ghetto(New York, 1978), pp. 31–33Google Scholar; , idem, Masoret u-mashber (Jerusalem, 1958), pp. 285–289.Google Scholar
75. , Ravid, “A Republic,” p. 71: “nello Stato Veneto libero et independente non vi e altro Prencipe che la Serenita Vostra ne alcuno puo′ essercitarli giurisdittione alcuna ne alta ne bassa se non lo riconosce da I la suprema sua mano.”Google Scholar
76. Bouwsma, “Venice, Spain, and the Papacy,” p. 373; Republican Liberty,pp. 346, 369, 442–443. Sarpi also emphasized the state′s right to judge church edicts, including excommunications. On excommunication as an issue of state sovereignty, see also Altmann, Alexander, “Moses Mendelssohn on Excommunication: The Ecclesiastical Law Background,” in Studies in the History of Jewish Society in the Middle Ages and in the Modern Period Presented to Professor Jacob Katz, ed. Etkes, E. and Salmon, Y. (Jerusalem, 1980), pp. 41–61.Google Scholar
77. The doge′s participation in religious processions and Venice′s tradition of independent apostolic foundation (by St. Mark) support the view that Venetians considered their state holy. See Bouwsma, Republican Liberty, pp. 47, 65, 72, 74; Lane. Venice, pp. 88, 90.
78. , Ravid, “A Republic,” p. 72: materie cost reprobate da Dio e dal mondo. This phrase parallels Lonigo′s earlier characterization of the community leaders aspersone infedeli a Dio et at mondo.Google Scholar
79. See Medina, Samuel de, Responsa [Hebrew] (Salonica, 1594–98), Hoshen Mishpal, no. 70; Isaac Adarbi, Divre Rivot (Sudzilkon, 1833), no. 190. For Venetian sources on this incidentGoogle Scholar, see Pullan, Brian, The Jews of Europe and the Inquisition of Venice (Oxford, 1983), p. 169.Google Scholar
80. See Valerio, Agostino, Dell ′Utilitd che si pud ritrarre dalle cose operate dai veneziani (Padua, 1787), pp. 358–359; Ravid, “Socioeconomic Background,” pp. 44–45, 50–51.Google Scholar
81. Roth, Cecil, “Immanuel Aboab′s Proselytization of the Marranos,” Gleanings (New York, 1967), p. 156..Google Scholar
82. See Luzzato, Maamar. p. 92; Menasseh ben Israel, in Menasseh ben Israel′s Mission to Oliver Cromwell,ed. Wolf, Lucien (London, 1901), pp. 90 ff.; Cardoso, Ma′alot Ha-Ivrim, Sixth Calumny, pp. 93–108.Google Scholar
83. Ravid, “A Republic,” p. 65, n. 22. See Augustine, City of God. ed. Knowles, David, trans. Bettenson, Henry (New York, 1972), pp. 827–828; Chazan, Church, State and Jew, pp. 45, 174.Google Scholar
84. , Ravid, “A Republic,” p. 71: “gl′Hebrei sono soggetti in civile et criminale alle leggi et statuti da Prencipi et Citta dove habbitano et secondo quelli devono esser giudicati et puniti come ogn′altra persona...”Google Scholar
85. Ibid: ami forse piu degl′altri per esser d′inferior conditione ad ogn′uno.
