No More Learning

In 581
Leovigild went against them in person, and after much trouble succeeded
in occupying a great part of Vasconia, and in taking possession of the
city of £gessa (Egea-de-los-Caballeros). To clinch his success, he
founded the city of Victoriacus (Vitoria) in a good strategical position.
Having thus finished this campaign, Leovigild decided to take energetic
action against his rebellious son. To this end, he spent several
months of 582 in organising a powerful army, and, as soon as it was
assembled, marched against and captured Caceres and Merida. Where-
upon the troops of Hermenegild retreated as far as the Guadalquivir,
taking Seville as their centre of defence.


## p. 170 (#202) ############################################

170 Revolt of Hermenegild [583-586
Before attacking the city, Leovigild set himself to make the Byzan-
tines withdraw from their alliance with his son, and he ultimately
succeeded. According to the chronicle of Gregory of Tours, his success
was due partly to motives of political expedience and partly to a gift of
30,000 gold coins. When he had thus secured himself in this direc-
tion, Leovigild, in 588, marched on Seville. The first battle was fought
before the Castle of Osset (San Juan de Alfarache), which he was
not long in taking. Amongst the enemy, he found the Suevic king
Miron, whom he compelled to return to Galicia.
The siege of Seville lasted for two years. Hermenegild was not in
the city, seeing that he had left it shortly before to go in search of fresh
help from the Byzantines. He cannot have been successful, since he
took refuge in Cordova, whither Leovigild advanced with the army.
Convinced that all resistance was in vain, Hermenegild surrendered and
prostrated himself before his father, who stripped him of his royal
vestments and banished him to Valencia. Shortly afterwards, for some
unknown reason, he caused him to be transferred to Tarragona, and
entrusted to Duke Sigisbert, whom he ordered to guard his son closely,
for his escape might lead to a fresh civil war. Sigisbert confined the
prince in a dungeon, and repeatedly urged him to abjure Catholicism.
Hermenegild stubbornly resisted, and was finally killed by Sigisbert
(18 April 585). Leovigild is accused of the crime by our earliest
authority, the Dialogues of Gregory the Great, but the best opinion
acquits him of it. Hermenegild was afterwards canonised by the
Catholic Church.
Whilst the ambition of Hermenegild was thus ruthlessly cut short,
his father's was realised in the destruction of the kingdom of the
Sueves. He did not lack a pretext: a noble called Andeca who, since
the death of Miron in 583, had usurped the crown, in the following year
proclaimed himself king of that people, disputing the rights of Miron's
son Eburic or Eboric, the ally of Leovigild, who at once invaded Suevic
territory. As Isidore says, "with the utmost rapidity" he struck fear
into the hearts of his enemies, completely vanquishing them at Portucale
(Oporto) and Bracara (Braga), the only two battles fought during the
campaign. Andeca was taken prisoner, forced to receive the tonsure,
and banished to Pax Julia (Bejar). In 585, the Suevic kingdom was
converted into a Visigothic province. Thus, it only remained for
Leovigild to possess himself of the two districts held by the Byzantines
—one in the south of Portugal and west of Andalusia, and the other
in the province of Carthagena—and to make the political unity of the
Peninsula an accomplished fact. But it was not given to him to
effect this. He died in 586, at a time when his army, under the
command of Recared, was fighting in Septimania against the Franks
who had twice again made the murder of Hermenegild a pretext for
invading this remnant of Visigothic land. Even during the lifetime of


## p. 171 (#203) ############################################

586] Reign of Recared 171
Leovigild, Guntram, king of Orleans, had made an invasion, and had also
sent ships to Galicia to instigate an insurrection of the Sueves. The
Franks were driven hack by Recared and their ships sunk by the naval
forces of Leovigild. After this preliminary struggle Leovigild attempted
to make an alliance with Guntram, but the Frankish king rejected all
his advances, and for the second time invaded Septimania. Recared was
engaged in fighting against him when he received the news of his father's
last illness, which caused him to return to Spain. No sooner was
Leovigild dead, than Recared was unanimously elected king.
His reign was very unlike that of his predecessor. Leovigild had
been essentially warlike, striving for the political unification of the
Peninsula. Recared fought only in self-defence against the Franks and
Vascons; instead of continuing the conquest of Spain, he made peace
with the Byzantines, acknowledged their occupation of certain territories
and promised to respect it. Moreover, Leovigild desired uniformity of
religion, but on the basis of Arianism, whilst Recared made it his main
concern, but on the basis of Catholicism. It is probable that he
abandoned the warlike policy of his father, because recent events had
convinced him that the greatest danger for the Visigothic kingdom lay
in the discord between the Visigothic and the Spanish-Roman elements.
He probably realised that the main work before him was to unite these
two elements, or at least, to induce them to lay aside their discontent
and jealousy. More than one reason has been alleged for the change in
the religious point of view. It has been supposed that Leovigild himself
turned Catholic shortly before his death, and this view is supported by
a passage in Gregory of Tours, but it scarcely suits the nature of the
king, as illustrated by the earlier events of his life. There is another
statement, connected with the above, which has less documentary evidence
to support it It occurs in the Dialogues of Gregory the Great, and
is to the effect that Leovigild charged Leander, bishop of Seville, to
convert Recared. Lastly, the conjecture that Recared had secretly
turned Catholic in his father's lifetime, is not supported by any
contemporary documents. We are, therefore, led to suppose that this
change on the part of Recared was due to one of the following causes:—
(1) Reflection, which had ripened in the knowledge of the real force
which the Catholics represented in the Peninsula, superior as they were
in number to the Visigoths, possessed of money and property in the land,
and connected with the Byzantines. (2) A change of conviction on the
part of Recared himself, after his accession to the throne, which was
possibly brought about by the preaching of Leander, and also by the
example of Hermenegild. (8) A possible combination of both causes.
The facts are:—(1) The execution of Duke Sigisbert, which might
have been either the outcome of Recared's affection for his brother
Hermenegild, or in punishment of Sigisbert's transgression of his orders;
but it is noteworthy that Recared accounted for it by stating that Sigisbert


## p. 172 (#204) ############################################

172 Conversion of the Visigoths [587-589
was guilty of conspiracy. (2) The public and formal conversion to
Catholicism of the king and his family, which, according to John of
Biclar, took place in 587, ten months after Recared had ascended the
throne.
The conversion was heralded, first, by a decree which put an end to
the persecution of the Catholics, secondly, by the adoption of extra-
ordinary measures with regard to the Gothic prelates and nobles in the
provinces entrusted to the king's agents (whom Gregory of Tours calls
nuntios), and lastly by permission given to the bishops of both religions
to hold a meeting, to the end that they might freely discuss their
respective dogmas. At the conclusion of this discussion, Recared declared
his preference for Catholicism and his conversion thereto, which he
ratified with all due formality at the Council held in Toledo (the
third of this name) in May 589. There were present at this Council
62 bishops, five metropolitans, the king, his wife, and many nobles, all of
whom signed the declaration of faith. Henceforth the Catholic religion
became the religion of the Visigothic State. According to John of Biclar,
the king exhorted all his subjects to be converted to it.
But the faith of a people cannot be changed at the command of a
king, nor could the interests which had grown up in the shadow of the
ancient national religion allow themselves to be suddenly swept away.
There ensued conspiracies and rebellions on the part of the Arian
bishops, the nobles and the people, who adhered to their traditional
faith. Goisvintha herself, the queen-mother, who lived for some time
longer, Sunna, bishop of Merida, Athelocus, bishop of Narbonne,
Bishop Uldila, several counts, amongst others Segga and Witteric,
Duke Argimund, and other persons of importance, made plots and
conspired against the life of the king, took up arms, and sought the help
of the Frankish king Guntram, who made two incursions into Septimania.
On both occasions he was defeated and forced to withdraw. Moreover,
Recared succeeded in suppressing all the rebellions of the Arians,
punished the instigators, and caused many of the books dealing with that
religion to be burnt. Nevertheless, although John of Biclar affirms the
contrary, Arianism did not die out among the Visigothic people. It
continued to exist until the fall of the Visigothic kingdom; it was the
cause of fresh insurrections, and, as we shall see, it was sufficiently strong
to produce a temporary reaction.
Recared had still to struggle with the Byzantines, who had renewed
their quarrel with the Visigoths. But through the mediation of Pope
Gregory I, he made with the Emperor Maurice the treaty to which we
have already alluded, whereby it was agreed that each monarch should
respect the territory possessed by the other. Lastly, Recared made war
on the Vascons, whom Leovigild had driven back to the further side of
the Pyrenees, and who were trying, though without success, to regain
the land which they had formerly held.


## p. 173 (#205) ############################################


587-612]
Laws of' Recared
173
Recared's internal policy of appeasing the Spanish-Roman element
manifested itself in another direction. According to Isidore of Seville,
Leovigild reformed the primitive legislation of the Visigoths, which
dated from the time of Euric, by modifying a few laws, suppressing
others which were unnecessary, and adding some which had been omitted
from Euric's compilation. Since the text of this reform has not come
down to us, we know only that it actually existed1.
From the tone of approval in which Isidore of Seville tells of the
reforms accomplished by Leovigild, it has justly been inferred that they
were a decided attempt at conciliation, and that it was intended to proceed
with them until the differences between Visigoths and Spanish-Romans
had been lessened or suppressed. There is more reason to suppose that
Recared worked in this direction, but for this we have no such con-
temporary evidence as that which refers to Leovigild.
The three monarchs who successively occupied the Visigothic throne
after Recared were of no great individual importance, but their history
gives proof of the disturbed condition of the country. In fact,
Recared's son, Liuwa II, who was elected king on the death of his
father and who continued his father's Catholic policy, only reigned for
two years. In 603 he was dethroned and slain in an insurrection
headed by Count Witteric, who gained the support of the Arian party
and attempted to restore the ancient religion of the Gothic people. In
610, in consequence of a reaction on the part of the Catholics, Witteric
forfeited his crown and his life. The crown was bestowed on Gundemar,
a representative of the nobles. He only reigned for two years, during
which time he waged two wars, one with the ever-restless Vascons, and
the other with the Byzantines. Both these wars were continued by
Sisebut, who succeeded him in 612. He, like Gundemar, was a Catholic
and he pursued the militant policy of Leovigild. When he had sup-
pressed the Vascon insurrection, Sisebut marched against the imperial
forces, and, in a brief campaign, after defeating their general Asarius in
two battles, took possession of all the eastern provinces of the Byzantines,
that is to say, of the land between Gibraltar and the Sucro (Jucar).
The Emperor Heraclius sued for peace, which Sisebut granted on
condition of annexing that province to his kingdom, leaving to the
Byzantines only the west, from the Straits to the Algarves.
As concerns internal order, the most important event of Sisebut's
reign was the persecution of the Jews. They had lived in the Peninsula
in great numbers since the time of the Empire under the protection
1 Professor Gaudenzi alone is of opinion that the fragments of St Germain-des-
Pres, of which I shall presently speak, form part of it. Professor Urefia maintains
that the leges antiquae of the compilation made in the time of Receswinth, and the
four fragments of Visigothic law found in Manuscript B 32 of the Biblioteca
Vallicelliana in Rome are to be attributed to Leovigild. Other scholars believe
that they are taken wholly or in part from the code of Euric.


## p. 174 (#206) ############################################


174 Visigothic Intolerance [eia
of the laws. The Lex Romana of Alaric II had only copied those of
the Roman laws which were least favourable to the Jews. It therefore
preserved the separation of races, counting marriages of Jews and
Christians no better than adultery, and forbade the Jews to hold
Christian slaves or to fill public offices. But it upheld their religious
freedom, the jurisdiction of their judges and the use of Jewish law.
But custom was more favourable to them than law, for mixed marriages
took place in spite of the law, the Jews held public offices, and
bought and circumcised Christian slaves. Recared put the laws in force,
and further commanded to baptise the children of mixed marriages
(Third Council of Toledo). Sisebut went further, and began the
persecution of the Jews. He made two series of regulations on the
subject. One of these, which appears in the Forum Judicum, restores
and sharpens the laws of Recared; the other included an order to
baptise all the Jews, under penalty of banishment and confiscation of
goods1.
What was the cause of this intolerance? It has been attributed
to the influence of the clergy; but against this opinion we must set the
disapproval of Isidore of Seville in his Historia, and of the Fourth
Council of Toledo, over which the same prelate presided. Equally
untrustworthy is the statement that these measures were forced upon
Sisebut by the Emperor Heraclius, in the treaty made between them
to which we have already alluded, for there is no text to bear out this
statement, and moreover, the analogous case which Fredegar attributes
to King Dagobert is equally unproved. All that we know for a fact is
that Sisebut adopted the measure without consulting any Council, so
that we must attribute the king's resolution either to his own inclination
(Sisebufs piety led him to write Lives of the Saints, for instance, the
well-known life of St Desiderius), or to the desire of obtaining possession
of property by means of confiscation, or of gaining money from the sale
of dispensations. Such were certainly his motives on other occasions.
Moreover, he claimed religious authority for himself, for he considered
that he was the ecclesiastical head of the bishops, and behaved as such.
It is possible that he was also indirectly influenced by the fact that the
Jews had assisted the Persians and Arabs in their wars against the
Christians of the East. The immediate result of the law was that the
greater part of the Jews received baptism, and that, according to the
Chronicle of Paulus Emilius, only a few thousands (aliquot mill in) sought
refuge in Gaul. But this effect must have been short-lived, for we know
that, nineteen years later, there were in Spain Jews who had not been
baptised and others who had reverted to their former religion.
1 The existence of this law is proved by contemporary evidence, though it doea
not appear in the Forum Judicum. From a passage in Isidore of Seville we are led
to suppose that this decree was made during the first year of Sisebut's reign, that is
to say, in 612.
7^


## p. 175 (#207) ############################################

621-636] Swinthila. Sisenand 175
Sisebut died in 621, and was succeeded by his son Recared II who
reigned for a few months only. He was followed by Duke Swinthila,
who had greatly distinguished himself as a general in the wars of
Sisebut. He pursued and completed the military policy of the latter,
conquering (629) the Algarves, the last province in the possession of the
Byzantines. Thus, with the exception of a few unimportant districts in
the north, which had no regular government, such as Vasconia, the
Pyrenees of Aragon, and possibly some other places in mountainous
parts, whose inhabitants remained independent, the Goths at last suc-
ceeded in reducing the country to one united State. Swinthila also fought
against the Vascons, and on one occasion defeated them. As a military
base for his control over the district, he built the fortress of Oligitum,
which some geographers take to be the same as the modern Olite, in the
province of Navarre.
If Swinthila had stopped short at this point, he would certainly
have retained the good will of his contemporaries, and the epithet of
"father of the poor" applied to him by Isidore of Seville; but it is
probable that Swinthila was too sure of his power when he ventured to
deal with the problems of internal policy, and that his failure affected
the judgments passed on him. As a matter of fact, Swinthila did
nothing more than what Liuwa and Leovigild had done before him,
when he shared the government of the kingdom with members of his
own family, namely:—his son Recimir, his wife Theodora, and his
brother Geila. Why was Swinthila not permitted to do this, seeing that
it had been tolerated in the former kings? Whether he set about it
with less caution than his predecessors, or shewed more severity in
suppressing the conspiracies, we do not know. The fact is that he not
only lost the crown in 631, whilst struggling against the party of a
noble called Sisenand, who, with an army of Franks, advanced as far as
Saragossa, but that the chroniclers of the period call him a wicked and
sensual tyrant. He did not die in battle—his defeat was mainly due to
treachery—nor did he lose his freedom. In 633, to judge from a canon
of the Fourth Council of Toledo, he was still alive, but of his end we
know nothing. The political problem was still unsolved; and we shall
see that the kings did not abandon the intention of making the crown
hereditary.
Of Sisenand, who reigned for six years, and died in 636, we know
nothing more important than that he summoned the Council already
referred to, which condemned Swinthila for his "evil deeds" and passed
canons relating to the Jews. These canons indicate a change of policy
in the clergy, which is all the more interesting, because, as we have said
before, the Council had for its president Isidore of Seville. On the one
hand, in agreement with the doctrine of this prelate, it censured the
use of violent measures to enforce a change of religion (Canon lvii);
but, on the other hand, it accepted and sanctioned those conversions which



## p. 176 (#208) ############################################


176 Chintila. Chindaswinth [636-646
had been brought about through fear in the time of Sisebut. It thus
obliged those who had been baptised to continue in their new faith,
instead of accepting, in accordance with the views of Isidore, the
Constitution of Honorius and Theodosius (416), which permitted the
Jews who had become Christians by force and not from religious motives,
to revert to their former religion. With regard to the succession to the
throne, the principle of free election by the assembly of nobles and
bishops was established by Canon lxxv. In accordance with this
principle, Chintila was elected king in 636. Nothing of importance
occurred during the four years of his reign except the summoning of
the fifth and sixth Councils of Toledo. The canons of the first are
chiefly concerned with the King, the respect due to his person, and some
of his prerogatives, and furnish striking evidence of the uneasiness caused
by the ambition of the nobility, who were endeavouring by violent means
to wrest the crown from the elected king. The Sixth Council, held in 637,
which laid stress on the same subjects, also issued a decree dealing with
the Jews (Canon in), which again enacted that all who had not been
baptised should be driven out of the kingdom. In order to prevent
relapses to their former religion, the king forced them to sign a document
(placitum) on confession of faith, in which, on the pain of the most
terrible curses, they bound themselves to live in accordance with the
doctrine and practices of Christianity; and to renounce Jewish customs.
Moreover, to enforce this policy, the same canon obliges all future kings
to swear that they will not permit the Jews to violate the Catholic Faith,
nor countenance their misbelief in any way, nor "actuated by contempt
or cupidity" open up the path of prevarication "to those who are
hovering on the brink of unbelief. '"
In 640, despite Canon lxxv of the Fourth Council of Toledo,
Chintila was succeeded by his son Tulga, though the outward form
of election was observed. This explains why his brief reign was disturbed
by conspiracies and insurrections. We do not know for certain whether
it was in consequence of his death or through the success of one of these
insurrections that in May 642 the throne was occupied by one of the
nobles—Chindaswinth, who boldly faced the political problem with
energetic measures like those of Leovigild. Thus 700 persons, of whom
the greater part were nobles, chosen from amongst those who had taken
the most active part in conspiracies or shewn signs of political ambition,
or proved themselves dangerous to the king, were slain, or reduced to
slavery. Many others contrived to escape, and took refuge in Africa or
in Frankish territory, and there they doubtless attempted to stir up
fresh insurrections, to which reference is apparently made in one of the
canons of the Seventh Council of Toledo, summoned by Chindaswinth
in 646. This canon imposed heavy penalties, viz. excommunication
for life and confiscation of property, on the rebels or emigrants including
the clergy, who should try to obtain the support of foreign countries
^


## p. 177 (#209) ############################################


642-654] Receswinth 177
against their native land; it also exhorted the monarchs of these countries
not to allow the inhabitants of their dominions to conspire against the
Visigoths. By this means Chindaswinth achieved his purpose, for,
throughout his reign (642-653) there was not a single insurrection.
On the other hand, supported by the Catholic clergy, who both from
doctrinal and practical points of view had always favoured the principle
of hereditary succession to the throne, he in 649 admitted to a share
in the government his son Receswinth or Recceswinth, who from that
time onwards was virtually king, and succeeded his father in 653,
without going through the form of election.
When Chindaswinth died, the rebellious nobles thought that the
moment had come to take revenge, and, relying on the general discontent
which was due to increased taxation and on the ever-restless Vascons,
they rose in arms, and with a large force advanced as far as Saragossa,
under the command of a grandee called Froja. Receswinth prepared
for war, and ultimately succeeded in defeating them, taking Froja
prisoner. But the country must have been profoundly agitated, and
the throne threatened by very serious dangers, seeing that Receswinth,
instead of taking advantage of his victory to inflict severe punishment
on the rebels, and subdue them once for all, came to terms with them,
granted an amnesty, promised to reduce the taxes, and yielded the
question of election. Hence the significance of the Eighth Council of
Toledo, held in 653, at which, after having caused himself to be released
from the oath which he had taken to shew himself inexorable towards
the rebels, he confirmed the above-mentioned Canon lxxv of the Fourth
Council. By this canon it was decreed that, on the death of the King,
the assembly of prelates and nobles should elect as his successor a man
of high rank, and that the person of their choice should bind himself
to maintain the Catholic religion and to prosecute all Jews and heretics.
This latter part of the Royal oath is a revival of the anti-Semitic policy.
The speech or tomus regius read before the Council is very bitter, and
proves that in spite of all the preceding measures there was still in
Spain a great number of unconverted Jews, or that even those converted
still observed the rites of their own religion. The Council refused to
take measures against the non-converted, but in 654, the king, on his
own account, issued various laws which rendered more intolerable the
legal position of the Hebrews of all classes. These laws obliged all Jews
who had been baptised to sign a new placitum, similar to that of the
time of Chintila, which imposed on apostates the penalty of being stoned
and burnt alive.
Whilst, in this way, the Visigothic kings were gradually widening
the gulf between Jews and Christians, on the other hand they were
lessening the differences between the Visigoths and the Spanish-Romans,
and just as Recared had arrived at uniformity of religion, so did Chindas-
winth and Receswinth aim at uniformity of law. The ground was well
C. 5IKI). II. VOL. II. CH. vi. 12


## p. 178 (#210) ############################################

178 Laws of Chindaswinth [c. 654
prepared, for, on the one hand, the principles of Roman jurisprudence
had gradually crept into the Visigothic private law, and on the other,
the Councils of Toledo had created a common system of legislation of
the utmost importance. A proof of the agreement at which the two
legal systems had arrived in some cases is furnished by the Visigothic
formulae of the time of Sisebut, found in a manuscript at Oviedo.
According to the prevalent opinion of legal historians, this unification
was completed by Chindaswinth's abolition of the Lex Romana or Bre-
viarium of Alaric II, to which the Spanish and Gallo-Romans were
subjected, and by the specific repeal of the law of Roman origin which
forbade marriage between people of different races, though we know
that such marriages did take place, like that of Theudis. The accepted
theory has recently been modified by the revised opinion of the critics,
which ascribes to Receswinth the abolition of the Lex Romana formerly
ascribed to his father1. In any case, the reign of Chindaswinth was a
period of great legislative activity so far as unification is concerned.
This activity found expression in numerous amendments and modifica-
tions of the older Visigothic Laws compiled by Recared and Leovigild
and in the promulgation of other new ones. Ninety-eight or ninety-
nine laws, clearly the work of Chindaswinth, are recorded in the texts
which have come down to us, and all of them shew the predominating
influence of the Roman system. Moreover, as his son Receswinth
leads us to understand in one of his own laws, Chindaswinth began
to make what was in fact a new code. Receswinth, therefore, did
little more than conclude and perfect the work begun by his father,
that is to say, he codified the laws which were in force in Spain, in their
twofold application, Gothic and Roman. They formed a systematic
compilation, which was divided into two books and bore the title of
Liber Jitdieiorum, afterwards changed to that of Liber or Forum Judicum.
The date of it is probably 654. Two copies of this Liber have been
preserved; in the modern amended editions it is known by the name of
Lex Reccesvindiana (Zeumer). It is a collection of laws made expressly
for use in the courts and therefore it omits several provisions referring
to legal subjects or branches of the same—for instance a great part of
the political law, for as a rule this does not affect the practice of the
courts. But the fifteen chapters of Book i, which refer to the law and
the legislator, form an exception to this; they are the reflection, and
1 De remotu alienarum gentium legibus, n. 1. This law, which occurs in several
manuscripts and editions of the Visigothic codes, prohibits the use of the Roman
legislation in Spain. Nevertheless, there are some historians (Helferich, Stobbe,
Gaudenzi, Urefia) whom this revised opinion does not satisfy, and who consider that
the amendment or repeal of the Lex Romana is earlier. They go so far as to assert
that it was the work of Leovigild and that the law of Receswinth is nothing more
than a ratification of the former decree. Nevertheless, the accepted opinion, of
which Zeumer is at present the chief exponent, is still the best supported and the
most popular.


## p. 179 (#211) ############################################

672-681] Wamba 179
in some cases the literal copy of the contemporary doctrinal texts of
political philosophy—for instance, of Isidore of Seville. It is probable
that Braulio, bishop of Saragossa, was one of the compilers of the new
code, if not the chief. Receswinth subsequently made other legal
provisions, both in the Councils and outside them.
Receswinth died in 672, after reigning for 23 years. Wamba was
elected as his successor. Almost the whole of his reign was spent in
warfare. He fought first against the Vascons, who made a fresh
rebellion, quickly suppressed; then against a general Paulus who, to-
gether with Randsind, duke of Tarragona, Hilderic, count of Nimes,
and Argebald, bishop of Narbonne, had incited all Septimania and part
of Tarragona to rebellion; and lastly, against the Muslims. The
rebellion of Paulus was promptly quelled and punished, and Wamba
recovered possession of Barcelona, Gerona, Narbonne, Agde, Magdalona,
Beziers and Nimes, which had constituted the chief centres of disaffection.
The war against the Muslims, who had already obtained temporary
possession of North Africa, originated in their invasion of the southern
coast of Spain, and in particular of the city of Algeciras. The
invaders were driven back, and their fleet was destroyed. The experience
gained by Wamba, especially on the occasion of Paulus' rebellion, must
have shewn him how necessary it was to strengthen the military organisa-
tion of the State, to inspire his people with a warlike spirit, and above
all, to enforce compulsory service in the army, which appears to have
been evaded by some of the nobles and clergy. This need was met by a
law passed in 673, which together with three others bearing on civil and
ecclesiastical matters, was added to the code of Receswinth. By this
law, all who refused to serve in the army and all deserters were deprived
of the power to bear witness. Despite all the prestige which Wamba,s
victories had procured for him, and the mental energy shewn in all his
actions, the fundamental weakness of the Visigothic State, namely, the
want of agreement between its political elements, appeared once more,
and in 680 Wamba was dethroned in consequence of a conspiracy headed
by Erwig, one of the nobles, with the assistance of the metropolitan of
Toledo. To preserve himself from a similar fate, Erwig adopted a mild
and yielding policy, and sought the help of the clergy. In accordance
with this policy, he revoked the severe penalties of Wamba's military
law, which had displeased the nobles, and restored its victims their
ancient nobility.
On the other hand, besides persecuting the partisans
of Wamba, Erwig made new laws against the Jews, in order that the
Judaeorum pestis might be wholly exterminated, subjecting the converts
to minute regulations that he might assure himself of their religious
faith, and to the non-converted he granted the term of 12 months—from
1 February 681—in which to receive baptism under penalty of banish-
ment, scourging and the loss of all their hair. These laws, although
very severe, were milder than those of Receswinth, seeing that they
ch. vi. 12—2


## p. 180 (#212) ############################################

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 usurpa-
tion 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 degrada-
tion 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
Judkiorum or Judicum1.
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 pre-
decessor, 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 perse-
cuted. This behaviour naturally led to another rebellion of the unruly
section of the Visigothic nobles. In the fifth year of Egica's reign,
1 If ire are to judge by the issue of the pretentious edict, which is preserved in
Law i. 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 harinfulness,
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. xii), and one bearing on military
service (9th, 2nd, Lib. ix). 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.


## p. 181 (#213) ############################################

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-baptised 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 canon1 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)*. After the manner of his predecessors, Egica
1 Afterwards converted into Law xvm. Lib. xn. tit. 2 of the Forum Judicum.
1 To judge from the allusion to this revision in the royal tomux 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



## p. 182 (#214) ############################################

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 repre-
sented 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 north-
west 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
edition 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.


## p. 183 (#215) ############################################

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 con-
nexion 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 Anasiri
Asalaui, 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



## p. 184 (#216) ############################################

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 to 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 inter-
vention, 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 Tarik, the
lieutenant of Musa, 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



## p. 185 (#217) ############################################


711-712]
Battle of Lake Janda
185
Cordova, but were detained on the way by a regiment of the Visigothic
army under the command of Bencius, a cousin of Roderick. Although
the Arabs defeated Bencius, his resistance enabled the king himself
to arrive on the field. At that time Roderick happened to be fighting
in the north of Spain against the Franks and the Vascons, whom the
partisans of Achila had incited to make a fresh attack. When the
Visigothic king saw this new danger, he assembled a powerful army and
marched against the invaders, who, according to some historians, also
increased their forces to the number of 25,000 men. On 19 July 711, the
armies met on the shores of Lake Janda, which lies between the city of
Medina Sidonia and the town of Vejer de la Frontera in the province of
Cadiz. The river Barbate flows into this lake, and as its Arabic name
of Guadibeca was misunderstood by some of the chroniclers, there arose
the mistaken belief that the battle was fought on the banks of the river
Guadalete. The victory was won by the Arabs, owing to the treachery
of part of the Visigothic army, which was won over by the partisans of
Achila. Among the traitors, the chroniclers make special mention of
Bishop Oppas and Sisebert, referring to the latter as a relation of Witiza.
So the king could not prevent Tarik from cutting off his retreat and
dispersing his army. What became of King Roderick? The most
common story in the chroniclers, both Arabic and Spanish, is merely
that he disappeared, or that his end is unknown. Only a few state
plainly that he perished in the battle of La Janda, and even these disagree
as to the details of his death. Saavedra1 has thus reconstructed the
history of Roderick after his defeat of La Janda. The Arabs advanced
on Seville and, after another victory, they took Ecija, besieged Cordova,
which held out for two months, and entered Toledo. King Roderick
rallied his forces in Medina, and went to threaten the capital, which
was occupied by Tarik. The Arab general asked Musa for reinforce-
ments; in 712 the latter came himself with a large army. After taking
possession of Seville and other strongholds, he advanced on Merida, the
place which the Muslims had most reason to dread. He besieged this
city, which held out for a year, and was finally taken by storm.
At this point, we notice an important change in the accounts given
by the chroniclers. Hitherto the invaders had met with but little
resistance, and a certain amount of sympathy on the part of the towns-
people, who, in some cases, had opened the gates of their cities to the
foe. The Arabs had only left small garrisons in the towns which they
had conquered, entrusting the protection and government of these towns
to the Jews, who naturally welcomed the victorious Arabs. But, after
1 Relying on a text of Rasis in which the king is represented as being present at
the battle of Sagiuyne or Segoyuela, and on another text of the chronicle of Albelda
(of the ninth century), which states that Roderick reigned for three years, 710-713;
also on the definite statement of the Arab historians, that the king took refuge in
a place called Assanam or Assuagin.


## p. 186 (#218) ############################################

186 The Arab Conquest [711-713
the taking of Merida (June 713), a change appears to have set in.
Possibly about that time Musa, who had seen for himself what the
country was like, and what advantages he had gained, disclosed his
intention of changing his tactics. The Muslim troops had hitherto
acted as auxiliaries of Achila's party, but at this point Musa began
to regard the victorious Muslims as fighting on behalf of the Caliph.
In any case about this time the Visigoths began to offer a general
resistance, which first shewed itself in the revolt of Seville. Musa sent
his son 'Abd-al-'Aziz to suppress it, and he himself advanced as far as the
Sierra de Francia, not without giving orders to Tarik, who was at
Toledo, to come and join him with an army in the wild mountainous
country, which extends thence to the Estrella, passing through the
Sierra de Gata and forming a means of communication with Portugal.
Of one place, Egitania or Igaeditania (Idanha a Vella), we possess
money coined by Roderick, possibly in 712. The king of the Visigoths
had established himself there. Finally, the combined forces of the
Muslims came up with him near the town of Segoyuela in the province
of Salamanca. In the battle (September 718) Roderick was defeated,
and probably slain. His corpse was perhaps borne by his followers to
Vizeu, for if we believe the chronicle of Alfonso III, written in the ninth
century by Sebastian of Salamanca, a tomb was there discovered with
the inscription: "Hie requiescit Rudericus, rex 6011100™. "
Thus ended the rule of the Visigoths, for Musa, after the battle of
Segoyuela, marched to Toledo, which had revolted on the departure of
Tarik, and there proclaimed the Caliph as sovereign, dealing the death-
blow to the hopes of Achila and his supporters. Achila was obliged to
content himself with the recovery of his estates, which had been con-
fiscated by Roderick, and with his residence at Toledo, where he lived in
great pomp. His brother Artavasdes established himself at Cordova and
assumed the title of count, which he transmitted to A^b Sa'id, his
descendant. Olmund remained in Seville, and Bishop Oppas held the
metropolitan see of Toledo. As for Julian, he shortly afterwards
followed Musa on his journey to Damascus, the capital of the Caliphate,
and subsequently returned to Spain; according to Ibn 'Iyad, the Arab
historian, he then established himself in Cordova, where his son,
Balacayas, became an apostate, and where his descendants continued
to reside. This then is Saavedra's theory.
The end of the Visigothic kingdom of Spain was the natural result
of the political divisions and the internal strife which had undermined
the State. Since the time of Recared, and even more since that of
Chindaswinth, there had been no insuperable difficulty in the amalgama-
tion of the Visigothic and Spanish-Roman elements. In recent times their
opposition has been exaggerated; it has been supposed that the imperfect
nature of the fusion effected by the kings betrayed itself in national


## p. 187 (#219) ############################################


Weakness of the Visigothic Kingdom
187
weakness, that the two racial elements lacked cohesion, and therefore
they could not make head against the foreign invaders. But our in-
formation proves that they were much more closely united than has
generally been supposed. Moreover, the most fruitful cause of antagonism
between Visigoths and Romans—the distribution of lands, houses and
slaves—was not as widely enforced in the Peninsula as in Gaul, where,
nevertheless, it did not prevent the fusion of the two elements. Con-
cerning the way in which this distribution was made in the territories
ceded by Honorius to the Visigoths, by the application of the law of
tenancy (de metatis), contained in the code of Theodosius, we now
possess exact information shewing that the distribution did not apply to
all the Gallo-Roman possessores. With regard to Spain, we know for a fact
that the Sueves applied this law, and we have good reason to suppose
that, touching the arable land and part of the forests, the Visigoths did
the same, after the conquests of Euric, in the districts which they
acquired. We have various data in support of this; amongst others, the
fact that the laws of consortes remained in force. It is also probable
that they made distribution of the houses, the slaves engaged to cultivate
the fields, and the agricultural implements; but, in any case, the private
property of the Spanish-Romans seems to have suffered less than that of
their neighbours in Gaul.
Moreover—notwithstanding the statement apparently contained in
the military law of Wamba—the fact that, up to the time of Roderick,
the Visigoths were constantly engaged in warfare, seems to confute the
accusation of effeminacy and military decadence which has been brought
against them. The Arabs before they came to Spain had been victorious
in other countries where these conditions did not prevail. The fact that
they were able to effect the conquest of the Peninsula in the comparatively
short space of seven years is due—apart from the prowess of the Muslims
—to the political disagreements of the Visigoths, to the indifference of
the enslaved classes who found it profitable to submit to the victorious
Arabs, to the support of the Jews—the only element really estranged
from the bulk of the nation by persecution—and lastly, to the selfishness
of some of the nobles—one more proof of the political unsoundness of
the State—who preferred their personal advantage to concerted action
on behalf of a monarch. The internal history, the history of the
Visigothic kingdom, is one long struggle between the nobility and the
monarchy. The kings were supported by the clergy in their efforts to
consolidate the royal power and transmit it from father to son, while the
nobles strove to keep it elective, and held themselves free to depose the
elected king by violence. Nevertheless, the kings gained a certain
strength, especially those endowed with great personal qualities, such as
Leovigild, Chindaswinth, Receswinth and Wamba. The Visigothic king
was an absolute monarch, at times despotic, notwithstanding the principle
of submission to the law which, from the contemporary works on


## p. 188 (#220) ############################################


188
The Councils of Toledo
ecclesiastical politics, passed into the legislation. The king was the
chief of the army and the only legislative power. The last is clearly
proved by the Councils of Toledo, concerning which there have been so
many erroneous opinions.
It is therefore necessary to discuss in some detail the organisation
and authority of these Councils. The kings alone were empowered to
summon them, they had also the right to appoint the bishops, and to
deprive them of their sees, thus exercising in the Catholic Church the
power which, in these matters, they had been wont to exercise in the
Arian. Their power to summon the Councils is acknowledged in the
decrees passed by each of these, with the possible exception of the
seventh, which seems to leave the question undecided. On the other
hand, the decree of the ninth Council clearly states that the bishops
have not the power to assemble except by command of the king. The
latter did not issue his summons at regular intervals. The Council was
formed of two elements, the clerical and the lay. The first consisted of
the bishops, who in varying numbers were present at all the Councils;
the vicars, who appeared for the first time at the third Council; the
abbots, who began to attend at the eighth; and the archpriest,
archdeacon, and precentor of Toledo. The lay element was composed
of the officials or nobles of the palace (optimatibus et senioribiu palatii,
magnificentissimis ac nobilissirms viris, etc. ), whose presence is attested
by the signatures and prefaces to the decrees of all the Councils dealing
with civil matters. From these we see that the lay element is absent from
the Council held in 597 (which is not numbered), from that summoned
byGundemar, also known as "Gundemar's Ordinance,"from the fourteenth
and from the seventh, which merely confirmed or re-enacted a law
already approved by the lay element at the Royal Council. We are
left in doubt as to the presence of the lay element at the following
Councils :—the tenth, where the signatures are probably incomplete; the
eighteenth, of which there are no decrees in existence; and the third of
Saragossa, from which the signatures are missing. As in the case of the
ecclesiastics, the number of the nobles varied considerably. We see
from tne decrees of the twelfth and sixteenth Councils that they were
chosen by the king, and we learn from those of the eighth Council that
this was in accordance with an ancient custom. What part did the nobles
take in the assemblies? Historians are by no means agreed; some hold
that they had a voice in the discussion of lay matters only, others that
they were nothing more than passive witnesses, or that their presence
was a pure formality; again, others believe that they represented the
king. Perez Pujol, the most recent historian of Visigothic Spain, has a
convincing argument that, in matters wholly or partly lay, the nobles
had the same rights to discuss and vote as the ecclesiastical members of
the Council. This is the inference drawn from authentic texts of the
eighth, tenth, twelfth, thirteenth, seventeenth Councils, and from the
V ^


## p. 189 (#221) ############################################

The Councils of Toledo 189
sixth, which is conclusive with regard to the vote. The difference
between the respective powers of the lay and clerical elements was limited
to matters wholly religious, and the right of proposing laws to the king.
With regard to lay matters, the functions of the Councils were of
three kinds: (1) Deliberative, concerning the methods of government,
adoption of new laws, modification or repeal of the old ones, and
their codification or compilation. On these points the king consulted
the Councils, both in the tomus regius which he handed to them at the
opening of the Council, and in special communications, such as the one
sent to the sixteenth Council (9 May 693). (2) The right to petition
or to initiate legislation, that is to say, the right to present to the
monarch, for approval, such proposals as were not included in these
communications or in the tomus regius. But only the ecclesiastics were
entitled to take this initiative. (3) Judicial, that is to say, the power to
act as a kind of tribunal in the case of disputes connected with the
administration; this tribunal settled the complaints and charges brought
by the citizens against the government officials, and possibly also against
influential men. In this sense, the Council formed part of the system of
the courts. It is not known whether these matters were laid directly
before the Council, or whether they first passed through the hands of
the king. The discussion concerning the tomus and the royal communi-
cations was followed by voting, as a result of which the original
proposal of the monarch was approved or modified. He frequently
entrusted to the Council, not only the adoption of specially important laws,
but also the general revision of all the existing laws—as we see from
the tomus regius of the eighth, twelfth, and sixteenth Councils. This added
to the freedom enjoyed by the clergy with regard to legislative initiative
(as expressed in the canons of the sixteenth and seventeenth Councils)
and furnishes grounds for the very general opinion that the Visigothic
monarchy was dominated by the clergy, and was therefore mainly
ecclesiastical in character. In the different Visigothic codes, and, conse-
quently, in the most recent versions of the Liber or Forum Judicum,
there is a large proportion of laws made by the Councils on ecclesiastical
initiative: further, the political and theological doctrines of the time—
of which Isidore of Seville is the chief representative—are reflected at
every stage in the legislation, such as the duties of the monarch, the
divine origin of power, the distinction drawn between the private means
of the monarch and the patrimony of the Crown, etc. , and the duty of the
State to defend the Church and to punish crimes committed against
religion.
The Visigothic legislation was deeply imbued with the spirit of
Catholicism.