|
Constantijn
L'Empereur (l591-1648) was professor of Hebrew at Leiden University from
1627 to 1646. He gained international recognition and fame by publishing
translations of Mishnaic tractates and other tools for the study of
rabbinical literature. In the second quarter of the seventeenth century he
was one of the most eminent Christian authorities on Jewish literature and
Judaism, and in studies of the relationship between Jews and Christians in
the Dutch Republic he is usually mentioned in connection with his
appointment as Professor Controversiarum Judaicarum in 1633. This appointment has been considered an official response
to Manasseh ben Israel's first Latin publication.[i] In this article we will reject such an interpretation. Nevertheless,
L'Empereurs conception of Judaism, and his personal contacts with Jews,
remain matters of some consequence, and he was undoubtedly the foremost
Dutch authority on Jews and Judaism.
The first section of this article
summarizes the main features of the Amsterdam Jewish community and its position within
the society of the Dutch Republic. The second section deals with
L'Emereur's life and studies, and his personal contacts with Jews. The hird
section analyses his attitude towards Jews and his theological conception
of Judaism. In the last section we will touch on his appointment to the
position of Professor Controversiarum Judaicarum, and describe a secular
attack on the Jews in his edition of Bava Kamma.
1
The last years of the sixteenth century saw
the beginning of the growth, rather modest at first, of a ]ewish community
within the Dutch Republic. Not much is known about the early stages of this
growth, but it is clear that it stemrned from the immigration of Marranos
who, according to their own account, were the descendants of converted
Iberian Jews. In Spain and Portugal they had professed Roman Catholicism;
in the Republic they converted to Judaism. Many of these converts had had
virtually no religious instruction or experience of Jewish religious
practices in their youth.[ii]
Both the history and character of the
Jewish community were profoundly influenced by the fact that a sizeable
proportion of its members had
not been shaped from youth by the religious tradition they observed as
aduits. In the fifteen years following 1603 three different synagogues were
established to serve the religious needs of the Amsterdam community, which
in these years was rather smalI, with some 1000 Jews in Amsterdam in 1620.[iii] This diversity was undoubtedly connected with differences of
opinion among the irnmigrants as to the extent to which they wanted to
conform to Halakhic norms, and the manner of conformity. Only necessary
provisions such as those for the care of the poor, the maintenanee of a
cemetery, and contact with the municipal authorities, were upheld by the
communal efforts of the three synagogues.[iv] Conflicts on aspects of the Halakhah revealed the opposition of
important laymen to thc religious leadership of the rabbinate.[v] The rabbis themseIvcs were divided bctween a philosophical
conception of Judaism, on Maimonidean lines, and a mystical and Kabbalistic
interpretation. Saul Levi Morteira, who became chief rabbi in 1639 when the
three synagogues were at last united, was a representative of the first,
philosophical tendency. lsaac
Aboab de Fonseca and Manasseh ben lsrael, both belonging to a younger
generation, were adherents of the Kabbalah. In the 1630's these differences
resulted in a serious conflict between Aboab and Morteira. Manasseh's
clashes with his colleagues are well known.[vi]
All these conflicts took place within the
bounds of Judaism. Certain tendencies within the Spanish-Jewish philosophy
of religion, coupled with the peculiar psychology of the Marrano, resulted in
an undercurrent of radical religious scepticism. These sceptical tendencies
are partly known to us as a result of the conflicts which broke out between
the community and Delmedigo, Uriel da Costa, Juan de Prado and Spinoza.[vii] In this way the community's origin in Marranism contributed to its
great religious diversity. The main task imposing itself upon the religious
leadership was the recent immigrants' education in, and assimilation to,
Judaism. An important part of this schooling was based on polemic disputes
with Christianity, of which several manuscripts have survived.[viii]
From an early date the public authorities
in the Republic had a remarkably tolerant attitude towards the Jews.
Marvell's wel known lines, 'Hence Amsterdam, Turk-Christian-Pagan-Jew, staple
of Sects and Mint of Schisme grew;/ That Bank of Conscience, where not one
so Strange/ Opinion, but finds Credit and Exchange' date from the 1650's,
but the ]ewish presence vas fully accepted much earlier. During the Truce
with Spain (1609-1621) the States of Holland discussed two drafts of a
regulation on Jewish residence. However, no decision was taken, and the
States left it to the cities to pursue their own policies.[ix] The cities, particularly Amsterdam, conceded considerably more
privileges to the Jews than had been foreseen even in the more liberal
draft. As Marvell suggested, tolerance in Amsterdam was based mainly on
economic considerations.
The impact of the Jewish community on the economic
life of the Republic during the first half of the seventeenth century must
not be overrated, as many authors, following Sombart, have done.[x] Because of fierce competition, the Amsterdam Jews were never able
to penetrate the traditional branches of Dutch trade. In the trade with
Portugal and its colonies, however, they possessed a virtual monopoly. The
sugar trade with Brazil, for instance, was for the greater part controlled
by Jews. When Brazil was conquered by the West lndies Company, this monopoly
led to one of the rare occurrences of economically motivated anti-Semitisrn
in the Republic.[xi] The Portuguese-speaking Jews of Holland and Zeeland made a unique
contribution to the prosperity of the Republic. As J.I. lsrael points out,
they 'constituted an exceptionally tightly-knit economic grouping, as
wholly distinctive in trade and industry as in religion and life-style' .[xii]
In the course of the seventeenth century this commercial
activity resulted in a large Jewish artisan class, the first in Western
Europe. These artisans served industries which were based on colonial
products, such as sugar, diamonds, tobacco, silk, and perfumcs. These
industries were to make the Amsterdam Jewish community the greatest in
Western Europe. The distinctive character of Jewish trade, which prevented
the Jews from becoming economic competitors, explains the liberal attitude
of the municipal authorities. Their attitude was not only expressed in the
tolerance the Jews enjoyed in the cities. From 1619 onward the Dutch Republic
pursued a clearly formulated and consistent Jewish policy, which formed an
integral part of its relations with foreign powers. The States General
tried to obtain the same foreign-trade rights and protection for their
Jewish subjects as the other merchants of the Republic enjoyed.[xiii]
2
Constantijn L 'Empereur was born in Bremen
in 1591. He was the second son of a Calvinist merchant and exile from the
southern Nctherlands; in the 1540's his grandfather had been a member of
the Calvinist congregation of Tournai, the first organized Calvinist church
in the Netherlands.[xiv] L'Empereur studied theology at Leiden University from 1607 to
1614. He completed his studies at Franeker University, although he did not
attend this Frisian University, as has been supposed, to study Oriental
Languages with Johannes Drusius, the most important Dutch Hebraist. From
his letters to his parents it is quite clear that he wanted to sit at the
feet of Sibrandus Lubbertus, the famous contraremonstrant theologian. A peregrinario
academica took him to France and England. In 1617
Lubbertus conferred the degree of Doctor of Divinity on L 'Empereur. lt was
highly unusual for Dutch theologians to obtain this degree, and until then
Arminius and Maccovius had been the only theologians to obtain their
doctorates at a Dutch university after a regular examination. L'Empereur's
wish to be examined can be explained by his desire to become a professor of
theology. He dedicated his whole life to this ambition, and he was always
to consider himself first and foremost an orthodox theologian. Having
taught at the Academy of Harderwijk, L'Empereur was invited to Leiden
University in 1627 to succeed Erpenius as professor of Hebrew.
One could hardly call him well prepared for
this task. He had never published on Hebrew or the Old Testament. The books
he possessed in 1626 do not indicate any special interest in philological
studies,[xv] and in fact, his library shows him to have been essentially a
theologian. L'Empereur himself regarded his appointnent as a convenient
stepping stone to the Faculty of Theology and accepted it gladly. In the
following years he was always to present himself as a candidate whenever a
chair in this faculty fell vacant.
In his inaugural adress L'Empereur expressed his
conception of the duties of a professor of Hebrew. Essentially, they were
identical with those of a theologian.[xvi] In his opinion, being a Christian meant assenting to a formalized
doctrine. This doctrine had been rediscovered in the sixteenth century and
had since been clearly formulated. The task of a theologian was to defend
this doctrine against intellectual error, the main threat to Christianity.
The adversaries of the faith, who a theologian had to combat, were the
defenders of heretical opinions rather than sinners or the exponents of a
different attitude to life. Such a defence of the orthodox faith was also
the main task of a professor of Hebrew, and in this way he could contribute
to the welfare of society. The greatest usefulness of knowledge of Hebrew
was that it enabled one to defend orthodox doctrine and refute heterodoxy.
L'Empereur' s conception of his function corresponded closely to the way in
which Hebrew was taught at Dutch universities. Notwithstanding some lip
service to the humanistic ideal of the eruditio trilinguis (to which L'Empereur had also paid tribute in his oration), Hebrew
was in fact considered to be of interest only to students of theology.
In the field of research a different
picture emerges. The scholars of the Faculty of Arts carried out philological
researches into the New Testament and Christian antiquity. They considered
Hebrew a useful tool for their studies, and displayed a scholarly interest
in the language and its literature.[xvii] lt is a tribute to the cultural strength of this humanistic
tradition at Leiden University that
L 'Empereur's published works were intended mainly to serve these
scholarly needs by making rabbinical
literature accessible.
L'Empereur's works, which he prepared for
publication during the seven years following his appointment, consist
mainly of editions of rabbinical texts with parallel Latin translations and
explanatory notes. They usually refrain from theological digressions.[xviii] Such literature was almost nonexistent when L'Empereur took up his
editions. 1t is hardly surprising that humanistic scholars took a
considerable interest in l'Empereur's works, as they provided sources for
the study of the New Testament and antiquity which until then had been
accessible only to specialists. His publications ensured L'Empereur's high
reputation in the international scholarly community, the respublica
literarum.
L 'Empereur had to contact the Amsterdam
Jews to obtain rabbinical books and the special training necessary to
understand them. As a result of developments in scholarship of which
L'Empereur was one of the first representatives, by the end of the
seventeenth century Christians could study rabbinical literature using only
works written by Christians. In the first half of the century this had not
been possible. The greatest scholar of the age, J.J. Scaliger, referring to
his own study of the Talmud, had had to confess 'on ne sauroit l'entendre
sans la vive voix d'un Juif' .[xix] Characteristically, apart from two exceptions, L'Empereur's
contacts with Jews have left no trace in his published works. We only know
about the extent of these contacts because many of his personal papers have
been preserved in the Bibliotheca Thysiana.
Among these papers there is a list in which L'Empereur noted down the books
he acquired, and the prices he paid for them. Occasionally the date, and
the name of the person who sold him a book, is given as well. This list
makes it clear that L'Empereur only took up the study of rabbinical
literature in 1626, after he had heard that he might be invited to Leiden.
In the eight years following 1626 he bought a considerable number of Jewish
books, that is to say, works written by Jews for a Jewish public. In all,
he spent nearly a thousand guilders on acquiring seventy works; roughly a
fifth of his salary in those years. Most of these books were biblical
commentaries and tools for the study of the Mishnah and the Talmud. In
every case except one, where L'Empereur listed the name of the bookseller
of a Jewish book, the namc is Jewish.
Between January and April 1631 L'Empereur
bought eight books from Manasseh ben lsrael. This is Manasseh's first
documented contact with a Christian scholar, since the first letter from
G.J. Vossius mentioning Manasseh's name dates from a year-and-a-half later.[xx] lt is several years earlier than the first known activities of
Manasseh as a bookseller,[xxi] and also precedes the publication of the Latin translation of
Manasseh's Conciliador. Manasseh was not the
only rabbi from whom L'Empereur obtained books. On 4 September 1631 he
bought two books from a Fonseca, who can probably be identified with lsaac
Aboab. lt is tempting to suppose that the name 'Matera', from whom
L'Empereur bought a book in October 1632, is a slip of the pen, Morteira
being meant. Other Jewish names in the list are Jacob Justo and Mozes Levi.
L'Empereur bought some Jewish books at the auctions of deceased Christian
scholars' libraries, but we may suppose that he acquired most of these
works from Jews in Amsterdam. Tle growth of the Jewish community in this
city thus promoted the study of rabbinical literature. In the first years
of the seventeenth century it had been very difficult to obtain Jewish
books in the Republic. Scaliger had had to order them directly from Venice.
L'Empereur had to appeal to Jewish help for
understanding his newly acquired books. As did all Christian Hebraists, he
studied with a Jewish teacher, and he refers to these lessons twice in his
published works. Both allusions occur in an apologetic context, in which
L'Empereur defended the study of rabbinical literature by stressing the
good use to which it could be put in the theological polemic against
Judaism. He first mentioned a Jewish teacher in his inaugural oration. He
described a discussion with his teacher, in which he had stated that the
Haggadic parts of the Talmud were ridiculous fables, and could not be
defended by the Maimonidean argument that they contained esoteric
allegories. According to L 'Empereur, his teacher had to admit the strength
of this objection.[xxii] We find a similar passage in the preface to his edition of an
introductory work to the Talmud, Halikhol Olam (1634). L 'Empereur told how
he visited Jewish houses and a synagogue in Amsterdam, and how his teacher
got into trouble with the leaders of the community, because L'Empereur had
made no secret of the fact that he was studying rabbinical literature with
the purpose of confuting Judaism. L'Empereur stressed that this episode
proved the extent to which the Jews feared the acquisition of real
knowledge of their literature by Christians.[xxiii]
The teacher with whom L'Empereur studied in
these years cannot be ascertained. Manasseh and Fonseca are both possible
candidates. Dionysius Vossius studied with Manasseh five years later, and
G.J. Vossius's description of Manasseh's attitude towards Christians
suggests that his willingness to serve the scholarly needs of Christians
preceded his lessons with Dionysius.[xxiv] Vossius also mentioned the difficulties Manasseh encountered as a
result of his teaching. However, there are no public statements by Manasseh
or L'Empereur about their relationship. In his Esperana d'Israel (1650) Manasseh took the trouble to point out a rather minor
mistake in L'Empereur's translation of Benjamin de Tudelas journal,[xxv] but this cannot be taken as an indication of a strained
relationship in the 1630's. In these years Manasseh presented L'Empereur
with some of his publications.[xxvi] A public acknowledgement of the relationship between Manasseh and
an orthodox theologian like L'Empereur would have been highly unusual. In
1635 the publication of a poem by Barlaeus in Manasseh's De Creatione
Problemata XXX caused a public scandal. In the
wake of this discussion Voetius and his disciples attacked the freedoms
granted to the Jews, and the contacts between J ews and Christians.[xxvii]
L'Empereur himself was probably involved in
an earlier clash between Manasseh and the Leiden Faculty of Theology. This
conflict stemmed from the publication of the Latin translation of
Manasseh's Conciliador, a work consisting of
solutions to apparent contradictions in the Pentateuch. The rationalistic
character of the objections discussed suggests that they were brought
forward by recently arrived Marranos. lf this hypothesis is correct, the Conciliador would originally have been written to further consolidation of the
Jewish community. Vossius and Barlaeus encouraged Manasseh to have his work
translated into Latin, and they also endorsed his request for permission to
dedicate the translation to the States of Holland. The States sent the
translation to the Leiden Faculty of Theology for examination. Within two
weeks, on 28 September 1633, the Faculty submitted its opinion, conceding
that the Conciliator contained useful
observations, but advising against the dedication. In their view, the book
also contained Jewish fables and opinions which could not be reconciled
with orthodox doctrine. The States followed the advice and refused the
dedication. Manasseh became frightened and changed the place of publication
in the Conciliator's imprint from Amsterdam to Frankfurt.
The translation was not banned, but the affair created concern within the
Jewish community. Afraid that such publications might endanger the tolerant
attitude of the authorities, the Jewish leadership instituted their own
preventive censorship.[xxviii]
lt is also possible that L'Empereur's
teacher in the years 1626-27 was Isaac Aboab de Fonseca (1605-1693), from
whom he bought some books in 1631. In 1626 Aboab became rabbi of the
congregation Bet lsrael. In 1641 he departed for Brazil to fill the post of
rabbi to the large Jewish community in Recife. After the death of Morteira
he became chief rabbi of Amsterdam.[xxix] In 1632 L'Empereur employed Aboab to explain some of the Jewish
works he was preparing for publication. In his account book of 1632 we find
the note 'Aen Fonseca voor halichoth Olam te exponeren 2 Jun f 30/ It.
Misnajoth aen den selven den 23 Juli f 10' .[xxx] We are probably justified in identifying this Fonseca with Isaac
Aboab. In January 1639 L'Empereur wrote in a letter to Andr Rivet[xxxi] that he had intended to write to 'the very learned Foseca to ask
him about some Jewish marriage rituals about which Rivet had been curious.
This had not been necessary, as Fonseca had called at L'Empereur's house in
Leiden. The incident, and the tone of the letter, suggest that their
relationship was rather a close one, and that L'Empereur respected
Fonseca's intellectual qualities and social position.
L'Empereur had some other contacts with
Jews in a rather unexpected field. From 1635 on he participated, with some
of his relatives, in the Brazilian sugar trade. Besides bringing in hand
some profits (in some years twice as much as his regular salary) this trade
brought him into contact with Jewish merchants.[xxxii]
3.
L'Empereur's acquaintance with individual
Jews probably explains his liberal opinion on the manner in which they
ought to be treated by the authorities. The dedication of his edition of
Bava Kamma (1637) praises the Zeeland politician Caspar van Vosbergen for
having abolished, as envoy of the Stadholder, some anti-Semitic usages in
the principality of Orange. Jews ought to be treated like men.[xxxiii] Intellectually, L'Empereur had a high regard for some Jewish
exegetists. It is also clear that in the course of his studies his
understanding of rabbinical texts increased. In his earlier works he speaks
in a quite traditional way about the triviality and foolishness of the
Jewish exegetists who do not respect the rules of Aristotelian logic. Later
on, one finds explanatory notes beginning with a remark such as: 'for the
Jewish mind, this remark contains nothing absurd'.[xxxiv] lt is probably not entirely by chance that his most negative
qualification of the Jews, monstra hominum, non homines, occurs in his first work.[xxxv] However, it would be wrong to regard L'Empereur as a philo-Semite.
He was in no way emotionally involved with Judaism.
Moreover, his theological evaluation and
portrayal of Judaism owed nothing to his personal acquaintance with Jews.
His conception was based solely upon his knowledge of some Jewish texts,
and was essentially moulded by a long Christian tradition concerning the
manner in which these texts ought to be interpreted. There is nothing in
his works suggesting that he was aware of the different currents within the
]ewish community, or even of any variety within Judaism. As a result of his
training as an intellectualist theologian, he considered Judaism to be a
mirror image of his own ideal of Christianity, seeing it as a timeless and
monolithic doctrine. As such, it was only one of a host of erroneous views
which had to be confuted, and against which the truth of orthodox doctrine
had to be defended. Unlike Luther or Erasmus, he did not regard Judaism as
a perennial threat to the life in the freedom of the Spirit. It was not a
symbol of an existential choice, by which Christians could lose die
Freiheit eines Christenmenschen.[xxxvi] lt was simply intellectually wrong, like the opinions of the
Arminians, the Catholics, the Socinians and so forth. L'Empereur, a
theologian who taught Hebrew and who knew rabbinical literature, considered
the refutation of Judaism to be his special task. On the occasions when he
indulged in such refutation, his arguments were marked by the usual
reproaches of the interconfessional polemic. He accused the Jews of
intellectual bad faith, which in his eyes explained their conscious opting
for falsehood. Still, his refutations were free from any special emotion.
This is most evident in his eschatology.
L'Empereur did not expect the mass conversion of the Jews, and considered
even individual conversions unlikely. He never referred to Romans 11, the
chapter which - since Beza's exegesis - had been used to prove the
conversion of all the Jews before the end of time. L'Empereur's was a
minority opinion in the 1630's. Even the official notes to the Statenvertaling, the new Dutch translation of the Bible which was commissioned by
the States General and undertaken by the Church, explained Romans 11
according to Bezas opinion.[xxxvii] L'Empereur's rejection of the idea of collective conversion among
the Jews was shared by only a few Dutch Calvinist theologians such as
Maresius and Vedelius. This lack of an eschatology including any
significant part for the Jews was probably connected with the fact that
L'Empereur had no interest in German federal theology or English Puritan
traditions.[xxxviii]
In 1634 L'Empereur dedicated his
translation of Halikhot Olam to the Board of
Leiden University, expressing his gratitude for his appointment as Professor
Controversiarum Judaicarum. The dedication contains
L'Empereur's most explicit statement of his task as a Hebraist with regard
to the Jews. According to L'Empereur, the Board hoped that:[xxxix]
I, in writing,
[would] contrast the errors of the Jews with the Christian truth, as
darkness against light, with the purpose and intention 'that God perchance
will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth, so that they
may recover themselves out of the snare of the Devil' [2 Tim 2:25-6 PvR],
or, if their stubbornness should prevent this in these days, that at least
the Christians will be better able to point out the glory of their Saviour
to them and defend their dogmas more clearly, so as to make the faith ever
more stable.
Even here L'Empereur did not cite Romans
11, as other Dutch Hebraists would have done.[xl] lnstead, he chose the last verses of a pericope containing a
general warning against heterodoxy. He regarded the conversion of Jews as
improbable, and consequently thought his main task to be the vindication of
the truth of the Christian religion and the refutation of Jewish articles
of faith.
In fact, L'Empereur never converted this
programmatic statement into reality. Neither before nor after his
appointment as Professor Controversiarum ludaicarum was the theological refutation of Judaism his main interest. Even
his edition of Halikhot Olam is not a polemical
work; it is simply a translation of an introduction to Talmudic studies.
Most of his other works also possess a humanistie rather than a theological
character. L'Empereur published onIy one work which directly concerned the
Christian-Jewish polemic,[xli] his Commentarii in Esaiae Prophetiam
(1631).[xlii] An analysis of this work shows the traditional character of his
polemics, and the limits he imposed upon hirnself.
In the dedication to the States General,
L'Empereur explained the importance of the Commentarii. The whole truth of Christian doctrine was contained in the
article on the expiatory character of Christs death, an article of faith
with its biblical foundation in Isaiah 52 and 53. L'Empereur referred to
his stay at Harderwijk, and told how, at that time, he dealt with the
controversies with the Jews mainly by explaining these two chapters. In
Leiden he had examined Jewish works to find whether they contained
anti-Christian arguments. L'Empereur argued that such an investigation was
highly realistic:[xliii]
because many
people, even some who profess Christianity, do not shrink from frank
approval of the Jewish error. They completely reject Christ's expiation for
our sins.
This reference to the Socinians, about
whose supposed influence a public discussion was raging at this time,[xliv] is one of many in L'Empereur's works. Often one gains the
impression that he was also thinking of Christian sectarians when he
refuted a Jewish opinion.[xlv]
The last part of the dedication explains the structure of
the Commentarii. L'Empereur edited the Hebrew
texts of two commentaries by Abrabanel on lsaiah 52 and 53, one by Moses
Alshekh, and fragments of the Yalkut, a
medieval compilation of older commentaries and paraphrases. To these
editions he added a refutation of the Jewish exegeses, a new Latin
translation of both chapters, and a Latin paraphrase. This structure
illustrates the traditional character of L'Empereur's polemic. He
considered Abrabanel an example of the contemporary Jew, who had turned
away from the right interpretation of the Bible. In his preface L'Empereur
praised the commentary by Alshekh, because it did not adhere to the
opinions of modern Jews, and often reverted to older Jewish exegesis. According
to L'Empereur, these older interpretations often agreed with the Christian
exegesis. For the same reason he published fragments of the Yalkut.
Quite clearly a polemical framework forms the
base of L'Empereur's only work to be wholly directed against the Jews. This
framework, within which L'Empereur tried to refute the medieval rabbis by
references to the Talmud, the Midrashim, and the Targumim, went back to
medieval Catholic polemics against Judaism.[xlvi] These had tried to show that the Jews who lived before Christ had
agreed with fundamental Christian tenets. Traces of their opinions were
still to be found in rabbinical literature. Thus one could show that the
Jews were unfaithful even to their own tradition. Whenever L'Empereur
engaged in polemics against Judaism, he depended on the arguments of this
medieval polemical tradition.
Another interesting feature of the Commentarii is its unusual form. L'Empereur did not publish a parallel Latin
translation of the Jewish commentaries. This is a sign of L'Empereur's
uneasiness when he realized that he was editing anti-Christian texts.
Abrabanels exegesis was explicitly anti-Christian, and the Lutheran
theologian Carpzov considered him to be the greatest Jewish adversary of
Christianity.[xlvii]
Apart from such commentaries, Jewish
anti-Christian polemics circulated in manuscripts.[xlviii] The existence of these polemics had been known to Christian
Hebraists from an early date; Mnster refers to a version of the Sefer-ha-Nizzachon .[xlix] Christian Hebraists even succeeded in obtaining copies of these
manuscripts, and L'Empereur himself possessed three or four such Jewish
polemics. He considered translating, refuting, and editing them, but
finally decided against this. In December 1633 he wrote to Bishop Ussher
that he was engaged in the Latin translation of an expensive manuscript, in
which a Jew had written down every objection he could make to Christianity.[l] In the same year L'Empereur
was also working on the Sefer-ha-Nizzachon, a copy of which had been sent to him by Buxtorf the Younger.[li] In 1637 he mentioned possessing the 'Vichuah Hadath', a work.
which, according to him, was unknown to the Christians; it was written by
Abraham Peritsolidae, and presented to L'Empereur by David de Wilhem.[lii] This is possibly the same work about which he wrote to Ussher. The
most curious manuscript of this kind in his possession is still part of his
archive in the Bibliotheca Thysiana.[liii] lt is a Dutch translation of the first chapters of Elyah
Montalto's Tratado sobre el Capitulo 53 de Ezayes.
Montalto, who died in 1615, was a
Portuguese Marrano. After studying medicine at the University of Salamanca
he settled in ltaly, where he openly professed Judaism. Later he became
physician to the French Queen, Maria de Medici. His pupil Saul Levi
Morteira followed him to Paris, and transported Montalto's body to
Amsterdam for burial in the Jewish cemetery. Morteira introduced Montalto's
Tratado in Amsterdam, and a sizeable number of
manuscripts of this work are still preserved in the libraries of the
Amsterdam Jewish community.[liv] The most remarkable feature of L'Empereur's copy is the language
in which it is written. No other Dutch translations are known to exist, and
it seems improbable that L'Empereur himself had it translated into Dutch,
as he knew Spanish well enough to possess several Spanish works. lt is
possible that the translation figured in discussions between Christians and
Jews in Amsterdam; we know such discussions took place in Gerebrand Anslo's
circle.[lv] During a stay in Amsterdam in 1642, J. S. Rittangel saw at least
one Jewish polemic against Christianity written in Dutch.[lvi]
L'Empereur did not edit any of these
manuscripts, although this cannot have been due to lack of public interest
in such works. In the 1640's Levinus Warner tried to achieve rapid fame by
publishing books the success of which was certain. One of these was a
review of lslamic conceptions of Jesus and the Christian religion.[lvii] Probably L'Empereur did not edit these works because he feared
they would provide heterodox Christians with arguments, a fear shared by
other theologians.[lviii] When Theodor Hackspan published the first edition of the Sefer-ha-Nizzachon, he did not translate it. In 1646 Johann Buxtorf considered publishing
the edition of Abrabanel's commentary on Daniel, and sought L'Empereur's
advice on the desirability and expediency of such a publication, while
stressing his own doubts.[lix] L'Empereur's answer is not known, but it seems highly probable
that he advised against such a publication.
4
As we have seen, L'Empereur's decision not
to edit Jewish polemics can be explained by his attachment to the interests
of orthodox Calvinism. The form and content of the works he did publish
betray strong humanistic influence, but Judaism as a living religion hardly
influenced them at all. Even his appointment as Professor
Controversiarum Judaicarum must be explained
without making reference to the Jews living in the Republic.
In January 1632 Andr Rivet, the most
important Leiden theologian, told the Board of the University that he was
leaving the Faculty of Theology to become private teacher to the
Stadholder's son.[lx] For the first time since the end of the Arminian troubles the
Board had to appoint a new theologian. Remembering earlier, disastrous
appointments, the Board set about finding a candidate with the greatest
care. It took them a year to select four candidates, each one of
unimpeachable orthodoxy: Hendrik Alting, Gijsbertus Voetius, Festus
Hommius, and Constantijn L'Empereur. They decided to appoint Alting[lxi] and immediately ran into trouble. The University of Groningen
refused its professor permission to accept the post. Alting himself, who
thought the intervention of Sweden marked a decisive turning point in the
Thirty Years War, vainly hoped that he would be able to return to
Heidelberg, from which he had fled in 1622.[lxii] The resulting delay in the appointment of a new professor was most
inconvenient. One of the three remaining Leiden theologians, Thysius, had
been appointed Rector Magnificus. Moreover, in July 1633, both he and
Polyander embarked on the time-consuming revision of the new translation of
the Old Testament.[lxiii]
In August 1633 Thysius requested the
Board's permission for L'Empereur to take over his teaching duties. His
request was granted, and L'Empereur taught in the Faculty of Theology until
September 1634. Polyander warned Alting by letter that Thysius's request
was part of an intrigue to have L'Empereur appointed as successor to Rivet.
He urged Alting to make up his mind and accept the invitation to Leiden.[lxiv] There is nothing remarkable about Thysius's support for
L'Empereur, since a brother of L'Empereur was Thysius's son-in-law and
L'Empereur himself had married one of Thysius's nieces.[lxv]
In the winter of 1633 it finally became
clear that Alting would not accept the invitation. On 28 December 1633 the
Board decided to appoint a completely new candidate, Jacobus Trigland, a
minister from Amsterdam. In this same meeting the Board decided to appoint
L'Empereur Professor Controversiarum ]udaicarum
and to raise his salary by 400 guilders.[lxvi] There seems to be no doubt that this appointment was meant to
compensate L'Empereur, who had enjoyed considerable support within the
University, for being passed over. The increase in his salary raised it to
a professor of theology's level. Three additional reasans can be given to
support this interpretation of L'Empereur's appointment.
(1) As indicated above, L'Empereur never
carried out his new duties, defined as 'treating in writing the
controversies between the Jews and the Christians and refuting the Jews'.
He mentioned his new function only once, in his edition of Halikhot Olam.[lxvii] The Board of the University never reprimanded him for this lack of
diligence, although they usually reacted strongly to professorial neglect
of duty.
(2) When L'Empereur finally saw his
ambitions fullfilled in becoming a professor of theology in 1646, the Board
promptly stripped him of his position as Professor Controversiarium Judaicarum, and ceased paying the additional salary.[lxviii] Evidently, the reason for the earlier appointment disappeared when
he became a member of the Faculty of Theology.
(3) In 1651 a similar course of events took
place, when the Board of the University wanted to appoint Cocceius, the
famous Franeker theologian, as a professor of theology. The negotiations
with Cocceius were long winded and rather tough, since he insisted on a
higher salary than was customary. Finally, the Board conceded his demands
and decided to look for arguments to justify this salary rise. After some
time they found their justification: Cocceius would have to write against
the Jews.[lxix]
Thus L'Empereur's appointment as Professor
Controversiarum Judaicarum cannot be used to
ascertain attitudes, within the States of Holland or the Board of the
University, towards the Jews. The charge was only a justification for a
rise in salary, which had been decided on for completely different reasons.
As is the way with justifications, the official reasons given for the
appointments of Cocceius and L'Empereur refer to prevailing opinions. They
do not, however, reflect any
concern, on the part of the University, about the actual presence of Jews.
It is much more difficult to define
L'Empereur's own view of his appointment. His new responsibility neatly
fitted his conception of his own task as a professor of Hebrew, but on the
other hand, he only incidentally engaged in theological polernies. As we
have seen, two reasons can be given for this: a certain self-imposed
limitation in his choice of subject matter, due to his loyalty to the
Church, and his desire for recognition in the world of humanist scholars.
This desire determined the form of most of his published works; the nature
of his scholarly work was not changed by his appoint ment as Professor
Controversiarum Judaicarum. After 1634 he edited
only one more rabbinical work; his edition of Bava Kamma (1637) is his most explicitly humanistic publication, but it also
contains a strong attack on the Jews, which is, however, both veiled and
secular.
Bava Kamma is a
juridical work. Following Exodus 21 and 22, it provides rules for the
assessment of, and restitution for, damages done to someone's property or
person. In his commentary L'Empereur compares these Mishnaic laws with
Roman law. There are some 140 references to the Corpus Iuris Civilis, mostly to the Digests, but also many'
to the Institutes and the Codex. The quotations stem from very different parts of the Corpus
Iuris. L 'Empereur cites approximately thirty
different titles from the Digests and provides
citations from Roman law for almost every single mishnah. For instance, in
his commentary on Bava Kamma vii,7, concerning
the complicated legal question of the circumstances under which one is
allowed to catch a dove, L'Empereur cites D 41,1,5, where the same problem
is dealt with. As Roman law has a certain rough division according to
subject matter, most citations are from three titles: D 9, I (Actio de
pauperie), D 9,2 (Ad legem Aquilae) and D 49,10 (De injuriis).
The comparison served a general purpose.
L'Empereur considered both Mishnah and Roman law to be the product of
jurisconsults. They elaborated upon an original law to apply it to
different circumstances, in different times. The purpose of this legal
development was to preserve the justice of the original law,[lxx] and in L'Empereur's detailed comparison he examined the extent to
which rabbinical legal scholars did preserve the original justice laid down
in the Law of God. According to him, this was not the case; the Mishnah
twisted and distorted the Law of God.[lxxi] The comparison with the Corpus Iuris
showed the injustice and inhumanity of the Jewish jurisconsults.[lxxii] In every case in which L'Empereur explicitly compared both legal
systems, his judgement was unfavourable towards the Mishnah.[lxxiii] Moreover, in those cases in which the Mishnah layed down a just
ruling, it could be deduced from Roman law.[lxxiv]
L'Empereur considered Roman law to be an
expression of natural justice and equity, essentially in agreement with the
Law of God. This conception of Roman law as an expression of natural law
went back to Calvin and Melanchthon; both viewed the Corpus Iuris in this light.[lxxv] Comparisons between Roman law and the Decalogue, made to prove the
justice of the Corpus Iuris, were a popular
juridical genre of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The most famous
example is the edition of pseudo-Ambrosius's Collatio legum Mosaicarum
et Romanorum.[lxxvi]
There is no direct precedent for L
'Empereur's use of the Corpus Iuris as a means
to investigate the justice of rabbinical literature. Occasionally, however,
the Mishnah and Talmud had been described as Jewish pandects.[lxxvii] Moreover, the wide spread seventeenth-century concern with natural
law and the law of nations stimulated the comparison of different legal
systems.
L'Empereur's secular attack on the Jews in Bava
Kamma has an unpleasantly modern ring. Neither in
the preface nor in the title or table of contents did he indicate the
purpose of his comparison, or his conclusions from it. The nature of his
attack on the Jews only becomes evident when one analyses his commentary.
His edition is never mentioned as a work written against the Jews, yet this
book, written in the spirit of humanistic interest in legal camparison,
contains L'Empereur's potentially most dangerous attack on the Jews.
|