The edict on the Jews, issued on 5th April 1775, grouped together all the oppressive laws against the Jews that had been promoted by the past popes and increased their effects. The edict was made up of 44 articles that strongly restricted any kind of spiritual and business activity of the Roman Jewish community. Some of these measures aimed at making changes in the long term, like the ones against their sacred books, the ban on the manufacturing of objects of worship (such as menorahs, mezuzots and suchlike) and on the use of the Jewish writing.42 Other measures, instead, had an immediate pejorative effect on their life, such as the restrictions on trade, professions and on the freedom of movement43. The life in the ghetto got markedly worse because of Pius VI’s edict as proved by the many problems that arose: the increase in the number of aggressions against the Jews, the greater diffusion of the phenomenon of the oblazioni (the forced christenings) and the uncommon ritual tributes demanded
by many of the Pope’s officials from the Jewish fattori (councillors), such as genuflexions and the kissing of the shoes.44
In her recent book Relazioni pericolose, Marina Caffiero reports that in 1789 the Jewish community in Rome wrote a long Memoriale for the government authorities denouncing the Jews’ conditions in Rome and asserting their rights.45 Once again the main addressees of this memoir were the Roman institutions that competed with the community for economic reasons: the
42 Biblioteca Casanatense, Per.est. 18 - 76.98, ff. 3-5. Editto a stampa, Roma, 1775, April 20.
43 Idem, ff. 7-10.
44 80% of the reported attacks against the Jews in the 18th century happened during Pius VI’s pontificate. Most attacks took place during the first two years of his government. Many of these accounts come from the collections of the Archivio Storico della Comunità Ebraica di Roma (ASCER) 1QI-1 inf. 5., 1TG inf. 5. Proof of the Jews’ pleas/complaints to the Pope can be found in the Archivio di Stato di Roma (ASR) which has absorbed most of the papal archives on the matter and of the Archivio della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede (ACDF).
45 Marina Caffiero, Legami pericolosi, Ebrei e cristiani tra eresia, libri proibiti e stregoneria (Torino, 2012) p. 331.
Apostolic Chamber, the Capitoline Chamber, the Pia Casa dei catecumeni and the monastero delle Convertite.46 The Jews’ claims were based on legal arguments also brought forward by the European Enlightenment culture. As usual the drafting of the memorial had been assigned to a board of twelve Catholic lawyers.47 We do not know to what extent the passing of time influenced both the tone of the requests (which was audacious and quite disrespectful) and the actual drafters of the memorial. At any rate, this document shows a greater Jewish involvement between the conditions of the Jews in Rome and the international political developments (France in particular). A previous document which has not been published yet is the “Defence of the edict of 1775”, written in 1777; the drafters’ intentions were to prove that it was impossible to abide by many commas of the edict.48 In its brief introduction, emphasis was given to the need to deal with the wretched economic condition of the Roman Jews, caused by a legal system (introduced only two years previously) which was no longer tolerable and had to be changed. The “defence”
brought forward to the pope allows, through a representation of its history (its Jewish-Roman history), to understand the interpretation and perspective which were specific to the community and to analyse the perception of the relationships with society outside the ghetto. This report does not bring to the pope’s attention
46 Most of the Pie Case de’ catecumeni were created in the second half of the 16th century. Here the Jews who had intended to renounce their religion were obliged to live in utter isolation for 40 days. After that, they had to undergo an exam and if they passed it they could be christened. If, on the contrary, they were seen as “obstinate”, they could go back to their co-religionists or go into exile. The first casa dei Catecumeni was instituted in Rome in 1543 by Ignazio Loyola. Even in the first half of the XVIth century the Compagnia del Divino Amore resolved to help the prostitutes who are repentant and sick. As a consequence a papal bull dated 19th May 1520
“Salvator Noster” orders the founding of a monastery called delle Convertite in the Colonna area, next to the church Santa Lucia della Colonna (that for the occasion changed its name to Santa Maria Maddalena). Here the women who wanted to start a new life were accommodated and guided.
47 It could have not been otherwise because the Jews could not practice law. Caffiero, Legami pericolosi, p. 332.
48 ASCER, 1QI – 1 inf. 5, fasc. 13, f.1r., “Difesa dell’editto del 1775 che dimostra l’impossibilità di operar molti capitoli di esso”. Rome, 1777.
a single problem, but a more complex and general situation that took a turn for the worse after the papal edict. The difference lies in the different time context and in the political conditions that had changed between the drafting of the two documents. It must have been more difficult (as proved by the caution shown towards the pope) to address a similar appeal in 1777. As far as the document is concerned, its analysis shows that the most important requests are those connected to the personal safety of the Jews. As a matter of fact, even though some of the measures are intended to humiliate and make the life inside the ghetto more and more difficult, the chapters that cause more concern to the drafters of the “defence of the edict” are those concerning the obligation for the Jews to identify themselves and the ban on the use of carriages.49 According to the writers, both these bans put the Jews’ lives at risk. And if the Jews were assaulted it was almost impossible to lodge a complaint (and, in any case, ineffective from a legal point of view).50 Robbing the Jews who left the ghetto to sell their products could have been in some ways favoured by the legal powers or, even, by the police51. Speaking of the obligation to make oneself recognized, the document addressed to Pius VI reads: “The Jews would not mind using a
50 Among the many pleas addressed to the Pope, there is one in particular that best summarizes the situation: “poichè vivendo colla loro semplice industria necessitati di girare per la città a procacciarsi il vitto e supplire all'obbligo di molti pesi, quasi niuno, rimane esente dalli scherni, ludibri, percosse, ferite, alle quali per l'odio contro li medesimi concepiti ingiustamente soccombono, di modo che e da fanciulli e da adulti e da uomini, e da donne, e infine dalla [provetta] senile età miseramente sono molestati. Proseguiva poi chiarendo che: sono quasi assordite le orecchie de tribunali dalli quotidiani ricorsi [...] onde simili attentati rimanendo impuniti sempre più si accresce l'audacia d'ogn'uno in offendere persino a rimaner feriti li poveri ebrei”. ASCER, 1QL – 1 inf. 5, fasc. 9, f. 1. Roma, 1777.
51 Only when the Jews travelled outside Rome they were allowed not to wear the badge on their hats for a short period of time. They could not use carriages but they could use carts and horses which exposed the riders to the elements limiting their autonomy.
sign of recognition on their hats if, after that, they were not treated badly and offended by the common people [“recognized” omitted in the draft] not just with insults, that they could even patiently bear, but many times with stones, punches, spits, and a thousand strains. Some get injured and went back to the ghetto with the marks and bruises of the beatings and very often without obtaining justice”.52 The sign of recognition was introduced to distinguish the Jews from the Christians, thus preventing the “scandal” of an excessive and reciprocal familiarity by “marking them with a sign of disgrace and enslavement”.53 Lastly, the particular circumstances of the time “demanded for this custom to be introduced”. But those who had advocated its use must have been aware of the dangerousness of wearing it on hats, because of the many aggressions denounced by the Jews who worked outside the ghetto. Moreover, the same sign had to be worn by prostitutes, thus emphasizing why this “stigma” was required by law. It did happen, though, that the rules were disregarded by part of the community and that “controllers and controlled”, by tacit agreement, allowed the rules to be broken. This way, during the festive season, Jews could often be seen with the gentiles in or outside the ghetto. The violation of the rules was allowed and even
wanted and used as an element of social control and to ensure stability.54 In this legal dimension, where sometimes the “exception” added to the rules, Pius VI’s
52 “L'usare il riferito segno al cappello nulla rincrescerebbe, se per mezzo di esso riconosciuti, non venissero poi dal minuto popolo [eliminato in stesura "riconosciuti"] gravemente strapazzati ed offesi, non già colle sole ingiuriose parole, che pur pazientemente soffrir potrebbero, ma spessissime volte colle sassate ancora coi pugni, coi calci, cogli sputi nella faccia, e con altri mille insoffribili strapazzi, ritornandone purtroppo alcuni al ghetto feriti con non leggere percosse; e di più soggetti sono alla fatal disgrazia di non ricever neppur giustizia”. It was unlikely for the jews to report a theft, as they ran the risk of being denounced themselves in return, for having sold something that they were forbidden to trade. ASCER, 1QI – 1 inf. 5, fasc.
13, f. 3.
53 In this regard an interesting fact was that the Jews were obliged to financially maintain the monastery of the Converted that hosted redeemed prostitutes. Besides, the document which we are taking into consideration here was a consequence of one of the many lawsuits between the Jews and the monastery over the aforesaid obligation.
54 ASR, Ebrei, b. 4, fasc. 130, a. 1796.
government action underlined the importance of abiding by the laws on the Jews.
The republication of the edict of 1775 and the constant requests made to the bishop as vicar of Rome and to all the controlling bodies had to lead to a different international scene and to a definite change. Under Pope Braschi’s pontificate, the number of Jews under investigation for having disobeyed the edict grew considerably. This created a rift between the Jews and most of the population because of the individuation of the problems which were common to all Jews (they were seen as responsible for famines, illnesses, etc).55 In the Archivio Storico della Comunità Ebraica di Roma (ASCER) there are many petitions and copies of the complaints of the several assualts against the Jews who were now easily recognizable because of the distinctive badges on their hats. Some of them even preferred to serve the sentence provided for in the edict and wear the hat only when approaching the guards at the entrance to the ghetto.56 The fact that the Jews could not use carts, carriages or horses made it very difficult for them to carry their products and to get about without being recognized. This exposed them to several dangers in Rome. Many knew that if a Jew was outside the ghetto, it was probably for business reasons so he became an easy target both because he was carrying money and goods and because he was a Jew. Moreover, very few people would have testified against the aggressors because some of those who robbed the Jews were policemen or guards of the ghetto.57 This evident diversity (the sign on the hat) was part of a logic that dated back centuries and had been strongly reminded of by Pius VI’s edict, namely the legal inequality between Jews and Catholics. Regarding the legislative corpus
55 ASR, Camerale II, Ebrei, b. 22.
56 The punishment consisted in paying 50 scudi and included other corporal punishments at the judge’s discretion. Biblioteca Casanatense, Per.est.18_76.98, f. 6. Editto a stampa, Roma, 1775, aprile 20.
57 ASCER, 1QI – 1 inf. 5, fasc. 16, f. 4.
against the Jews, the historian Adriano Prosperi observes that: “In all these cases what we are faced with is a form of social exclusion advocated by the authority which consists in the invention of a barrier: on the one side the real human being, on the other what is considered inhuman”.58 The defence memoir of the Jewish community included other comments on the Edict and ended with the community’s plea to the Pope:
Prostrated before Your Holiness, this oppressed and almost dying community humbly begs for the edict to be modified and for the above-mentioned permissions as they are necessary for this unhappy nation to continue its miserable existence. The Jews would prefer to die only once than to live such an unhappy life which is worse than death.59
Even though statements of humbleness were common when writing directly to the Pope, the final part of this document is only similar to the letters addressed to Pius VI during the first years of his pontificate, at least in the papers kept in the collection ‘suppliche – rapporti ebrei cristiani (XVIII century)’ of the ASCER.60 The pleas in the collection that has been partially described so far show a sharp increase in the number of attacks and a general worsening of the life conditions of the Roman Jews during the first years of Pius VI’s pontificate. Among the many documents only the “defence of the edict of 1775” summarizes all the problems and the appeals to mitigate the papal measures which had previously
58 Adriano Prosperi, Il seme dell’intolleranza, Ebrei, eretici, selvaggi: Granada 1492 (Bari, 2011), p. VIII.
59 “Prostrata adunque ai piedi della Santità Vostra l'oppressa è quasi spirante Università suddetta umilmente implora, dalla sovrana clemenza e somma sua pietà le fin qui divisate moderazioni dell'editto e le indicate permissioni per che le une e le altre necessarie sono alla penosa sussistenza della meschina nazzione altrimente bramerebbero i miseri ebrei piuttosto una sol volta morire che menar penando una vita si miserabbile, che è assai peggiore della morte che della grazia”. ASCER, 1QI – 1 inf. 5, fasc. 13
60 ASCER, 1QI – 1 inf. 5.
been brought forward by single individuals. This document shows the real pressure that these laws exerted in the ghetto in Rome. The publication and the observance of the “very strict” edict on the Jews would have impoverished even further the community of the ghetto both economically and spiritually.61 From a political point of view Pius VI always associated the Jews with a possible negative distortion of the social order, as a destabilizing vehicle of wrong and false philosophies. It was obvious that the situation was changing when, in January 1793, the Roman population showed a high degree of hostility during its revolt and the French diplomatic agent Hugon de Bassville was killed. The Jews got involved in the popular anti-French hatred because they were believed to be accomplices and supporters of the French Revolution. On that occasion the ghetto in Rome was besieged and its walls and doors caught fire, while the Jews were barricaded inside it for days.62
Further on, attention will be given to how the political-social developments in Europe affected and negatively influenced the lives of the small communities of the Papal States.