Cecil Roth claimed that “in no part of the world did such a feeling of friendliness prevail between the people and the Jews as in Italy.” To what extent is this accurate?

Cecil Roth’s claim of extraordinary “friendliness” towards the Jews in Early Modern Italy is in fitting with the Renaissance narrative. It suggests a forward thinking and tolerant society simply because of the grandeur the period is historically attributed. Roth’s claim however, whilst idyllic, does not quantify with the actualities of Jewish life during the Italian Renaissance. Firstly, it is important to consider that the treatment of the Jewish people varied greatly throughout the Renaissance period. Jews were treated differently across Italy and across different time periods because relations relied on the will of authorities and the public. This makes generalisations such as Roth’s claim difficult to agree with[i]. Furthermore, much like their treatment across the middle ages, the Jews of Renaissance Italy were discriminated against. Even during periods of tolerance, the threat of violence was never far from the Jewish communities of Renaissance Italy. Jews were constantly treated as a threatening Other; they were denied basic human, legal and economic rights and were ghettoized for much of their lives. This is not conducive with Roth’s claim of “friendliness.”The greatness granted to the Italian Renaissance period has meant that Historians such as Roth have inflated the tolerance and liberalism of society towards the Jews. They have at times presented the period as a “paradigm of tolerance[ii].” This is exemplified by Roth’s claim; a claim which simply isn’t correct. Whilst tolerance existed in certain periods and locations in Renaissance Italy it was often economic and tinged with threatening violent societal undertones[iii].Furthermore, the Jews of Renaissance Italy were forced to live in Ghettos, had very little legal protection, were subjected to constant mockery and accused of and unfairly punished for violent crimes. It is useful to look at Venice as an example of the consistent ill treatment of the Jews. From 1516 onwards, the Jews of Venice were forced to live in segregated ghettos with gates which were closed nightly and policed strictly by Christian Venetians. Benjamin Ravid goes as far as to argue that “their (Jewish) general personal freedom and economic rights were far more restricted than were those of other minority groups residing in Venice.[iv]” This argument directly contests Roth’s claim. The ghettoization of the Jews from 1516 onwards suggests a fear and anxiety of the Jews from the Christian citizens and highlights the massive division between the two communities[v]. Moreover, the almost complete lack of legal protection afforded to the Jews of Venice and the restriction of fundamental rights suggests that friendliness and tolerance were not in abundance in Renaissance Venice. This was true of Florence, Rome, Modena and Mantua; it was commonplace throughout Italy.Additionally, the Jews of Renaissance Italy were subjected to constant mockery. From this sprung a more vicious anti-Semitism which permeated society. Kenneth R. Stow explains that “lampooning Jews was the more frequent posture, sarcastically or raucously mocking Jewish practice for contravening right social values.[vi]” An interesting example of this mockery is that during Passover local Venetians reportedly pelted young boys with bread when delivering matzah (flatbread) to the ghettos[vii]. This mockery whilst not as immediately as sinister as physical violence exposes the Otherness the Jews of Renaissance Italy lived with. This is not conducive with the friendliness which Roth suggests. Rather, a culture of Othering the Jews of Venice demonstrations the division in Renaissance society which often evolved into more vicious discrimination[viii].This vicious discrimination often manifested itself as violent reactions against the Jewish community. This was a theme of Jewish life throughout the medieval period and remained prevalent across Early Modern Europe and Renaissance Italy. The most enlightening example of this is the case of Simon of Trent. Simon, a small boy, was found floating in a ditch on Easter Sunday in the city of Trent. Rumours spread that the Jews were responsible. Six Jewish men were arrested and tortured until a confession of ritual murder was obtained. Five of the men were executed and the other committed suicide. The Trent case shows the dependence of the Jews on the whims of society and the threat of violence of persecution by the people of Renaissance Italy[ix]. This was not an isolated incident and the threat of violent reactions to Jewish communities lay under the surface of Renaissance Italian society throughout the period.Furthermore, Italy was not the friendliest society for the Jews. It was rather the Ottoman Empire which offered the best conditions for the Early Modern Jews. Importantly, the Jews of the Ottoman Empire were allowed their own millet (separate court). This gave them the right to maintain their own laws regarding marriage, morals and religious practices[x]. There simply was not this legal and religious freedom for the Jews of Renaissance Italy. Additionally, Jews often held government office under Ottoman rule and refugees fleeing expulsion were welcomed to the Empire. Nicholas Terpstra summarises the distinction between the Ottoman Empire and Renaissance Italy. He argues that both societies sought universalism but that “Ottoman universalism was about uniting difference under one broad tent, while Christian universalism was about reducing it to a single narrow path.[xi]” This is a telling contribution from Terpstra. He asserts that the difference between how the Jews were treated was that Renaissance Italian Christians wanted Jews to assimilate into their practices whilst the Ottoman’s encouraged a form of early modern ‘multiculturalism.’ Privy to Roth’s claim, the Ottoman Empire was a much more settled and respectful part of the world for the Early Modern Jews than Renaissance Italy.Dean Phillip Bell’s summary of the experience of the Jews in Renaissance Italy is convincing. He argues that early modern relations between Jews and non-Jews were complex, quickly changeable and dependent on local conditions. He also concedes that periods of tolerance did exist but mainly for economic and political reasons. Mainly though, he says, Jewish life was accompanied by frequent and violent anti-Jewish sentiment and mentality[xii]. This directly challenges the older historiography of Roth with a balanced and evidenced argument, ignoring the idealistic Renaissance narrative. Whilst there were periods of tolerance and economic friendliness, Renaissance Italy was not friendly towards the Jews. They were exposed to constant mockery, an impending threat of violence and forced to live in separate, controlled ghettos. They were treated as a constant threat and as a sub-human Other. They did not have the economic or legal rights that Jews living in the Ottoman Empire had, often they had none. Roth, like many of his peers attempted to portray tolerance of the Jews in Italy as extraordinary to fit the Renaissance narrative. However, for the most part, treatment of the Jews was discriminatory, violent and in keeping with that of much of Early Modern Europe.  [i] Cecil Roth, The Jews in the Renaissance, (Philadelphia 1977), P.15.[ii] Robert Bonfil, The Jewish Life in Renaissance Italy, (University of California Press 1994), P.7.[iii] Dean Phillip Bell, Jews in the Early Modern World, (Rowman and Littlefield USA 2008), P.232.[iv] Benjamin Ravid, Venice and its Minorities, in A Companion to Venetian History 1400-1797 ed. Eric R. Dursteler, (Leiden 2013), P.481.[v] Ibid.[vi] Kenneth R. Stow, Stigma, Acceptance and the End of Limanality: Jews and Christians in Early Modern Italy, in At The Margins: Minority Groups in Premodern Italy, ed. Stephen J. Milner, (University of Minnesota Press 2005), P.72.[vii] Benjamin Ravid, Kosher Bread in Venice, (Italy 1986), P.20-29.[viii] Kenneth R. Stow, Stigma, Acceptance and the End of Liminality, P.72-85.[ix] Stephen Bowd, Death By Humanism, History Today, August 2013, Vol. 63 (8), 31.[x] Merry E. Weisner-Hanks, Early Modern Europe 1450-1789, Cambridge History of Europe, (Cambridge 2009), P.393.[xi] Nicholas Terpstra, Religious Refugees in the Early Modern World- An Alternative History of the Reformation, Cambridge University Press August 2015, P.45., https://doi-org.ezproxy.is.ed.ac.uk/10.1017/CBO9781139170055 [Accessed 15 March 2018]. [xii] Dean Phillip Bell, Jews in the Early Modern World, P.232.
BibliographyDean Phillip Bell, Jews in the Early Modern World, (Rowman and Littlefield USA 2008), P.232.Robert Bonfil, The Jewish Life in Renaissance Italy, (University of California Press 1994), P.7.Stephen Bowd, Death By Humanism, History Today, August 2013, Vol. 63 (8), 31.Benjamin Ravid, Venice and its Minorities, in A Companion to Venetian History 1400-1797 ed. Eric R. Dursteler, (Leiden 2013), P.481.Benjamin Ravid, Kosher Bread in Venice, (Italy 1986), P.20-29.Cecil Roth, The Jews in the Renaissance, (Philadelphia 1977), P.15.Kenneth R. Stow, Stigma, Acceptance and the End of Limanality: Jews and Christians in Early Modern Italy, in At The Margins: Minority Groups in Premodern Italy, ed. Stephen J. Milner, (University of Minnesota Press 2005), P.72-85Nicholas Terpstra, Religious Refugees in the Early Modern World- An Alternative History of the Reformation, Cambridge University Press August 2015, P.45., https://doi-org.ezproxy.is.ed.ac.uk/10.1017/CBO9781139170055 [Accessed 15 March 2018]. Merry E. Weisner-Hanks, Early Modern Europe 1450-1789, Cambridge History of Europe, (Cambridge 2009), P.393.