<<

CHAPTER FOUR

ANTI-SEMITIC AND PEDAGOGY: FEAR MONGERING IN THE CENTINELA CONTRA JUDÍOS

The Centinela contra Judíos is not a work that stands out because of its originality. Fray Francisco de Torrejoncillo sought his inspiration in vari- ous previous anti-Semitic polemics printed in Spain and Portugal from the late fifteenth to the early seventeenth centuries. Torrejoncillo even boasted of his reliance upon the works of previous authors in the short foreword to the Centinela: This book has received much approval, citing as it does the work of differ- ent authors. All of these are serious and well-respected authorities, whose books have been examined and approved by the censors, as any per- son who harbours doubts on what is related here will be able to observe. This treatise only refers to what erudite men and the Holy Scriptures have related and sanctioned in many places. (…) I have fashioned this book out of pieces of collected from a variety of sources and I have not added anything to it beyond a wish that the Jews should be known for what they are. First printed in 1674, the Centinela can be described as a ‘late work’ since the multiple editions in Spanish and Portuguese appeared towards the end of the period in which such anti-Semitic polemics were produced. Nevertheless this is, in many ways, what renders the Centinela so interesting. Firstly, it offers to a modern observer a stunning précis, or anthology, of the anti- Semitic fears and conspiracy theories circulating in the early modern Iberian Peninsula. Secondly, the sources cited by Fray Torrejoncillo present a fascinating insight into which anti-Semitic works were influential and widely read in Spain during the seventeenth century. Finally, the structure and style of the Centinela contra Judíos were intentionally designed to fit its purpose of popularising (indeed vulgarising) the main tenets of Iberian anti-Semitism in the early modern period amongst a lay readership.

Reaching out to a Lay Readership

The structure and tone of the Centinela were purposefully intended to appeal to a lay reader with little or no formal theological education. By 76 chapter four choosing to write his work in Spanish rather than , Fray Torrejoncillo ensured that it would be read by laymen, but there are many other aspects of the book that betray its mission to popularise and disseminate anti- Semitic prejudices and fears amongst the lay population. These include the manner in which Torrejoncillo cited his sources, the type of language used and the nature of the fielded to incite anti-Semitic hatred. Furthermore, the division of the Centinela into fourteen self-contained chapters – each one tackling a single major theme – meant that its read- ers did not have to read the entire book and could easily read selected chapters. The 1622 Breve Discurso contra a heretica perfidia do iudaismo of Vicente da Costa Mattos was clearly the model upon which Torrejoncillo based the Centinela contra Judíos. The Breve Discurso had been translated into Spanish in 1631 but did not enjoy quite the same success as the Centinela. Only a second Spanish edition of the Breve Discurso was printed, nearly half a century later in 1680, and it is striking that even the Portuguese edi- tions of the Centinela enjoyed more success in Portugal (if success is to be measured, somewhat crudely, in terms of the number of printed editions) than its Portuguese forerunner. The success of the Centinela in Spain, compared to the Breve Discurso, was probably due to the that Torrejoncillo rendered its content more relevant for a Spanish reader, add- ing stories from his native Extremadura and copying into it a considerable quantity of material sourced from the sixteenth-century Defensio Statuti Toletani (see below). Fray Torrejoncillo referred his readers to his sources but did so very hap- hazardly and leaves little doubt that he did not expect the readers of the Centinela to methodically check these sources. A comparison with the 1622 Breve Discurso contra heretica perfidia do iudaismo highlights the contrast between the two works in this respect. Whilst Vicente da Costa Mattos referenced his sources with meticulous care, providing the numbers of chapters and folios and quoting the original Latin text when this was nec- essary, Torrejoncillo does this only very sporadically. Torrejoncillo appears to have decided that his lay readers would probably not have a command of Latin and, correspondingly, quotations in Latin are very often translated into Spanish or immediately paraphrased after the quotation. In his prologue, Torrejoncillo boasted that “this book offers these refer- ences clearly and evidently, without errors” but in the Centinela is replete with referencing errors and factual mistakes. Some of them were clearly the responsibility of the author but others were probably caused