What position the German rabbis took in reference to the denunciation of philosophy and of Maimuni, revived by Moses Taku, is not authentically known, but may be inferred from an event which was the cause of much scandal elsewhere.
A French or Rhenish Kabbalist, who had emigrated to Jean d'Acre (Accho), was stirred up by even more intense zeal than Moses Taku. This man, whose name was Solomon Petit, made it the aim of his life to kindle again the pyre for the wholesale burning of the writings of Maimuni, and to plant the standard of the Kabbala upon the grave of philosophy. At Accho he gathered a circle of pupils around him, whom he initiated into the knowledge of the secret art, and to whom he related marvelous stories in order to cast disrepute upon philosophy. Accho was at this time a very nest of Kabbalists and mystics, of whom the greater number were pupils of Nachmani. Although the days of this town, the last stronghold of the much reduced Christian kingdom of Jerusalem, were numbered, these dabblers in the mystic art conducted themselves as if they were destined to remain there for ever. Solomon Petit thought that he could command sufficient support to venture upon carrying into execution his plan of publishing once more a sentence of condemnation upon Maimunist writings, of forbidding under penalties all scientific study, and excommunicating men engaged in independent research. His fanaticism was especially directed against Maimuni's "Guide" (Moré); in his opinion it deserved to be proscribed, like other heretical works. He enlisted many followers in Palestine to aid him in this attack on heresy. Who would not obey, when the voice of the Holy Land had caused itself to be heard? Who would attempt to justify what it had condemned? But the zealot Solomon Petit met with unexpected opposition.
At the head of the Eastern congregations at this time, there stood an energetic man, Yishaï ben Chiskiya, who had obtained the title of Prince and Exilarch (Resh-Galuta) from the temporal authorities. Those communities of Palestine which were under the rule of the Mahometans and of the Egyptian Sultan Kilavun, naturally belonged to his diocese, and he also claimed obedience from the community at Accho, although it was in the hands of the crusaders. The Exilarch Yishaï held Maimuni in the highest respect, and was on friendly terms with his grandson, David, the Nagid of Egypt. As soon as he received information concerning the doings of Solomon Petit, the mystic of Accho, he dispatched a sharp letter to him, and threatened to excommunicate him if he persisted in his attacks on Maimuni and his writings. Several rabbis, whom Yishaï had called in, to add the weight of their authority to his, expressed themselves to the same effect. But Solomon Petit was not a man to permit himself to be overpowered by obstacles. He undertook a journey to Europe, visited the large congregations, and described the danger of the Maimunistic writings to the rabbis and other distinguished persons. He overawed them by his knowledge of the Kabbala, succeeded in persuading many to join him, and announce, in documents bearing their signatures, that the philosophical writings of Maimuni contained heresies, that they deserved to be put aside or even burnt, and that no Jew ought to read them. Nowhere did Solomon Petit meet with such hearty support as with the German rabbis. They showed their approval of his action in letters, even some of those who had recently been in agreement with the Exilarch Yishaï.
Being assured of the assistance of the German and of some of the French rabbis, Solomon Petit started on his return journey through Italy, and sought to obtain partisans in that country also; but there he met with the least response, for just as Maimuni was finding fresh antagonists in Germany, so his admirers were increasing in Italy. The Italian communities, which hitherto had rivaled the Germans in ignorance of every kind, were just awakening from their torpidity, and their recently opened eyes turned to the light which emanated from Maimuni. Their political condition was not unfavorable; in fact, within the precincts of St. Peter, they were at that time in more propitious circumstances than any of the Jews of central Europe. The canonical laws against the Jews were nowhere more disregarded than in Italy. The small states and municipalities, into which the country was split up at this time, were too jealous of their liberty to permit the clergy to exert any influence over their domestic concerns. The city of Ferrara passed a statute in favor of the Jews, granting many liberties to them, and containing a clause stating, that a magistrate (podestà) could be empowered neither by the pope nor by any one else to deprive them of these privileges. Not only had the king of Sicily, Charles of Anjou, a Jewish physician, Farraj Ibn-Solomon, who, under the name of Farragut, was held in high repute as a scholar in Christian circles, but even the pope himself transgressed the canonical decree which forbade any one's taking medical assistance from a Jew. One of the four popes who reigned during the short period of thirteen years (1279 to 1291) entrusted his holy person to the care of a Jewish physician, Isaac ben Mordecai, who bore the title of Maestro Gajo.
The prosperity enjoyed by Italy in consequence of the wide extension of its flourishing commerce, and the fondness for art and poetry which sprang up at this time, during the youth of the poet Dante, affected also the Italian Jews, and aroused them from their hitherto dormant condition.
The philosophical writings of Maimuni made their influence in favor of the higher culture felt upon the minds of the Italian Jews. About this time, they began to occupy themselves earnestly with the "Guide," and intellectual men delivered discourses upon this profound work. The origin of this revival may be traced back to Anatoli, but Hillel of Verona must be considered the founder and promulgator of the scientific method among the Italian Jews. Maimuni had no warmer admirer than this true-hearted and energetic man, who, though somewhat limited in range of ideas, was exceedingly lovable. Hillel ben Samuel of Verona (born about 1220, died about 1295), a zealous Talmud disciple of Jonah Gerundi, in no way partook of the intolerant and heresy-hunting spirit which characterized his teacher. He had been a witness of the latter's genuine atonement for calling in the aid of the Dominicans in his fanatical onslaught on the writings of Maimuni, and since that time Hillel almost worshiped Maimuni. He avoided Talmudic one-sidedness, and turned his mind also to general studies. He made himself so thoroughly acquainted with the Latin language – a rare accomplishment among the Jews of his day – that he was able to compose in Latin with great ease; he translated a work upon surgery from this language into Hebrew. Indeed, Hillel's Hebrew style was influenced by the peculiarities of Latin syntax. He wrote beautiful, clear, terse Hebrew prose, entirely free from the verbose phraseology and ornate flourishes of the style then in vogue. At first he practised the profession of medicine in Rome, afterwards in Capua and Ferrara, and in his old age in Forli.
With all his intellectual powers Hillel became absorbed in Maimuni's writings on the philosophy of religion, notwithstanding which he remained true to his religious belief, clinging to it with great tenacity. The miracles in the Bible and the Talmud were not regarded by him as fanciful allegories, but on the contrary retained their character as real events. About this time there lived in Italy two logical thinkers, one a native born Italian, Sabbataï ben Solomon, of Rome – in his time a very distinguished personage – and the other, a Spaniard, who had emigrated to Rome, Serachya ben Isaac, a member of the renowned family of Ben Shaltiel-Chen (Gracian?), whose home was in Barcelona. The latter, famous as a physician and an adept in the Aristotelian philosophy, was a passionate opponent of the belief in miracles. The desire of the Italian Jews for knowledge is well illustrated by an anecdote wittily told by an Italian Jewish poet. A Jewish scholar from Toledo arrived at Perugia with eighty books upon science – a considerable library in those days – and, in order to continue his journey more comfortably, he tied them up, sealed them, and left them in Perugia. He had scarcely left the place, when those eager seekers after knowledge, unable to repress their curiosity, broke open the parcel, and possessed themselves of the mental treasures that it contained. The young poet, Immanuel Romi, who perhaps was concerned in this affair, drank in with all the vigor of his ardent mind, the spirit which Hillel of Verona and Serachya-Chen had distilled for the Italian Jews from the writings of Maimuni.
It is quite obvious that in the presence of this revival of culture among the congregations of Italy, the Kabbalist Solomon Petit could not possibly meet with support in his effort to enlist adherents for his denunciation of Maimuni. The fanatic was clever enough not to drop a word of his intentions there. When he arrived at Jean d'Acre (Accho) with the letters against Maimuni written by the German rabbis, he set to work to encourage his confederates, who had been intimidated by the threats of the prince-rabbi of Damascus, to arouse fresh strife, and to induce them to pronounce sentence of excommunication against Maimuni's philosophical writings. The Kabbalists of this community readily assented to his plan, condemned the "Guide" of Maimuni to be burnt, and threatened with excommunication all who might henceforth study it. The Kabbala despite its youth felt itself so powerful, that it imagined itself able to extirpate the firmly-rooted spirit of inquiry from the midst of Judaism. It appears that the tomb of Maimuni at Tiberias was desecrated by these Kabbalists. Instead of the laudatory inscription written on the stone, they substituted, "Moses Maimuni, the excommunicated heretic." However, the community at Accho did not, as a whole, agree with this disgraceful charge of heresy: there were in it warm admirers of Maimuni, and strenuous opponents of his condemnation by self-constituted authorities. Thus there broke out fierce strife in the very heart of the community, which actually led to blows. The news of this contention rapidly spread through the countries in communication with Palestine, and called forth universal indignation. Hillel of Verona, who had been a witness of the destructive consequences of the contest about Maimuni in France, displayed great energy to prevent a repetition. He sent letters to David Maimuni and the congregations in Egypt and Babylonia (Irak), and proposed the following plan for extinguishing once for all the destructive flame of dissension kindled by the writings of Maimuni, which so often blazed up afresh. He suggested that the most distinguished rabbis of the Jews in the East should assemble at a synod at Alexandria, and summon the German rabbis who had supported Solomon Petit to justify their conduct. If they could prove that the philosophical writings of Maimuni contained actual heresies and notions opposed to the Bible and the Talmud, which Hillel himself believed impossible, then it was only just that Maimuni's writings should be condemned, and removed from the hands of the public. If, however, the German rabbis were unable to defend and justify their accusations of heresy, then they should be compelled, under penalty of excommunication, to submit to the universal verdict of the excellence of the "Guide" of Maimuni, and to abstain in future from stirring up discord and division by their opposition to Maimuni's philosophy. The rabbis of Babylonia, who had possessed authority from time immemorial, were to pronounce judgment.
This energetic action in Europe, and the strenuous exertions of Hillel, were not really necessary in order to disturb the work of the mystics in Accho. Solomon Petit and his Kabbalistic faction were isolated in the East. As soon as David Maimuni received information of the condemnation passed upon his grandfather, he journeyed to Accho, where he met with support from the section of the community opposed to fanaticism. He addressed letters to all congregations, calling upon them to take up the defense of the honor of his grandfather against the Jewish Dominicans, the heresy-hunting and narrow-minded Kabbalists. Everywhere he met with approval. The Prince of the Captivity at Mosul, named David ben Daniel, who traced his origin back to King David, and who was the head of the communities on this side of the Tigris, declared that he would place Petit under the severest ban of excommunication till he ceased his attempts to create a disturbance (Iyar, 1289). Eleven rabbis of his college signed this threat against the heresy-hunter of Accho. The Exilarch of Damascus, Yishaï ben Chiskiya, who had already issued a warning against these attacks on Maimuni, again took energetic action in the matter. Together with his college of twelve associates, he pronounced a ban of excommunication (Tammuz – June, 1289), not merely against Solomon Petit and his partisans, but also against any person who dared speak in terms of contempt and disrespect of Maimuni, or who accused his writings of heresy. All persons who possessed any books hostile to Maimuni were commanded to yield them up to David Maimuni or his sons, as quickly as possible, so that no improper use might be made of them. If any persons who at the time dwelt in Accho, or who would immigrate thither at some later time, refused to obey the decisions of the Prince of the Captivity and his colleagues, it was incumbent upon every Jew to employ all possible means to render these men incapable of doing any harm, and even to call in the aid of the secular authorities.
The important congregation of Safet also gave assent to the edict in favor of Maimuni. The rabbi of the town, Moses ben Jehuda Cohen, together with his colleagues, and a portion of the community of Accho, repeated at the grave of Maimuni in Tiberias the formula of excommunication against all who continued their obstinate enmity against him, against those who refused to surrender writings accusing him of heterodoxy, and especially against all who disobeyed the decisions of the Prince of the Captivity, "seeing that they who incite discord in the communities deny the Torah, which preaches peace, and they mock at God, who is peace itself." All the congregations and rabbis in Palestine took up the cause of Maimuni. The members of the community of Bagdad, who at this time basked in the sunshine of the favor of a prominent Jewish statesman, and at whose head as the chief of the academy was Samuel Cohen ben Daniel, also expressed themselves to the same effect (Tishri – September, 1289). The Kabbalists of Accho were condemned by public opinion, and the Exilarch of Damascus took care to acquaint the European communities with what had occurred. The testimonials in favor of Maimuni were forwarded to Barcelona, probably to Solomon ben Adret. The philosopher and poet, Shem-Tob Falaquera, a prolific writer, took advantage of the favorable opportunity to publish a vindication of the "Guide" of Maimuni, saying that in his opinion only very few, perhaps only one person – who was able to read this work on the philosophy of religion in the original – could render it sufficient justice. But in Spain, Maimuni required no advocates; for it was seldom that any one ventured to speak in derogatory terms of his opinions. Though pious Spaniards might here and there have found something to cavil at, they, nevertheless, paid great honor to Maimuni's name.
The German rabbis, by whom Solomon Petit had been supported, had no leisure to note the issue of the strife concerning Maimuni. They were too much occupied with their own affairs. During the reign of Emperor Rudolph of Habsburg, such severe troubles befell the German communities that they determined on emigrating en masse. Rudolph, who from a poor knight had become the ruler over the German empire, did not, indeed, threaten their lives, but had designs upon their money. His coffers were empty, and he was in need of means to enable him to subdue the proud nobles, and to lay the foundation of the power of the house of Habsburg. Jews indeed advanced large sums of money to the poor duke, to whom the crown of an empire had unexpectedly fallen, one of his creditors being Amshel Oppenheimer. But these voluntary advances did not satisfy him, and did not prevent him from extorting larger sums from them. Every favor which he conceded them, and every protection which he extended to them, was preceded by the payment of a considerable present in money. As Rudolph always kept his own advantage in view, a mark of favor displayed towards the Jews was regularly followed by some restriction, so that he might always have them under his control.
He confirmed the privileges of the old congregation at Ratisbon, which it had possessed from ancient days, acknowledging among other things, that it might exercise its own jurisdiction in civil affairs, and that none of its members could be convicted of any crime without the corroborative evidence of a Jewish witness. At the instigation of the bishop, however, he promulgated a decree that the Jews of Ratisbon should remain at home during Eastertide, not show themselves on roads and streets to the "ignominy of the Christian faith," and were to fasten their doors and windows. For the congregations in Austria, Emperor Rudolph confirmed the statute in favor of the Jews passed by Archduke Frederick the Valiant, which afforded protection against persecution and murder. On the other hand, a year later, he issued a special decree to the citizens of Vienna, which solemnly declared the ineligibility of the Jews for public offices. Pope Innocent IV had exonerated them from the charge of child-murder at Passover. Pope Gregory X (1271–1278), at the request of the Jews, had issued a bull, which ordained that they were not to be made by brute force to undergo baptism, and that no injury was to be inflicted upon their persons or their property. Emperor Rudolph ratified these bulls, adding that "it is not true that the Jews feed upon the heart of a slain child on the days of the Passover festival." In order that they might be able to live under his protection, assured of the imperial grace, he confirmed and repeated all the edicts which had been issued by the popes in their favor, especially the one which declared that Jews could be condemned only on the valid evidence of Jews and Christians. He also afforded them many other means of protection, and inflicted punishment upon some murderers of innocent Jews in Lorch. But as the Germans had of old been accustomed to anarchy, there arose, during his reign, a large number of blood-accusations, and massacres of Jews, which the emperor partly left unpunished, partly encouraged.
About Easter time a dead Christian child was discovered at Mayence, and now again arose the lying rumor that the Jews of Mayence had murdered it. In vain did Archbishop Werner, of Mayence, the Lord Chancellor of the kingdom, exert himself with great energy to appease the excited mob, to institute a regular trial against the accused, and to discover the guilty persons. The Christians, whom the sight of the corpse filled with intense fury, attacked their Jewish neighbors on the second day of Easter (or the last day but one of Passover, 19th April, 1283), slew ten persons, and pillaged the Jewish houses. The persecution would have been much more bloody, had not Archbishop Werner energetically intervened for the defense of "his" Jews. Emperor Rudolph is reported to have commanded an inquiry to be made into the matter later on, and to have confirmed the judgment passed upon the Jews, and acquitted the citizens of Mayence from all blame. The possessions of which they had been plundered he is said to have confiscated, not, however, for the benefit of his own treasury, but to be distributed among the poor; for he would not make use of any property acquired by usury, nor would he permit the Church to use it. In other respects, Emperor Rudolph was by no means conscientious. On the day of the attack in Mayence, twenty-six Jews were put to death in Bacharach. Two years later (11th October, 1285) heartrending sufferings befell the congregation of Munich. At this place also the false charge was circulated that the Jews had purchased a Christian child from an old woman, and had killed it. Without waiting for any judicial investigation of these charges, the infuriated populace fell upon the Jews, and put to death all who fell into their hands. The remaining Jews had fled for refuge to the synagogue. Thereupon the adherents of the religion of love procured some inflammable material, placed it around the building, and set fire to the house of prayer. One hundred and eighty persons, old and young, were thus burnt to death. Not long after this, more than forty Jews of Oberwesel, near Bacharach, and others in Boppard, were innocently murdered (1286). The charge against them was that they had secretly drawn out the blood of a pious man, called by the people "the good Werner." The credulous asserted that light had issued from his corpse, on which account this so-called saint became the object of pilgrimages. Emperor Rudolph, however, some time later stripped the man of sanctity, and absolved the Jews from the guilt of his death.
There can be no doubt that it was owing to the annually repeated persecutions, the insecurity of their existence and their wretched state, that the Jews of several congregations resolved to shake the dust of Germany from their feet, and, together with their wives and children, to wander forth and seek a new home. Many families from the cities of Mayence, Worms, Speyer, Oppenheim, and others, in the Wetterau, left their rich possessions in order to go across the sea. At the head of these emigrants was the most famous rabbi of Germany, Meïr of Rothenburg, who was revered as a saint. He also wandered forth, together with his whole family, to make his way to Syria (spring, 1286). A rumor was current that in this land the Messiah had made his appearance, and would redeem unhappy Israel from its troubles.
At this time all eyes in the East beheld with astonishment a Jewish statesman as the most distinguished personage at the court of a Mongol Grand Khan, whose dominion extended from the lower Euphrates and the borders of Syria to the Caspian Sea. The Mongols, or Tartars, had founded a large kingdom in Persia, which was only nominally subject to the khanate of Mongolia and China. After Hulagu, the founder of this kingdom, and his son Abaka (Abagha), his second son had succeeded to the throne, and he embraced Islam, and assumed the name of Ahmed. The Mongols of Persia were, however, dissatisfied with this proceeding: Ahmed was dethroned, and put to death. His successor, in the Perso-Mongolian kingdom, was Argun, the son of Abaka (1284–91). Argun displayed marked aversion to Islam, and a special liking for Jews and Christians. This Grand Khan had a Jewish physician, named Saad-Addaula (perhaps the same as Mordecai Ibn-Alcharbiya), a man possessed of wide learning, acute intellect, political insight, and disinterested character. As he had frequent dealings with Mongols, he was acquainted with their language as well as with Arabic. He had a handsome appearance, charming manners, and the suppleness of a diplomat. He also had a taste for poetry and science, and in later years became their patron. Saad-Addaula practised in Bagdad, where Argun very often held his court. The Grand Khan once fell ill, and was restored to health by Saad. He conversed with the physician to whom he owed his recovery, upon state matters, and learnt from him particulars of the condition of the revenue, which the officials and courtiers, out of avarice, had diligently concealed from the Grand Khan. From that time Saad-Addaula became his favorite and counselor, and rose step by step to the position of the highest state official.
Many wealthy Jews of the districts of the Rhine and the Maine started on their journey; and Meïr of Rothenburg reached Lombardy, together with his whole family. He was only waiting for the members of his congregation in order to take ship in Italy, and, together with other exiles, steer their course towards the East into the haven of safety. Unfortunately, Meïr was recognized by a baptized Jew, who was passing through the same town in the train of the bishop of Basle. At the instigation of the bishop, the captain, Meinhard of Görz, took him prisoner, and delivered him to the authorities. Emperor Rudolph ordered him to be placed under arrest in the tower of Ensisheim, in Alsace (4th Tammuz – 19th June, 1286). The emperor did not intend to punish the runaway rabbi, but to keep him safe and prevent him from emigrating. He was afraid that, by the departure of the Jews en masse, the imperial income obtained from these serfs of the chamber ("servi cameræ") would suffer heavy loss. Meïr's imprisonment was, therefore, not a severe one. He was permitted to receive visits, to instruct his pupils, and to perform all the functions of a rabbi, but he was not permitted to leave the place.
The German Jews, however, could not feel easy while their highly respected chief remained in custody: they, therefore, sent deputies to Emperor Rudolph, when he paid a visit to the Rhine country (in the year 1288). Being then, as usual, in need of money, he entered into negotiations with them. The Jews offered him 20,000 marks of silver if he would inflict punishment upon the murderers of the Jews of Oberwesel and Boppard, release Meïr from custody, and guarantee to them security against murderous outrages at the hands of the populace. The emperor acceded to their terms, and laid a heavy fine upon the citizens of Oberwesel and Boppard. Meïr was not, however, released from prison, either because the emperor hoped to make capital of the respect of the Jews for their rabbi, and to extract large sums of money from them, or, as is related, because Meïr himself refused to be liberated on these terms. He feared that the precedent of imprisoning the rabbis to extort ransoms from the Jews, would be frequently resorted to in after times, and therefore continued for five years longer under arrest. From prison he sent replies to inquiries addressed to him, and composed several works there. He died in prison, and the successors of Rudolph kept his corpse unburied for fourteen years, in order to extort money from the congregations. At length a childless man from Frankfort, named Süsskind Alexander Wimpfen, ransomed the body for a large sum, and interred it in Worms. The only reward which the noble Wimpfen demanded was that his bones might be laid by the side of the pious rabbi.
At about this time the Jews of England suffered the extremity of misfortune. They were more unhappy, if that was possible, than the German Jews. Before being expelled, they had to pass through every degree of misery. At the accession of the new king, Edward I, they had prospects of a secure existence, seeing that this monarch, the very opposite of his father, was severe but just; he showed them no favors, but, on the other hand, he extorted nothing from them, and at all events was able to protect them from the attacks of the deluded mob. Edward took very great care that the Jews of his land be not made to suffer nor be subjected to caprice, and that no injury be done either to their persons or their property. They might have lived on in this lowly state, bowed down beneath the burden of the imposts, and wearying themselves to satisfy, through usury, the insatiable demands of the royal treasury, had not a slight occurrence made them the object of the bitter hatred of the monks.
In London there lived a Dominican, named Robert de Redingge, who inflamed the minds of the people by his eloquence in the pulpit. He had studied the Hebrew language, on the cultivation of which so much stress had been laid by the third general of the order, Raymond de Penyaforte, to enable the monks to convert the Jews by means of their own writings. But instead of converting them, the preaching friar, Robert de Reddinge, became himself converted. He was inspired by so deep a love for Judaism that he underwent circumcision, assumed the name of Haggaï, and married a beautiful Jewess (summer of 1275). When he was summoned to answer for his apostasy, he defended his new faith with great warmth. King Edward handed him over for punishment to the archbishop of Canterbury. What was done to him is not known; but it appears that he, together with his wife, escaped unhurt. The Dominicans were, however, enraged at his conversion, for they considered the apostasy of one of their members as a disgraceful blot upon their order. Touched to the quick by the mockery of the people and their rivals the Franciscans, who deeply hated them, the preaching friars sought to wreak their vengeance upon the Jews. As the king could not be approached except by some intermediate agent, they brought their influence to bear upon the bigoted, avaricious queen-mother Eleanor, and they succeeded. She identified herself with the cause of the Dominicans against the Jews, and did not desist till the English Jews had drained the cup of tribulation to the dregs. She first expelled the Jews from the town of Cambridge which belonged to her, and personally fostered the hostile feeling against them throughout the whole country, especially among Christian merchants.
There now commenced, almost against the will of the king, a series of burdensome oppressions, which would appear incredible, were they not authenticated by the testimony of trustworthy sources. Hitherto Parliament had had nothing to do with the Jews; they were considered the king's people, over whom neither the commons nor the nobility had any authority. Just at this time, however, incited by the Dominicans and the queen-mother, the House of Commons passed a statute (called the Statute of Judaism), which breathes the inimical spirit of the Church. It positively prohibited the Jews from taking usury. They were allowed to reside only in royal cities and boroughs. If they had to enforce payment of debts by law, they could not distress beyond the moiety of the debtor's property. Every Jew above the age of twelve was to pay the sum of three pence to the king at Easter. The House of Commons strictly enforced the wearing of the Jew-badge, determined its size and color (substituting yellow for white), and forbade all intercourse with Christians. As an English writer, Tovey, remarks, the Jews in England were treated like their ancestors in Egypt, except that instead of bricks they had to furnish gold. This comparison is good at every point, nothing was granted to them, and yet they were obliged to render a complete tale of services. Even for the privilege of trading they had to rely upon the favor of the king, and to pay a price for it.