Christian Legislation

Before we look at New Christian wet nurses, it is necessary to provide an overview of medieval bans, e.g. on Jewish and Muslim wet nurses in Christian households and Christian wet nurses in Jewish and Muslim households as an introduction to the topic. The main purpose of such bans was to prevent Jews and Christians or Muslims and Christians from coexisting on the private level. Behind this was the fear of a possible conversion of Christians to Judaism or Islam. On the pope’s side, the third Lateran Council of 1179, under the direction of Alexander III, adopted such a ban in Canon

“XXVI. Ne Christiani habitent cum Judæis vel Saracenis”:²¹⁶

215 “Eso mismo hace la leche de otra mujer, si la bebe con aceite. La misma virtud tienen la piedra jaspe, la leche de la perra mezclada con vino, o la mirra bien picada, mezclada con vino, bebiéndola después de que haya perdido un poquito el frío, según escribe Avicena.” KETHAM: Compendio de la humana salud (see n. 212), 112.

216 “That Christians should not live together with Jews or Saracens” Joannes Dominicus MANSI (ed.): Sacrorum con-ciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, vol. 22, Graz 1961 (reprint of the edition Paris 1903), 231.

“Jews and Saracens [Muslims] are not allowed to have Christian servants in their homes, neither to raise children, nor to serve, nor for any other reason. Those who dare to live with them [the Jews and the Saracens] should also be excommunicated.”²¹⁷

Ultimately, therefore, the coexistence of Jews or Muslims and Christians should generally be avoided. However, the case of the Christian nurse, who worked and lived in a Jewish or Muslim household, was highlighted. Explanations as to why this should be prevented can be found in another passage on the third Lateran Council:

“Even for all Christian midwives it is forbidden to heal, and for the wet nurses it is forbidden that they dare to breastfeed the Jewish children in their homes [of the Jews] because the customs of Jews and ours do not coincide in any way and the same [Jews], driven by the enemy of mankind [the devil], can easily incite the simple souls to their superstition and their infidelity by frequent contact and constant familiarity.”²¹⁸

The bishops of the Council therefore assumed that too familiar contact with Jews – Muslims are no longer mentioned here – could seduce simple, gullible Christians to convert to Judaism. They also considered the cultural differences of Jews and Christians, rooted in their respective customs and practices, to be insurmountable. For the Catholic Church it was therefore necessary to propagate a spatial distancing of Christians from Jews on a private level and to ban any kind of association, in the form of Christians and Jews coexisting, and to punish it by means of excommunication.

On the Iberian Peninsula, more precisely in the Leonesian-Castilian Kingdom, the wet nurse question was discussed at a whole series of estates assemblies, that is, the meetings of theCortes, as well as at some provincial synods, and corresponding bans were adopted. The following laws should be mentioned with regard to the wet nurse bans adopted by theCortes: Sevilla 1252, Valladolid 1258 (Act 38), Sevilla 1261 (Act 29), Jerez 1268 (Acts 30 & 31), Palencia 1313 (Acts 29 & 42), Valladolid

1322 (Act 54), Valladolid 1351 (Act 30), Soria 1380 (Act 11) and Valladolid 1385 (Act 3).²¹⁹

217 “ Judæi sive Saraceni nec sub alendorum puerorum obtentu, nec pro servitio, nec alia qualibet causa, Christiana mancipia in domibus suis permittantur habere. Excommunicentur autem, qui cum eis præsumpserint habitare.”

MANSI (ed.): Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio (see n. 216), 231.

218 “Obstetricibus etiam & nutricibus Christianis omnibus prohibere curetis, ne infantes Judæorum in domibus eo-rum nutrire præsumant: quia Judæoeo-rum mores & nostri in nullo concordant, & ipsi de facili ob frequentem con-versationem & assiduam familiaritatem, instigante humani generis inimico, ad suam superstitionem & perfidiam, simplicium animos inclinarent.” Ibidem, 357.

219 In this regard, see Pilar LEÓN TELLO: Legislación sobre judíos en las Cortes de los antiguos reinos de León y Castilla, in: WORLD UNION OF JEWISH STUDIES (ed.): Fourth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Papers, Jerusalem 1968, 55 – 63, here 56; Enrique CANTERA MONTENEGRO: La mujer judía en la España medieval, in: Espacio, Tiempo y Forma. Historia Medieval 2 (1989), 37 – 63, here 53. For the exact wording of the bans: Antonio BALLESTEROS:

Las Cortes de 1252, in: Anales de la Junta para amplicación de estudios é investigaciones científicas 3 (1911), 113– 143, here 141; REAL ACADEMIA DE LA HISTORIA (ed.): Cortes de los antiguos reinos de León y de Castilla I, vol. 1, Madrid 1861, 62, 77, 227, 244, 280, 352; REAL ACADEMIA DE LA HISTORIA (ed.): Cortes de los antiguos reinos de León y de Castilla II, vol. 2, Madrid 1863, 18, 305, 322; Manuel GONZÁLEZ JIMÉNEZ: Cortes de Sevilla de 1261, in: Historia, Instituciones, Documentos 25 (1998), 295 – 311, URL: http : / / dialnet . unirioja . es / servlet / articulo ? codigo = 634136 (visited on 27/02 /2019), here 304.

In reviewing the laws, it becomes apparent not only that they differ in content sometimes – as regards the determination of punishment – but that greater attention was also paid to Christian wet nurses, while Jewish and Muslim ones were also considered in the previous bans adopted by the Cortes. The first ban by theCortesof Seville from 1252 said:

“Furthermore, I order that no Christian woman shall nurse either the son or daughter of a Jewish woman or a Moor, nor shall a Jew nurse a Christian [child]. And those who violate this [order] shall pay a fine of ten Maravedis for every day she had the child with her.”²²⁰ Even though not all variations have been mentioned linguistically, the effort to cover all possible combinations of nurse and child is evident with this formulation. It involved the separation of Christians from Jews on the one hand and Muslims on the other. A Muslim nurse for a Jewish child and vice versa played no role for the law. The focus of the bans is clearly discernible. It was about the protection of members of the Christian religion from Jewish or Muslim influence. This also explains why the Christian nurse as an endangered factor that could be influenced and her not-to-be-tolerated presence in a Jewish or Muslim household increasingly became the focus of the texts.

In contrast to this, the last talk of a ban on Muslim and Jewish nurses in Christian households is in Act 31 of theCortesof Jerez in 1268. While this aspect no longer seems to play a role in the laws after 1268, it becomes apparent at the same time that the texts gained details and elaborate explanations, which are not to be found before 1268. In both the law of theCortesof Soria in 1380 and in theCortesof Valladolid in 1385, not only the decreed laws themselves, but also the petitions the estates brought to the king at the assemblies were explained in detail with the reasons on which they were based. That is what was said in 1380 in Soria:

“In addition to what they [the estates] graciously asked us, [namely] that we forbid by order that any Christian woman should nurse a boy or a girl of a Jewish man or woman or a Moorish man or woman or that Christian men and women live together with the aforesaid Jewish men and women or Moorish men and women, since this is a great disobedience to God and a violation of the law. We reply that we think it is good, and it is our will that no Christian woman shall nurse a boy or a girl of a Jewish man or woman or a Moorish man or woman, and whoever does so should pay a penalty of six hundred Maravedis to our treasury.

But they [the Christians] may live with them [the Jews and Moors] since some work on their property and accompany them from one place to another since otherwise many would dare to kill or dishonor them [the Jews and Moors].”²²¹

220 “Otrossi mando que nenguna Christiana non crie fijo nin fija de Judia nin de Moro nin Judia non crie Christiano nenguno. Et la questo pasare que peche en coto cada dia X mr quantos dias lo touiere.” BALLESTEROS: Las Cortes de 1252 (see n. 219), 141.

221 “Otrosy alo que nos pidieron por merçet que mandasemos defender que christiana alguna non crie fijo nin fija de judio nin de judia, nin de moro nin de mora alguna, ninlos christianos nin christianas non biuan conlos dichos judios e judias nin moros nin moras, por que es grand deseruiçio de Dios e traspasamiento dela ley. A esto rrespondemos que nos tenemos por bien e es nuestra merçed que ninguna christiana non crie fijo nin fija de judio nin de judia nin

It turns out that the king, John I of Castile, satisfied only half of the petition of the estates.

Although he banned Christian wet nurses in Jewish and Muslim households and imposed a fine of 600 Maravedis in the event of a violation of the ban, he did not put a stop to Christians coexisting with Jews and Moors. Christians were able to work without any obstacles as managers of Jews’ and Moors’ property as well as their travel companions, which made coexistence indispensable. He justi-fied the travel accompaniment in particular with the high need for protection of religious minorities, who might otherwise be killed or dishonored. The estates, in turn, based their petition on a secular legal and a theological explanation. Thus, the coexistence of Christians with Jews or Moors is a violation of the law and a “grand deseruiçio de Dios,” i.e. a great offense committed against God, since one does not duly fulfill the service to which one is obligated with respect to him. Apparently, the estates already saw the piety of Christians as threatened by contact to Jews and Muslims on a private, domestic level. At the assembly in Valladolid in 1385, the estates repeated their petition for a ban on coexistence between Christians, Jews and Moors and reinforced their argumentation by stating:

“[…] this [coexistence already described] showed disregard for the church and was a great sin and dishonor for Christians since even if they [the Christians in Jewish or Muslim house-holds] became ill, they could not confess nor be given communion […] and this [the coexis-tence] was a great disobedience to God and us.”²²²

This argumentation now moves religious motives increasingly to the fore. Accordingly, the estates pointed out in their petition that Christians who coexisted with Jews or Moors came into conflict with the Church so that they were denied the sacraments of confession and the Eucharist in the case of illness or disease. Coexistence was seen as an affront to the Church, as a sin and dishonor for Christians and as a great disobedience to God and the worldly powers. The king reacted accordingly by tightening the laws. Christian women were banned from not only nursing Jewish and Muslim children, but also any coexistence with Jews and Muslims. Those who violated this ban were to be publicly flogged and driven out of the villages and cities. In addition, the local courts, thejustiçias delos dichos lugares, were ordered to initiate investigations, regardless of whether or not there was an accusation.²²³ Yet there was no longer a fine, or at least it is not mentioned in the law. However, contrary to the estates’ petition, the king still tolerated the coexistence of male Christians and Jews or Muslims.

In summary, it turns out that nursing was not the decisive factor motivating the bans. Rather, the main concern was domestic coexistence, which was apparently implicitly thought of in the wet

de moro nin de mora, e qual quier quelo fiziere, que peche seysçientos mr. para la nuestra camara; pero que puedan biuir conellos, por que ayan quien les labre sus heredades e quien vaya conellos de vna parte aotra, por que de otra guisa muchos se atreuerian aellos por los matar e desonrrar.” REAL ACADEMIA DE LA HISTORIA (ed.): Cortes de los antiguos reinos de León y de Castilla II (see n. 219), 305.

222 “[…] lo qual era en menospreçio dela Iglesia e en gran pecado e desonrra delos christianos e christianas, por lo qual ahun si adolesçian non les yuan confesar nin les dan el cuerpo de Dios […] e que esto era gran deseruiçio de Dios e nuestro.” Ibidem, 322.

223 Ibidem, 322.

nurse’s work. Furthermore, the perspective shifted so that the texts from 1313 onward concentrated solely on Christian wet nurses, while previously Jewish and Muslim wet nurses were also addressed in Christian households. Finally, the penalties imposed in the event of a violation of the law are quite diverse. Possible measures included the payment of fines, the amount of which could vary greatly, but also physical punishment of the wet nurse or her being retained as a slave of the king.

The frequent repetition of the bans cause Cantera Montenegro²²⁴ to assume that neither was the punishment carried out as rigorously as required by the law, nor did the bans have a significant impact on day-to-day practice. Although it may not be possible to make concrete statements about the effectiveness of the bans on wet nurses, there is no doubt that coexistence between Christians and Jews or Muslims was perceived as problematic and worthy of regulation.