Reason: None provided.
- Chamorro and Ussuf: Two letters in these names have circulated since the 16th century in various redactions. They are most certainly forgeries; the version placing the action in Arles is clearly a later forgery of the version placing it in Toledo. Their several textual incongruities demonstrate a poor fit to "Ussuf" being a real Jewish "prince" of Constantinople. In the 19th century it was demonstrated that their first appearance was their alleged discovery in the Toledo archives, an incongruous repository for such damning documents, by Archbishop Silecio. However, their being exactly what he needed to convince Pope Paul III to place strictures against Jews entering church offices in Toledo against the latter's tendencies, the best inference is that Silecio forged them himself, putting such poetic justifications for subversion in the Jewish mouth that the correspondence was remembered and even parodied. There is simply no serious historical argument that these two letter-writers existed; the fact that Chamorro was the former name of a prominent accepted converso family, the Clementes, does not indicate that they were using their deadname secretly but that it was appropriated by the archbishop.
13 days ago
0 score
Reason: Original
- Chamorro and Ussuf: Two letters in these names have circulated since the 16th century in various redactions. They are most certainly forgeries; the version placing the action in Arles is clearly a later forgery of the version placing it in Toledo. Their several textual incongruities demonstrate a poor fit to "Ussuf" being a real Jewish "prince" of Constantinople. In the 19th century it was demonstrated that their first appearance was their alleged discovery in the Toledo archives, an incongruous repository for such damning documents, by Archbishop Silecio. However, their being exactly what he needed to convince Pope Paul III to place strictures against Jews entering church offices in Toledo against the latter's tendencies, the best inference is that Silecio forged them himself, putting such poetic justifications for subversion in the Jewish mouth that the correspondence was remembered and even parodied. There is simply no serious historical argument that these two letter-writers existed; the fact that Chamorro was the former name of a prominent accepted converso family, the Clementes, does not indicate that they were using their deadname secretly but that it was appropriated by the archbishop.
59 days ago
1 score