INDEX

THE END

Printed by Ballantyne, Hanson & Co.

Edinburgh & London

[1]. Wolf, “Crypto-Jews under the Commonwealth” (Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc., vol. i. pp. 55 et seq.); “The Middle Age of Anglo-Jewish History” (Papers read at the Anglo-Jewish Historical Exhibition, pp. 53–79).

[2]. The origin of this name is obscure. There seems to be little doubt that it was originally a nickname, seeing that the classical name for the converts was Nuevos Cristianos, or “New Christians.” Graetz believes that Marrano is derived from Maran-atha, in allusion to 1 Cor. xvi. 22, “If any man love not the Lord, let him be Anathema Maran-atha” (Geschichte der Juden, vol. viii. p. 73).

[3]. Kayserling, Juden in Portugal, p. 327.

[4]. Graetz, vol. viii. pp. 309–11; Ehrentheil, Jüdisches Familien Buch, p. 326.

[5]. Kayserling, p. 139.

[6]. Graetz, vol. x. pp. 195, 196, 200; Da Costa, Israel and the Gentiles, p. 408; Kayserling, p. 302.

[7]. Graetz, vol. viii. pp. 342–43; Colonial State Papers (Spanish), vol. i. pp. 51, 164.

[8]. Wolf, Middle Age, pp. 64, 67–70; S. L. Lee in Gentleman’s Magazine, Feb. 1880.

[9]. Wolf, Middle Age, p. 68; Graetz, vol. ix. p. 494.

[10]. Historia de los Judios de España, vol. iii. p. 357.

[11]. Wolf, Crypto-Jews, loc. cit.

[12]. Wolf, Middle Age, pp. 61–63.

[13]. De Castro, Auswahl von Grabsteinen, Part I. p. 28.

[14]. Rycaut, History of the Turkish Empire (1687), vol. ii. pp. 174, et seq.

[15]. Infra, pp. 143–145.

[16]. Tracts on Liberty of Conscience, 1614–1661 (Hanserd Knollys Soc.), pp. 28, 30–31, 47, 71.

[17]. Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. VII., MSS. of Sir F. Graham, pp. 401–403.

[18]. See reprint by Hanserd Knollys Soc., p. 141. For Roger Williams’s services to the cause of Jewish Toleration, see Wolf, “American Elements in the Resettlement” (Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc., vol. iii. pp. 77–78), and Straus, “Roger Williams, the Pioneer of Religious Liberty,” pp. 172–178.

[19]. Edwards, Gangræna, Part III. p. 103.

[20]. Art. 10. See also his “Good Work for a Good Magistrate” (1651), pp. 53, 90.

[21]. Mercurius Pragmaticus, Dec. 19–26, 1648.

[22]. Firth, “Notes on the History of the Jews in England, 1648–1660.” Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc., vol. iv.

[23]. “The Petition of the Jews for the Repealing of the Act of Parliament for their Banishment out of England” (Lond., 1649).

[24]. Fuller, “A Pisgah-sight of Palestine,” Book V. p. 194.

[25]. Calendar State Papers, Dom. 1623–25. p. 435.

[26]. Whitelock, “Memorials,” p. 397.

[27]. De Castro, Auswahl, loc. cit.

[28]. Edwards, Gangræna, i. p. 121; ii. pp. 26, 31; “Middlesex County Records,” vol. iii. pp. 186–87; Anabaptisticum Pantheon, p. 233; Hickes, Peculium Dei, pp. 19–26. There are many other scattered references in the literature of the period to this curious movement.

[29]. A good life of Menasseh ben Israel has yet to be written. Short biographies have been published by Kayserling (English translation in Miscellany of Hebrew Literature, vol. ii.); the Rev. Dr. H. Adler, Chief Rabbi of the British Empire (Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc., vol. i.); and Graetz (Geschichte der Juden, vol. x.). None of these is exhaustive, or based on bedrock material.

[30]. “Gratulação ao seren. Raynha Henri. Maria, dignissima corsorte ao august; Carlo, Rey da Grande Britannia, Francia e Hebernia” (Amst., 1642).

[31]. Harl. Misc., vol. vii. p. 623; infra, p. lxxvii.

[32]. Thorowgood, “Jews in America” (1660), Postscript to the “Epistle Dedicatory.”

[33]. The Declaration of the Unity of God, the fundamental teaching of Judaism (Deut. vi. 4–9). Shema means “Hear,” and it is the first word of verse 4: “Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one God.”

[34]. Dury, “Epistolary Discourse to Mr. Thomas Thorowgood” (1649).

[35]. Thorowgood, “Jews in America” (1650), pp. 129 et seq.

[36]. The text of the letter has not been preserved, but its contents are summarised in Holmes’s reply, printed in an appendix to Felgenhauer’s Bonum Nuncium Israeli.

[37]. Vindiciæ Judæorum, infra, pp. 143–144.

[38]. Dury, “Epistolary Discourse.” For text of the letters, see infra, p. lxxviii.

[39]. Bonum Nuncium, loc. cit.

[40]. This tract has been the source of a curious misunderstanding. Kayserling, who apparently never examined more of it than the title-page, on which the author is described as “E. S. Middlesex,” ascribed it to “Lord Middlesex,” and regarded it as favourable to Menasseh (Misc. Heb. Lit., ii. p. 33). Had he looked at the Latin translation at the end he would have found the name of the author given in full. Moreover, the writer, so far from being philo-Semitic, expressly states that the object of his pamphlet was the “taking off the scandall of our too great desire of entertayning the unbeleeving Nation of the Jewes.” Kayserling’s errors have been adopted without inquiry by Graetz, Adler, and other writers.

[41]. “Rights of the Kingdom,” p. 39.

[42]. “Pisgah-sight of Palestine,” Book V. pp. 194 et seq.

[43]. “Good Work,” &c., loc. cit.

[44]. Writing to Crawford in 1643, says: “The State, in choosing men to serve it, takes no notice of their opinions; if they be willing faithfully to serve it—that satisfies.... Bear with men of different minds from yourself.” Carlyle, “Cromwell’s Letters and Speeches,” i. p. 148.

[45]. Gardiner, “History of the Commonwealth,” vol. ii.

[46]. Carlyle, “Cromwell’s Letters and Speeches,” vol. iii. pp. 23, 25, 26.

[47]. Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc., vol. i. pp. 73–74; vol. ii. pp. 17–18; Wolf, “Jewish Emancipation in the City” (Jewish Chronicle, Nov. 30, 1894); Graetz, Geschichte, vol. x. p. 19.

[48]. Wolf, “Cromwell’s Jewish Intelligencers” (Lond., 1891).

[49]. S. R. Gardiner in the Academy, March 4, 1882.

[50]. Vindiciæ Judæorum, p. 5; infra, p. 111; “Humble Addresses,” infra, p. 77.

[51]. Cal. State Papers, Dom. (1651), p. 472.

[52]. Cal. State Papers, Dom. (1651–52), p. 577; (1652–53), p. 38.

[53]. Thurloe State Papers, vol. i. p. 387; Clarendon State Papers, vol. ii. p. 233.

[54]. Supra, p. xvii.

[55]. Wolf, “Resettlement of the Jews in England” (1888), p. 9.

[56]. For text of these petitions see Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc., vol. iii. pp. 88–93.

[57]. State Papers, Dom. Interregnum, i. 75 (1654), pp. 596, 620.

[58]. Rawl. MSS., A 260, fol. 57. Text of this letter is given in Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc., vol. iii. p. 93.

[59]. Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc., vol. ii. pp. 18, 45–46.

[60]. Cal. of State Papers, Dom., 1655, p. 585.

[61]. Supra, p. xvii.

[62]. Infra, p. lxxxvii.

[63]. Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc., vol. iii. p. 90.

[64]. Wolf, “American Elements in the Resettlement” (Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc., vol. iii. pp. 95–100); Wolf, “Cromwell’s Jewish Intelligencers,” 1891, pp. 11–12.

[65]. Cal. of State Papers, Dom., 1655, p. 583.

[66]. “Cromwell’s Jewish Intelligencers,” loc. cit.

[67]. Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc., vol. iii. pp. 82–86.

[68]. Jacob Sasportas, who had acted as a “corrector” in Menasseh’s printing-office in Amsterdam, and was afterwards elected Chief Rabbi in London, was a member of the mission (Graetz, vol. x. notes, p. xix). Raguenet states (Histoire d’Oliver Cromwell, p. 290) that two other Rabbis accompanied it, “Rabbi Jacob ben Azahel” and “David ben Eliezer of Prague.” I have not been able to identify these persons, but tentatively I am disposed to think that “Azahel” is a corruption of “Heschel,” and that the person referred to is Rabbi Josua ben Jacob Heschel of Lublin. Menasseh’s elder son lived for some time in Lublin, and it is quite possible that Heschel came to London to lay the case of the persecuted Polish Jews before Cromwell.

[69]. Wolf, “Menasseh ben Israel’s Study in London,” Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc., vol. iii. pp. 144 et seq.

[70]. Felgenhauer, Bonum Nuncium Israeli, p. 110.

[71]. Infra, p. 47.

[72]. Infra, p. lxxix.

[73]. Graetz, Geschichte, vol. x. pp. 52–82; Mercurius Politicus, Dec. 17, 1655; Thurloe State Papers, vol. iv. p. 333.

[74]. “Annals of England” (1655), vol. iii. p. 31.

[75]. The interest of the Embassies in the question is illustrated by the frequent reference made to it in the despatches of Chanut (Thurloe, vol. ii. p. 652), Nieupoort (Ibid., vol. iv. pp. 333, 338; “New York Colonial MSS.,” vol. i. pp. 579, 583), Sagredo and Salvetti (Revue des Études Juives, No. 11, pp. 103–104). Nieupoort’s view is shown by the assurance he extracted from Menasseh that there was no intention to invite Dutch Jews to England (Thurloe, vol. iv. p. 333).

[76]. “Memorials,” p. 618.

[77]. Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc., vol. i. pp. 70–71, 75.

[78]. Ibid., p. 44.

[79]. Infra, p. 118. London News Letter, April 2, 1649 (Cartes Letters, vol. i. p. 275).

[80]. Jesse, “England under the Stuarts,” vol. ii. p. 297; Tovey, Anglia Judaica, p. 275.

[81]. Violet, “Petition against the Jews,” p. 2.

[82]. The violence of such tracts as Prynne’s “Demurrer,” Ross’s “View of the Jewish Religion,” and the anonymous “Case of the Jews Stated,” has no parallel in the literature of the time.

[83]. Paul Isaiah, “The Messias of the Christians and the Jews.”

[84]. Prynne, “Demurrer,” Part I. p. 73.

[85]. Copley, “Case of the Jews is Altered,” p. 4.

[86]. “View of the Jewish Religion.”

[87]. See especially Prynne’s “Demurrers,” and “Anglo-Judæus,” by W. H. Only three ungrudging defences of the Jews were published—Copley’s “Case of the Jews,” D. L.’s “Israel’s Condition and Cause Pleaded” (a very feeble reply to Prynne), and Collier’s “Brief Answer.”

[88]. Dury, “A Case of Conscience.” Harl. Misc., vol. vii. p. 256.

[89]. “Life of Henry Jessey,” pp. 67–68.

[90]. Philo-Judæus, “The Resurrection of Dead Bones,” p. 102.

[91]. State Papers, Domestic. Interregnum, vol. i. 76, p. 353.

[92]. Ibid., p. 374. For text of petition, see infra, pp. lxxxii-lxxxiv.

[93]. Harl. Miscellany, vol. vii p. 618.

[94]. Infra, p. lxxxiv.

[95]. State Papers, Dom. Inter., i. 76, p. 374.

[96]. State Papers, Dom. Inter., i. 76, p. 375.

[97]. Ibid., pp. 378–379. For text of Circular see infra, p. lxxxiv.

[98]. Publick Intelligencer, December 10, 1655.

[99]. The list of members is given in State Papers, Dom. Inter., i. 76, p. 378.

[100]. Publick Intelligencer, loc. cit.

[101]. [Henry Jessey.] “A Narrative of the late Proceedings at Whitehall Concerning the Jews, &c.,” Harl. Misc., vii. p. 623. See also Burton (pseud. i.e. Nathaniel Crouch), Judæorum Memorabilia.

[102]. Ibid.

[103]. That the Judges’ decision was given at the first meeting of the Conference is clear from a statement made by Nye to Prynne on the morning of the second meeting (“Short Demurrer,” p. 4).

[104]. Publick Intelligencer, loc. cit.

[105]. Ibid.

[106]. Judæorum Memorabilia, p. 170.

[107]. Barlow, “Several Miscellaneous and Weighty Cases of Conscience” (1692), Fifth Treatise. See also p. 1 of the Bookseller’s Preface. Rev. S. Levy believes (Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc., iii. p. 152) that this opinion was drawn up at the request of Robert Boyle. This is improbable, as it is clear from the resemblances between Barlow’s recommendations and the report ultimately drawn up by the Committee of the Council (infra, p. lxxxiv), that the opinion was submitted to the Whitehall Conference, and Boyle was not a member of that body. Goodwin, who was President of Magdalen College, is much more likely to have asked Barlow for the opinion, especially as we know that he was in favour of “due cautions” (Jud. Mem., p. 174).

[108]. Jud. Mem., p. 174.

[109]. Ibid., pp. 170, 175.

[110]. State Papers, Dom. Inter., i. 76 (1655), p. 412.

[111]. This is shown by two letters in the Domestic State Papers (see Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc., vol. i. p. 46).

[112]. Thurloe State Papers, vol. iv. p. 321.

[113]. Publick Intelligencer, loc. cit.

[114]. Spence’s “Anecdotes,” p. 77.

[115]. “A Short Demurrer,” Part I. The publication of the pamphlet was hurried to be in time for the Conference. It was written in seven days, and the preface is dated December 14, four days before the last meeting (cf. Preface to “Second Demurrer,” 1656).

[116]. Jud. Memor., p. 175; Burton, “Diary,” p. 309.

[117]. Burton, loc. cit.

[118]. Burton, loc. cit.

[119]. “Life of Henry Jessey,” pp. 67–68.

[120]. That Cromwell’s interposition took place under these circumstances is an inference of the present writer’s. The statements in Jessey’s “Life” clearly point to this conclusion.

[121]. These fragments of Cromwell’s speech are gathered from Jessey’s “Narrative,” Crouch’s Judæorum Memorabilia, pp. 175–176, and Spence’s “Anecdotes,” p. 77.

[122]. Testimony by Rycaut, who was present in the crowd (Spence’s “Anecdotes,” p. 77).

[123]. Writing to Henry Cromwell about the Conference a week later, Thurloe says, “I doe assure you that his highness is put to exercise every day with the peevishness and wroth of some persons heere” (State Papers, vol. iv. p. 343).

[124]. Cf. Conditions, ii., iii., iv., v., ix., xi., and xvii., in Barlow, “The Care of the Jews,” pp. 67, 68, 70, 71, and 73.

[125]. Infra, p. lxxxiv-lxxxv.

[126]. In the Calendar of State Papers, Dom. (1655–1656), p. 15, it is hypothetically dated November 13, the day on which Menasseh’s proposals were referred to the Committee. This date is absolutely impossible, as the Committee could not have ascertained the views it reported to the Council in the course of a single afternoon. If it was not drawn up on the 15th, it could not have been drawn up until the Conference was over, as the Conference was specifically summoned to advise the Committee.

[127]. I have to thank Dr. Gardiner for this ingenious conjecture. It entirely accords with all the known facts.

[128]. Edit. Bohn, vol. i. p. 327.

[129]. Supra, p. xvii.

[130]. Guildhall Archives. Remembrancia, vol. ix. No. 44, pp. 1–18. I printed the text of this petition in full in the Jewish Chronicle, November 15, 1899.

[131]. These grants are mentioned in a Jewish petition subsequently presented to Cromwell (infra, pp. lxxxv-lxxxvi).

[132]. Gardiner, “Hist. of the Commonwealth,” vol. i. pp. 396–97.

[133]. Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, vol. x. p. 122.

[134]. Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1655–56, p. 82.

[135]. Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 27962. In a despatch dated January 14, Salvetti refers to the Jewish question, but makes no mention of the arrangement respecting divine worship. On the same date, too, the well-informed Dutch ambassador, Nieupoort, informed the States-General that it was generally understood that the Lord Protector would take no further steps (Thurloe State Papers, vol. iv. p. 328). It would seem, then, that the transaction took place between the 14th and the 28th January.

[136]. Ibid.

[137]. State Papers, Domestic. Interregnum, cxxv., No. 38, i. 76, p. 604; i. 112, p. 289; cxxvi., No. 105.

[138]. Ibid., cxxvi., No. 105, iv.

[139]. Ibid., cxxvi., No. 105.

[140]. Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc., vol. i. p. 63.

[141]. State Papers, Dom. Interregnum, cxxv., 58. Infra, p. lxxxv.

[142]. See endorsement of the petition. Infra, p. lxxxvi.

[143]. Infra, p. 107. The hypothesis that John Sadler was the author of the letter which gave rise to the Vindiciæ Judæorum is based on the facts that he was at the time the go-between in the negotiations with Cromwell, that he was an intimate friend of Menasseh, and that he had already given some thought to the blood accusation and other charges against the Jews (“Rights of the Kingdom,” p. 74).

[144]. State Papers, Dom. Inter., i. 77, April 1, 1656; cxxvi., No. 105, xi.

[145]. Carlyle, “Cromwell’s Letters and Speeches,” vol. ii. p. 161.

[146]. State Papers, Dom. Inter., cxxvi., No. 105, i.; i. 77, No. 11.

[147]. State Papers, Dom. Inter., cxxvi., No. 105, ii. and iii. Most of the documents in the Robles case have been printed as an appendix to my paper on “Crypto-Jews under the Commonwealth” (Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc., vol. i. pp. 76–86).

[148]. Ibid., cxxvi., No. 105, vi.

[149]. State Papers, Dom. Inter., i. 77, pp. 44, 78; cxxvii., 21, 40; i. 77, No. 19.

[150]. There is a tradition in the synagogues that written privileges were granted, and this conforms with all the other evidence relating to the campaign. The disappearance of these documents is not surprising, as many of the older documents belonging to the Sephardi congregation in London passed into private hands. Moreover, after the Restoration the congregations would naturally wish to destroy all evidence of their negotiations with the Protector. It is probable that these documents are referred to in the State Papers, where mention is made of “a Jew living in London who has produced great testimonies under the hand of the late Lord Protector.” (Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1659–60, p. 291.)

[151]. “Tracts on Liberty of Conscience” (Hanserd Knollys Soc.), p. 240.

[152]. See Endorsement of Petition, infra, p. lxxxvi.

[153]. A similar course had been taken with regard to Protestant refugees in the city on November 13, 1655. (Guildhall Archives: Rep. lxiv. fol. 8b.)

[154]. Some of these restrictions are clearly indicated by Menasseh’s disappointment at the settlement. The prohibition of proselytising has always been remembered as one of the conditions of the Readmission, and it was religiously observed until the Rabbinate of the present ecclesiastical chief of the Anglo-Jewish community. In 1752, when certain Ashkenazi Jews were making proselytes in London, the Parnassim of the Portuguese synagogue wrote to the authorities of the German congregation, calling their attention to this condition, and the proselytisers were ordered to desist from “pursuing such unlawful practices.” In 1760 a Jew was expelled from the synagogue and deprived of his burial rights for this offence. (Minute Books of the Duke’s Place Synagogue, 1752, 1760.)

[155]. Violet, “The Petition Against the Jews” (1661), p. 2: “Cromwell and his Council did give a toleration and dispensation to a great number of Jews to come and live here in London, and to this day they do keep public worship in the City of London, to the great dishonour of Christianity and public scandal of the true Protestant religion.”

[156]. Abstract of lease in Jewish Chronicle, November 26, 1880, communicated by Mr. Israel Davis.

[157]. Guildhall Archives, Rep. lxxiii. fol. 213.

[158]. Menasseh had assured Nieupoort that he did “not desire anything for the Jews in Holland” (Thurloe, iv. p. 333). The negotiations with Charles II. are recorded in Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 4106, fol. 253.

[159]. Infra, p. lxxxvi.

[160]. Hist. MSS. Com. Rep., viii. pp. 94–95. Fifth Rep. of Dep. Keeper of Public Records, App. ii. p. 253.

[161]. Infra, p. lxxxviii.

[162]. Ibid., p. lxxxvii.

[163]. Ibid. Hist. MSS. Com. Rep., viii. p. 95.

[164]. Compare frontispiece with portrait at p. 105.

[165]. Kayserling, “Menasseh ben Israel.” (Misc. of Hebrew Literature, Series ii. pp. 68, 93.)

[166]. For the condition of the Ashkenazi Jews at this epoch see Graetz’s Geschichte, vol. x. pp. 52–82.

[167]. [Richard Baker], “The Marchants Humble Petition and Remonstrance” (London, 1659). p. 17.

[168]. Guildhall Archives: Remembrancia, vol. ix. No. 44, pp. 1–18.

[169]. Violet, “A Petition against the Jews” (London, 1661).

[170]. State Papers, Dom., Charles II., vol. xxi. p. 140.

[171]. “Petition,” p. 2.

[172]. Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc., vol. i. pp. 71, 74–75.

[173]. Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 4106, f. 253.

[174]. Journal of the House of Commons, December 17, 1660.

[175]. State Papers, Dom., Chas. II., Entry Book xviii. (1664), fol. 79.

[176]. The text of these orders in Council has been printed by Webb, “The Question whether a Jew may hold Lands” (Lond., 1753), pp. 38–40.

[177]. Some of these patents are printed by Webb in an appendix to “The Question,” pp. 17–19. For Coronel’s knighthood see Le Neve’s “Pedigrees of Knights,” Harl. Soc. Pub. (1869).

[178]. Wolf, “Jewish Emancipation in the City” (Jew. Chron., November 30, 1894).

[179]. Child, “A New Discourse of Trade” (Lond., 1668), p. 5.

[180]. Wolf, “Jewish Emancipation,” loc. cit.

[181]. Dr. Gardiner has suggested to me, and I agree, that this paragraph is not a recommendation, but the thesis of the report. It is the text of the “reference” to the Sub-Committee by the Council, and the succeeding paragraphs constitute the report upon it. See supra, p. xlv.

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

  1. P. [xiv], changed "almost immediataly after" to "almost immediately after".
  2. P. [xlii], changed "among it signatories" to "among its signatories".
  3. P. [lxxv], "which caunot be" to "which cannot be".
  4. P. [lxxxv], changed “from uisnge or applyinge” to “from usinge or applyinge”.
  5. P. [6], changed “veiwed those Countryes” to “viewed those Countryes”.
  6. P. [26], changed "aud when he" to "and when he".
  7. P. [36], changed "Our ancient Rabinsin" to "Our ancient Rabins in".
  8. P. [37], chaanged "the paticle (ion)" to "the particle (ion)".
  9. P. [43], changed "as Ekekiel, and" to "as Ezekiel, and".
  10. P. [100], changed "every on should gain" to "every one should gain".
  11. P. [101], changed "6 par Cent" to "6 per Cent".
  12. P. [111], changed "Sauls sons" to "Saul’s sons".
  13. P. [122], changed "Nehemias, cap. 8.6." to "Nehemias, chap. 8.6.".
  14. P. [127], changed "certain fugive Iew" to "certain fugitive Iew".
  15. P. [135], changed "or blaspeeme those" to "or blaspheme those".
  16. P. [136], changed "thouh that was" to "though that was".
  17. P. [176], changed "Pontificus Latine, 147 De disciplinus" to "Pontificios Latine, 147 De disciplinis".
  18. P. [176], changed "Drucker, Mordechai ben" to "Drucker, Mardochai ben".
  19. P. [176], changed “author of Gangrena” to “author of Gangræna”.
  20. P. [177], changed "Eurgetes, Ptolomy" to "Euergetes, Ptolomy".
  21. P. [177], changed "Finicus, Marcilius" to "Ficinus, Marcilius".
  22. P. [178], changed "Geographie du Talmud" to "Géographie du Talmud".
  23. P. [178], changed "Glory of Jehudah" to "Glory of Iehudah".
  24. P. [180], changed "dominions at an" to "dominions as an".
  25. P. [181], changed "Jurnin" to "Iurnin".
  26. P. [181], changed "Kalicout" to "Kalikout".
  27. P. [181], changed "Lacto, de" to "Laet, de".
  28. P. [181], changed "Leon, Pedro Cieçade" to "Leon, Pedro Cieça".
  29. P. [181], changed "Loet, cited" to "Loeb, cited".
  30. P. [182], changed "of Elias Montalbo" to "of Elias Montalto".
  31. P. [182], changed "Luxa" to "Laxa".
  32. P. [182], changed "Marianus, cited" to "Marinus, cited".
  33. P. [182], changed "Marracco, King of" to "Maracco, King of".
  34. P. [183], changed "Diogo Pires" to "Diego Pires".
  35. P. [185], changed "Ornstein, Rev. A. F." to "Ornstien, Rev. A. F."
  36. P. [186], changed "Porarius" to "Pomarius".
  37. P. [186], changed "Procopius, cited" to "Procopious, cited".
  38. P. [186], changed "Psuedo-Messiah, Bar" to "Pseudo-Messiah, Bar".
  39. P. [186], changed "Ragusa = Aragusa" to "Ragusa = Araguza".
  40. P. [187], changed "Rodriques, Don Daniel" to "Rodrigues, Don Daniel".
  41. P. [187], changed "Salamanque, Synagogues of" to "Salaminque, Synagogues of".
  42. P. [188], changed "Sasal, Prince of" to "Sasol, Prince of".
  43. P. [188], changed "Schemtob de Leon" to "Shemtob de Leon".
  44. P. [188], changed "Sepher Eldad Danita" to "Sephar Eldad Danita".
  45. P. [188], changed "Sisbuthus, the end" to "Sisibuthus, the end".
  46. P. [188], changed "De Quieros enters" to "De Queiros enters".
  47. P. [189], changed "Thesoro de los dinim" to "Thesoro de los dirim".
  48. P. [189], changed "Tiglath-Pileser" to "Tiglah-Pileser".
  49. P. [190], changed "Trask" to "Thrask".
  50. P. [190], changed "Villepende, Marquis de" to "Villependi, Marquis de".
  51. P. [190], changed "Viterbo, Cardinal Egidio" to "Viterbe, Cardinal Egidio".
  52. All other spelling errors were uncorrected.
  53. Footnotes have been re-indexed using numbers and collected together at the end of the last chapter.