Chapter 7: Viewing the “Other”

Throughout history, human societies have consistently constructed their identities in relation to those they perceive as different or foreign. This process of defining the “self” in contrast to the “other” is a fundamental aspect of cultural, religious, and political development. By establishing boundaries—whether physical, cultural, or ideological—communities create a sense of unity and belonging among their members while simultaneously distinguishing themselves from outsiders.

The texts we are studying in this chapter are not simply records of how one group viewed another; they are reflections of the values, fears, and aspirations of the societies that produced them. When authors describe the “other,” they often reveal just as much, if not more, about themselves—their worldview, priorities, and sense of superiority or vulnerability. By paying attention to both what is said about others and what is implied about the self, we gain a richer understanding of the societies being studied.

We will be examining four sources in this chapter. The first looks at what was happening following the Arab conquests of the seventh century. The Pact of Umar gives us insight into how the Arab conquerors interacted with the conquered non-Muslim population. Next we look at the Life of St. William in the twelfth century which gives us insight into the relationship between the Christian majority and Jewish minority in England at the time. Quite often the European Christian population contextualized their actions against the “other” as a desire to convert them to Christianity. The Decree on limpieza de sangre (purity of blood) gives us an insight into the relationship in Spain between those converts and the general Christian population. The final source examines the incoming Mongol threat from a Muslim perspective.

7.1 Pact of Umar (c.7th Century)

After the rapid expansion of Muslim political authority in the 7th century, Muslims leaders were required to figure out how to interact with non-Muslims, who remained in the majority in many areas for centuries. The solution was to develop the notion of the “dhimma”, or “protected person”. The Pact of Umar is a text traditionally associated with the seventh-century Muslim conquest of Syria and attributed to Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab (r. 634–644 CE). It purportedly records the terms under which Christian communities living in conquered territories were permitted to retain their religious practices and communal institutions in exchange for accepting Muslim political authority and paying the jizya, a tax imposed on non-Muslim subjects. The text has traditionally been presented as evidence of the subordinate but protected status accorded to Christians under early Islamic rule. Modern historians, however, debate its date, authorship, and historical reliability; the surviving versions appear to have been compiled or transmitted considerably later than the reign of Umar. Consequently, the Pact of Umar is particularly useful not only for studying Muslim-Christian relations but also for examining how later Muslim jurists and communities understood and institutionalized the relationship between Muslim rulers and religious minorities.

The following is replicated in its entirety from Al-Turtushi, Siraj al-Muluk, pp. 229-230.

We heard from ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Ghanam [died 78/697] as follows: When Umar ibn al-Khattab, may God be pleased with him, accorded a peace to the Christians of Syria, we wrote to him as follows:

In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate. This is a letter to the servant of God Umar [ibn al-Khattab], Commander of the Faithful, from the Christians of such-and-such a city. When you came against us, we asked you for safe-conduct (aman) for ourselves, our descendants, our property, and the people of our community, and we undertook the following obligations toward you:

We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks’ cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.

We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.

We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor bide him from the Muslims.

We shall not teach the Qur’an to our children.

We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.

We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.

We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.

We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our- persons.

We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.

We shall not sell fermented drinks.

We shall clip the fronts of our heads.

We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists

We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.

We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.

We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.

(When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, “We shall not strike a Muslim.”)

We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct.

If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition.

Umar ibn al-Khittab replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose them in addition to those which they have undertaken. They are: “They shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims,” and “Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact.”

Source: The pact of Umar from Al-Turtushi, Siraj al-Muluk, pp. 229-230

This text is part of the Internet Medieval Source Book. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history. Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. No permission is granted for commercial use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use. (c)Paul Halsall Jan 1996

7.2 Thomas of Monmouth: The Life and Miracles of St. William of Norwich (1173)

The medieval blood libel was a false accusation that Jews murdered Christian children, usually around the time of Easter or Passover, in order to obtain their blood for Jewish religious rituals. The accusation had no basis in Jewish religious practice, but it became a powerful form of anti-Jewish propaganda in medieval Christian Europe. Blood libels often emerged from rumors surrounding the unexplained death or disappearance of a child and were frequently encouraged by local political, religious, or economic tensions. Once an accusation was made, Jews could face imprisonment, torture, expulsion, confiscation of property, or execution.

The blood libel was part of a broader pattern of medieval Christian accusations against Jews, including claims of host desecration and ritual murder. These stories were especially dangerous because they transformed religious differences into an alleged threat to Christian society. The supposed victims of blood libel accusations were sometimes subsequently venerated as Christian martyrs, creating a cycle in which the cult of a child saint reinforced the original accusation.

William of Norwich was a twelve-year-old apprentice who was found dead near Norwich in England in 1144. His death became the basis for one of the earliest recorded blood libel accusations in medieval Europe. Although there was no credible evidence that Jews had killed William, members of the Jewish community in Norwich were accused of his murder. William’s death subsequently became associated with a developing cult that treated him as a Christian martyr. The principal written account was composed by the Benedictine monk Thomas of Monmouth. Thomas’s account is particularly important because it illustrates how historical memory could be constructed around an ambiguous or unexplained event and helps us to understand how the “other” was understood in medieval England.

The following is adapted from Jacob Marcus, The Jew in the Medieval World: A Sourcebook, 315-1791, (New York: JPS, 1938), 121-127.

HOW WILLIAM WAS WONT TO RESORT TO THE JEWS, AND HAVING BEEN CHID BY HIS OWN PEOPLE FOR SO DOING, HOW HE WITHDREW HIMSELF FROM THEM

When therefore he was flourishing in this blessed boyhood of his, and had attained to his eighth year [about 1140], he was entrusted to the skinners [furriers] to be taught their craft. Gifted with a teachable disposition and bringing industry to bear upon it, in a short time he far surpassed lads of his own age in the craft aforesaid, and he equaled some who had been his teachers. So leaving the country, drawn by a divine urge he betook himself to the city and lodged with a very famous master of that craft, and some time passed away. He was seldom in the country, but was occupied in the city and sedulously gave himself to the practice of his craft, and thus reached his twelfth year [1144].

Now, while he was staying in Norwich, the Jews who were settled there and required their cloaks or their robes or other garments (whether pledged to them, or their own property) to be repaired, preferred him before all other skinners. For they esteemed him to be especially fit for their work, either because they had learnt that he was guileless and skillful, or, because attracted to him by their avarice, they thought they could bargain with him for a lower price, Or, as I rather believe, because by the ordering of divine providence he had been predestined to martyrdom from the beginning of time, and gradually step by step was drawn on, and chosen to be made a mock of and to be put to death by the Jews, in scorn of the Lord’s Passion, as one of little foresight, and so the more fit for them. [William is to be put to death to mock the crucifixion.]

For I have learnt from certain Jews, who were afterwards converted to the Christian faith, how that at that time they had planned to do this very thing with some Christian, and in order to carry out their malignant purpose, at the beginning of Lent they had made; choice of the boy William, being twelve years of age and a boy of unusual innocence.

So it came to pass that when the holy boy, ignorant of the treachery that had been planned, had frequent dealings with the Jews, he was taken to task by Godwin the priest, who had the boy’s aunt as his wife, and by a certain Wulward with whom he lodged and he was prohibited from going in and out among them any more But the Jews, annoyed at the thwarting of their designs, tried with all their might to patch up a new scheme of wickedness, and all the more vehemently as the day for carrying out the crime they had determined upon drew near; and the victim, which they had thought they had already secured, had slipped out of their wicked hands.

Accordingly, collecting all the cunning of their crafty plots, they found-I am not sure whether he was a Christian or a Jew-a man who was a most treacherous fellow and just the fitting person for carrying out their execrable crime, and with all haste-for their

Passover was coming on in three days-they sent him to find out and bring back with him the victim which, as I said before, had slipped out of their hands.

HOW HE WAS SEDUCED BY THE JEWS’ MESSENGER

At the dawn of day, on the Monday [March 20, 1144] after Palm Sunday, that detestable messenger of the Jews set out to execute the business that was committed to him, and at last the boy William, after being searched for with very great care, was found. When he was found, he got round him with cunning wordy tricks, and so deceived him with his lying promises….

HOW ON HIS GOING TO THE JEWS HE WAS TAKEN, MOCKED, AND SLAIN….

Then the boy, like an innocent lamb, was led to the slaughter. He was treated kindly by the Jews at first, and, ignorant of what was being prepared for him, he was kept till the morrow. But on the next day [Tuesday, March 21], which in that year was the Passover for them, after the singing of the hymns appointed for the day in the synagogue, the chiefs of the Jews…. suddenly seized hold of the boy William as he was having his dinner and in no fear of any treachery, and ill-treated him in various horrible ways. For while some of them held him behind, others opened his mouth and introduced an instrument of torture which is called a teazle [a wooden gag] and, fixing it by straps through both jaws to the back of his neck, they fastened it with a knot as tightly as it could be drawn.

After that, taking a short piece of rope of about the thickness of one’s little finger and tying three knots in it at certain distances marked out, they bound round that innocent head with it from the forehead to the back, forcing the middle knot into his forehead and the two others into his temples, the two ends of the rope being most tightly stretched at the back of his head and fastened in a very tight knot. The ends of the rope were then passed round his neck and carried round his throat under his chin, and there they finished off this dreadful engine of torture in a fifth knot.

But not even yet could the cruelty of the torturers be satisfied without adding even more severe pains. Having shaved his head, they stabbed it with countless thorn­points, and made the blood come horribly from the wounds they made. [Jesus had worn a crown of thorns before his death.] And so cruel were they and so eager to inflict pain that it was difficult to say whether they were more cruel or more ingenious in their tortures. For their skill in torturing kept up the strength of their cruelty and ministered arms thereto

And thus, while these enemies of the Christian name were rioting in the spirit of malignity around the boy, some of those present ad judged him to be fixed to a cross in mockery of the Lord’s Passion, as though they would say: “liven as we condemned the Christ to a shameful death, so let us also condemn the Christian, so that, uniting the lord and his servant in a like punishment, we may retort upon themselves the pain of that reproach which they impute to us.”

Conspiring, therefore, to accomplish the crime of this great and detestable malice, they next laid their blood­stained hands upon the innocent victim, and having lifted him from the ground and fastened him upon the cross, they vied with one another in their efforts to make an end of him.

And we, after enquiring into the matter very diligently, did both find the house, and discovered some most certain marks in it of what had been done there. For report goes that there was there instead of a cross a post set up between two other posts, and a beam stretched across the midmost post and attached to the other on either side. And as we afterwards discovered, from the marks of the wounds and of the bands, the right hand and foot had been tightly bound and fastened with cords, but the left hand and foot were pierced with two nails. Now the deed was done in this way, lest it should be discovered, from the presence of nail­marks in both hands and both feet, that the murderers were Jews and not Christians, if eventually the body were found.

…After all these many and great tortures, they inflicted a frightful wound in his left side, reaching even to his inmost heart, and, as though to make an end of all, they extinguished his mortal life so far as it was in their power. And since many streams of blood were running down from all parts of his body, then, to stop the blood and to wash and close the wounds, they poured boiling water over him.

Thus then the glorious boy and martyr of Christ, William, dying the death of time in reproach of the Lord’s death, but crowned with the blood of a glorious martyrdom, entered into the kingdom of glory on high to live for ever. Whose soul rejoiceth blissfully in heaven among the bright hosts of the saints, and whose body by the Omnipotence of the divine mercy worketh miracles upon earth…. [St.. William after his death worked many miracles that brought streams of people to his shrine.]

Source: Jacob Marcus, The Jew in the Medieval World: A Sourcebook, 315-1791, (New York: JPS, 1938), 121-127.

This text is part of the Internet Medieval Source Book. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history. Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. No permission is granted for commercial use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use. (c)Paul Halsall Jan 1997

7.3 Decree on Limpieza del Sangre, Toledo Spain (1449 CE)

This text, from Toledo in 1449, is the earliest known reference to Jewish blood, as opposed to Jewish beliefs and rituals, being held against Christian conversos in Spain. The underlying issue seems to have been fears on the part of the “old Christian” ruling class in Toledo that their power was threatened by the rise of the “new Christians,” the descendants of Jewish converts to Christianity who, for the most part, had been forcibly baptized during the infamous pogroms of 1391.

The following is replicated in its entirety from Sentencia-Estatuto de Toledo, 1449, trans Kenneth Baxter Wolf.

We, Pedro Sarmiento, head repostero (1) of our lord the king (2)…and head mayor of the very noble and loyal city of Toledo, along with the mayors, constables, knights, squires, citizens and common people of the said city of Toledo, proclaim and declare that, in as much as it is well known through civil and canon law that conversos (3) of Jewish lineage, being suspect in the faith of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, frequently belittle it by judaizing, they shall not be allowed to hold office or benefices public or private through which they might cause harm, aggravation, or bad treatment to good old Christians (Christianos viejos lindos), nor shall they be able to act as witnesses against them….

In as much as it has been shown that a large portion of the city’s conversos descending from the Jewish line are persons very suspect in the holy Catholic faith; that they hold and believe great errors against the articles of the holy Catholic faith; that they keep the rites and ceremonies of the old law; that they say and affirm that our Savior and Redeemer Jesus Christ was man of their lineage who was killed and whom the Christians worship as God; that they say that there is both a god and a goddess (4) in heaven; and in as much as, on holy Thursday (5)–while the holy oil and chrism is being consecrated in the church of Toledo and the body of our Redeemer is being placed on the altar—the said conversos slaughter lambs and eat them and make other kinds of holocausts and sacrifices, thus judaizing…;

And in as much as the said conversos live and act without fear of God and have shown and still show themselves to be enemies of the said city and of the old Christians living in it; and in as much as at their solicitation a royal tax was placed on the said city by the constable don Alvaro de Luna (6) and his followers and allies–our enemies–who waged cruel war armed with blood and fire, inflicting slaughter, damage, and theft on us, as if they were Moors, enemies of the Christian faith; wars, damages and evils which the Jews, enemies of our holy Catholic faith from the time of the passion of our Savior Jesus Christ have always caused; which, according to the old chronicles–when this city was surrounded by our enemies the Moors under Tariq (7) their leader, after the death of King Roderic (8)–the Jews who lived in Toledo at the time also did, making a treaty and selling the said city and its Christians and letting the Moors enter, after which 306 Old Christians of the city were put to the sword and more than 106, men and women, young and old, who were taken from the cathedral and from the church of the Santa Leocadia, and carried off into captivity as prisoners;

And because the said conversos descended from Jews have through great deceit taken and robbed great and innumerable quantities of maravedis and silver from our lord the king and from his rents and rights and taxes, and have destroyed and ruined many noble ladies, knights and hidalgos; and because they have oppressed, destroyed and robbed all the most ancient houses of the “Old Christians” of this city and of all the realms of Castile, as is well known; and in as much as during the time that they held public offices in this city and its environs, the greater part of the city was depopulated and destroyed and the land and places of the city lost and alienated, since they took all the maravedis in the form of rent and interest, to such an extent that all the goods and honors of the countryside were consumed and destroyed, becoming lords to destroy the holy Catholic faith and the Old believing Christians in it; and in confirmation of this it is known that the said conversos of this city a short time ago rose up and armed themselves and set out to destroy all the “Old Christians” and me, the said Pedro Sarmiento, throwing us out of the city and handing it over to our enemies….; (9)

Therefore we find that we ought to declare and do declare that all the said conversos descended from the perverse line of the Jews, in whatever situation they may be…, be held as incapable and unworthy to hold public or private office in the said city of Toledo and in its lands, by means of which they would be able to hold lordship over Old Christians believing in the holy Catholic faith of Our Lord Jesus Christ and cause damage, injury, and to be incapable and unworthy of giving testimony and faith as public notaries or as witnesses…

Notes by translator:

1 The repostero, in any noble household, was traditionally the one responsible for the dining implements. Here we can assume that it was a largely honorific title.

2 Juan II (1406-54).

3 Converso is the usual Castilian term for a Jewish convert to Christianity.

4. A concept connected to the cabalist movement within medieval Iberian Judaism. The idea of a female counterpart to God—known as Shekhina—may have been influenced by Latin Christian devotion of Mary which intensified in the twelfth century.

5 The Thursday before Easter, a day of fasting for Christians.

6 The royal favorite for most of Juan’s reign, Alvaro de Luna essentially ruled Castilla with only minor interruptions from 1420 until his execution in 1453. Faced with heavy opposition from Aragón, Alvaro visited Toledo in January, 1449, and imposed a tax on the citizens to support his war effort. A converso merchant named Alonso Cota worked with him to secure the funding, thus becoming the focus of “Old Christian” hostility.

7 Tariq ibn Ziyad, the first of the Muslim invaders of Spain in 711.

8 The last of the Visigothic Christian kings of Spain, apparently killed in the pivotal battle against Tariq near Arcos de la Frontera.

9 A reference to the struggles within Toledo, with the “Old Christians” generally opposing Alvaro de Luna and the conversos supporting him. Once the constable had withdrawn from the city, the “Old Christians” acted quickly to restrict converso access to power in the city government.

Source: Sentencia-Estatuto de Toledo, 1449 translated from the Spanish by Kenneth Baxter Wolf
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.

This text is part of the Internet Medieval Source Book. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history. Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. No permission is granted for commercial use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use. (c)Paul Halsall July 2023

7.4 Ibn al-Athir: On the Tatars (1220-1221 CE)

This text is a little different than those that have come before as it deals with two non-European societies. However, it is important to include as the people is discusses, the Tatars, will shortly affect the history of Eastern Europe. Ibn al-Athir (1160–1233 CE) was a prominent Arab Muslim historian from Mesopotamia whose writings provide one of the most important contemporary accounts of the Mongol invasions of the Islamic world. Born in the city of Cizre and associated with Mosul, Ibn al-Athir witnessed the political and military upheavals of the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. His most important work, the al-Kāmil fī al-Tārīkh (The Complete History), chronicles events from the creation of the world to his own time.

In his section often known as “On the Tatars,” Ibn al-Athir describes the devastating arrival of the Mongols in Central Asia and the Middle East during the early thirteenth century. He portrays the invasions as an unprecedented catastrophe, emphasizing the destruction of cities, the deaths of civilians, and the collapse of established political and social institutions. His account is valuable not only for its information about the Mongol conquests but also for what it reveals about how contemporary Muslims understood and experienced this dramatic transformation of the medieval world. The passage provides an important counterpoint to European and Mongol perspectives on the rise of the Mongol Empire.

The following is adapted from Edward G. Browne, A Literary History of Persia, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902), Vol. II, pp. 427-431. The text has been modernized by Jerome Arkenberg.

For some years I continued averse from mentioning this event, deeming it so horrible that I shrank from recording it and ever withdrawing one foot as I advanced the other. To whom, indeed, can it be easy to write the announcement of the death-blow of Islam and the Muslims, or who is he on whom the remembrance thereof can weigh lightly? O would that my mother had not born me or that I had died and become a forgotten thing ere this befell! Yet, withal a number of my friends urged me to set it down in writing, and I hesitated long, but at last came to the conclusion that to omit this matter could serve no useful purpose.

I say, therefore, that this thing involves the description of the greatest catastrophe and the most dire calamity (of the like of which days and nights are innocent) which befell all men generally, and the Muslims in particular; so that, should one say that the world, since God Almighty created Adam until now, has not been afflicted with the like thereof, he would but speak the truth. For indeed history does not contain anything which approaches or comes near unto it. For of the most grievous calamities recorded was what Nebuchadnezzar inflicted on the children of Israel by his slaughter of them and his destruction of Jerusalem; and what was Jerusalem in comparison to the countries which these accursed miscreants destroyed, each city of which was double the size of Jerusalem? Or what were the children of Israel compared to those whom these slew? For verily those whom they massacred in a single city exceeded all the children of Israel. Nay, it is unlikely that mankind will see the like of this calamity, until the world comes to an end and perishes, except the final outbreak of Gog and Magog.

For even Antichrist will spare such as follow him, though he destroy those who oppose him, but these Tatars spared none, slaying women and men and children, ripping open pregnant women and killing unborn babes. Verily to God do we belong, and unto Him do we return, and there is no strength and no power save in God, the High, the Almighty, in face of this catastrophe, whereof the sparks flew far and wide, and the hurt was universal; and which passed over the lands like clouds driven by the wind. For these were a people who emerged from the confines of China, and attacked the cities of Turkestan…and thence advanced on the cities of Transoxiana, such as Samarqand, Bukhara and the like, taking possession of them, and treating their inhabitants in such ways as we shall mention; and of them one division then passed on into Khurasan, until they had made an end of taking possession, and destroying, and slaying, and plundering…even to the limits of Iraq, whence they marched on the towns of Adharbayjan and Arraniyya, destroying them and slaying most of their inhabitants, of whom none escaped save a small remnant; and all this in less than a year; this is a thing whereof the like has not been heard. And when they had finished with Adharbayjan and Arraniyya, they passed on to Darband-i-Shirwan, and occupied its cities…and plundered, slew, and destroyed them to the full. And thence they made their way to the lands of Qipchaq, who are the most numerous of the Turks, and slew all such as withstood them, while the survivors fled to the fords and mountain-tops, and abandoned their country, which these Tatars overran. All this they did in the briefest space of time, remaining only for so long as their march required and no more.

Another division, distinct from that mentioned above, marched on Ghazna and its dependencies, and those parts of India, Sistan and Kirman which border thereon, and wrought therein deeds like unto the other, nay, yet more grievous. Now this is a thing the like of which ear has not heard; for Alexander, concerning whom historians agree that he conquered the world, did not do so with such swiftness, but only in the space of about ten years; neither did he slay, but was satisfied that men should be subject to him. But these Tatars conquered most of the habitable globe, and the best, the most flourishing and most populous part thereof, and that whereof the inhabitants were the most advanced in character and conduct, in about a year; nor did any country escape their devastations which did not fearfully expect them and dread their arrival.

Moreover they need no commissariat, nor the conveyance of supplies, for they have with them sheep, cows, horses, and the like quadrupeds, the flesh of which they eat, naught else. As for their beasts which they ride, these dig into the earth with their hoofs and eat the roots of plants, knowing naught of barley. And so, when they alight anywhere, they have need of nothing from without. As for their religion, they worship the sun when it rises, and regard nothing as unlawful, for they eat all beasts, even dogs, pigs, and the like; nor do they recognise the marriage-tie, for several men are in marital relations with one woman, and if a child is born, it knows not who is its father…

Source: Edward G. Browne, A Literary History of Persia, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902), Vol. II, pp. 427-431. The text has been modernized by Jerome Arkenberg.

This text is part of the Internet Medieval Source Book. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history. Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. No permission is granted for commercial use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use. © Paul Halsall, August 1998