P o p e s a n d J e w s , 1095 – 1291

Popes and Jews,

1095–1291
Rebecca Rist

1
 3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, ox2 6dp,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Rebecca Rist 2016
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
First Edition published in 2016
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2015941389
ISBN 978–0–19–871798–0
Printed and bound by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
 Acknowledgements
This book is written in memory of my Catholic and Jewish ancestors: ‘requiescant
in pace’: may they rest in peace. I am most grateful to Nurit Ilkhani, Rabbi Zvi
Solomons, and David Oderberg for their help in translating Hebrew texts. I am
also grateful to Christopher Tyerman, Martin Brett, Kenneth Stow, Robert Chazan,
Jeremy Cohen, David d’Avray, Miri Rubin, Anna Abulafia, Nora Berend, Christopher
Wickham, David Kertzer, Richard Bosworth, and Christopher Duggan who made
invaluable suggestions and comments about the book at various stages of com-
position, and to Manikandan Chandrasekaran, Penny Trumble, Fiona Tatham,
Stephanie Ireland, and Cathryn Steele at Oxford University Press. My especial
thanks to Robert Chazan for letting me use two maps from his book The Jews of
Medieval Western Christendom, 1000–1500 (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2006) and to Father Dominic Izzo, OP (Santa Sabina, Rome) for the front-
cover photo. I also thank my parents, John and Anna Rist, and my siblings for
their love and support.
The book is dedicated to my former supervisor Jonathan Riley-Smith.
 Preface

Why has the relationship of the papacy to the Jews of medieval Europe during
what we call the ‘Central’ or ‘High’ Middle Ages—in other words the eleventh,
twelfth, and thirteenth centuries—continued to fascinate and divide historians for
decades? After all, during this time Jews accounted for only approximately one per
cent of the overall population of Europe and were hardly high on the list of papal
concerns. The answer is in part a continuing fascination with the long, tumul-
tuous, and highly controversial history of Catholic–Jewish relations. It is also be-
cause medievalists have grasped that to understand this relationship is to realize the
wider context of the papacy’s attempts to shape and direct European society at the
time of its greatest temporal power. This book examines the nature of that relation-
ship by reassessing the evidence for papal interaction with Jewish communities in
Christian Europe.
In recent years eminent scholars have contributed greatly to our understanding
of the social and legal status of medieval Jewish communities in light of the onset
of the crusades, prohibitions against money-lending, condemnation of the Talmud,
increasing charges of ritual murder, blood libel, and host desecration, as well as the
growth of both Christian and Jewish polemical literature. The last few decades
have seen an outpouring of scholarly books and articles about the Jews in the High
Middle Ages, and it is important to engage with that historiography. My present
aim is to add to the current debate about Christian–Jewish relations by revisiting
papal contact with Jews and re-examining nuances in the approaches of different
popes confronted with a range of complex circumstances and competing demands.
In my review of papal–Jewish relations I also aim to correct the idea that during
the High Middle Ages there was a monolithic and static ‘papal policy’ towards
Jews. We must never forget that the majority of papal statements were carefully
thought-out responses to secular and religious authorities and that individual papal
interventions were shaped by the agendas of those who requested them. Indeed
any such pronouncements can only be properly understood in the context of the
substantial and on-going social, political, and economic changes of the eleventh,
twelfth, and thirteenth centuries, by appreciating the characters, preoccupations,
and concerns of individual pontiffs, as well as the development of Christian the-
ology and hence the theological precepts which underlay their pronouncements.
The peculiar and unique nature of the papacy’s relationship with the Jewish
communities it encountered invites us to reflect on the charges of theological
blindness (‘Caecitia’) and stubbornness (‘Duritia’) which medieval Christians, in-
cluding some popes, frequently levelled at Jews. ‘Duritia’ and ‘Caecitia’ indicated
Jewish refusal, incomprehensible to Christians, to acknowledge Christ as the Messiah
prophesied in the Old Testament. Hence I seek not only to engage with contem-
porary scholarly debates about the nature and scope of the relationship between
the medieval papacy and Jewish communities, but to illuminate the unique
viii Preface

­ redicament of Jews within Christian society through analysis of a wide range of

p
contemporary Hebrew and Latin documents. I break new ground by exploring not
only papal responses to Jews but also the other side of the story: Jewish ideas about
individual popes and the papacy as an institution.
There are good reasons for writing this book now. In recent years medieval
Christian–Jewish relations have proved a fruitful area of academic research, and
both undergraduate and postgraduate courses in this field are very popular. At the
University of Reading I currently teach a third-year special subject Deviance and
Discipline: Church and Outcasts in the Central Middle Ages which examines the
medieval Church’s attitude towards minorities in western Christian society during
the High Middle Ages, in particular its treatment of social outcasts such as lepers,
homosexuals, and prostitutes, and the status it afforded to a range of diverse reli-
gious groups including heretics, pagans, Muslims—and also Jews. Indeed some of
my most important sources derive from material I regularly teach my students and
I thank them for their insights which have doubtless furthered this study.
Yet when discussing the relationship between the medieval papacy and Judaism
I often find that students understand little of how and why medieval popes made
pronouncements about Jews, and even less about what these Jews thought of indi-
vidual popes and the papacy. I soon came to realize that although much important
work had been done on papal ideas about Jews, the converse—Jewish ideas about
the papacy, itself a highly nuanced and complex research area deserving rigorous
and wide-ranging investigation—remained a surprisingly under-developed topic.
Indeed, no recent academic book has focused specifically on both papal attitudes
towards Jews and Jewish attitudes about the papacy during the eleventh, twelfth, and
thirteenth centuries. Thus my aim is not merely to complement previous scholar-
ship, but to develop a substantially distinctive approach through a reappraisal of
the evidence. The study of religious history and of the papacy itself has never been
so popular at both a scholarly and non-specialist level, and both in my own univer-
sity and elsewhere, colleagues have encouraged me to believe that there is an urgent
need for such a study in English.
In analysing the development of papal pronouncements both protecting and
restricting Jews, manifested on the one hand by condemnation of crusader vio-
lence and the blood libel charge, and on the other by restrictions on Jewish rights
and calls for the Talmud to be burnt as blasphemous and as heretical even within
Judaism, I develop a number of themes. The first is an examination of a range of
contemporary Hebrew sources in order to explore perceptions of popes and the
institution of the papacy through the eyes of rabbis and other leaders of Jewish
communities. The second is an analysis of individual papal pronouncements in the
light of political ideas and doctrinal beliefs with a view to ascertaining the signifi-
cance of such pronouncements at a time of a growing depiction of Jews in polem-
ical literature as enemies of Christian society. This demands particular emphasis on
the language and rhetoric of papal correspondence and the influence of classical
and patristic texts on the formation, development, and direction of papal letters—
which in turn leads to my third theme: an appraisal of the relationship between
papal directives, canon law, and conciliar legislation, all of which increasingly
 Preface ix

decreed the separation of Jews and Christians in social and political life. I assess
how papal authorization of crusades against Muslims, heretics, schismatics, and
political enemies affected the status of Jews as yet another minority group in Europe,
especially in the context of the development of Christian theories of holy war and
just war, and of Muslim theories of Jihad.
Such a study demands a comprehensive investigation of ‘encyclicals’ emanating
from the papal curia from Urban II’s call for the First Crusade in 1095 to the year
1291, which witnessed both the fall of the last crusading stronghold of Acre during
the pontificate of Nicholas IV (1288–1292), and the expulsion of Jews from England.
The chronological scope of the book, 1095–1291, emphasizes the importance of
the crusades in the history of papal–Jewish relations. Yet the correspondence of
Boniface VIII (1294–1303) is also included in my investigation, since arguably his
pontificate marks the height and subsequent decline of papal power in the High
Middle Ages. Similarly his fourteenth-century successors Clement V (1305–1314)
and John XXII (1316–1334) are referred to at times in the narrative for comparison
and contrast. The study also requires a detailed study of contemporary Church
legislation, as well as Hebrew texts: theological treatises, chronicles, disputations,
and rabbinic responsa.
In addressing these three themes I am particularly concerned to present an account
which highlights the predicament of individual popes confronted with a wide
range of competing demands. I analyse the formation, development, and direction
of papal statements about Jews as an important minority group in Europe that con-
temporary polemicists stigmatized as a threat to the well-being of an increasingly
unified and centralized Christian society, assessing whether papal pronounce-
ments reveal the pragmatic policies of individual popes or an overriding vision
of the appropriate status and treatment of Jews. Overall, my aim is to determine
whether papal statements, fortified by canon law, theology, and the teachings of
the Church fathers, were unified by a common fear that through the contact
of Christians with Jews and Judaism, Christianity itself would be weakened and
endangered. In this context papal authorization of crusades is especially pertinent
since awareness of the external threat from Muslims both in the Near East and in
Spain increased anxiety about non-Christians within Christendom itself, thereby
contributing to a drive for uniformity of belief which in the long term would
prove catastrophic for Jews.
Hence the present book is intended as a timely addition to recent scholarship on
medieval Christian–Jewish relations and is aimed at a scholarly and academic audi-
ence. However, since its subject-matter—religious and cultural exchange between
Jews and Christians during a period crucial for our understanding of the growth
of the Western world, the rise of nation states, and the development of relations
between East and West—is extremely relevant in today’s multi-cultural and multi-­
faith British society, I hope it will also be of significant interest to a wide range of
readers beyond the academic community—not least to organizations and societies
endeavouring to understand and improve Jewish–Christian relations. My approach
is multi-disciplinary in that in addition to being a contribution to Jewish history
and to the history of the papacy at the time of its greatest political power, it bears
x Preface

on our understanding of the history of medieval Italy, of the crusades, and more
widely of Europe’s developing cultural and religious heritage.
What is the rationale behind the book’s structure? In the Introduction I examine
the idea of papal pronouncements as responses to secular and religious authorities
in the context of the continually changing economic and social conditions of medi-
eval Europe, the developing idea of the nation state, the growing bureaucracy and
centrality of the papal curia, and the different characters and lengths of pontificate
of those who governed the Apostolic See. I argue that traditional Christian theology
ensured that popes were committed to protecting the Jews, but that they also
believed that they must ensure the spiritual welfare of Christian society—and that
this led them increasingly to restrict Jewish activities. My Introduction also
­provides an overview of recent historiography.
Such historiography reveals that Jewish ideas about the papacy remain a surpris-
ingly underdeveloped area of research. In Chapter One—Jewish Ideas about the
Papacy—I explore such ideas through a range of contemporary and later sources
including folktales, chronicles, responsa, and disputational literature. Jewish writers
were obviously concerned to ensure the safety of their communities in western
Europe and grateful for statements of papal protection. They were also highly crit-
ical of Christian beliefs about the papacy, in particular the theory of apostolic
­succession. Yet they fully acknowledged that popes had always played and would
continue to play an important role in safeguarding their well-being and deter-
mining their future. Nevertheless, although contemporary and later Jewish writers
often valued papal protection more highly than that of monarchs, emperors, or
other clergy, they also knew it had its circumscribed limits. Though respectful of
the papacy’s power, both spiritual and temporal, they were dismissive of the
Scriptural and theological formulations on which Christian claims for apostolic
authority rested.
Chapter Two—The Papal Promise of Protection—explores the papal angle. It shows
how the papacy sought to protect but also control the Jews by a number of dif-
ferent methods, in particular by the promulgation of general letters or ‘encyclicals’.
Appeals from the Jewish communities encouraged six popes in the twelfth century
and ten in the thirteenth to re-issue ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, a letter of protection for Jews
originally issued in the sixth century by Gregory the Great (590–604) which in the
High Middle Ages became known as the ‘Constitutio pro Iudaeis’. Sometimes it
was re-issued to refute popular charges and increasing accusations against Jews: in
particular of ritual murder, host desecration, and blood libel.
With the onset of the crusades and the resulting mob violence, this ‘Constitutio
pro Iudaeis’ was also increasingly re-issued in light of a new recognition of the need
for Jews to be protected. From the eleventh century popes called for crusades against
Muslims in the Near East and pagans in the Baltic, and, from the thirteenth
century, against heretics and political enemies of the Church. Although they
never authorized crusades against Jews, Jewish communities suffered indirectly
from papal calls for crusading. Chapter Three—The Impact of the Crusades—
emphasizes how living in Christian Europe, but no part of its mainstream culture,
Jews were particularly vulnerable to the violence which papal authorization of
 Preface xi

crusades often provoked. Yet from the eleventh century onwards crusading itself
affected papal attitudes: comparable with heretics, they lived in Europe as an
‘internal’ and marginalized minority group of non-Catholics.
Chapter Four—Jews and Money—develops the theme of marginalization, exploring
how—since Jews were denied equal status with Christians and were barred from
many positions of importance in a profoundly Christian society—their livelihoods
and even their survival often came to depend on their ability to lend money at
interest. Furthermore, largely because of papal pronouncements, in the twelfth
and thirteenth centuries lending at interest became an area of commerce increas-
ingly possible only for Jews, while those needing to borrow money to fulfil their
crusading vows were obvious targets for moneylenders. So in lending to Christians,
and in particular to crusaders, Jews could not ignore the policies of popes who both
authorized crusades and pronounced on money-lending. This chapter explores
how financial transactions affected papal–Jewish relations, since the spiritual power
of the papacy and the military power of the crusaders would often clash with the
relative powerlessness of Jewish communities.
The theme of papal power versus Jewish powerlessness is evident in papal corres-
pondence—in particular in letters concerned with crusading which reveal espe-
cially clearly traditional papal teaching towards Jews. The influence of their
rhetoric must be understood in the context of the increase in the temporal power
of the papacy in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries—following the reforms of
the eleventh century—and the expansion of the papal states which augmented the
papacy’s confidence in its role as the ultimate spiritual authority in Europe, while
that in its turn encouraged an ever more urgent drive towards a greater definition
of Christian society and belief. Chapter Five—Papal Claims to Authority over
Judaism—argues that as canon law developed from the 1160s onwards, it both
augmented and justified the papacy’s central role in Europe, while also encour-
aging in the faithful the sense of a common Christian purpose superseding terri-
torial identities and directed by the pope. Popes sought to clarify relations between
Christians and Jews on an ongoing basis and in particular reacted to a newly
perceived threat to Christianity from the Talmud, eventually declaring that their
­authority extended over all infidels, including Jews, as well as over Christians, and
that they had a duty to prevent heresies within Judaism itself. In the thirteenth
century they became increasingly preoccupied with the idea of a separation of the
two faiths and this attitude coloured, although without fundamentally changing,
subsequent statements of protection.
In Chapter Six—The Papacy and the Place of Jews in Christian Society—I examine
the theme of conversion. Furthermore, I discuss how the papacy’s desire to direct
Christian treatment of Jews through the ecclesiastical courts inevitably led to sig-
nificant clashes with secular authorities who also claimed authority over ‘their
Jews’, while increasingly in the thirteenth century the newly-established mendi-
cant orders encouraged popes to demand that Jews be compelled to listen to con-
versionary sermons. I therefore compare and contrast the language of papal rhetoric
with that of other types of contemporary Christian rhetoric and polemic, not least
the influential missionary preaching of the friars.
xii Preface

In Chapter Seven—The City of Rome—I explore the relationship between the

papacy and Jews in Rome, where the pope’s chief job was to be bishop of the city.
In Chapter Eight—Papal Rhetoric: Heretics, Muslims, and Jews—I return to the
theme of Chapter Two that, although popes determined that Jewish refusal to rec-
ognize Christ estranged them from Christian society, from the time of Gregory the
Great they also made it clear that Jews, unlike other minority communities, were
to be protected by Christians and allowed to practice their religion unharmed.
Such a policy of comparative toleration stemmed from the teaching of St Augustine
of Hippo (354–430) that Jews played a special role in the history of salvation
because they are a living, although unwitting, testimony to the truth of Christianity
and in particular to the importance of the Old Testament. I examine the use of
traditional language and rhetoric in papal letters and explore polemical themes
such as we have already noted—the Augustinian ideas of spiritual blindness
(‘Caecitia’), of Jewish stubbornness, obstinacy, and hardness of heart in refusing
to accept Christianity (‘Duritia’), and of distortion of the Faith in their deliberate
attempt to deny the authority of Jesus (‘Perfidia’).
Drawing these different themes together, my Conclusion explains the limited
and specifically servile role which Jews were expected to play in a typical papal
­vision of ‘Christian’ society that in itself promoted a gradual hardening of Christian
attitudes. Nevertheless, the aim of papal pronouncements was never to degrade the
Jews as such. Rather, it was to satisfy the requirements of both Christian theology
and the developing idea of a specifically papal authority over Jewish communities.
Hence for both social and political reasons popes found it increasingly difficult to
retain the spirit of their continuing Pauline/Augustinian theology in the changing
social and political conditions of the age.
In assessing the papacy’s response to petitions both from Jewish communities
themselves and from Christians who sought advice about Jews, it is important to
consider the conditions under which papal letters were composed, the political
circumstances for which they were written, and the employment of notaries,
scribes, correctors, and bullatores (whose job was to ensure the proper tax was
exacted for the document) at the curia. It is often hard to judge whether letters
were drafted under a pope’s personal supervision, or whether notaries were left a
free hand to compose in the appropriate and traditional terminology. To what
­extent did an original petition become part of a papal letter? Did the pope accept
petitions presented to the curia as they stood or did he model these petitions to suit
his own agenda?
It is also difficult to assess how long a letter took to arrive at its destination once
it had been despatched from Rome, and just as important as when it actually
­arrived, is when curial officials judged it would reach its recipients. To what extent
and at what point in their creation popes were personally involved in the produc-
tion of their correspondence, whether they themselves composed the text of their
letters or at least parts of them, and, if they did, then how many, remain questions
of ongoing scholarly debate. Yet although it is not possible to be certain about
the proportional input of pope, curial vice-chancellor, and notaries to the most
important letters, it seems likely that the pope himself dictated some and that the
 Preface xiii

core of these, even if not every word, was his own work. Indeed we can often dis-
cern concrete evidence of a pope’s own ‘voice’ in his letters since a significant
number have a highly personal flavour.
Reading such papal correspondence in the light of the complex history of
Christian–Jewish relations is another serious issue which confronts the historian,
who may too easily be seduced by an anachronistic reading of medieval thought
and practice. So, for example, the decree of the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215
that Jews should wear distinguishing garb—which thirteenth-century popes were
keen to implement—imitated similar legislation in countries under Muslim rule.
The subsequent wearing of a yellow, green, or red badge, which over time became
common practice in many countries of medieval Europe, reminds us of the Nazis
revival of this badge as a yellow star in the twentieth century. Yet, as we shall see, unless
we recognize the very particular reasons for the decree and its implementation—
religious rather than racial—we shall not understand how it was both ostensibly
similar to, but also fundamentally different from, Nazi anti-semitic practice.
That is not, of course, to deny that historically Christians have a very bad record
when it comes to Jews, especially since until recently many thought of them as the
murderers of Christ. In the twentieth- and twenty-first centuries the horrors of the
Holocaust have forced many Christians to think more deeply about the Jewishness
of Jesus and the ethical teachings and ceremonial practices which Christianity
­derived from Judaism. The development of theology and recent biblical interpret-
ation have led to the repudiation of the deicide accusation as well as of projects to
convert Jews, even if this is still less acceptable among some Christians than it
should be. The Holocaust has also made Christians assess the Church’s teachings
and historical record with respect to Jews, and examine links between traditional
anti-Jewish rhetoric—visible in medieval discourse—and Nazi anti-semitism.
The concept of ‘anti-semitism’ as we know it is a modern one: the word was
coined c.1873 by Wilhelm Marr to describe and advocate a certain ‘racist’ view of
Jews. Marr’s theory was fully developed during the second half of the nineteenth
century. Scholars have long debated the difference between ‘anti-Judaism’ and ‘anti-­
semitism’. Hence Gavin Langmuir distinguished ‘anti-Judaism’ as a non-rational
reaction to overcome non-rational doubts and ‘anti-semitism’ as an irrational reac-
tion to repressed rational doubts. For Langmuir ‘non-rational’ seems to imply
something close to what Max Weber called ‘value rationality’: ie a social action
which is pursued because of the supposed intrinsic value of the action itself, regard-
less of its consequences. When I use the terms ‘anti-Judaism’ and ‘anti-semitism’
my primary aim is to emphasize how difficult it is for us to know whether medieval
people would—and indeed could—have distinguished between ‘anti-Judaism’—
i.e. anti the religion—and ‘anti-semitism’—i.e. a peculiar and distinctive visceral
antipathy to the people as a race—when they expressed their hatred of Jews. In a
looser sense many medieval people might perhaps be described as both ‘anti-Jewish’
and ‘anti-semitic’.
Moving from the medieval to the early modern period, the picture is further
complicated by the title ‘Old Christians’, a category used in the Iberian peninsula
from the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century onwards at the time of
xiv Preface

the  Spanish and Portuguese Inquisitions to distinguish Portuguese and Spanish

people who were not converts from Judaism from ‘New Christians’ (‘conversos’ or
‘Marranos’), terms which referred to Iberian Jews and their known baptized des-
cendants who had converted to Catholicism. Early modern humanists were fascin-
ated by Jews because of a renewed interest in Hebrew as part of the heritage of
antiquity, and this fascination continued during the period to which we loosely
apply the term ‘Renaissance’—the fourteenth to seventeenth centuries. Such
interest was largely quenched by the Counter Reformation of the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries, beginning with the Council of Trent (1554–1563) initiated
in response to the Protestant Reformation. There was no discussion of Jews at that
council.
Certainly in contrast to the medieval—and also to the early modern era—the
history of ‘anti-semitism’ is all too familiar in the twentieth- and twenty-first centuries,
and within that context papal–Jewish relations remain exceedingly complex. In the
first decade of the twentieth century Pius X (1903–1914), dismayed at the success
of the new secular Italian State and the loss of the papal states, evinced a great fear
of ‘modernism’ and ‘modernists’—those who tried to drag Catholicism away from
what they saw as a rigid formalism dependent on biblical fundamentalism and an
uncritical acceptance of ‘tradition’, and to adapt it to a new age. Achille Ratti,
the future Pius XI (1922–1939), was appointed papal nuncio in Poland during
Pius X’s pontificate and, in his attempts to reconstruct the Catholic Church there,
became fundamentally opposed to Communism. Worried by what he saw as the
corrosion of Christian culture—in which context Jews were often blamed for
their  association with finance and business—he also feared ‘Jewish Bolshevism’.
Naturally an authoritarian character and dismayed by the increasing forces of
European secularism which he believed threatened to engulf the Church, and
which he denounced in encyclicals such as ‘Quas primas’ in 1925, in his early pon-
tificate Pius XI was prepared to see Fascism as a vehicle for the re-Christianization
of Europe. He was not alone. In the 1930s Italian Catholics more generally thought
they could make use of Fascism as a bulwark against Communism. An ambitious
Mussolini, himself an atheist but realizing that he needed the support of the
Church to increase the Fascist vote, played on this fear.
Yet, despite his naturally right-wing leanings, Pius XI showed independence
of spirit. He suppressed Charles Maurras’s Action Française, an extreme far-right
movement in France, and in 1927 excommunicated its supporters. As a result he
was accused of betraying the Church and siding with radicals and Jews. Nevertheless,
there is no doubt that he played with political forces he mistakenly thought he
could control. Believing that the Fascists would support the Church’s attempts to
bring back Catholic moral teaching, family values, and social discipline, he even
disregarded the advice of Cardinal Gasparri, a powerful diplomat at the papal curia
and Camerlengo from 1916 to 1934, and spoke of Mussolini as ‘a man sent by
Providence’—which led Italian clergy to encourage their congregations to vote
Fascist. Believing that Vatican City was a vital base if the Church was to remain an
effective missionary force, in 1929 he signed a Concordat with Mussolini which
secured it for the papacy.
 Preface xv

Those nearer the centre, including Vatican officials like Monsignor Giovanni
Battista Montini (the future Paul VI, 1963–1978), were horrified by the Concordat
and by Mussolini’s insistence that the Vatican withdraw support for the left-wing
Catholic Partito Popolare. On the other hand Pius XI also continued to support
strongly Azione Cattolica, a youth movement which sought to instruct Catholics
in the faith, and also the boy scouts, as alternatives to Fascist youth movements.
That brought him into direct conflict with Mussolini, who feared such activity
might turn people away from Fascism and in particular from his regime’s ­excesses.
Hence in his encyclical ‘Non abbiamo bisogno’ of 1931 Pius XI denounced the
regime’s attempt to stifle Catholic organizations and what he saw as pagan idol-
atry. Mussolini, however, was undaunted and, under pressure from Hitler, in
July 1938 published his Manifesto della razza (Racial Manifesto), a set of new
laws for Fascist Italy which included horrific anti-Jewish legislation, stripping
Jews of Italian citizenship and with it any positions in government or the profes-
sions. He promised that the new anti-Jewish laws would not be harsher than
those which popes themselves had imposed on Jews for centuries, indeed that
some of the restrictions they had traditionally enforced in the papal states would
be excluded:
As for the Jews, the distinctive caps—of whatever colour—will not be brought back,
nor the ghettoes; much less will their belongings be confiscated. The Jews, in a word,
can be sure that they will not be subjected to treatment worse than that which was
accorded them for centuries and centuries by the popes who hosted them in the
Eternal City and in the lands of their temporal domain.

Indeed increasingly in the late 1930s many Italians cared little about what Mussolini
did in this respect and were prepared to espouse anti-semitic attitudes when they
thought he and Hitler would prevail. Nevertheless, although Eugenio Pacelli (the
future Pius XII)—and even more the pope’s private envoy to Mussolini, the Jesuit
Pietro Tacchi-Venturi—played a significant role in preventing him from speaking out
publicly against the new racial laws, Pius XI did send a letter of protest to Mussolini.
So, ironically, the papacy’s rapprochement with the government meant that in the
years before 1938 it indirectly encouraged, though never endorsed, the use of racial
legislation.
Relations between the papacy and Germany were even more convoluted. In 1933
the same Pacelli, Cardinal Secretary of State from 1930, negotiated a Concor­dat
between the Vatican and Hitler. In the 1920s and early 1930s both Pius XI and
Pacelli believed that there was a difference between Mussolini’s Fascism, which they
calculated might be used to defend Catholicism and bring authority and order to
society, and German ‘racist’ Fascism, or Nazism. From the Vatican perspective in the
1930s, Fascism might seem able to save Europe from Communism, particularly
since Article 31 of the Concordat protected Azione Cattolica. Pacelli had spent
much of the 1920s as papal nuncio in Munich. Yet although he loved German life
and culture, he recognized Nazism as evil and anti-Christian. Neither he nor Pius
XI subscribed to Nazi policies. They disliked Nazism as pagan, materialistic, and
inhumane, and they hated its racial doctrines. Between 1933 and 1936 Pius XI
xvi Preface

sent three dozen notes to Berlin, drafted by Pacelli, to protest about infringements
of the Concordat.
Nevertheless, the price of that Concordat was high. In Germany a prominent
Catholic political organization, the Centre Party, which sought to mitigate Fascist
excesses, was closed down. Pius XI had still not fully realized that sacrificing
Catholic political parties in Europe destroyed the last bulwarks against totalitar-
ianism. Yet in the last years of his pontificate—and despite a residual sympathy
with Fascism—he made clear his hatred of right-wing tyranny not only in Germany
but also in Italy. Increasingly in the 1930s he threw his whole-hearted support be-
hind Catholic social organizations in Italy such as the boy scout movement, as well
as trade unions and a free press. When in 1928 Mussolini banned the scouts and
closed down all offices and charities run by Azione Cattolica, Pius protested in an
open letter criticizing Fascist interference in education and family life and con-
demning Fascist insistence on the swearing of an oath of loyalty to the regime.
Azione Cattolica survived, but only as a non-political organization.
Once the Concordat was safely signed, Hitler and the Nazi press started a hate
campaign against the Catholic Church. By 1937 Pius realized that he had been
duped and decided to act. In his encyclical ‘Mit Brennender Sorge’ he denounced
both German actions in breach of the Concordat and Nazi racial theory, including
anti-semitism, insisting on the permanent value of the Jewish scriptures. Unfortunately
‘Divini Redemptoris’, his other encyclical of the same year, denounced Communism
in even more absolute language—which did not help the anti-Fascist cause. And
‘interior’ policies and activities within the Vatican remained fraught with intrigue.
Montini, a key player at the curia, had been initially dismissed by Pius XI from his
position as ecclesiastical head of the Azione Cattolica University in response to
criticism from Mussolini, but was brought back as under-secretary of State in 1937
when Pius’s view of Mussolini was changing. Montini’s character was complex,
both before and after becoming pope; not for nothing did he later become known
as the ‘Hamlet’ of the Vatican. It seems he was an efficient ‘civil servant’, but with
perhaps a rather naive view of human nature and with far less influence on Pius XI
than Pacelli. Pacelli on the other hand believed himself to be a competent polit-
ician and diplomat—almost a ‘fixer’—a mistake made by many contemporary (and
later) Italian politicians, which badly misled him in his dealings with Germany.
Nevertheless, when in May 1938 Hitler visited Rome, Pius deliberately left for
Castel Gandolfo. That same year he insisted publicly that no Christian could be an
anti-semite since ‘spiritually, we are all Semites’. But due to bad health and oppos-
ition in the curia, his intention of publishing a further encyclical, ‘Humani generis
Unitas’, in which he was to denounce anti-semitism much more strongly, was never
published. Illness ensured that a further speech denouncing fascism he had hoped
to give to the Italian bishops also never appeared. Some historians have argued that
if he had tried harder Pius might have prevented Italy allying with Nazi Germany.
Others have countered that even if he had succeeded in keeping Mussolini away
from an alliance with Hitler, an Italian army would not have lasted long against the
Wehrmacht and Hitler could have taken over Italy as easily as he took over Austria.
Indeed some believe that in certain respects Italy did better by initially becoming
 Preface xvii

Hitler’s ally rather than his slave—as the ‘Republic of Salò’ would eventually
become during the latter part of the Second World War.
On Pius XI’s death, Pacelli, now Pope Pius XII (1939–1958), desperate for
peace, spent the year of 1939 trying to preserve it. In 1940 he secretly acted as
intermediary between the Allies and a group of German army officers trying to
assassinate Hitler, but scruples often overcame him and he was in such anguish
about the morality of his actions that he kept quiet about them. Even in his peace
broadcast of August 1939 he avoided direct denunciation of German aggression.
Nevertheless, during the Second World War the Vatican kept a record of the ter-
rible atrocities committed against Jews, and Vatican funds financed rescue meas-
ures, such as the offer to supply fifteen of the fifty kilos of gold demanded by
the German head of police in 1943 to ensure the safety of the Jewish community
of Rome. Pius XII ordered religious houses in Rome to admit Jewish refugees and
approximately 5,000 Jews were sheltered there and in the Vatican itself. After the
war the Vatican processed approximately 11,250,000 missing-persons enquiries
and took the unprecedented step of appointing Jesuit historians to publish eleven
volumes of documents detailing its involvement with the war and its interventions
on behalf of Jews.
Notwithstanding, many have criticized Pius XII for not doing more. He ref­
rained from any outright denunciation of Nazi activities against Jews until his
Christmas radio address in 1942, and although when he spoke out many Germans
were angered by what they saw as an abandonment of neutrality, many of the allies
wished it had been a far more direct and fierce condemnation. In 1963 Rolf
Hochhuth’s Communist-inspired play ‘The Representative’ portrayed an anti-­
semitic pope who refused to help the Jews of Rome. Although the publication of
archives detailing the papacy’s interventions on behalf of Jews showed this to be
false, the Vatican was still blamed for lack of courage and feeble diplomacy during
the war. Allegations in the 1980s that a ‘Ratline’ for Nazi war criminals from Rome
to Latin America was organized within the Vatican only added to the furore, par-
ticularly when it was revealed that pro-Nazi Austrian and Croatian clerics in Rome,
aided by right-wing Catholic circles in France, had helped provide shelter.
Certainly throughout the Second World War Pius XII seems to have believed
that grand statements by the Church denouncing Nazi atrocities would only worsen
the situation—as they did when Dutch bishops tried to intervene to help Jews in
Holland in 1941—and that quiet, behind-the-scenes intervention would be more
effective in saving lives. Not only did the pronouncements of the Dutch bishops
not prevent Jews being murdered, but the Nazis as a result actually extended the
range of victims in various ways, not least to include Jews who had converted to
Christianity. Of course Jews in Holland might have been murdered eventually by
the Nazi regime, but the Dutch bishops seem to have been surprised when their
speeches proved lethal for many new victims. Living in a very different world from
their medieval predecessors, in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries popes have
increasingly realized that their ‘good’ pronouncements have not infrequently led to
the murder of both Christians and non-Christians. When dealing with dictators
such as Hitler—and to a lesser extent Mussolini—the problem is obvious.
xviii Preface

As already intimated, much more disturbing than his wartime activities was Pius
XII’s record before becoming pope, with historians arguing that as papal nuncio in
Germany and then Cardinal Secretary of State during the pontificate of his prede-
cessor, he should have taken a far stronger line in denouncing both Fascism in Italy
and the growing strength of the Nazis. As papal nuncio to Germany from 1920 to
1929, he underestimated the burgeoning power of the Nazi party, believing Soviet
Communism a much greater threat to the future of Christianity than Fascism.
Indeed as Cardinal Secretary of State he was instrumental in persuading Pius XI to
make enormous investments in Germany. Pacelli’s dread of Italian secularism and
of the perceived even greater threat of Soviet Communism made him underesti-
mate the Nazis and over-timid in dealing with them: many of his contemporaries
behaved similarly elsewhere. By contrast Churchill commented that to destroy
Hitler he would ally with the devil himself (i.e. Stalin).
So the controversy over Pius XII’s pontificate rumbles on. Although books
claiming to show his deliberate and active connivance with the Nazi government
in eradicating Jews have been shown to be historically unsound, recent debates
have focused rather on the papacy’s overall stance towards Jews in the twentieth
century and on the complex relationships which, as we have seen, existed between
popes, Hitler’s Germany, and Mussolini’s Italy, as also between Vatican City and
the modern Italian State. One of the major challenges for historians is to under-
stand the views and actions of popes themselves, both before they occupy the
throne of St Peter and afterwards, and the views of the different ‘left’ and ‘right’
wing interest groups in Roman ecclesiastical circles who exert huge influence in
the curia, itself, like any political organization, often a hotbed of political division
and manoeuvring. Recent popes and their advisers, both clerical and lay, of the
right and of the left, have often thought they could outsmart both Fascist and
Communist dictators—as well as other politicians—to increase the influence of
the Catholic Church, before realizing that they have allied themselves with forces
well able to manipulate them for their own ends and which they are unable to
control.
Nevertheless, since the 1940s popes have made strenuous efforts to improve
Jewish–Christian relations. It was John XXIII (1958–1963) who authorized the
Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) which began to formalize the long, official
process of re-thinking the traditional role Christians ascribed to Jews as Christ-
killers. In 1965, the Catholic Herald, a British newspaper, quoted John XXIII:
We are conscious today that many, many centuries of blindness have cloaked our eyes
so that we can no longer see the beauty of Thy chosen people nor recognise in their
faces the features of our privileged brethren. We realize that the mark of Cain stands
upon our foreheads. Across the centuries our brother Abel has lain in blood which we
drew, or shed tears we caused by forgetting Thy love. Forgive us for the curse we falsely
attached to their name as Jews. Forgive us for crucifying Thee a second time in their
flesh. For we know not what we did.
In particular, with the help and guidance of the German Jesuit Cardinal Bea, John
commissioned ‘Nostra aetate’, an encyclical which denied any general Jewish
 Preface xix

culpability for Christ’s death. This encyclical—an attempt to examine more closely
the Church’s relationship with all non-Christian religions—stated:
As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation, nor
did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spread-
ing. Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does
not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues—such is the witness of the
Apostle. In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that
day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice
and ‘serve him shoulder to shoulder’ (Soph. 3: 9).
Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this
sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect
which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal
dialogues.
True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the
death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all
the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although
the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected
or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to
it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do
not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit
of Christ.
Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church,
mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons
but by the Gospel’s spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-­Semitism,
directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.

The pontificate of Montini as Paul VI (1963–1978) oversaw and implemented the

reforms of Vatican II, while his successor Karol Jozef Wojtyla as John Paul II
(1978–2005), affected by memories of his childhood and the loss of neighbours
and friends during the Holocaust, continued the process of reforming the Church’s
attitude to the Jewish people.
Why is this glance at modern papal–Jewish relations pertinent to medieval
popes? What John Paul II was concerned to contradict was the idea, which began
to circulate in Christian circles particularly in the thirteenth century and was then
repeated until the twentieth century, that Talmudic, rabbinic Judaism was a cor-
ruption and a deviation from genuine Judaism, that Jews were to be protected only
in so far as they adhered to the Old Testament—because this, it was believed,
would lead them to the New—but that they sinned when they chose the Talmud
over the New Testament. As this book will argue, that idea was indeed present in
medieval papal pronouncements because in response to increasing complaints about
the Talmud, thirteenth-century popes saw it as a hindrance and a stumbling block
to the Jews’ eventual reconciliation with the Christological message of the Gospel
and believed it was their apostolic duty to show the necessary spiritual leadership
to bring about such reconciliation. It is equally important to remember, however,
that these popes, like their eleventh- and twelfth-century predecessors, at the same
time also continued to oppose violence and the levying of populist charges against
xx Preface

Jews; they saw no contradiction between on the one hand condemning the Talmud
for blasphemy and on the other insisting on protection for Jews, believing both
activities to be part of their duty as spiritual heads of Christian society.
During John Paul II’s pontificate, committees such as the Bishops’ Committee
for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the United States Council of Catholic
Bishops sought further to clarify the Church’s teaching on Jews. And following the
teachings of St Paul, in a number of encyclicals and less formal statements, John
Paul emphasized that Jews are the people of the Old Covenant which has not and
never will be revoked by God. Addressing delegates of episcopal conferences and
other experts who met in Rome to study relations between the Church and Judaism
in March 1982, he emphasized that:
. . . the permanence of Israel is accompanied by a continuous spiritual fecundity, in the
rabbinical period, in the Middle Ages, and in modern times . . .
In particular he made statements which revised the Church’s attitude to rabbinical
Judaism. Addressing a delegation of the American Jewish Congress in Rome in
May 2003, he again stressed that God’s ‘word’ travels along two independent
paths:
The Word is given to our Jewish brothers and sisters especially in the Torah. To
Christians this word finds fulfilment in Jesus Christ.
And a statement of 12 August 2002 by the Bishops’ Committee for Ecumenical
and Interreligious Affairs of the United States Council of Catholic Bishops entitled
‘Reflections on Covenant and Mission’ affirmed:
The Church must bear witness in the world to the Good News of Christ (the Gospel)
so as to prepare the world for the fullness of the kingdom of God. However, this evan-
gelizing task no longer includes the wish to absorb the Jewish faith into Christianity
and so end the distinctive witness of Jews to God in human history. Thus, while the
Catholic Church regards the saving act of Christ as central to the process of human
salvation for all, it also acknowledges that Jews already dwell in a saving covenant with
God . . . The Catholic Church must always evangelize and will always witness to its
faith in the presence of God’s kingdom in Jesus Christ to Jews and to all other people.
In so doing, the Catholic Church respects fully the principles of religious freedom
and freedom of conscience, so that sincere individual converts from any tradition of
people, including the Jewish people, will be welcomed and accepted.
‘Reflections on Covenant and Mission’ cited Cardinal Walter Kasper, one of the
foremost more recent promoters of Jewish-Catholic relations, who clarified further
the Church’s position in stating that ‘the Church believes that Judaism . . . is salvific
for them (the Jews), because God is faithful to his promises’ and that ‘the Catholic
Church . . . acknowledges that Jews already dwell in a saving Covenant with God’.
All this has signalled a major development in the Church’s understanding of the
relationship between Christians and Jews.
So John Paul II’s statements were not so far from the ancient Pauline–Augustinian
idea which, as we shall see, remained dominant throughout the papal pronounce-
ments of the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries: Jews should not be converted
 Preface xxi

to Christianity because they are the children of the Old Testament and play a cru-
cial role as witnesses to it. Where his statements differ from his thirteenth-century
predecessors, however, is in his insistence on the positive value of rabbinical
Judaism. For in general—with a few notable exceptions such as Innocent IV
(1243–1254)—medieval popes were not interested in, and even often feared, the
influence of, rabbinical Judaism. What is different between medieval determin-
ations and those of post-Vatican II Catholicism is not the underlying theology
but the much more positive recent evaluation of Jews and Judaism which deter-
mines how that theology is to be understood and interpreted. That is what one
would and should expect from a Church that claims to believe in the develop-
ment of doctrine through the ages.
Perhaps just as important as the utterances of John Paul II have been those of
his successor Benedict XVI (2005–2013). According to Israel Singer, at the time
President of the World Jewish Congress, before becoming pope and during his
tenure as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph Alois
Ratzinger articulated the underpinnings for a rapprochement between Christianity
and Judaism. Benedict phoned the Chief Rabbi of Rome immediately after his
election and his first official act on becoming pope was a letter of affirmation to the
Jewish community of Rome. He also visited a number of synagogues, invited a rabbi
to attend a synod of bishops, and stopped the beatification process of a French
priest alleged to have made anti-semitic speeches. In his scholarly writings he
emphasized not only the intrinsic unity of the Old and New Covenants, but that
Christians can only understand the New Testament if they read it in conjunction
with the Old Testament which preceded it. In this he is again close to his eleventh-,
twelfth-, and thirteenth-century predecessors. Where he is so different is that he
has also sought to emphasize the historical Jesus and the importance of his
Jewishness. In the long history of papal–Jewish relations, it will be interesting to
see what Jorge Mario Bergoglio, now Francis I (2013– ), does next!

Rebecca Rist, 2015.

 Contents

List of Maps xxv

Abbreviations xxviii

Introduction 1
1. Jewish Ideas about the Papacy 28
2. The Papal Promise of Protection 66
3. The Impact of the Crusades 101
4. Jews and Money 136
5. Papal Claims to Authority over Judaism 164
6. The Papacy and the Place of Jews in Christian Society 207
7. The City of Rome 226
8. Papal Rhetoric: Heretics, Muslims, and Jews 246
Conclusion 266

Appendix: The Historiography 271

List of Popes Relevant to this Study 275
Bibliography 277
Primary Sources 277
Secondary Literature 283
Index 299
 List of Maps
Map 1. Europe, c.1000xxvi
Map 2. Europe, c.1250xxvii
0 150 300 450 km

0 150 300 miles

Only those political units

referred to in the text
have been labelled.

ENGLAND

POLAND

KINGDOM
OF
GERMANY

FRANCE
KINGDOM HUNGARY
OF
BURGUNDY KINGDOM
OF ITALY
LEÓN
E
ARR
NAV
CASTILE SMALL
COUNTIES PRINCIPALITY
OF BENEVENTO
PAPAL
CALIPHATE OF CORDOVA STATES
COUNTY
OF CAPUA
PRINCIPALITY
M E OF SALERNO
D I
T E BYZANTINE
R R TERRITORY
A N
E A
N
S E MUSLIM
A TERRITORY

Map 1. Europe, c.1000

0 150 300 450 km

0 150 300 miles

Only those political units

referred to in the text
have been labelled. R
DE
OR

NIC LITHUANIA
UTO
TE
ENGLAND GREAT
POLAND
LITTLE
GERMAN POLAND

BOHEMIA
MORAVIA
PRINCIPALITIES
AUSTRIA
FRANCE STYRIA
HUNGARY
Y
N
O
C
AS
G
NAVARRE
PAPAL
AL

STATES
ON
AG
TUG

ILY
CASTILE
AR

IC
GD OM OF S
POR

GRANADA M E
D I
T E
R R
K IN
A N
E A
N
S E
A

Map 2. Europe, c.1250

 Abbreviations

1 Comp. ‘Compilatio prima’ Quinque compilationes antiquae, Corpus

iuris canonici, ed. E. A. Friedberg (Leipzig, 1882), pp.1–65.
2 Comp. ‘Compilatio secunda’, Quinque compilationes antiquae, Corpus
iuris canonici, ed. E. A. Friedberg (Leipzig, 1882), pp.66–104.
3 Comp. ‘Compilatio tertia’, Quinque compilationes antiquae, Corpus
iuris canonici, ed. E. A. Friedberg (Leipzig, 1882), pp.105–34.
4 Comp. ‘Compilatio quarta’, Quinque compilationes antiquae, Corpus
iuris canonici, ed. E. A. Friedberg (Leipzig, 1882), pp.135–50.
5 Comp. ‘Compilatio quinta’, Quinque compilations antiquae, Corpus
iuris canonici, ed. E. A. Friedberg (Leipzig, 1882), pp.151–86.
Tanner, Vol. 1  Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1: Nicaea I to Lateran V,
ed. N. P. Tanner (London, 1990).
Grayzel, Vol. 1  The Church and the Jews in the Thirteenth Century: A Study of
their Relations during the Years 1198–1254 (1314), based on the
Papal Letters and the Conciliar Decrees of the Period, Vol. 1:
1198–1254, ed. S. Grayzel (New York, 1966).
Grayzel, Vol. 2  The Church and the Jews in the Thirteenth Century: A Study of
their Relations during the Years 1198–1254 (1314), based on the
Papal Letters and the Conciliar Decrees of the Period, Vol. 2:
1254–1314, ed. S. Grayzel (New York, 1989).
Simonsohn  The Apostolic See and the Jews: Documents, Vol. 1: 492–1404, ed.
S. Simonsohn (Toronto, 1988).
Gratian Gratian, ‘Concordia discordantium canonum’, Corpus iuris
canonici, ed. E. A. Friedberg, Vol. 1 (Leipzig, 1879).
Hostiensis, Summa aurea Hostiensis, Summa aurea (Venice, 1605).
Innocent IV, Apparatus Innocent IV, Apparatus super quinque libris decretalium (Turin,
1581).
Mansi  Sacrorum concilium nova et amplissima collectio, ed. G. D.
Mansi, 56 vols (Florence, Venice and Paris, 1759–1798,
1901–1927).
MGHS  Monumenta Germaniae Historica Scriptores, ed. G. Pertz
(Hanover, 1922ff.).
PL  Patrologia cursus completus, Series Latina, comp. J. P. Migne
(Paris, 1841–1864).
Potthast  Regesta pontificum Romanorum, ed. A. Potthast, 2 vols
(Berlin, 1874).
X ‘Liber extra decretalium’, Corpus iuris canonici, ed. E. A.
Friedberg, Vol. 2 (Leipzig, 1881), pp.5–928.
 Introduction

The relationship of the medieval papacy to the Jewish communities of western

Europe remains a complex and controversial subject.1 Historians have generally
regarded the years between Pope Calixtus II’s ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, the letter of protec-
tion of the Jews issued sometime between 1119 and 1124, and Pope Clement IV’s
promulgation of the encyclical ‘Turbato Corde’ in 1267—which in response to
Christians converting to Judaism called on the mendicant orders in Spain to inquire
into the activities of Jewish communities—as immensely important for Christian–
Jewish relations.2 Yet they remain divided about how to interpret specifically
papal–Jewish relations during the period. Some have argued that we must look
to the First Crusade of 1096 and the ensuing massacres of Jewish communities as
altering forever a generally peaceful co-existence which had marked Christian–Jewish

1  Just as the study of beliefs about heresy and heretics remains a major subject of interest for medi-
evalists, Christian attitudes towards and treatment of Jews in Europe also continue to be an important
and extremely popular topic. Among others, Peter Browe, and, more recently, scholars such as Dahan,
Chazan, J. Cohen, M. R. Cohen, Grayzel, Haverkamp, Jordan, and Stow have all contributed to our
understanding of the legal and social status of Jews living in Christian Europe during the High Middle
Ages. See Peter Browe, Die Judenmission im Mittelalter und die Päpste (Rome, 1942); Robert Chazan,
Daggers of Faith: Thirteenth-Century Christian Missionizing and Jewish Response (Berkeley, 1989);
Robert Chazan, Medieval Stereotypes and Modern Anti-Semitism (Berkeley, 1997); Jeremy Cohen,
‘Recent Historiography on the Medieval Church and the Decline of Medieval Jewry’, in Popes, Teachers
and Canon Law in the Middle Ages, ed. J. Sweeney, S. Chodorow (Ithaca, 1989), pp.251–62; Jeremy
Cohen, The Friars and the Jews: the Evolution of Medieval Anti-Judaism (Ithaca, 1982); Mark Cohen,
Under Crescent and Cross: the Jews in the Middle Ages (Princeton, Oxford, 1994); Gilbert Dahan, Les
Intellectuels chrétiens et les Juifs au moyen âge (Paris, 1990); Gilbert Dahan, La Polémique chrétienne
contre le Judaisme au moyen âge (Paris, 1991); Alfred Haverkamp, Juden und Christen zur Zeit der
Kreuzzüge, Vorträge und Forschungen 47, Konstanzer Arbeitskreis für mittelaltische Geschichte
(Sigmaringen, 1999); William Chester Jordan, The French Monarchy and the Jews: from Philip Augustus
to the Last of the Capetians (Philadelphia, 1989); Kenneth Stow, Alienated Minority: the Jews and
Medieval Latin Europe (Cambridge, Mass., London, 1992); Kenneth Stow, ‘Papal and Royal Attitudes
toward Jewish Lending in the Thirteenth Century’, Association for Jewish Studies Review 6 (1981),
161–84; Kenneth Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and Papal Sovereignty: Jewish Perceptions of the Papacy
and Papal Policy in the High Middle Ages (Cincinnati, 1984); Kenneth Stow, ‘The Papacy and the Jews,
Catholic Reformation and Beyond’, Jewish History 6 (1992), 257–79. Also seminal has been the work
of Shlomo Simonsohn; see, for example, Shlomo Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History
(Toronto, 1991).
2  ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ became the standard letter of protection popes issued for the Jews and came to be
known as the ‘Constitutio pro Iudaeis’. See Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.9; Calixtus II, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (2 February
1119–14 February 1124), Simonsohn, p.44; Clement IV, ‘Turbato corde audivimus’ (27 July 1267),
Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.102–4; Simonsohn, pp.236–7; Solomon Grayzel, ‘Popes, Jews and Inquisition from
“Sicut” to “Turbato”’, in Essays on the Occasion of the Seventieth Anniversary of the Dropsie University,
ed. A. Katsh, L. Nemoy (Philadelphia, 1979), pp.151–88. Significant additions to the text of the
‘Sicut Iudaeis’ were made by both Innocent III and Innocent IV.
2 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

relations earlier in the eleventh century;3 others that during the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries we see a gradual decline in the protection that popes were willing to
afford the Jews and that, despite continuing to pay lip service to this as an ideal, by
the second half of the thirteenth century they had adopted a more suspicious and
aggressive stance.4 Yet others argue that that there was no great change during the
period and when from time to time, in particular in the thirteenth century, popes
advocated more Jewish segregation, they did so on the basis of much earlier papal
pronouncements, canon law, and conciliar legislation.5

T he C oncept of a ‘ Papal P olicy ’

A significant problem with all three interpretations is that they often depend
on the concept of an overarching ‘papal policy’ towards the Jews.6 Hence, the
papacy either changed its position dramatically after the First Crusade, or by
the second half of the thirteenth century it had markedly done so, or it did not
change its stance at all throughout the High Middle Ages. In other words his-
torians have employed the phrase empirically—either because they have—quite
understandably—tried to discern unity behind the numerous and various papal
demands and pronouncements, or—perhaps less laudably—for convenience’s sake
in an attempt to simplify discussion of papal–Jewish relations.7 For example, in

3 See, for example, Solomon Grayzel, ‘The Papal Bull “Sicut Judeis”’, in Studies and Essays in
Honour of Abraham A. Neuman, ed. J. Cohen (Leiden, 1962), p.250; Hans Liebeschütz, ‘Relations
between Jews and Christians in the Middle Ages’, Journal of Jewish Studies 16/1–2 (1965), 37; Israel
Levi, ‘Les Juifs de France du Milieu du IXe siècle aux croisades’, Revue des Études Juives 52 (1906),
161–8; Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and Papal Sovereignty, pp.17–18; John Gilchrist, ‘The Perception
of the Jews in the Canon Law in the Period of the First Two Crusades’, Jewish History 3, Part 1 (1988),
9; John Watt, ‘The Crusades and the Persecution of the Jews’, in The Medieval World, ed. P. Linehan,
J. Nelson (London, New York, 2001), p.146. See also the discussion in Kenneth Stow, ‘The Church
and the Jews: St Paul to Pius IX’, in Popes, Church and Jews in the Middle Ages: Confrontation and
Response, ed. K. Stow (Aldershot, 2007), pp.4–6. For opposition to this view see, for example, Robert
Chazan, European Jewry and the First Crusade (Berkeley, Los Angeles, 1987), pp.197–210, and espe-
cially p.199: ‘I would argue that such a view of 1096 as a turning point, first of all is not supported by
the data, and, second, reflects a seriously flawed understanding of the historical process’. For a more
nuanced interpretation of this view of the importance of the First Crusade, see Kenneth Stow,
‘Conversion, Apostasy and Apprehensiveness: Emich of Flonheim and the Fear of Jews in the Twelfth
Century’, Speculum: A Journal of Medieval Studies 76/4 (2001), 929: ‘The old question whether the
crusades were a watershed in Jewish–Christian medieval relations is too all-embracing to receive a
properly rigorous historical answer. But that the crusades were a psychological divide marking the
elimination of trust seems undeniable for both Jews and Christians’ and 930: ‘put otherwise, the reac-
tion of Christians to the events of 1096 added a major spark to the conflagration of animus directed
so strongly against Jews during the twelfth century’.
4  See, for example, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.12; Grayzel, ‘Popes, Jews and Inquisition from “Sicut” to
“Turbato”’, p.151; Jeremy Cohen, Living Letters of the Law: Ideas of the Jew in Medieval Christianity
(Berkeley, 1999), p.317; Cohen, The Friars and the Jews, pp.242–64.
5  See, for example, Stow, ‘The Church and the Jews: St Paul to Pius IX’, p.22.
6  No recent historian has questioned the use and wider implications of the phrase ‘papal policy’
when discussing the attitudes of medieval popes towards Jews.
7  There are many examples over a long period of scholarship of the use of this phrase in a more or
less general or nuanced way; see, for example, Cecil Roth, ‘The Popes and the Jews’, Church Quarterly
Review 123 (1936/7), 75–91; Cecil Roth, The History of the Jews in Italy (Philadelphia, 1946), p.104;
 Introduction 3

the 1940s the renowned Hebrew scholar Irving Agus argued that during the
second half of the thirteenth century:
the policy of degradation and humiliation of the Jew, that had been so relentlessly
pursued by the Church for a thousand years, also received powerful support from the
highest authorities of the state, and thus fully obtained its objectives . . . The Jew did
not passively submit to this policy of complete humiliation.8
Or, in his ground-breaking work of the 1960s The Church and the Jews in the
Thirteenth Century, Solomon Grayzel—perhaps proposing the most striking example
of the idea of a consistent papal agenda—argued that there was a deliberate ‘policy of
degradation’,9 and described:
the strenuous efforts which the Church was making in the direction of eliminating the
Jew from Society. Not the safety of the individual Christian, but rather the pursuit of
a fundamental Church policy is here involved, the policy, namely that Jewish life must
be such as to prove unmistakably that God had spurned Judaism.10
Grayzel thereby conveyed the impression that, instead of being sensitive to the con-
cerns of both Christians and Jews which developed and changed over time, throughout
the High Middle Ages popes pursued a uniform, consistent, and un-altering agenda
as part of a particular and carefully planned papal programme towards the Jews.
Such an impression is at best misleading. First, it encourages gross exaggeration
of papal interest in the Jewish communities of medieval Europe, and in particular of
the importance of such communities to popes.11 Secondly, it promotes an abstract
conception of the papacy, rather than an examination of particular pontiffs,

p.112; George La Piana, ‘The Church and the Jews’, Historia Judaica 11 (1949), 117; 120; 125; 131;
142; Hans Liebeschütz, ‘Judaism and Jewry in the Social Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas’, Journal of
Jewish Studies 13/1–4 (1962), 64; Solomon Grayzel, ‘Jews and the Ecumenical Councils’, in The
Seventy-Fifth Anniversary Volume of the Jewish Quarterly Review, ed. A. A. Neuman and S. Zeitlin
(1967), 309; Kenneth Stow, ‘The Church and the Jews: from St Paul to Paul IV’, Bibliographical Essays
in Medieval Jewish Studies (New York, 1976), pp.109–65; Kenneth Stow, ‘Hatred of the Jews or Love
of the Church: Papal Policy Toward the Jews in the Middle Ages’, Antisemitism through the Ages
(Jerusalem, 1980), pp.71–89; Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and Papal Sovereignty, passim. The phrases
‘Church policy’, ‘policies of the Church’ and ‘Jewish policy’ are also frequently used, again with more
or less nuance; see Grayzel, ‘The Papal Bull “Sicut Iudeis”’, p.257; Liebeschütz, ‘Judaism and Jewry in
the Social Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas’, 64; Solomon Grayzel, ‘The Talmud and the Medieval
Papacy’, in Essays in Honour of Solomon B. Freehof, ed. W. Jacob et al. (Pittsburgh, 1964), p.234; Salo
Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews: Late Middle Ages and Era of European Expansion,
1200–1650, Vol. 9: Under Church and Empire, 2nd edn (New York, London, 1965), pp.3–54; Church,
State and Jew in the Middle Ages, ed. R. Chazan (New York, 1980), p.8; Cohen, ‘Recent Historiography
on the Medieval Church and the Decline of European Jewry’, p.262; Cohen, Living Letters of the Law,
pp.319–21; Cohen, The Friars and the Jews, p.244; Stow, ‘The Church and the Jews: St Paul to Pius
IX’, pp.1–70, especially pp.1–55.
8  Irving Agus, Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg. His Life and his Works as Sources for the Religious, Legal,
and Social History of the Jews of Germany in the Thirteenth Century (Philadelphia, 1947), Vol. 1, p.xl.
9  Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.41–75, passim and especially p.41.
10  Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.41.
11  The phrase ‘royal policy’ is also frequently used to describe the attitudes of European monarchs
to the Jews. See for example, Jordan, The French Monarchy and the Jews, passim. In this context the
phrase is useful because kings and their magnates had ownership rights over Jews who lived in their
territories. This was not the case with popes, except in the papal states.
4 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

i­ndividuals with concerns and interests, as they made pronouncements in the

­context of competing influences. Thirdly it underestimates the importance of
the changing ideas of the Christian faithful to whom papal correspondence was
addressed, at a time when the understanding of what it meant to be ‘Christian’ or
‘Jewish’ was itself still developing. Indeed popes did not pursue an overriding
‘policy’ towards Jews, let alone a ‘policy of degradation’. Rather, most papal state-
ments were responses to secular and religious authorities from a wide variety of
cultures and traditions as divergent as Spain, where there was a large Jewish popu-
lation, to the Baltic where there was minimal contact with Judaism. This is not
unusual or surprising since most papal letters during the High Middle Ages were
issued in response to petitioners, rather than as papal initiatives. Furthermore, in
their correspondence about heretics, popes were often far removed both physically
and emotionally from the specific problems on which they were called on to pro-
nounce. They frequently came to decisions by assuming the facts of a case to be as
stated by the petitioners and then asking legates or the local clergy to verify them.
Generally they were far more competent at expounding theological principles than
dealing with practicalities.
In a further attempt to simplify papal attitudes, some historians have divided
papal pronouncements into those which they believe strike a more ‘humanitarian
note’ and those issued out of ‘reasons of piety’.12 There is considerable danger
in  making such anachronistic post-enlightenment distinctions. Popes were the
product, as well as the formers, of the society around them. The idea of ‘humani-
tarian’ as distinct from ‘religious’ reasons would not have occurred to them, nor—
it is probable—to anyone else of the time. Furthermore, it is important not to
judge these popes by our own criteria for tolerance—which are produced by and
applicable to a very different social order. Medieval popes believed it was their duty
to ensure the collective good of the Catholic Church and that they had a funda-
mental loyalty, not to a modern theory of human rights, but to truth itself, which
they believed was revealed through Christianity. We can go so far as to say that
certain aspects of medieval society were tolerant, as long as we do not believe that
one form of tolerance—that of the post-modern West—is the gold standard by
which all forms of tolerance must be judged.13
So when popes condemned attacks on the Jews they were urging Christians not
to perpetrate violence against a people—however misguided they believed them to
be—whom God had originally chosen as His own. By contrast, they had no
qualms about calling for crusades against Muslims who attacked Christian lands,
or against heretics whom they wished to bring back to the Christian faith.14 Hence
it is no surprise to find that Pope Alexander II (1061–1073) specifically distin-
guished as just, wars waged against Muslims who attacked Christians and Christian
territory in Spain, and as unjust, violence against Jews whom Divine Mercy had

12  For the genesis of this distinction, see Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.11–12.
13  I am most grateful here to Ian Christopher Levy for his paper ‘Tolerance and Freedom in the Age
of the Inquisition’ (December 2013) given at the conference ‘Christianity and Freedom: Historical
and Contemporary Perspectives’, 12–14 December 2013, Rome, Italy.
14  John Hood, Aquinas and the Jews (Philadelphia, 1995), p.110.
 Introduction 5

saved and who everywhere were prepared to serve.15 Such attitudes, whether towards
Muslims or Jews, appear culpably wanting to modern sensibilities, and we may
argue that popes did not do enough to protect Jewish communities in the High
Middle Ages. Nevertheless, as we shall discover, in terms of a society where anti-
Judaism was rife, many papal pronouncements about the Jews appear unusually
moderate and even strikingly positive.16
Thus, the picture that emerges of the relationship between popes and the Jewish
communities of medieval Europe is much more complex than the phrase ‘papal
policy’ allows. To begin with—an important point which some recent scholars
have often failed sufficiently to emphasize—only a very small proportion of the vast
correspondence popes addressed to the Christian faithful refers to Jews or Judaism.17
How to continue to guarantee basic rights for European Jewry, long since enshrined
in Roman Law;18 how to protect Jews from outbreaks of hostility, whether from
marauding crusaders or from charges of ritual murder, host-desecration, or blood
libel;19 how at the same time to combat the perceived danger to Christians of social
mingling with Jews and intellectual contact with Judaism: these could become life-
and-death issues for the Jewish communities. Yet they were of limited relevance to
papal concern with ensuring the well-being of the papacy through the mainten-
ance and expansion of the papal states, providing leadership to the episcopacy,
developing pastoral care, formulating doctrine and canon law, and engaging in
political wheeling and dealing with kings and emperors to augment the temporal
and so safeguard the spiritual power of the papacy at the centre of Christian life.20
Such limited interest in the Jews was not unique to popes; it was also reflected
in the writings of contemporary theologians.21 Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), the
foremost intellectual of his age, declared in the Summa Theologica that Jews must
be altogether prevented from exacting usury, but were nevertheless to be tolerated
15  Alexander II’s letter was intended to signal the papacy’s unreserved protection of the Jews, not to
threaten that the Church would wage war on the Jews if, like the Muslims, they began to oppose
Christian rule. See Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and Papal Sovereignty, p.13.
16  Grayzel acknowledged this: ‘It is not difficult to imagine what the fate of the Jews would have
been had not the popes made it a part of Church policy to guarantee the Jews life, and rights of reli-
gious observance’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.81.
17  From what survives we can roughly estimate that the number of papal letters concerned with the
Jews in the twelfth and thirteenth century was not large. 237 letters are recorded in Simonsohn.
According to Grayzel only a very small percentage of surviving papal letters from the first half of the
thirteenth century referred to Jews: thirty-two of Innocent III, twenty-four of Honorius III, forty-six
of Gregory IX, and thirty-two of Innocent IV. In Simonsohn the numbers are respectively: twenty-
nine, twenty-five, forty-nine and thirty-five. And of these, as we shall see, the number concerned with
Jews in the specific context of crusades, both ‘internal’ and to the Near East, was even smaller. See
Grayzel Vol. 1, pp.1–83, passim, for the exact number.
18 Edward Synan, The Popes and the Jews in the Middle Ages (New York, London, 1965),
pp.17–30.
19  By ‘blood libel’ I mean specifically the notion that Jews murdered Christians and consumed
their blood for magical or ritual purposes, sometimes referred to by scholars as ‘ritual cannibalism’; see
Robert Stacey, ‘From Ritual Crucifixion to Host Desecration: Jews and the Body of Christ’, Jewish
History 12/1 (1998), 14 and especially footnote 23.
20  Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.82.
21  For example, the number of texts pertaining to the Jews in the ‘Liber extra decretalium’ (1234)
of Gregory IX, commissioned by Raymond of Peñafort, is small compared to many other topics.
See X.5.6, cols 771–8.
6 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

and allowed to worship freely. In advocating comparative toleration even he, there-
fore, did little more than re-assert ancient patristic teaching and contemporary
canon law about the Jews’ proper place in Christian society.22 By contrast, his
Franciscan contemporary Duns Scotus (c.1266–1308) argued, against the Augustinian
tradition, that force should be used to convert Jews and even advocated shutting
up a small group of Jews on a remote island in order to fulfil the requirement that
the Remnant be saved.23

Pau line and Patristic I nflu ences

When they did pronounce on the Jews, popes relied on biblical and patristic prece-
dent to provide their statements with a theological framework. The Church father
St Jerome (c.347–420) himself had known of and drew on rabbinical literature.24
Historians have frequently, but not always accurately, discussed the influence of
Pauline and Augustinian theology on papal pronouncements. In Romans 11 St Paul
had argued that the Jews would be reconciled to the Christian faith at the end of
days.25 He taught that then Israel would be saved and that the Jews’ conversion en
masse would signal the dawn of a new era predicted by the prophets of the Old
Testament.26 Paul himself never committed Jews to a subservient role in society;
even had he wanted to, he was writing in Romans for a mixed Christian community

22  For Aquinas on disbelief, heresy, and apostasy, see Summa Theologiae, ed. T. Gilby (London,
1975), Vol. 32, pp.38–78; pp.80–94; pp.96–102. For Aquinas on usury (under ‘On Almsgiving’,
pp.236–72), see Vol. 34 (London, 1975), pp.260–2. For English translations, see The Summa
Theologica of St Thomas Aquinas, translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Part 2,
Second Part, QQI-XLVI (London, 1916), pp.120–63 and The Summa Theologica of St Thomas
Aquinas, translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Part 2, Second Part, QQXLVII-
LXXIX (London, 1929), pp.329–41. See also Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.10; Liebeschütz, ‘Judaism and Jewry
in the Social Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas’, 80; Hood, Aquinas and the Jews, p.106; p.109; p.111.
23 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.29; p.255.
24 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.295.
25 Romans 11: 11–12, Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, Vol. 2, 2nd edn, ed. R. Weber
(Stuttgart, 1975): ‘ . . . dico ergo numquid sic offenderunt ut caderent absit sed illorum delicto salus
gentibus ut illos aemulentur quod si delictum illorum divitiae sunt mundi et deminutio eorum divi-
tiae gentium quanto magis plenitude eorum . . . ’; for an accurate translation from the Vulgate, see The
Holy Bible Translated from the Latin Vulgate; The Old Testament First Published by the English College at
Douay, A.D. 1609; and The New Testament First Published by the English College at Rheims, A.D. 1582
(Belfast, 1858): ‘ . . . I say then have they so stumbled that they should fall? God forbid. But by their
offence, salvation has come to the gentiles, that they may be emulous of them. Now if the offence of
them be the riches of the world, and the diminution of them, the inches of the gentiles; how much
more the fullness of them? . . . ’.
26  Romans 11: 25–6, Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, Vol. 2, ed. Weber: ‘ . . . quia caecitas ex
parte contigit in Israhel donec plenitude gentium intraret et sic omnis Israhel salvus fieret . . . ’; see The
Holy Bible Translated from the Latin Vulgate: ‘ . . . that blindness in part has happened in Israel, until the
fullness of the gentiles should come in. And so all Israel should be saved . . . ’; see Stow, ‘The Church
and the Jews: St Paul to Pius IX’, p.3. See also Romans 11: 26–7, Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versio-
nem, Vol. 2, ed. Weber: ‘ . . . sicut scriptum est veniet ex Sion qui eripiat avertet impietates ab Iacob et
hoc illis a me testamentum cum abstulero peccata eorum . . . ’; see The Holy Bible Translated from the
Latin Vulgate: ‘ . . . as it is written: “there shall come out of Sion, he that shall deliver, and shall turn
away ungodliness from Jacob”. And this is to them my covenant: when I shall take away their sins . . . ’.
 Introduction 7

of Jews and gentiles with no power to make such prescriptions.27 But medieval
popes had been conditioned by centuries of theological and canonical tradition to
read him through an Augustinian lens—as advocating Jewish subservience.
An important distinction must therefore be made between Paul’s words and
Augustine’s expansion of the Pauline argument.28 According to St Augustine, the
Jews play a special role because they are a living, albeit unwitting, testimony to the
truth of Christianity.29 In the De civitate Dei Augustine, citing Psalms 59: 12 ‘Kill
them not, lest my people forget’, argued that, as (unknowing) witnesses to Christ
whom God had spared, the Jews must be protected; God had not slain them nor
allowed the knowledge that they were Jews to be lost.30 Since their acceptance of
the Old Testament was disinterested testimony to the truth and historical basis
of biblical Christological prophecy, Jews were a living witness to the divine origins of
Scripture.31 As witnesses they had been granted a specific role in the divine plan for
human society, which was in its last days and awaiting the Final Judgement; and
their existence provided a useful set of arguments for preaching Christianity to
pagans.32 Yet their suffering as a result of the destruction of the Temple and their
dispersion over Europe and the Near East also showed that God had punished
them for their rejection of Christ; their plight was testimony to the error of Judaism
and the truth of Christianity.33 Citing Genesis 25: 23: ‘the elder shall serve the
younger’, Paul had argued that God had instituted a new covenant for Christians
to replace the old Jewish covenant. Augustine interpreted that passage to mean that
whereas Grace saved Christians who lived by faith, living by the Torah had led the
Jews to perdition.34 He saw the Jews rhetorically as a personification of carnality
and sin and so a constant warning to Christians that evil is a condition from which
man in this present life can never fully escape.35

27  Pace, Stow: ‘Jews fulfilled in their daily lives the emblematic and subservient role first ordained
for them by Paul’ (my italics), in Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and Papal Sovereignty, p.2.
28  Stow, ‘The Church and the Jews: from St Paul to Paul IV’, p.119.
29  There is a great deal of recent literature on this subject. See, for example, Dahan, La Polémique
chrétienne contre le Judaisme, p.28; David Berger, ‘Mission to the Jews and Jewish-Christian Contacts
in the Polemical Literature of the High Middle Ages’, American Historical Review 91/3 (1986), 576;
see especially Cohen, Under Crescent and Cross, p.37.
30  For a relatively recent good edition, see St Augustine, De civitate Dei 2, ed. B. Dombart, A. Kalb
(Stuttgart 1981), Bk 18, Ch. 46, p.329. See Stow, Alienated Minority, p.18; Cohen, Living Letters of
the Law, pp.30–44.
31  St Augustine, Adversos Iudaeos, The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 27, ed. R. Deferrari (New York,
1955), pp.391–414; De civitate Dei 1, ed. Dombart, Kalb, Bk 4, Ch. 34, pp.188–9; Vol. 2, Bk 18, Ch.
46, pp.328–9. See Cohen, The Friars and the Jews, p.20.
32 St Augustine, Adversus Iudaeos, ed. Deferrari, pp.391–414, passim; De civitate Dei 1, ed.
Dombart, Kalb, Bk 4, Ch. 34, pp.188–9; Vol. 2, Bk 18, Ch. 46, pp.328–9. For the Jews as providing
useful arguments for preaching against Manichaean heretics (who rejected the Old Testament) and
Donatists, see also Augustine on the Jews in ‘Contra Faustum Manichaeum’, in Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers, Series 1, Vol. 4 (Grand Rapids, MI, 1974), pp.113–24. See Paula Fredriksen, Augustine and
the Jews. A Christian Defence of Jews and Judaism (New York, 2008), pp.290–352.
33  St Augustine, De civitate Dei 1, ed. Dombart, Kalb, Bk 4, Ch. 34, pp.188–9; Vol. 2, Bk 18,
Ch. 46, pp.328–9. See Chazan, Daggers of Faith. pp.10–11.
34 St Augustine, Adversus Iudaeos, ed. Deferrari, Ch. 5, p.398; Ch. 7, pp.402–13. See Stow,
Alienated Minority, p.10.
35  St Augustine, Adversus Iudaeos, ed. Deferrari, pp.391–414; Cohen, Living Letters of the Law,
p.325; Stow, Alienated Minority, p.20.
8 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

Medieval interpretations of Pauline views about the Jews, heavily influenced by

patristic writing, and in particular by St Augustine, formed the theological frame-
work within which popes composed their letters. Papal correspondence reiterated
these concepts, as befitted the spiritual authority of the papacy. Monarchs and
emperors might—and frequently did—employ theological rhetoric to justify their
activities; yet popes by reason of their office spoke with special authority on behalf
of the whole Christian faithful. At the end of days the Remnant of the Jews would
be reconciled with Christianity.36 Meanwhile, since Jews were blind to the Truth,
their position in society must reflect the servile status of Judaism.37 Augustine’s
writing about the Jews was in general much more tempered than that of another
Father of the Church—John Chrysostom (c.349–407), Patriarch of Constantinople.38
Yet in contrast with the works of Augustine, there is no evidence that John
Chrysostom’s Contra Iudaeos—eight sermons aimed at Judaizing Christians in
fourth-century Antioch—had any influence on papal correspondence during the
High Middle Ages.39 Historians have cited these sermons as an example of negative
rhetoric about Jews and Judaism circulating in this period, which might lead us to
believe that they had a direct influence on papal thought.40 It is certain that imme-
diately after his death Chrysostom became a universally acknowledged theological
authority in the West.41 But it was not until the twelfth century that Burgundio of Pisa
( –1193) translated many of his works, including his commentary on Genesis, and
36  For discussion of the idea of a remnant of the Jews in both the Old and New Testament see, for
example, Vocabulary of the Bible, ed. J.-J. von Allmen (London, 1958), pp.354–7; Supplement
Dictionnaire de la Bible ‘Reste d’Israel’, Fascicle 55 (1981), cols 414–37.
37 See Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.41. Grayzel argues that the Church’s ‘policy’ was to prove unmistakably that
God had spurned Judaism. I would suggest rather that papal pronouncements reflected this ancient
idea. It was the canonists who then gathered together and sought to make sense of a whole range of
papal pronouncements about the Jews; see for example, X.5.6, cols 771–8.
38 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, pp.289–92.
39  John Chrysostom, ‘Contra Judaeos et Gentiles quod Christus sit Deus’, PL 48, cols 813–88; ‘In
libros octo contra Iudaeos Monitum’, PL 48, cols 839–42; ‘Adversus Iudaeos Orationes’, PL 48, cols
843–942; translated in St John Chrysostom, Contra Iudaeos, The Fathers of the Church, ed. B. Dombart,
A. Kalb, Vol. 68 (Washington D.C, 1977). See Lukyn Williams, Adversus Iudaeos: A Bird’s Eye View of
Christian Apologiae until the Renaissance (Cambridge, 1935), pp.132–40; Chrysostomus Baur, John
Chrysostom and His Time. Vol. 1: Antioch, trans. M. Gonzaga (London, 1959), pp.330–6; John Kelly,
Golden Mouth. The Story of John Chrysostom—Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop (London, 1995), pp.62–6;
Wendy Mayer, Pauline Allen, John Chrysostom (London, New York, 2000), pp.55–8. For a summary
of Chrysostom’s influence, see Robert Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews. Rhetoric and Reality in the
Late Fourth Century (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 1983), pp.161–4.
40  For negative rhetoric of John Chrysostom about the Jews see, for example, Kenneth Stow, Jewish
Dogs: An Image and Its Interpreters. Continuity in the Catholic Jewish Encounter (Stanford, California,
2006), p.8; p.13. For the idea that such rhetoric might have had an influence on papal thought, see
Stow, ‘The Church and the Jews: St Paul to Pius IX’, pp.9–10, especially at p.10: ‘In 774, Pope
Stephen IV, citing Matthew chapter 15, followed John Chrysostom and likened Jews to dogs’ (my
italics); Stow also suggests that the clergy of Visigothic Spain who attended the Fourth Toledan
Council ‘spoke in unambivalent terms reminiscent of John Chrysostom’ (my italics), see p.14.
41  In the ninth century Alcuin of York wrote a commentary on Hebrews based almost entirely on
Chrysostom; Hincmar of Rheims frequently refers to him in his treatise De praedestinatione. In the
tenth century Rathier of Verona drew inspiration from his teachings on wealth and poverty. See
Chrysostomus Baur, John Chrysostom and His Time. Vol. 2: Constantinople, trans. M. Gonzaga
(London, Glasgow, 1960), pp.469–75; Walter Berschin, Greek Letters and the Latin Middle Ages: from
Jerome to Nicholas of Cusa, trans. J. Frakes (Washington D.C., 1988), p.55; p.64; pp.77–8; p.83;
p.223; pp.227–30; Kelly, Golden Mouth, pp.286–90. I am grateful to Marcus Plested’s paper
 Introduction 9

brought translations of his commentary on the Gospel of John to the Third Lateran
Council (1179). Certainly in the thirteenth century Chrysostom’s reputation was
firmly established in western Europe; both Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure
(1221–1274) frequently cite Burgundio’s translation of his commentary on the
Gospel of Matthew.42 Nevertheless, there is no evidence that Chrysostom’s sermons
about the Jews had yet been translated, let alone that they were popular at the
papal curia.43 Only much later, in the seventeenth century, with the first printed
books and publication of the whole corpus of Chrysostom’s works, did his Contra
Iudaeos become well known in the West.44
Descriptions of Jews as perfidious, blind, stubborn, of their synagogues as
houses of ill-repute, did not therefore stem in our period from the writings of
Chrysostom; rather they were common currency in the Christian polemic of Peter
the Venerable, Peter the Chanter, Peter of Blois, Alain of Lille, and many others.45
To some extent papal rhetoric reflected such contemporary works. Yet, in contrast
to polemic portraying Jews as not only misguided but a danger to Christian souls,
papal correspondence throughout the twelfth and thirteenth century makes clear
distinctions between heretics, Muslims, and Jews. Only the latter hold a special
place in God’s plan of salvation in their role as witnesses and therefore merit par-
ticular protection. It appears that contemporary and traditional Christian polemic
against Judaism had only limited influence on papal attitudes towards Jews in the
High Middle Ages.

‘Symposium in Honour of the 1600th Anniversary of St John Chrysostom held under the Aegis of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate’ (Constantinople, 13–18 September 2007), p.4.
42  Chrysostomus Baur, Saint Jean Chrysostome et ses oevres dans l’histoire litteraire (Louvain, Paris,
1907), pp.60–81; Plested, ‘Symposium in Honour of the 1600th Anniversary of St John Chrysostom’,
pp.4–6.
43  There are no records of the Contra Iudeaos in the papal libraries of Boniface VIII or in Avignon.
For works of Chrysostom which popes possessed during the Central and later Middle Ages, see
Frederick Ehrle, Historia Bibliothecae Romanorum Pontificum tum Bonifatianae tum Avenionensis, Vol. 1
(Rome, 1890), p.47; p.52; pp.55–6; p.58; Daniel Williman, Bibliothèques Ecclésiastiques au Temps de
la Papauté d’Avignon, Vol. 1 (Paris, 1980), p.24; p.145; p.148; p.178; p.280; Vol. 2 (Paris, 1980),
p.142; p.281; p.293; p.403.
44  The complete works of Chrysostom were first edited and published by Sir Henry Savile in
England in 1612. See Baur, Saint Jean Chrysostome et ses oevres dans l’historie litteraire, pp.82–223;
Plested, ‘Symposium in Honour of the 1600th Anniversary of St John Chrysostom’, pp.8–10. For
Chrysostom’s works in early printed books in England, see Medieval Libraries of Great Britain. A List
of Surviving Books, ed. N. Ker, 2nd edn A. Watson (London, 1987), pp.8–9; p.10; p.22; p.24; p.38.
45  For Peter the Chanter on the Jews, see ‘Verbum Abbreviatum’, PL 205, cols 21–554; Peter the
Venerable, Adversus Iudeorum inveteratam duritiem, ed. Y. Friedman, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio
Mediaevalis 58 (Turnhout, 1985), passim; Peter of Blois, ‘Contra Perfidiam Judaeorum’, PL 207, cols
825–70; Alain of Lille, ‘Contra Haereticos Libri Quatuor’, PL 210, cols 305–430. See Gillian Evans,
Alan of Lille. The Frontiers of Theology in the Later Twelfth Century (Cambridge, 1983), pp.102–32. For
other examples of eleventh-, twelfth-, and thirteenth-century works about the Jews see, for example,
Ralph Glaber on the destruction of the temple and the Jews in PL 142, cols 611–98; Peter Damian on
the Jews in ‘Liber Primus’, PL 144, cols 205–54, especially cols 233–4; col. 423; Thomas Chobham
on heretics and Jews in Thomae de Chobham. Summa Confessorum, ed. F. Broomfield (Louvain, Paris,
1968), p.422; pp.433–5; and on usury, see pp.504–18; Caesar of Heisterbach on heretics and Jews in
Dialogus Miraculorum, ed. J. Strange (Cologne, Bonn, Brussels, 1851), Vol. 1 p.106; p.206, p.252;
Vol. 2, p.206, pp.260–4; Humbert of Romans on the eventual salvation of the Jews in Mansi, Vol. 24,
cols 115–16.
10 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

F rom G regory the G reat to the

E leventh C ent u ry

To understand the development of papal attitudes towards the Jews in the High
Middle Ages it is necessary to look back to a much earlier period. Analysis of papal
correspondence from the pontificate of Gregory I the Great (590–604) up to the
eleventh century reveals that when the Jews became a subject of interest it was in
reaction to immediate problems brought to a particular pope’s attention. Among
Gregory’s surviving letters, these concern the status of existing—as distinct from
new—synagogues, of willing versus forced baptism of converts, as well as prohib-
itions on Jews from owning Christian slaves, and on money transactions between
Christians and Jews.46 The overall aim was twofold: to regulate Christian–Jewish
interaction and to safeguard rights enshrined in the fifth-century Theodosian Code
which guaranteed that Jews might continue to practise their religion undisturbed,
but also insisted on the inferior status of Judaism as the incomplete forerunner of
Christianity. Also most influential on papal correspondence was the sixth-century
Code of Justinian and its legislation concerning Jews which sought to protect, but
also to restrict, the rights of Jewish communities in western Europe.
Such themes can be found in the small number of letters about Jews issued both
by Gregory himself and by his successors—Stephen III (768–772), Adrian I
(772–795), Nicholas I (858–867), and Leo VII (936–939)—all reacting either to
Christian queries about Jewish status and practice or to Jewish complaints of ill-
treatment.47 The range of issues remained small: forced baptism, synagogues, Jews
and Christian slaves, commercial dealings between Christians and Jews, the
well-being of Jewish converts to Christianity. Thus, Jews were not to be forcibly
baptized; they were allowed to maintain already-established synagogues but not
build new ones; they must not employ Christians; they were to be treated fairly in
business transactions; they were to be aided financially following conversion.

Papal C orrespondence in the H igh M iddle A ges

Although the eleventh century witnessed periodic persecutions of Jewish com­

munities, letters concerned with Jews represent only a tiny percentage of papal
correspondence.48 At the beginning of the century Jews appealed to Sergius IV
46  For the letters of Gregory I, see Simonsohn, pp.3–24, passim. For a detailed discussion of the
letters of Gregory I, see Solomon Katz, ‘Pope Gregory the Great and the Jews’, Jewish Quarterly Review
24/2 (1933), 113–36; Solomon Grayzel, ‘Pope Alexander III and the Jews’, in Salo W. Baron Jubilee
Volume (Jerusalem, New York, 1975), pp.555–6. The issue of forced baptism continued well into the
early modern period; see, for example, the work of Cecil Roth, ‘Forced Baptism in Italy: A Contribution
to the History of Jewish Persecution’, Jewish Quarterly Review, new series, 27 (1936–7), 117–36.
47  Grayzel, ‘Pope Alexander III and the Jews’, p.556. For an example of a description of Jewish
communities in the early Middle Ages (ninth century), see Agobard of Lyons, Epistolae Karolini Aevi,
Tome 3, ed. E. Dümmler (Berlin, 1899), pp.164–201.
48  For example, in 1010 and 1063 there were outbreaks of violence against Jews; see Liebeschütz,
‘Relations between Jews and Christians in the Middle Ages’, 37. For expulsions of Jews in 1012, see
‘Annales Quedlinburgensis’, MGHS, Vol. 3, p.81. For accounts of forced baptism of Jews, see ‘The
 Introduction 11

(1009–1012) and received a promise of protection following a rumour that they

had persuaded Muslims to destroy the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.49
So it is not surprising that, correspondingly, the issue of protection can be found
in papal correspondence in response to violence against Jews and particularly with
regard to charges of ritual murder.50 At the same time papal letters also reflect
philosophical concerns over the problem of intentionality—whether the Jews of
the New Testament had deliberately and knowingly murdered Christ. As early
as the eighth century Pope Stephen III (768–772), angry at hearing that Jews in
Spain had taken possession of allods—territory owned and not subject to any rent—
in Christian land and were employing Christians to cultivate them, had described
Jews as ‘enemies of God’ (‘inimici Domini’).51 This language was repeated in the
eleventh century when Gregory VII (1073–1085), dismayed at hearing that Jews
held positions of authority over Christians in Castile, referred to them as ‘enemies
of Christ’ (‘inimici Christi’).52 Such rhetoric suggests that, despite their state-
ments of protection, popes continued to be uneasy about the role played by ‘the
Jews’ in the Crucifixion and this preoccupation resurfaces sporadically in their
correspondence.
In the twelfth and even more in the thirteenth century, the number of letters
about Jews remained small—in contrast to the ever increasing numbers emanating
overall from the papal curia. Nevertheless, the range of Jewish issues on which popes
pronounced was now greater than in the eleventh century, the content more com-
plex, and the context more urgent.53 This partly reflects the vast growth in the
number of letters issued by the curia on almost any topic and the increasingly
diverse total number of those who petitioned Rome for judgements. Yet it also
suggests augmented papal attention to Jewish communities, resulting at least in part
from the growing numbers of Jews in western Christendom. Historians debate how
many Jews lived in Europe in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries,54 and remain

Chronicle of Ademar of Chabannes’, MGHS, Vol. 4, pp.136–7; p.139. See also the account of Benzo
of Albi who wrote to the German emperor Henry IV (1056–1105) about the plight of the Jews in
MGHS, Vol. 11, pp.615–16.
49  A forged document, purporting to be a letter of protection, was ascribed to Pope Sergius IV. See
Roth, ‘The Popes and the Jews’, 78–9.
50  For papal letters of protection, for example, see reference to one of John XVIII (beginning of
1007) following the persecution of Jews in France in 1007, in Simonsohn, p.34. See also Alexander II,
‘Omnes leges’ (1063), Simonsohn, p.35; ‘Placuit nobis’ (1063), Simonsohn, pp.35–6; ‘Noverit pruden-
tia’ (1063), Simonsohn, p.36.
51  For example, Stephen III (IV) ‘Convenit nobis’ (768–772), Simonsohn, p.25.
52  For example, Gregory VII, ‘Non ignorat prudentia’ (1081), Simonsohn, p.38.
53  Walther Holzmann, ‘Zur päpstlichen Gesetzgebung über die Juden im zwölften Jahrhundert’,
Festschrift Guido Kisch (Stuttgart, 1935), pp.217–35.
54  Estimated numbers vary considerably. For examples of different estimates compare Encyclopaedia
Judaica, ed. C. Roth (Jerusalem, 1971), Vol. 13, pp.875–9; Salo Baron, ‘Population’, in Encyclopedia
Judaica, 2nd edn (Detroit, 2007), (Jerusalem, 1971), Vol. 16, pp.381–2; pp.387–9; Stow, Alienated
Minority, p.7; Sergio Della Pergola, ‘Some Fundamentals of Jewish Demographic History’, in Papers
in Jewish Demography 1997, ed. S. Della Pergola, J. Even (Jerusalem, 2001), pp.11–13. Debate about
whether in the West there were more Jews in the thirteenth century north of the Pyrenees continues.
Recent scholarship has suggested that in England at least they were at their greatest number in the
twelfth century, and that their expulsion at the end of the thirteenth century came after a long period
of decline—although the Jewish experience in England did not necessarily equate with that in
12 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

divided about the limited types of livelihood open to them and about which of
these they chiefly favoured.55 However, the continued Jewish presence in a Christian
society increasingly unified in its identity by the ongoing formation of embryonic
nation states and frequent renewals of religious fervour ensured that popes could
never ignore the status of Jews. Random persecution continued in the twelfth
century, as at Fulda in 1118, and previously unheard charges of ritual murder arose
in England after the alleged murder by Jews of William of Norwich in 1144. In
France, too, such charges became more frequent after the execution at Blois in 1171
of more than thirty Jews accused of murdering a Christian child, supposedly to use
his blood for Passover rituals.56
As we shall examine in Chapter Two, in response to such persecution, appeals
from the Jewish communities encouraged six popes in the twelfth century and ten
in the thirteenth, to re-issue the letter of protection for the Jews known as ‘Sicut
Iudaeis’, originally promulgated by Gregory I in the sixth century and later known
as the ‘Constitutio pro Iudaeis’.57 In some cases it was re-issued to refute accusa-
tions of ritual murder and blood libel. But in the twelfth century it also derived
from papal recognition of the increased need to protect Jews after the onset of the
crusades.58 The success of the First Crusade in capturing Jerusalem ensured that the

France, Italy, or Germany. This does suggest that the relative abundance of papal pronouncements
about the Jews in this compared to in earlier periods is to be explained in terms of richer materials. For
estimations of numbers of Jews in England see, for example, Joe Hillaby, ‘Beth Miqdash Me’at: The
Synagogues of Medieval England’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 44/2 (1993), 182–98.
55  For example, Liebeschütz believed that Jews played a more important role as moneylenders in
the twelfth than in the thirteenth century, arguing that in the latter century Christian moneylenders
found a way around the ecclesiastical prohibition of interest; see Liebeschütz, ‘Judaism and Jewry in
the Social Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas’, 66. Others believe that Jews increasingly became lenders
from the twelfth century onwards because Christians were so discouraged from lending at interest; see,
for example, Roth, The History of the Jews in Italy, p.84; pp.103–17.
56  Richard Barrie Dobson, The Jews of Medieval York and the Massacre of March 1190 (York, 1974),
p.19; Gavin Langmuir, Toward a Definition of Anti-Semitism (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 1996),
p.307; Robert Stacey, ‘Crusades, Martyrdom and the Jews of Norman England 1096–1190’, in Juden
und Christen zur Zeit der Kreuzzüge, Vorträge und Forschungen 47, Konstanzer Arbeitkreis für mittelalter-
liche Geschichte, ed. A. Haverkamp (Sigmaringen, 1999), p.236; Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and
Papal Sovereignty, p.23; Christendom and its Discontents, ed. S. Waugh, P. Diehl (Cambridge, 1996),
p.221; Robert Chazan, In the Year 1096: The First Crusade and the Jews (Philadelphia, 1996), p.2.
57  For discussion of the expenses incurred in the process of asking for papal protection and also
how Jewish communities could obtain copies of ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ by paying a fee, see Grayzel, ‘‘The Papal
Bull “Sicut Iudeis”’, p.244. It was of course customary for all sorts of petitioners to Rome, not just
Jews, to pay for papal privileges.
58  The papal bull ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ is sometimes also referred to in edited collections as ‘Sicut Iudeis’,
‘Sicut Iudeis non’, and ‘Sicut Iudaeis non’ etc. To avoid confusion I have referred to it as ‘Sicut Iudaeis’
throughout. Gregory I, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (June 598), Simonsohn, pp.15–16; Calixtus II, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’,
Simonsohn, p.44; Eugenius III, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (1145–1153), Simonsohn, p.47; Alexander III, ‘Sicut
Iudaeis’ (1159–1181), Simonsohn, pp.51–2; Clement III, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (10 May 1188), Simonsohn,
pp.66–7; Celestine III, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (1191–1198), Simonsohn, p.68; Innocent III, ‘Licet perfidia
Judeorum’ (15 September 1199), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.92–4; Simonsohn, pp.74–5. It seems that Innocent
also published another protective letter of 1214–1216 instructing the prelates of France to prohibit all
Christians, especially crusaders, from harming Jews or their families, but only the rubric survives; see
Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.142; Simonsohn, p.100. See also Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History,
p.44; Honorius III, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (7 November 1217), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.144; Simonsohn, p.102;
Gregory IX, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (3 May 1235), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.218; Simonsohn, pp.154–5; Innocent IV,
‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (22 October 1246), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.260–2; Simonsohn, p.189; ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (9 July/
 Introduction 13

success of subsequent crusades was vitally important to popes now committed to

maintaining the crusader states.59 Hence, on a number of occasions, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’
was issued on the eve of crusades, often in response to local appeals from Jewish
communities. As crusading continued in the thirteenth century, popes were also
compelled to handle complaints about attacks on Jews by crusaders on their way
to the Near East, especially with reference to the violence perpetrated in 1236 by
the ‘Barons’ Crusade’ of Thibaut of Champagne and Richard of Cornwall.60
Nevertheless, protection was only one of the ‘Jewish’ concerns of twelfth- and
thirteenth-century popes. With the burgeoning of the curia and the growth of
canon law, the Christian faithful increasingly looked to popes to pronounce on a
wider range of issues: how far Christians might mix with Jews in social and polit-
ical life; the extent to which Jews might charge Christians interest—which had
been an important issue since Gregory I; the status of Jews in a society increasingly
pre-occupied with heresy and dissent. There was also the growing problem of how
Christians should view Jewish literature, in particular the Talmud, now circulating
much more widely in the West thanks to Arabic learning and growing contact
with the Byzantine East. In the late twelfth and early thirteenth century, western
Christian society had become generally more aware not only of Jews, but of
Judaism. This is apparent not only in contemporary theology and biblical exegesis,61
but also in the increased circulation of Christian and Jewish polemic and in public
disputations such as those in Paris in 1240 and Barcelona in 1263.62 We now find

June 1247), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.274; Simonsohn, pp.192–3; Alexander IV, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (22 September
1255), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.55–7; Simonsohn, pp.211–12; Urban IV ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (26 April 1262),
Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.70–1; Simonsohn, p.219; Gregory X, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (7 October 1272), Grayzel, Vol.
2, pp.116–20; Simonsohn, pp.242–3; and possibly ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (10 September 1274), Grayzel, Vol.
2, pp.133–4; Simonsohn, p.246. The 1272 re-issue added that a mixed group of witnesses, including a
Jew, was required to convict Jews and the evidence of a Christian against a Jew accused of ritual
murder was not valid. Nicholas III, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (2 August 1278), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.139–42;
Simonsohn, p.249; Martin IV, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (1 March 1281), Simonsohn, p.254; ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (2
August 1281), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.147–50; Simonsohn, pp.254–5; Honorius IV ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (1285–
1286/7), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.162–3; Simonsohn, p.260; and Nicholas IV ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (1288–1292),
Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.191–2; Simonsohn, p.265. See also discussion in Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.76–8; Grayzel,
‘The Papal Bull “Sicut Iudeis”’, p.244. For discussion of the different re-issues, see pp.243–80. It is
possible that the re-issues of ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ attributed to Nicholas III and Martin IV were forgeries; see
Stow, ‘The Church and the Jews: St Paul to Pius IX’, p.32. See also Hans Liebeschütz, ‘The Crusading
Movement in its Bearing on the Christian Attitude towards Jewry’, Journal of Jewish Studies 10/3–4
(1959), 97–111.
59 Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and Papal Sovereignty, pp.16–17.
60 Sara Schiffmann, ‘Heinrichs IV. Verhalten zu den Juden zur Zeit des ersten Kreuzzuges’,
Zeitschrift fur die Geschichte der Juden in Deutschland 3 (1931), 30–58; Hans Georg von Mutius,
Hymnen und Gebete, Ephraim von Bonn (Hildesheim, Zurich, New York, 1989), passim.
61  Peter Lombard, Sententiae in IV libris distinctae, 3rd edn, ed. I. C. Brady, 2 vols (Grottaferrata,
1971–81), passim; Clare Monagle, Orthodoxy and Controversy in Twelfth-Century Discourse: Peter
Lombard’s Sentences and the Development of Theology (Turnhout, 2013), passim; Rebecca Moore, Jews
and Christians in the Life and Thought of Hugh of St. Victor (Atlanta, 1998), passim.
62  The period saw a growing number of anti-Jewish polemics in circulation, including Walter of
Châtillon’s Dialogus contra Iudaeos (1170), Alain of Lille’s De fide catholica contra hereticos (Book 3 of which
was entitled Contra Iudaeos (1180–1190)), Peter of Blois’s Contra perfidiam Iudaeorum (end of the
twelfth century), and William of Bourges’s Bellum Domini contra Iudaeos et contra Iudaeorum hereticos
(1230). See Walter of Châtillon, ‘Dialogus contra Iudaeos’, PL 209, cols 423–58; Alain of Lille, ‘Liber
tertius contra Iudaeos’, Alain of Lille, ‘De fide catholica contra hereticos’, PL 210, cols 399–422; Peter
14 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

popes relying on Jewish converts to Christianity and Christian scholars who could
read Hebrew for knowledge of the contents of the Talmud; indeed they seem to
have relied on these more than on university scholars or, from the thirteenth
century onwards, the mendicant friars.63 From the twelfth century the papacy
encouraged Christian interest in Hebrew and encouraged its study at academic
centres, in the first instance to prove Christian exegesis and theology, but then sub-
sequently in the later middle ages and beyond to train missionaries and to explore
the heritage of antiquity.64 Hence, for example, Bologna boasted one of the first
Hebrew printing houses.65
Thus, although the number of papal letters concerned with Jews remained pro-
portionately small, popes were reacting to a number of issues of no concern to their
predecessors. Furthermore, their correspondence, in particular that of Alexander
III (1159–1181), Innocent III (1198–1216), Gregory IX (1227–1241), Innocent
IV (1243–1254), and Clement IV (1265–1268)—all dominant characters with
relatively long pontificates—reveals a desire not only to react to, but also to con-
trol, the presence of Jews in Christian society. Or rather, the increasing desire of
these popes to regulate the Jews was itself a reaction to popular appeals for such
regulations. It was bolstered by canonical concepts of the Church as a hegemonic
corporation, since these popes were unwaveringly and increasingly confident of
their spiritual role as heads of the community of the faithful.66 Christendom
(‘Christianitas’), as defined by eleventh- and twelfth-century clerics, was a unitary

of Blois, ‘Contra perfidiam Iudaeorum’, PL 207, cols 825–70; William of Bourges, ‘Liber bellorum
Domini contra Iudaeos et contra Iudaeorum hereticos’, in Livre des guerres du Seigneur et deux homélies,
Sources chrétiennes, ed. G. Dahan (Paris, 1981), pp.66–273. There is a large amount of secondary lit-
erature on these works. See, for example, Peter Browe, Die Judenmisson in Mittelalter und die Päpste,
Miscellanea Historiae Pontificiae 6 (Rome, 1942), pp.102–3; Dahan, La Polémique chrétienne contre le
judaisme, p.232; Dobson, The Jews of Medieval York and the Massacre of March 1190, p.19. For the
increase in anti-Jewish polemic and conciliar legislation in areas inhabited by a considerable Jewish
population, see Bernard Blumenkranz, ‘Anti-Jewish Polemics and Legislation in the Middle Ages:
Literary Fiction or Reality?’, Journal of Jewish Studies 15/3–4 (1964), 125–40. The works of Raymond
Lull and Raymond Martin also sought to convert Jews as well as Muslims to Christianity: Raymond
Martin, Pugio Fidei adversus Mauros et Judaeos, ed. J. de Voisin, J. B. Carpzovi (Lipsiae, 1687), passim
and Pugio Fidei adversus Mauros et Iudeos, ed. F. Lanckisi (1687; repr. Farnborough, 1967), passim;
Raymond Lull, El ‘Liber praedicationis contra Iudaeos’ de Raymond Lull, ed. J. M. M. Vallicrosa
(Madrid, 1957), passim. See also discussion of the Jews in Alexander of Hales, Doctoris irrefragabilis
Alexandri de Hales Ordinis minorum Summa theologica (Rome, 1924), passim. See Robert Chazan,
Daggers of Faith: Thirteenth-Century Christian Missionizing and Jewish Response (Berkeley, 1989),
pp.25–37.
63 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.260.
64 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, pp.328–9.
65 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.434.
66  For the idea of the community of the faithful, see, for example, Walter Ullmann, The Papacy and
the Faithful (Cambridge University Library, presented by the author, 1965), p.26; pp.28–9. For the
medieval idea of the whole Christian community, whose faith could never fail, see, for example, Brian
Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility 1150–1350: A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty
and Tradition in the Middle Ages (Leiden, 1972), pp.36–7. The belief that the whole society of Christians
was something other than an aggregate of individuals was as old as the Church itself; see Brian Tierney,
Foundation of the Conciliar Theory. The Contribution of the Medieval Canonists from Gratian to the Great
Schism (Basel, 1998), pp.121–40. For the idea of the community of Christians in earlier medieval
discourse see, for example, Hincmar of Reims (806–82), ‘Hincmari Remensis epistola ad Flodoard’,
Historia Remensis, Book 3, Chapter 26, MGHS, Vol. 13, p.542, line 30.
 Introduction 15

whole with Rome at its centre.67 The pope, who ordered the Church and led the
fight against its enemies, was the head of the Church, the body of Christ.68
In addition the increasing temporal power of the papacy in the twelfth and thir-
teenth centuries through the expansion of the papal states served to augment the
papacy’s confidence in its role as the ultimate spiritual authority in Europe, which
in turn encouraged an ever more urgent drive towards a greater definition of
Christian society and belief.69 As canon law developed from the 1160s onwards, it
both augmented and justified the papacy’s central role in Europe and encouraged
in the faithful the sense of a common Christian purpose superseding territorial
identity and headed by the pope. In this respect the long pontificate of Alexander
III was particularly important. Although continuously disturbed until 1177 by the
activities of four anti-popes, the rule of a pope, who was himself skilled in canon law,
could not but ensure its growth at the curia.70 Unsurprisingly, therefore, Alexander’s
pontificate witnessed renewed attention to Jews and became an important mile-
stone in the history of papal-Jewish relations.71
Apart from the issue of protection, Alexander’s correspondence reflected other
growing concerns. His stipulation that Jews must pay a tithe was new and was
­repeated in the decrees of the Third Lateran Council (1179). His decree that Jews
were not to hold public office would be reiterated during the pontificate of
Innocent III at the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215. Alexander’s correspondence
also shows the reinforcement of longstanding provisions against Jews exercising
authority over Christians, such as had been formulated by councils of the Visigothic

67  Dominique Iogna-Pratt, Order and Exclusion. Cluny and Christendom Face Heresy, Judaism and
Islam (1000–1150) (Paris, 1998), trans. G. R. Edwards (Paris, 2002), p.2; see also Jean Rupp, L’idée
de Chrétienté dans la pensée pontificale des origins à Innocent III (Paris, 1939); Jan Van Laarhoven,
‘Christianitas et la Réforme grégorienne’, Studi Gregoriani 6 (1959–60), 1–98.
68  For example, Peter the Venerable, ‘Sermo de sancto Marcello papa et martyre, Sermones tres’, ed.
G. Constable, Revue Bénédictine 64 (1954), 259. See Iogna-Pratt, Order and Exclusion, p.265.
69  Some historians have argued that the development of the idea of a united Christian society was
part of a much greater concern by the Church for the containment, if not eradication, of ‘the Other’;
see, for example, Robert Moore, The Formation of a Persecuting Society: Authority and Deviance in
Western Europe, 950–1250, 2nd edn (Oxford, 2007), passim. For discussion of the newly invigorated
Christian society of the thirteenth century see, for example, Chazan, Daggers of Faith, p.12. The
Church began to demand that higher than the sovereignty of the various kings over the Church should
be the universal hegemony of the Church; see Salo Baron, ‘“Plenitude of Apostolic Powers” and
Medieval “Jewish Serfdom”’, in Ancient and Medieval Jewish History, ed. L. A. Feldman (New
Brunswick, 1972), p.289.
70  It is possible that Alexander III was not the Master Rolandus scholars once thought. Yet his
(rather hesitant) development of canonical doctrine, for example on marriage, makes it probable that
he was trained in canon law. Furthermore, like his later successor Innocent III, he had an excellent
legal mind and as pope was able to decide doubtful cases on his own authority, without necessarily
needing to cite authorities. I am most grateful to Martin Brett for discussion of these ideas.
71  For the eleven surviving letters of Alexander III concerned with the Jews, see Simonsohn, pp.50–62.
See especially on the tithe: Alexander III, ‘Quia super his’ (1159–1179), Simonsohn, p.50; ‘Non sine
multa’ (1174–1179), Simonsohn, p.57. For the threat of excommunication against Christians who did
not compel Jews to pay the tithe, for the prohibition against Jews holding public office, and for for-
bidding Christians to serve Jews, see Alexander III, ‘Non sine multa’, Simonsohn, p.57; ‘Ad audientiam
apostolatus’ (25 January (before) 1179), Simonsohn, pp.57–8; ‘Licet universis Christi’ (before 1179),
Simonsohn, pp.59–60; ‘Ad haec cum sacris’ (c.1179), Simonsohn, p.60. For a detailed discussion of
Alexander III’s extensive and legalistic treatment of the Jews, see Grayzel, ‘Pope Alexander III and the
Jews’, pp.555–72.
16 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

Church in Spain. So although papal statements remained carefully thought-out

responses to petitioners’ requests, there was now a subtle difference in rhetoric.
Whereas the main concern of popes prior to Alexander III had been that Jews
should be protected, but with their status in Christian society limited to reflect the
inferior status of Judaism to Christianity, from Alexander’s pontificate onwards
there was an increasing and significant new insistence that Christians should have
no contact whatsoever with Jews.

I nnocent I I I

Alexander’s immediate successors, Lucius III (1181–1185), Clement III (1187–1191),

and Celestine III (1191–1198), seem to have issued few letters about Jews. Innocent
III, however, with an even more exalted vision of his role as head of Christian society,
despatched a significantly larger number.72 With Innocent we reach another
important milestone since the survival of most of his Register transforms our
knowledge of papal correspondence. Innocent was deeply influenced by the circle
of intellectuals around Peter the Chanter who found Jewish arguments against
Christianity helpful in theological debate.73 As in so many other areas—theology,
pastoral reform, the crusades, action against heresy—so too in his treatment of the
Jews, Innocent’s pontificate would have a profound effect on his successors.
Nor was it only the number of letters about Jews that increased with Innocent: so
also did the variety, with one letter often covering multiple topics. The traditional
concerns remained: protection, forced baptism, Christian servants, the status of
synagogues, money transactions. These, however, were treated in much more detail,
as one would expect from a pope who prided himself on the length, depth, and
rhetorical power of his correspondence. Innocent was careful to reiterate his pre-
decessors’ insistence on the special place of the Jews and their soteriological
significance, yet his correspondence reveals a subtly new emphasis: as we shall
examine in Chapter Two, his re-issue of the ‘Constitutio pro Iudaeis’, for example,
was markedly different from its predecessors.74 An additional paragraph was added
at the beginning of the letter complaining of Jewish perfidy, while a new statement at
the end limited papal protection to Jews who refrained from plotting against the
Christian faith.75 So from now on, protection of Jewish communities was no longer
72 Agostino Paravicini-Bagliani, The Pope’s Body, trans. D. Peterson (Chicago, London, 2000),
pp.58–74.
73  Leopold Lucas, ‘Innocent III et les Juifs’, Revue des Études Juives 35 (1897), 247. For Peter the
Chanter and the Jews, see Gilbert Dahan, ‘L’Article Iudei de la Summa Abel de Pierre le Chantre’,
Revue des études Augustiniennes 27 (1981), 105–26.
74  Chazan, ‘Pope Innocent III and the Jews’, pp.194–7. Grayzel notes that the lack of a definite
addressee seems to indicate that the letter was given over directly into the hands of the Jews; see
Innocent III, ‘Licet perfidia Judeorum’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.92.
75 Innocent III, ‘Licet perfidia Judeorum’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.92–4; Simonsohn, pp.74–5. See
Grayzel, ‘The Papal Bull “Sicut Iudeis”’, pp.256–7; Grayzel discusses the additional paragraph at the
beginning of the re-issue but not the addition to the re-issue of the last sentence. Stow has argued that
the addition of the last sentence may derive from the Pact of Omar which had governed the relations
of Christian and Jews with Muslims in Islamic countries since the tenth century, and maybe even
earlier; see Stow, ‘The Church and the Jews: St Paul to Pius IX’, p.34. In 1478 Sixtus IV included it in
his re-issue of ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, but Stow has argued that in this case it was to show that Jews who had
 Introduction 17

unconditional. Rather, it was implied that although Jews lived in Christian Europe,
they remained outside the corporate identity of Christian society and could not ne-
cessarily be trusted. It is highly significant that this additional final sentence was
repeated by Innocent’s thirteenth-century successors when they re-issued the
‘Constitutio pro Iudaeis’.76
Innocent’s additions were consonant with his desire to protect Christian society.
He saw its principal external enemies as Muslims in the Near East who by recap-
turing Jerusalem in 1187 again controlled the holy places of Christ’s life and
Passion—which led him to call for crusades.77 His enthusiasm for crusading
seemed to know no bounds and the consequent need to raise money heightened
his concerns about usury and consequently about Jews as moneylenders. Long
before his pontificate, the Third Lateran Council had already emphasized the papa-
cy’s commitment to combating usury, a growing practice in Europe as trade and
mercantile activity intensified;78 indeed from the beginning of the twelfth century,
popes had increasingly expressed concern about money-lending at interest.79
Some historians have even argued that the strict prohibition of usury by
Christians was a crucial factor in the growing number of Jewish moneylenders,
although others have countered that in the twelfth century Lombard and Cahorsin
bankers redressed the balance in favour of Christian money-lending.80 Yet although
debate still rages as to whether by the end of the twelfth century Jews were the
principal moneylenders in Europe, the evidence of the Angevin royal Exchequer
suggests that at least in the wealthy and influential kingdom of France they played

been charged with the blood libel in the city of Trent were NOT guilty of plotting against the Christian
faith and so must merit just treatment and be protected, see Stow, ‘The Church and the Jews: St Paul
to Pius IX’, p.34; p.42.
76 Honorius III, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.144; Simonsohn, p.102; Gregory IX, ‘Sicut
Iudaeis’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.218; Simonsohn, pp.154–5; Innocent IV, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, Grayzel, Vol. 1,
pp.260–2; Simonsohn, p.189; ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.274; Simonsohn, pp.192–3; Alexander
IV, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.55–7; Simonsohn, pp.211–12; Urban IV ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, Grayzel,
Vol. 2, pp.70–1; Simonsohn, p.219; Gregory X, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.117–20; Simonsohn,
pp.242–3; and possibly ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.133–4; Simonsohn, p.246; Nicholas III,
‘Sicut Iudaeis’, Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.139–42; Simonsohn, p.249; Martin IV, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, Simonsohn,
p.254; ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.147–50; Simonsohn, pp.254–5; Honorius IV ‘Sicut Iudaeis’,
Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.162–3; Simonsohn, p.260; and Nicholas IV ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.191–2;
Simonsohn, p.265. Interestingly, however, the additional sentence at the end was not included in the
‘Liber extra decretalium’ of Gregory IX, which cited Clement III’s re-issue of ‘Sicut Iudaeis’; see X.5.6,
col. 774. See Stow, ‘The Church and the Jews: St Paul to Pius IX’, p.34.
77  The Deeds of Pope Innocent III by an Anonymous Author, ed. and trans. J. M. Powell (Washington
D.C., 2004), pp.77–228.
78  James Parkes, The Jew in the Medieval Community (London, 1938), pp.282–3. For economic
growth, see Cohen, Under Crescent and Cross, pp.77–82; pp.87–8; Robert Chazan, Medieval Stereotypes
and Modern Anti-Semitism (Berkeley, 1997), p.305; Stow, Alienated Minority, p.222. For the growth
of usury as witnessed by the number of sermons by, for example, James of Vitry and Thomas of
Chobham, see Jacques le Goff, Your Money or Your Life: Economy and Religion in the Middle Ages (New
York, London, 1998), p.17, passim.
79  Earlier collectors of legal texts had for many years been eloquent on the subject of usury. Popes seem
to have become increasingly sophisticated in their statements, and more resolutely hostile; see, for example,
Gilchrist, ‘The Perceptions of the Jews in the Canon Law of the Period of the First Two Crusades’, 9–24.
80 For Jews as moneylenders see, for example, Cohen, Under Crescent and Cross, pp.82–8;
Christendom and its Discontents, ed. Waugh, Diehl, pp.220–1; Dobson, The Jews of Medieval York and
the Massacre of March 1190, p.9; p.38; Parkes, The Jew in the Medieval Community, p.304; Stacey,
‘Crusades, Martyrdom and the Jews of Norman England 1096–1190’, p.238.
18 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

an extremely important role. Since Innocent wished to encourage crusaders by

­offering financial incentives, it is unsurprising that he ruled that those who took
the Cross must be protected from Jewish usury and singled out Jews when demanding
that usurers privilege crusaders with moratoria on the principal of their loans and
remit interest paid before their departure.81 Following his lead, Innocent’s succes-
sors continued to discuss Jewish money-lending in their correspondence about
crusading.
The Near East was only one area where Innocent was concerned to promote
crusades. Anxiety about enemies not only outside but within Christian society motiv-
ated him to call the Albigensian Crusade in 1207 against heretics in the south of
France.82 It is clear that concern about heretics also affected attitudes towards Jews
as another group of non-Christians in Catholic society.83 Works such as the Bibles
moralisées (Moralised Bibles), commissioned for the court of Louis IX (1226–1270),
depict Jews and heretics side by side, while polemical literature lumped Jews,
Muslims, and heretics together as potential threats to Christian society.84 To some
extent papal correspondence, like canon law, both reflected and encouraged this
image.85 Thus, heretics were disobedient to Mother Church, pagans did not yet
know Christ, Muslims were misled, Jews were blind and obstinate to the Truth.86

81  For Innocent III’s declaration that Jews were to remit usury to crusaders, see Innocent III, ‘Post
miserabile(m) Hierosolymitanae’ (17/15 August 1198), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.86; Simonsohn, p.71; ‘Graves
orientalis terrae’ (31 December 1199), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.98; Simonsohn, p.78; ‘Nisi nobis dictum’
(4 January 1200), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.98; Simonsohn, pp.78–9; ‘Quia maior nunc’ (22 April 1213),
Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.136; Simonsohn, p.97. For his amplification that actual debts of the crusaders were
not to be cancelled outright but, along with the interest, their payment was to be postponed until the
crusaders returned home, see Ad liberandam, Tanner, Vol. 1, p.269. For discussion of these papal state-
ments, see Stow, ‘Papal and Royal Attitudes toward Jewish Lending in the Thirteenth Century’, 162–3;
Stow, Alienated Minority, pp.222–3.
82  For the earliest letter of Innocent III promising the plenary indulgence to all those who would
take up arms to fight against heretics in the area of Toulouse, see Innocent III, ‘Inveterata pravitatis
haereticae’ (17 November 1207), Die Register Innocenz’ III, Publikationen des Österreichischen
Kulturnistituts in Rom, ed. O. Hageneder, H. Haidacher, A. Strnad, 8 vols in 11 (Graz, Vienna,
Cologne, 1965–), Vol. 10, pp.254–7. For a discussion of this letter which dates from November 1207,
see Rebecca Rist, ‘Salvation and the Albigensian Crusade: Pope Innocent III and the Plenary
Indulgence’, Reading Medieval Studies 36 (2010), 100.
83  For medieval preaching and polemic against Jews and heretics, see Williams, Adversus Iudaeos: A
Bird’s Eye View of Christian Apologiae until the Renaissance, pp.400–7; Miche Zink, La Prédication en
Langue Romane avant 1300 (Paris, 1976), pp.188–95; Jean Longère, Oeuvres Oratoires de Maîtres
Parisiens au Xiiè siècle. Étude Historique et Doctrinale, Vol. 1 (Paris, 1975), pp.410–33; Vol. 2 (Paris,
1975), p.318; Charles Trinkaus, In Our Image and Likeness. Humanity and Divinity in Italian Humanist
Thought, Vol. 1 (London, 1970), pp.722–33; Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition. A History of the
Development of Doctrine, Vol. 3: The Growth of Medieval Theology (600–1300) (Chicago, London,
1978), pp.242–55. For similar themes in the later medieval period see, for example, Baldus de Ubaldis,
Consilia (Venice, 1575), Vol. 5, no.428, pp.113–14.
84  Sara Lipton, Images of Intolerance. The Representation of Jews and Judaism in the Bible Moralisée
(Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 1999), p.1, passim; Stow, ‘The Church and the Jews: St Paul to Pius
IX’, p.18.
85  Roth, ‘The Popes and the Jews’, 76. The tendency to collapse Jews into a general category with
Muslims—in other words those who were outside Christian society—can be seen in Titulus 6 of the
‘Liber extra decretalium’: X.5.6, cols 771–8; by contrast heretics are given a separate Titulus 7, but are
nevertheless also dealt with in the same book, see X.5.7, cols 778–90.
86  For example, Honorius III, ‘Ineffabilis providentia Dei’ (11 December 1225), Grayzel, Vol. 1,
pp.172–4.
 Introduction 19

The concern with heresy also encouraged fresh preoccupation with the possibility
of Christians converting to Judaism.
More generally, and like his contemporaries, Innocent III was disturbed by
the mere fact of a Jewish presence in Christian society. Hence he ordered Jews to
keep out of sight during Church festivals lest they ridicule the celebrations and
thereby weaken Christian belief.87 Yet, though no less uneasy than his predecessors—
perhaps more so—he still recognized that Judaism was part of the Christian inher-
itance. The influence of millenarian thought, which led to his conviction that the
end of days was nigh, added weight to his acceptance of the traditional theological
precept that a remnant of the Jews would finally recognize Christ and be saved.88
In the meantime it was his duty as pope to monitor the activities of Jewish com-
munities closely, thereby ensuring that Jews continue to fulfil their designated
witness role. Thus, despite new trends and pressures, Innocent, like the popes
before him, still stood out among many Christian contemporaries in insisting
repeatedly on the Church’s traditional teaching that the Jews—in this unlike any
other non-Christian group—had a special place to play in the divine plan and
were therefore to be protected.
Innocent’s direction of how Christian society should treat Jews is most apparent
in what he and his contemporaries regarded as the climax and crowning achieve-
ment of his pontificate: the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215.89 Its decrees about
Jews far exceed the range of previous councils, as did many of its canons on other
topics. It also differed greatly from its predecessors in its breadth of subject matter
and in the ways its decrees were publicized. Although neither Lateran I (1123) nor
Lateran II (1139) had issued decrees about Jews or Judaism,90 anxiety in Jewish
communities about the possibility of legislation from councils at the Lateran which
might affect them negatively was well-founded.91 Under the guidance of Alexander
III, Canon 26 of Lateran III (1179) had confirmed and given a wider audience to
the age-old prohibition on Jews employing Christians as slaves, servants, or nurses,
and had threatened excommunication of Christians who lived among Jewish
communities.92 It had also emphasized that in the law courts Christian testimony
should be admitted against Jews in the same way that Jews employed their own
witnesses against Christians. And it had enjoined secular authorities, again under
pain of excommunication, not to allow converts from Judaism to be financially
worse off than before their conversion.93

87  Innocent III, ‘Etsi Judeos quos’ (15 July 1205), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.114–16; Simonsohn, pp.86–8.
88  Innocent III, ‘De contemptu mundi’, PL 217, cols 701–46. See Alan Cutler, ‘Innocent III and
the Distinctive Clothing of Jews and Muslims’, Studies in Medieval Culture 3 (1970), ed. J. Sommerfeldt,
92–116.
89  Grayzel, ‘Jews and the Ecumenical Councils’, 299.
90  Grayzel, ‘Jews and the Ecumenical Councils’, 292–3.
91  Grayzel, ‘Jews and the Ecumenical Councils’, 296. For example, for a later sixteenth-century
Jewish text which recorded the twelfth- and thirteenth-century ecumenical councils of Lateran III
(1179) and Lateran IV (1215) and described the fear felt by Jews on the eve of these councils, see The
Shebet Yehudah of Shelomo ibn Verga, ed. A. Shohat (Jerusalem, 1947), p.146.
92 Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, Vol. 9, pp.25–6.
93  Tanner, Vol. 1, pp.223–4. See Dahan, Les Intéllectuels chrétiens et les juifs au moyen âge, p.116;
Grayzel, ‘Jews and the Ecumenical Councils’, 294.
20 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

Innocent’s Lateran IV again emphasized the restricted place of Jews in Christian

society. Four constitutions condemned Jewish usury and ordered Jews to pay the
tithe, declared that Jews (and Muslims) must wear distinguishing garb, reiterated
that Jews must not hold public office, and stated that converts from Judaism must
not reconvert. As we shall see in Chapter Four, it also repeated regulations demanding
that Jewish moneylenders grant crusaders moratoria on the principal of their loans
and remit any interest paid before they set out, in the specific context of the decree
Ad liberandam which authorized the Fifth Crusade.94 These ideas had already
appeared in Innocent’s correspondence but it was through the Council that they
were widely disseminated.
The idea of a distinguishing garb was not itself novel: Muslims had imposed
similar legislation on Jews and Christians living in their territories for centuries
and similar legislation was to be increasingly implemented by secular authorities in
towns and cities in thirteenth-century Europe to distinguish different peoples and
occupations—including different types of clergy and differing sorts and conditions
of lay men and women.95 Yet the idea of separating Jews from their Christian
neighbours in this way had never before had papal blessing. The legislation of
Lateran IV referred rather generally to ‘distinctive habit’ rather than specifically to
a badge, though a badge would be enforced by Innocent’s successor, Gregory IX.96
Some historians have argued that this legislation reflected a specific desire to dem-
onstrate unambiguously that Jews must be kept outside Christian society.97 But, as
already noted, many categories of Christians were also marked out by distinctions
in dress. The stated—and plausible—reason for the decree was to prevent sexual
relations between Christians and Jews—which might lead to concubinage or inter-
marriage and hence proselytization—also a concern to the rabbis and leaders of
Jewish communities.98 So it also reflected a wider fear of any contact between the
two faiths which might lead to Jewish proselytizing.99

94  Tanner, Vol. 1, pp.265–6; Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.306–12; Grayzel, ‘Jews and the Ecumenical
Councils’, 296–9.
95 Baron, A Religious and Social History of the Jews, Vol. 9, p.27; La Piana, ‘The Church and the
Jews’, p.121; Stow, Jewish Dogs, p.155.
96  Gregory IX, ‘Quoniam volumus quod’ (1234), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.216. For discussion of the
decree about distinguishing garb, see Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.60–70; Stow, ‘The Church and the Jews:
St Paul to Pius IX’, pp.24–5. Some scholars have implied that Innocent III and Lateran IV stipulated
specifically that the distinguishing garb was to be a badge, see Baron, A Social and Religious History of
the Jews, Vol. 9, pp.27–9; Roth, ‘The Popes and the Jews’, 80; Grayzel, ‘The Papal Bull “Sicut Iudeis”’,
p.276; Grayzel, ‘Pope Alexander III and the Jews’, p.572; Stow, ‘The Church and the Jews: from
St  Paul to Paul IV’, p.126. The issue is further complicated by the fact that such historians have
­sometimes used the term ‘badge’ very loosely and interchangeably with ‘distinguishing garb’.
97  Tanner, Vol. 1, p.266. For example, for a discussion of Constitution 68 of Lateran IV, see Cutler,
‘Innocent III and the Distinctive Clothing of Jews and Muslims’, 106–16. Cutler saw the purpose of
the distinction in clothing in the case of both Muslims and Jews was to degrade them socially as a
means of facilitating their conversion to Christianity.
98  Stow, ‘The Church and the Jews: St Paul to Pius IX’, p.24.
99  For the idea that a reason for segregating Jews and Christians was the superior education, on
average, of Jews and the fear that this would give them an advantage in argument, see Franco
Morenzoni, Des écoles aux paroisses: Thomas de Chobham et la promotion de la prédication au début du
XIIe siècle (Paris, 1995), p.79.
 Introduction 21

Furthermore, the Council wished to highlight a distinction between the people

of the Old Covenant and the people of the New. Hence another important under-
lying motive for the distinguishing clothing was to reiterate Innocent’s vision of
the correct theological status of Jews.100 Nevertheless, he himself stipulated in his
correspondence that, although they must be thus distinguished from Christians it
should be guaranteed that this caused them no harm—by which he presumably
meant violence:
The order is given them to let the Jews wear clothes by which they might be distin-
guished from Christians, but not to force them to wear such as would lay them open
to the danger of loss of life.101
Such a statement seems to us absurd, since distinctive clothing was likely to encourage
discrimination of all kinds.102 It was not, however, uncharacteristic of Innocent—or of
his age—since his theoretical ideas often overrode practical reflection. Just as he
attempted to deal with heresy by the blunt weapon of crusading, then later realized
the impracticalities of this decision, so here too he did not—perhaps could not—
think through the likely consequences of his regulations.

A fter I nnocent I I I

Innocent’s successors continued to express concern about Jews. In Chapter Five

I shall explore how, as knowledge of Jewish theological texts spread throughout the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and as the Talmud in particular became better
known with the flourishing of rabbinic studies in the West, popes remained anx-
ious on two particular issues.103 The first, traditional enough, was the possibility
that Christians might be tempted to convert to Judaism, especially in areas where
the Faith was weak, such as the south of France and northern Italy. This fear was
unfounded: Catharism was inimical to Judaism and there is little evidence that
areas affected by heresy were particularly pro-Jewish.104 The second, more realistic
concern echoed by theologians, canon lawyers, and polemicists, was the newly-
awakened unease that, whereas Christians had the New Testament, the Jews had

100  Grayzel, ‘Popes, Jews and Inquisition from “Sicut” to “Turbato”’, p.161.
101  ‘Mandatur ut permittant Judeos talem gestare habitum per quem possint inter Christianos
discerni, nec ad talem portandum compellant, per quem possint vite dispendium sustinere.’—rubric
of a letter of Innocent III (1215–1216), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.140; Simonsohn, p.99. The letter is lost.
102  Rubric of a letter of Innocent III (1215–1216), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.140; Simonsohn, p.99. The
letter is lost.
103  Grayzel, ‘The Talmud and the Medieval Papacy’, p.234.
104  Liebeschütz, ‘Judaism and Jewry in the Social Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas’, 69. Liebeschütz
argued that nobles in the south of France, who used the popularity of heretical sects to advance their
own interests, deliberately appointed Jews, rather than orthodox Christians, to positions of authority.
This has been disputed by a number of historians who have argued that although Jews held positions
of importance at the courts of supposedly heretical as well as orthodox nobles in the south of France,
there is no evidence that they were more favoured by heretics than by orthodox Christians. See for
example, John O’ Brien, ‘Jews and Cathari in Medieval France’, Comparative Studies in Society and
History 10 (1968), 220.
22 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

their own successor to the Old Testament in the Talmud.105 Hence, in response to
increasing complaints about the Talmud, popes began to view it as a hindrance and
stumbling block to the Jews’ eventual reconciliation with the Christological mes-
sage of the Gospel, seeing it as their apostolic duty to show spiritual leadership in
promoting such reconciliation.
So with Gregory IX, we recognize another important turning point in papal rela-
tionships with Jews. For the first time, papal correspondence—influenced by Nicholas
Donin, a convert from Judaism, and by the friars—referred to the Talmud and other
Jewish theological writings. Whether Gregory’s primary concern with the Talmud was
that it was blasphemous, or that its heretical content prevented Jews from recognizing
the truth of Christianity, remains a matter of debate.106 Perhaps more crucially, it
seems that Gregory could see no way to incorporate the Talmud into his vision of the
Christian society of which he believed himself, as pope, to be the head. If he ignored
the Talmud, he would be tolerating an apparent alternative to the New Testament,
thus failing to preside over a fully Christian society. In response to the complaints of
Donin, therefore, in 1239 he ordered all Jewish books in France to be handed over for
the mendicant orders in Paris to inspect for alleged heresies and blasphemies,107
and in 1240 he not only approved the Paris Disputation which took place at the
court of Louis IX and was designed to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, but sub-
sequently ordered that copies of the Talmud be burnt.108 His successors would
continue to denounce it as blasphemous and sometimes even as heretical.109
Many historians have pointed to the contrast between such statements, which
denied the Talmud any status in Judaism, and the care that popes continued to show
in opposing violence and the levying of populist charges against Jews. Evidently
the popes themselves saw no contradiction between condemning the Talmud for
blasphemy and insisting on protection for Jews, believing both activities to be part

105  For example, on Peter the Venerable and the Talmud, see Iogna-Pratt, Order and Exclusion,
pp.361–2.
106 Grayzel, ‘The Talmud and the Medieval Papacy’, pp.224–5; Grayzel, ‘Popes, Jews and
Inquisition from “Sicut” to “Turbato”’, p.163; Judaism on Trial: Jewish–Christian Disputations in the
Middle Ages, ed. and trans. H. Maccoby (Rutherford, London, 1982), pp.19–38; Joel Rembaum, ‘The
Talmud and the Popes: Reflections on the Talmud Trials of the 1240s’, Viator 13 (1982), 203–24;
Stow, ‘The Church and the Jews: from St Paul to Paul IV’, pp.142–5; Stow, ‘The Church and the Jews:
St Paul to Pius IX’, pp.26–8.
107  Gregory IX, ‘Fraternitati tue presentium’ (9 June 1239), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.238–40; Simonsohn,
pp.171–2; ‘Si vera sunt’ (9 June 1239), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.240–2; Simonsohn, pp.172–3. There is a
vast amount of secondary literature on popes and the Talmud. See, for example, Walter Pakter,
Medieval Canon Law and the Jews (Ebelsbach, 1988), pp.70–3; Benjamin Kedar, ‘Canon Law and the
Burning of the Talmud’, Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law 9 (1979), 79–82; Cohen, The Friars and the
Jews, pp.60–76; Cohen, Living Letters of the Law, pp.319–30; Robert Chazan, ‘The Hebrew Report of
the Trial of the Talmud: Information and Consolation’, in Le Brulement du Talmud à Paris, 1242–1244,
ed. G. Dahan (Paris, 1999), pp.79–93; Judah Galinsky, ‘The Different Hebrew Versions of the
“Talmud Trial” of 1240 in Paris’, in New Perspectives on Jewish-Christian Relations, ed. E. Carlebach,
J. Schachter (Leiden, Boston, 2012), pp.109–40; Piero Capelli, ‘Rashi nella controversia parigina sul
Talmud del 1240’, in Ricercare la Sapienza di Tutti gli Antichi, Series 3, Vol. 1. Miscellanea in onore di
Gian Luigi Prato, ed. M. Milani, M. Zappella (Bologna, 2013), pp.441–8; The Trial of the Talmud:
Paris, 1240. Hebrew Texts translated by John Friedman, Latin Texts translated by Jean Cornell Hoff;
Historical Essay by Robert Chazan (Toronto, 2012).
108  For details of the trial see Judah Rosenthal, ‘The Talmud on Trial. The Disputation at Paris in
the Year 1240’, Jewish Quarterly Review 47/1 (1956), 58–76, 47/1 (1956), 145–69.
109 Stow, Alienated Minority, pp.251–9.
 Introduction 23

of their duty to give spiritual leadership.110 As we shall see in Chapter Two, in the
thirteenth century charges of ritual murder and blood libel, as well as host desecra-
tion and well poisoning, were not only better recorded, but also more numerous.
In response to pleas from Jewish communities, popes expressed disbelief and dis-
pleasure at these and other charges, some more convincingly than others. Innocent
III believed reports that the mysterious murder of a scholar in Sens, found dead in
a latrine, could well have been perpetrated by Jews, but there is no indication that
he equated the incident with a ritual murder charge.111 On another occasion he
seems to have given credence to a tale of host desecration by a Christian woman
supposedly malignly influenced by Jews and to have welcomed the eventual out-
come: the conversion of a Jewish family to Christianity. This followed a purported
miracle in which the family discovered that their Parisian pounds (livres) had
miraculously changed to wafers.112 Similarly, at the end of the century, Boniface VIII
seems to have accepted a story of host desecration, granting the petition of a certain
Raynerius Flamingi who asked to build a chapel on the site where Parisian Jews
had supposedly stabbed and boiled the host, whereupon the boiling water had
miraculously turned into blood.113
Innocent IV, however, strongly rejected charges of ritual murder and blood libel.
When he re-issued ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ for the second time in 1247 he added a para-
graph denouncing the blood libel charge and threatening loss of honour and office
or excommunication for anyone who opposed his determination.114 In a number
of other letters he also evinced disgust at the very idea of a blood libel and evidently
believed that he would fail to fulfil his role as pope if he did not insist on protection
for Jews.115 Not only was he aware of the papacy’s age-old commitment to this pro-
tection, he was also dismayed that violence by Christians should sully the ideal of
a society which in its treatment of Jews ought to adhere to biblical and patristic
precedent. Indeed, so seriously did he take his responsibilities for the well-being of
Christian society as a whole that, with the canonists’ approval, he declared that
although infidels were not part of Christ’s Church, they were nevertheless part
of Christ’s flock and so subject to the pope, Christ’s vicar.116 In his great work of
canon law, the Apparatus super quinque libris decretalium, he not only argued that

110  The charge that the Talmud was heretical or an ‘other law’ was first made by Gregory IX in 1239
and repeated one final time by Clement IV in 1267; in general when popes condemned the Talmud it
was for blasphemy. See Stow, Alienated Minority, pp.258–9.
111  Innocent III, ‘Etsi non displiceat’ (16 January 1205), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.104–8; Simonsohn,
pp.82–4.
112  Innocent III, ‘Operante illo qui’ (10/8 June 1213), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.136–8; Simonsohn, pp.98–9.
113 Boniface VIII, ‘Petitio dilecti filii’ (17 July 1295), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.196–9; Simonsohn,
pp.283–4. See Stow, ‘The Church and the Jews: St Paul to Pius IX’, pp.39–40.
114  For Innocent IV’s first re-issue of the ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, see Innocent IV, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, Grayzel,
Vol. 1, pp.260–2; Simonsohn, p.189. For his second re-issue and the additional paragraph denouncing
the blood libel charge see ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.274; Simonsohn, pp.192–3.
115  Innocent IV, ‘Divina justitia nequaquam’ (28 May 1247), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.262–4; Simonsohn,
pp.191–2; ‘Si diligenter attenderet’ (28 May 1247), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.264–6; Simonsohn, pp.190–1;
‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum Alemannie’ (5 July 1247), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.268–70; Simonsohn, pp.194–5;
‘Sicut Iudaeis’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.274; Simonsohn, pp.192–3.
116  Innocent IV, Apparatus, Bk 3, Rubrica 34, cap. 8, p.176r; James Muldoon, Popes, Lawyers and
Infidels: the Church and the Non-Christian World 1250–1550 (Philadelphia, 1979), pp.9–10; pp.30–1;
pp.45–6.
24 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

the Talmud should be burnt because it contained many heresies, but declared that
qua pope he had been appointed to care for the souls not only of Christians, but
also of Jews. In particular he asserted that as pope he had the power to judge the
Jews whenever they appealed to the Old Testament as a source for moral teaching,
and he even claimed the power to judge them if their own rabbis failed to punish
them for misdeeds, and if these same rabbis found heresies in traditional interpret-
ations of Jewish law.117

T he L imitations of Papal P rotection

Thus, despite such public responses, we must recognize that the ability of popes to
protect Jewish communities was extremely limited. In his re-issue of ‘Sicut Iudaeis’
Alexander III threatened excommunication of Christians who harassed Jews, a
warning repeated by his successors in their re-issues of the ‘Constitutio pro Iudaeis’.118
Honorius III (1216–1227) complained about local bishops exceeding their authority
in compelling Jews to remit usury to crusaders, although he could not prevent it.119
Gregory IX grieved over crusader mob-violence and ordered the restitution of
Jewish property, but could not ensure that his directives were followed.120 Innocent
IV rejected charges of blood libel, but could not stop local persecutions. This has
led historians to observe that whereas papal letters issued in defence of Jews usually
only ended with a plea, those which complained of Jewish activities ended with
a threat, and to note that popes more often excommunicated Christians to restrict
Jews than to protect them.121 Yet, as we have noted, excommunication was occa-
sionally threatened in protection of Jews, and it is arguable that popes may have
believed that to threaten it frequently would only tend to increase anti-Jewish
feeling. None of this, however, alters the fact that despite the undoubted increase
of papal interest in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, Jews normally remained
only of minor and occasional concern.
Innocent IV’s successors continued trying to ensure that their vision of Christian
society was implemented, with varying degrees of success. For in the end success
depended not only on what they responded to and decreed, but on variable factors
such as context, priorities, their own characters, and the length of their pontificates.
Similar pronouncements continued under Alexander IV (1254–1261) and Urban IV
(1261–1264). After the Barcelona dispute of 1263, in his letter ‘Turbato corde’ of
1267 Clement IV declared for the first time that friars, as inquisitors, should inves-
tigate the activities of Jews, as they were already allowed to investigate heresy. He
granted them the power to intervene in Jewish affairs in an official capacity and
117  Innocent IV, Apparatus, Bk 3, Rubrica 34, cap. 8, p. 176r.
118  Alexander III, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, Simonsohn, pp.51–2.
119  Honorius III, ‘Cum olim nobilis’ (28 January 1217), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.144; Simonsohn, p.102;
‘Dilecta in Christo’ (21 June 1219), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.150–2; Simonsohn, pp.106–7.
120  Gregory IX, ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum in’ (5 September 1236), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.226–8;
Simonsohn, pp.163–4; ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum in’ (5 September 1236), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.228–30;
Simonsohn, p.165.
121  For example, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.82.
 Introduction 25

decreed that Jews who had induced Christians to adopt their Jewish rites must be
appropriately punished.122 Overall, Clement’s letters, more even than those of
Innocent III, display a harsher rhetoric than most of his predecessors.
The papal employment of friars as inquisitors was highly significant.123 ‘Turbato
corde’ marked another milestone for the papacy because the powers given to such
inquisitors often led to the stated aim of protection being undermined—not least
because the very protection of Jews remained a continuing source of tension
between popes, bishops, emperors, and kings. Nevertheless, ‘Turbato corde’ ushered
in no radical change in papal attitudes towards the Jews.124 Clement himself,
as  well as his thirteenth-century successors Gregory X (1271–1276), John XXI
(1276–1277), Nicholas III (1277–1280), Martin IV (1281–1285), Honorius IV
(1285–1287), Nicholas IV (1288–1292), and also Boniface VIII continued, like
their predecessors, to re-issue ‘Sicut Iudaeis’. But papal commitment to the idea of
overseeing a truly and wholly Christian society had now become paramount.
Clement’s ruling that the mendicant orders investigate the affairs of Jewish com-
munities was a natural extension of this vision, even though Martin IV’s second
re-issue of ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (1281) contained an additional clause limiting the
freedom of action of the Inquisition with regard to Jews, preventing inquisitors or
indeed anyone else from employing force against them in their investigations.125 So
after ‘Turbato corde’ the old idea of protection and the new idea of enquiry theor-
etically operated side by side, but while popes advised temporal powers to protect
Jews, they could not force them to do so: expulsions from Europe, beginning in
France during the reign of Philip II Augustus (1180–1223), became routine after
1291.126 Even in the papally-governed Comtat Venaissin and Avignon there were
frequent jurisdictional difficulties for Jews.127 The papal states thus remained one
of the few areas of medieval Europe from which Jews were never expelled; their
expulsion from there was deferred until 1569.128

122  Clement IV, ‘Turbato corde audivimus’, Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.102–4; Simonsohn, pp.236–7. See
Harvey Hames, The Art of Conversion, Christianity and Kabbalah in the Thirteenth Century (Leiden,
2000), pp.2–9; Maurice Kriegel, ‘Prémarranisme et Inquisition dans la Provence des XIIIe et XIVe
siècles’, Provence historique 29 (1977), 314; Joseph Shatzmiller, ‘L’Inquisition et les juifs de Provence
au XIIIe siècle’, Provence historique 23 (1973), 327. Contemporaneous to Clement’s letter were
works by Raymond Martin and Raymond Lull which sought to convert Jews as well as Muslims to
Christianity. See Raymond Martin, Pugio Fidei adversus Mauros et Judaeos, ed. Voisin and Carpzovi,
passim and Pugio Fidei adversus Mauros et Iudeos, ed. Lanckisi, passim; Raymond Lull, El ‘Liber
praedicationis contra Iudaeos’ de Raymond Lull, ed. Vallicrosa, passim. See Chazan, Daggers of Faith,
pp.25–37.
123 Cohen, The Friars and the Jews, passim.
124  Grayzel emphasizes a significant change of attitude with the issue of ‘Turbato corde’ (and its
re-issue by Nicholas IV in 1288 and 1290): ‘But that was the spirit of Sicut. Unfortunately for both
sides the spirit of Turbato had replaced it’. See Grayzel, ‘Popes, Jews and Inquisition from “Sicut” to
“Turbato”’, p.188.
125  Martin IV ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.147–50; Simonsohn, pp.254–5.
126  Roth, ‘The Popes and the Jews’, 75.
127 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, pp.451–3; p.460.
128  The expulsion was revoked in 1585. In any case, it did not affect Rome, Ancona, or the French
papal territories. This was also the case when it was briefly re-enacted in 1593, see Stow, Alienated
Minority, p.304. For the Jewish community in Rome in the twelfth century, see Marie Therese
Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome: Papal Attitudes
26 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

T he E volu tion of Papal Attit u des

There is no doubt that thirteenth-century popes increasingly responded to a much

greater range and a more urgent number of requests than their predecessors.
Following Innocent III’s example, they showed an increased concern about the
position of Jews in Christian society. For this reason some have argued that in par-
ticular Innocent and his successor Gregory IX had a ‘policy’ towards the Jews. Yet,
the phrase ‘papal policy’ is as problematic for the thirteenth century as it is for the
eleventh or twelfth, if it implies that thirteenth-century popes collectively pur-
sued a consistent, unchanging, and overriding agenda. Certainly changes in eco-
nomic and social conditions encouraged papal centralization and goal-orientation,
as did the characters of the popes who held office. To these factors was added an
increasingly exalted vision of the papacy’s role at the head of a united Christian
society. Hence, in continuing to follow traditional and canonical interpretations of
St Augustine and St Paul, thirteenth-century popes might seem increasingly more
concerned with theory than with practicalities.
The limited and demarcated role that Jews were expected to play in Christian
society often resulted in the reality of subservience. Historians have criticized papal
statements which they argue reveal a contradictory attitude of simultaneous pro-
tection and restriction.129 Yet there is nothing intrinsically contradictory about this
duality if it is viewed in the context of papal concerns for the overall well-being of
Christian society. Nevertheless, such an interpretation does not amount to a delib-
erate overarching policy. Whereas in the case of the authorization of crusades,
papal initiatives played a crucial role and crusading policies were generated directly
by popes in reaction to events and not necessarily in the first instance in response
to petitions, any so-called ‘papal policy’ towards the Jews was primarily responsive.
Christians increasingly complained to popes about Jewish activities, in particular
voicing concerns about the Talmud, and popes responded to these concerns.
Similarly, at times of crisis Jews might write to a pope asking for protection and he
would grant it. Yet this does not amount to a ‘policy’—unless the word is used
simply to describe the fact that individual popes decided how and when and to
what degree to reply to Jewish matters brought to their attention. A much more
nuanced picture is obtained if we view papal responses as ‘ad hoc’ rather than
static, if we accept that different popes might have different views about Jews,
and if we move away from any monolithic, unchanging papal perspective.130 The

toward Biblical Judaism and Contemporary European Jewry (Ph.D. Dissertation, Louisiana State
University, 2005), pp.1–197. For the uninterrupted settlement of the Jews in the city of Rome itself,
see Roth, The History of the Jews in Italy, p.42. John XXII (1316–1334) briefly expelled Jews from the
Comtat Venaissin in 1320/1321. For papal rule in the Comtat Venaissin, see William Chester Jordan,
‘The Jews and the Transition to Papal Rule in the Comtat-Venaissin’, in Ideology and Royal Power in
Medieval France: Kingship, Crusades and the Jews, ed. W. C. Jordan (Aldershot, 2001), pp.213–32;
René Moulinas, Les Juifs du Pape: Avignon et le Comtat Venaissin (Paris, 1992), passim. For Jewish tax-
ation in the papal states in the early modern period, see Kenneth Stow, Taxation, Community and
State: The Jews and the Fiscal Foundations of the Early Modern Papal State (Stuttgart, 1982), passim.
129  See Grayzel, ‘Popes, Jews and Inquisition from “Sicut” to “Turbato”’, p.188: ‘This dual and
contradictory approach to their Jewish problem should have been clear to the popes long before this’.
130  For example of more recent productive work viewing papal responses as much more ad hoc, see
Stow, ‘Hatred of the Jews or Love of the Church: Papal Policy Toward the Jews in the Middle Ages’,
 Introduction 27

reinforcement of Jewish subservience was unintentional: there was no ‘policy of

degradation’, since the aim was never to degrade. Rather, increasing papal emphasis
on the unity of Christian society went hand in hand with a gradual deterioration
in attitudes towards Jews—not least because of enthusiasm for the crusades and
increasing knowledge of the Talmud.
We have identified a particular stage in the long and complex history of papal-
Jewish relations during the High Middle Ages. Overall, it is clear that there are
parameters—the writings of St Paul, St Augustine, and Gregory I in particular—
within which the attitudes and agendas of individual popes are to be found; yet
these are wide. Within them it is important to identify and explain the devel-
oping changes which individual popes both reacted to and produced. In the sixth
century Gregory I had ensured that the precepts of the Theodosian Code remained
enshrined in papal correspondence. As we shall explore in subsequent chapters,
in the twelfth century, Calixtus II ushered in a new era with his adaptation and
re-issue of Gregory’s ‘Sicut Iudaeis’. Alexander III further defined relations between
Christians and Jews with his pronouncements that Jews must be protected, but
also that they must pay the tithe, should not hold public office, or exercise any pos-
ition of authority over Christians. Innocent III widened the scope and variety of papal
letters and became preoccupied with separation—an attitude which coloured all
subsequent papal statements and conciliar legislation. Gregory IX’s pontificate was
significant in that, although he protected Jews against extortionate nobles and cru-
saders, he also reacted to a perceived threat to Christianity from the Talmud—to
the long-term lasting detriment of their communities.131 Innocent IV went further,
declaring that his authority as pope extended over all infidels, including Jews, as
well as over Christians, and that he had a duty to prevent heresy within the Jewish
faith itself. Clement IV encouraged the Inquisition to oversee not only heresy but
also Judaism. We shall see that each of these pontificates thus generated a signifi-
cant development in the evolution of papal attitudes towards Jews before the ‘exile’
to Avignon at the beginning of the fourteenth century. They do not amount to a
single overarching ‘papal policy’, but remain a series of important innovations in
response to social and intellectual movements largely outside papal control.

p.83: ‘Divergent opinions on the Jews were to be found among the popes themselves’. And, for example,
see Stow, ‘The Church and the Jews: from St Paul to Paul IV’, p.109: ‘Also at work here is a strikingly
one-side approach, the active and aggressive Church and the passive and suffering Jews, an approach
which has more apparent than real justification . . . ’. For another example of such a nuanced approach
to the later early modern period, see the discussion of Salo Baron’s evaluation of the differences in
attitudes of popes in the sixteenth century discussed in Stow, ‘The Church and the Jews: from St Paul
to Paul IV’, p.126.
131 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.52.
 1
Jewish Ideas about the Papacy

For decades, scholars, fascinated by the relationship of the papacy to the Jews in
the High Middle Ages, have explored its development from the point of view of
the papal curia and by examining papal pronouncements, canon law, and conciliar
legislation.1 As we have noted, although papal perceptions of Jews throughout the
period are a well-established area of research, Jewish ideas about the papacy remain
a surprisingly under-developed topic. This chapter explores such ideas through a
range of contemporary and later sources including folktales and legends, popular
histories, chronicles, rabbinic responsa, disputational literature, and polemic. Jewish
writers were anxious to ensure the safety of their communities in western Europe
and grateful for statements of papal protection, but they were also highly critical of
Christian beliefs about the papacy, in particular the doctrine of apostolic succes-
sion. Though respectful of the papacy’s power, both spiritual and temporal, they
were dismissive of the Scriptural and theological formulations on which Christian
claims for apostolic authority rested. They fully acknowledged that popes had
always played and would continue to play an important role in safeguarding their
well-being and determining their future. Yet although contemporary and later
Jewish writers often valued papal protection more highly than that of monarchs,
emperors, or clergy, they recognized that its limits were circumscribed.

J e w i sh H i s to r i o g r a p hy

Christian ideas about Jews and Judaism were formed by the clergy and the literate
higher echelons of society; it is more difficult to evaluate the degree to which
they typify the ideas of those who have left no record of their views.2 Similarly the
nature of the surviving evidence means that a Jewish perspective most frequently
derives from an exclusive and highly learned minority of rabbis and community

1  For a discussion of historicism and anti-historicism and its impact on the study of Jewish History
through the ages, see David Myers, Resisting History. Historicism and its Discontents in German-Jewish
Thought (Oxford, 2003), pp.1–12; pp.157–72. Notable exceptions who have explored this complex
subject include Kenneth Stow and more recently, Ram Ben-Shalom. See, for example, Kenneth Stow,
The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and Papal Sovereignty: Jewish Perceptions of the Papacy and Papal Policy in the
High Middle Ages (Cincinnati, 1984). And for example, Ram Ben-Shalom, Exempla and Popes: Church
Imagery in the Spanish and Provencal Jewish Mentalité (Pamplona, 2004), pp.177–90.
2  Anna Abulafia, ‘Christians and Jews in the High Middle Ages: Christian Views of Jews’, in The
Jews of Europe in the Middle Ages (Tenth to Fifteenth Centuries). Proceedings of the International
Symposium held at Speyer, 20–25 October 2002, ed. C. Cluse (Turnhout, 2004), p.27.
 Jewish Ideas about the Papacy 29

leaders.3 Fear of conversion to Christianity and more generally a desire to pro-

tect  their communities from hostile external influences encouraged strictures on
reading Christian literature and the circulation of polemics defending Judaism and
attacking Christianity.4 Nevertheless, references to the papacy can be found in a
wide spectrum of Jewish writing.5 It is through analysis of a combination of very
different types of Hebrew sources that we are able to piece together a limited under-
standing of Jewish ideas about popes and the papal curia in the High Middle Ages.6
As is normal with any minority community, Jewish historiography concerns itself
both with the history of the Jews in its medieval context, and with the existential
dilemmas they faced as a special group.7 Arguably, however, historiography was
not the chief conduit for preserving Jewish memory during the period.8 Histories
and chronicles were often disregarded unless they were of halakhic importance or
were subsumed under theology or law; rather, memory was preserved through
ritual and liturgy, prioritized over historical compositions.9 Indeed it has been
claimed that Jewish writers often refused to explore the idea of novelty in history—
which meant that what they chose to remember correlated little with historical
data in the modern sense—but rather passed over or even ‘transcended’ particular

3  For the idea that tales and witticisms in ‘folk polemic’ reflected the views of Jews who were not
learned enough to appreciate more abstruse and complicated discussions, see David Berger, The
Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Age: A Critical Edition of the Nizzahon Vetus (Philadelphia,
1979), p.21.
4 Peter Schäfer, ‘Jews and Christians in the High Middle Ages: The Book of the Pious’, in The Jews of
Europe in the Middle Ages (Tenth to Fifteenth Centuries). Proceedings of the International Symposium held
at Speyer, 20–25 October 2002, ed. C. Cluse, p.35; p.37; p.39.
5  The purpose of this chapter is to discuss a selective number of representative texts which discuss
the five themes enumerated earlier, not to attempt to deal exhaustively with every Hebrew text from
the High Middle Ages which mentions popes or the papacy.
6  There is a huge literature on medieval Jewish writers and their polemical works which cannot be
discussed in detail here. See, for an early example, the discussion in Salo Baron, A Social and Religious
History of the Jews: Late Middle Ages and Era of European Expansion, 1200–1650, Vol. 9: Under Church
and Empire, 2nd edn (New York, London, 1965), pp.97–134; much more recently, for example,
Hannah Trautner-Kromann, Shield and Sword: Jewish Polemics against Christianity and the Christians
in France and Spain from 1100–1500 (Tübingen, 1993), pp.26–48. It is important not only to situate
Jewish writings in their correct time and place but to compare Jewish events with what we know from
Christian sources in order to analyse properly the contents and tenor of the Hebrew material.
7  David Myers, David Ruderman, ‘Preface’, in The Jewish Past Revisited: Reflections on Modern
Jewish Histories, ed. D. N. Myers, D. B. Ruderman (New Haven, Conn., London, 1998), p.x; Alfred
Haverkamp, ‘The Jews of Europe in the Middle Ages: By Way of Introduction’, in The Jews of Europe
in the Middle Ages (Tenth to Fifteenth Centuries). Proceedings of the International Symposium held at
Speyer, 20–25 October 2002, ed. C. Cluse, p.8. For a summary of the wider debate about how Jewish
history is not just about the past experiences of Jews but also how their present experiences determine
their motivations, methods and perspectives, i.e. the manner in which they study it, see Jeremy Cohen,
‘Introduction’, in Rethinking European Jewish History, ed. J. Cohen, M. Rosman (Portland, Oregon,
2009), p.1.
8  For example, Yosef Yerushalmi, Zakhor. Jewish History and Memory (Seattle, London, 1982),
p.39.
9  For example, Yerushalmi, Zakhor, pp.39–42; Susan Einbinder, Beautiful Death. Jewish Poetry
and Martyrdom in Medieval France (Princeton, Oxford, 2002), p.35; p.51; Ivan Marcus, Rituals of
Childhood. Jewish Acculturation in Medieval Europe (New Haven, London, 1996), pp.1–17. For discus-
sion of the fact that Halakha, philosophy, and Kabbalah were important for religious and intellectual
creativity, see again Yerushalmi, Zakhor, p.52.
30 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

events and episodes.10 Yet it is difficult to determine whether this was particularly
characteristic of Jewish historiography, and some have argued that since both
Christian and Jewish historical narratives were relatively rare in the early Middle
Ages, Jewish ideas about history differed little from Christian; that only from the
beginning of the eleventh century did Jews deliberately try to unite sacred and
non-sacred history into a collective, unified vision of a divine design: in other
words into a schema of Jewish historical consciousness.11
The extent to which Jews interacted socially, culturally, and politically with their
gentile neighbours, and what it was to be a Jew in medieval Europe remain central to
the modern historical debate, but interpreting such a range of primary sources as
popular legends, responsa, chronicles, and disputations presents numerous prob-
lems.12 Who wrote these very different texts and why? To what extent should we
accord them ‘face value’? Did they have a homiletic or didactic purpose? How may
their readership have influenced the boundaries of their meaning? Here, therefore,
an appreciation of the geographical location of medieval Jewry is crucial.13
Although the culture of the written word seems to have been generally more wide-
spread among Jewish than Christian communities, the difference appears smaller
in Mediterranean regions than in northern Europe where until the thirteenth
century clerics were usually the only Christians able to read and write.14
Correspondingly, Jewish-Christian relations seem to have been less tense in the
Mediterranean Latin West than in northern parts of Europe.15 In the eleventh and

10 Yerushalmi, Zakhor, pp.43–4; p.51; p.52.

11  For example, Amos Funkenstein, Perceptions of Jewish History (Berkeley, Oxford, 1993), pp.15–16.
For the idea of collective memory, see Eli Yassif, The Hebrew Folktale: History, Genre, Meaning, trans.
J. S. Teitelbaum (Bloomington, Indianapolis, 1999), p.312. For discussion of the development of the
perception of historical facts down through the ages, see again Funkenstein, Perceptions of Jewish
History, pp.22–49.
12  David Myers, ‘Introduction’, in The Jewish Past Revisited: Reflections on Modern Jewish Histories,
ed. D. N. Myers, D. B. Ruderman, pp.9–13; Elliott Horowitz, ‘Jewish Life in the Middle Ages and
the Jewish Life of Israel Abrahams’, in The Jewish Past Revisited: Reflections on Modern Jewish Histories,
ed. D. N. Myers, D. B. Ruderman, pp.147–57; Abulafia, ‘Christians and Jews in the High Middle
Ages’, p.19; Schäfer, ‘Jews and Christians in the High Middle Ages’, p.29; p.36; Moshe Rosman, How
Jewish is Jewish History? (Oxford, Portland, Oregon, 2007), pp.37–8; pp.50–5.
13  Moshe Rosman, ‘Jewish History Across Borders’, in Rethinking European Jewish History, ed.
J. Cohen, M. Rosman, pp.16–29.
14  Haverkamp, ‘The Jews of Europe in the Middle Ages’, p.12.
15  See Haverkamp, ‘The Jews of Europe in the Middle Ages’, pp.14–15; Abulafia, ‘Christians and
Jews in the High Middle Ages’, p.20. For Jewish literature in the wake of the Spanish expulsion and in
the sixteenth century, see Yerushalmi, Zakhor, pp.57–75. For the mass conversions in Spain in 1391 and
the particular dynamic of Jewish–Christian relations in terms of literature and politics in the fourteenth
and fifteenth centuries and the problem of Conversi, see David Nirenberg, ‘Spanish “Judaism” and
“Christianity” in an Age of Mass Conversion’, in Rethinking European Jewish History, ed. J. Cohen, M.
Rosman, pp.149–72; Ram Ben-Shalom, ‘The Social Context of Apostasy Among Fifteenth-Century
Spanish Jewry’, in Rethinking European Jewish History, ed. J. Cohen, M. Rosman, pp.173–98. For the
particular complexities involved in understanding Jewish memory in Spain in the fifteenth and six-
teenth centuries, see David Myers, ‘Of Marranos and Memory: Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi and the Writing
of Jewish History’, in Jewish History and Jewish Memory: Essays in Honour of Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi,
ed. E. Carlebach, J. M. Efron, D. N. Myers (Hanover, London, 1988), pp.1–21. For the complex
relationship between Jews and Christians in Spain in the seventeenth century and the Marranos, see
Yosef Yerushalmi, From Spanish Court to Italian Ghetto. Isaac Cardoso. A Study in Seventeenth Century
Marranism and Jewish Apologetics (New York, London, 1971), especially pp.xii–xix; for the Marranos,
see pp.1–50; for the Messiah, see pp.302–49; pp.350–412; pp.413–72; pp.473–80. For the plight
 Jewish Ideas about the Papacy 31

twelfth centuries Jews in Germany and Northern France were apparently much
more hostile to their Christian neighbours than those in Spain and Portugal,
although, as we know, in the Iberian peninsula relations deteriorated in the late
medieval and early modern periods.16 Nevertheless, despite often difficult relations
with Christians, vibrant Jewish communities did exist in Germany—an unam-
biguously Christian area of medieval Europe—and these disseminated cultural and
intellectual ideas far and wide.17 Indeed the evidence suggests that all over northern
Europe Jewish communities were not only busy producing their own literature,
but knew about and even borrowed each others’ works.18 Such communities, like
their Christian counterparts, flourished best in towns both in terms of their own
internal well-being and in relation to the exterior gentile world.19
Through detailed analysis of texts from the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth
centuries, each in its individual geographical, historical, and cultural setting, we
shall see that Jewish ideas about the papacy appear very clearly in relation to five
major concerns: authority, protection, the defence of Judaism, the denigration of
Christianity, and messianic theology. Of course when assessing sources written
over several centuries, we must bear in mind that we are dealing with a very broad
range of political, social, and cultural contexts. More specifically, a variety of texts
from France, Provence, Italy, Germany, and Spain often targeted very different
types of audiences. Furthermore, a contemporary historian is always faced with the
complex problem of memory, in particular the formation of collective memory:
that ‘social reality transmitted and sustained through the conscious efforts and
­institutions of the group’.20
Of course our Jewish sources do not necessarily agree in their attitudes towards
the papacy. Popes themselves varied greatly from each other in character, had pur-
sued diverse careers prior to their pontificates, and differed in the scope of their

of Jews in early modern Europe, see David Ruderman, ‘Jewish Cultural History in Early Modern
Europe: An Agenda for Future Study’, in Rethinking European Jewish History, ed. J. Cohen, M.
Rosman, pp.95–111, passim. For the impact of the Reformation on the Jews, see Miriam Bodian,
‘The Reformation and the Jews’, in Rethinking European Jewish Identity, ed. J. Cohen, M. Rosman,
pp.112–32, passim. For modern political theory about the Jews, including the enlightenment view of
the Middle Ages and medieval philosophy, see Funkenstein, Perceptions of Jewish History, pp.220–56,
passim, especially pp.234–47.
16  Abraham Grossman, ‘The Cultural and Social Background of Jewish Martyrdom in Germany in
1096’, in Juden und Christen zur Zeit der Kreuzzüge, Vorträge und Forschungen 47, Konstanzer Arbeitkreis
für mittelalterliche Geschichte, ed. A. Haverkamp (Sigmaringen, 1999), pp.77–9.
17  Schäfer, ‘Jews and Christians in the High Middle Ages’, p.30. For discussion of the idea of histor-
ical tradition in Jewish communities in Germany in the late Middle Ages, see Frantisek Graus,
‘Historische Traditionen über Juden im spätmittelalter (Mitteleuropa)’, in Zur geschichte der Juden im
deutschland des späten mittelalters und der frühen neuzeit, ed. A. Haverkamp (Stuttgart, 1981), pp.1–26.
18  Abulafia, ‘Christians and Jews in the High Middle Ages’, p.24; see also Ephraim Kanarfogel,
Jewish Education and Society in the High Middle Ages (Detroit, 1992), pp.15–17; Robert Bonfil, Jewish
Life in Renaissance Italy, trans. A. Oldcom (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 1994), pp.125–6; Yehuda
Bialer, Estelle Fink, Jewish Life in Art and Tradition. Based on the Collection of the Sir Isaac and Lady
Edith Wolfson Museum, Hechal Shlomo, Jerusalem (London, 1976), p.88.
19  Haverkamp, ‘The Jews of Europe in the Middle Ages’, pp.14–15.
20 Yerushalmi, Zakhor, p.xv; see also Rosman, How Jewish is Jewish History?, p.50; Myers,
Ruderman, ‘Preface’, p.xiii; Funkenstein, Perceptions of Jewish History, pp.3–10; Susan Einbinder, No
Place of Rest. Jewish Literature, Expulsion, and the Memory of Medieval France (Philadelphia, 2009),
p.3; p.9.
32 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291
political connections and ambitions. Furthermore, the extent of immediate papal
influence on Jewish communities varied immensely. Particularly different from the
rest of Europe were the papal states and the city of Rome itself where there was a
flourishing Jewish community which enjoyed the most favourable conditions, by
contemporary standards, of anywhere in Europe; as already noted, the papal states
remained the one area of medieval Europe from which Jews were never expelled.21
Furthermore, in the Comtat Venaissin from 1274 onwards the pope wielded direct
temporal as well as spiritual power and authority which sometimes ensured more
direct protection for Jewish communities in that territory.22
Hence it is difficult to use any Jewish sources to generalize about papal behav-
iour, except perhaps when secular rulers, primarily kings and emperors, are directly
compared and contrasted with popes. Nevertheless, informative conclusions about
how a number of Jewish communities in medieval Europe perceived the papacy can
certainly be drawn. In evaluating such perceptions it is occasionally helpful to com-
pare earlier individual works with later fourteenth-century writings. However, the
fact that in 1305 the papacy moved from Rome to Avignon and for much of the
later fourteenth century was embroiled in the politics of the Great Schism (1378–
1415) and the Conciliar Movement, meant that Jews in that later age wrote in a
substantially different context to suit rapidly changing needs.23

F o lk tales and L e g ends : A n Inf o r mat i ve

E x am p le

A variety of medieval Jewish folktales and legends have come down to us.24 Often
the product of decades of oral traditions recorded in writing of later centuries
­rather than contemporary to the events they describe, they contain scattered refer-
ences both to individual popes and to the papacy as an institution. Using such
sources to search for Jewish ideas about the papacy is therefore a difficult enter-
prise.25 First, the boundaries between history and legend are never sharply distin-
guished—which means that the texts are highly unreliable as sources for historical
evidence about any particular chronological period.26 Secondly, as already noticed,
they may be of limited use for understanding a Jewish society moulded to a great
21  Haverkamp, ‘The Jews of Europe in the Middle Ages’, p.7; Roth, The History of the Jews in Italy,
p.42. They were finally expelled in 1569 by Pius V (1504–1572); see Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and
Papal Sovereignty, p.20. As we have seen, the expulsion of Jews from the papal states in 1569 was
­revoked in 1585 and did not include Rome, Ancona, or French papal territories, as was also the case
when it was briefly re-enacted in 1593; see Kenneth Stow, Alienated Minority: the Jews of Medieval
Latin Europe (Cambridge, Mass., London, 1992), p.304. Expulsions of the Jews, for example from
France during the reign of Philip Augustus, became routine in Europe after 1291; see Cecil Roth, ‘The
Popes and the Jews’, Church Quarterly Review 123 (1936/7), 75.
22 William Chester Jordan, ‘The Jews and the Transition to Papal Rule in the Comtat-Venaissin’, in
Ideology and Royal Power in Medieval France: Kingship, Crusades and the Jews, ed. W. Chester Jordan
(Aldershot, 2001), pp.213–32.
23  For this reason fourteenth-century texts are cited only if they serve to reinforce themes and issues
already found in the writings of our period (1095–1291).
24  Haverkamp, ‘The Jews of Europe in the Middle Ages’, p.1.
25  See the excellent discussion in Rosman, How Jewish is Jewish History?, pp.154–67; p.185.
26 Yerushalmi, Zakhor, p.45.
 Jewish Ideas about the Papacy 33

extent by guiding élites.27 Nevertheless, legends and folktales are interesting because
they offer insight into a wide range of collective ideas, feelings, and emotions as well
as a taste of particular concerns affecting Jewish communities over generations.28
A well-known tale, existing in several versions and languages, is the legend of a
Jewish pope, sometimes referred to as ‘Andreas’ but more notoriously as ‘Elhanan’—a
reference presumably to the Israelite ‘Elhanan’ of 2 Samuel 21: 19 who slew Goliath
the Gittite.29 Hebrew accounts of this tale, written down between the early fourteenth
and the early sixteenth centuries, exist in four different manuscripts. One version
eventually formed part of the Ma’aseh Book, a collection of Jewish legends compiled at
the beginning of the fifteenth century when Jews were living in the Rhenish provinces,
and developed further during the subsequent migrations to Russia and Poland;
yet it probably originated from the very early fourteenth century.30 Importantly
for us, it may reflect memories of the twelfth century and in particular of Pope
Alexander III (1159–1181), who, as we have seen, issued a number of letters con-
cerning Jews during his twenty-two-year-long pontificate.31 Or it may be interpreted

27  For discussion of forms of élite Judaism in the High Middle Ages, see Ivan Marcus, Piety and
Society. The Jewish Pietists of Medieval Germany (Leiden, 1981), pp.1–17; Ephraim Kanarfogel, ‘Peering
through the lattices’. Mystical, Magical and Pietistic Dimensions in the Tosafist Period (Detroit, 2000),
pp.93–129; Elliot Wolfson, Along the Path. Studies in Kabbalistic Myth, Symbolism, and Hermeneutics
(Albany, 1995), pp.xi–xiii. To understand the phenomenon of ritual and remembrance, Jewish litur-
gical and doctrinal texts—in particular selihot (penitential prayers), memorbucher (memorial books),
and megillah (scrolls narrating events)—are also of course very useful. See, for example, discussion in
Yerushalmi, Zakhor, p.xv and pp.45–8. These included benedictions for the well-being of the pope
in Comtat liturgies. For discussion of papal rule in the Comtat, see Chester Jordan, ‘The Jews and
the Transition to Papal Rule in the Comtat-Venaissin’, pp.213–32.
28  Eli Yassif, Jewish Folklore. An Annotated Bibliography (New York, London, 1986), pp.xi–xv. There
is a vast bibliography on the history of emotions and their relationship to collective memory only a few
of which can be mentioned here. Seminal works which have emerged in the twentieth and twenty-first
centuries include Henry Taylor, The Medieval Mind. A History of the Development of Thought and
Emotion in the Middle Ages, 4th edn (London, 1925), 2 vols, passim; Feeling and Emotion. A History of
Theories, ed., H. M. Gardiner, R. C. Metcalf, J. G. Beele-Center (New York, 1937) (First Greenwood
Reprinting, 1970), pp.89–118; Stephen White, ‘The Politics of Anger’, in Anger’s Past. The Social Uses
of an Emotion in the Middle Ages, ed. B. H. Rosenwein (Ithaca, London, 1998), pp.127–52; John
Corrigan, ‘Introduction. A Critical Assessment of Scholarly Literature in Religion and Emotion’, in
Emotion and Religion. A Critical Assessment and Annotated Bibliography, ed. J. Corrigan, E. Crump, J.
Kloos (Westport, Conneticut, London, 2000), pp.1–19; Jutta Eming, Emotion und expression.
Untersuchungen zu deutschen und franzözischen liebes- und abenteuerromanen des 12.–16. jahrhunderts
(Berlin, New York, 2006), pp.1–7.
29  For recent discussions of this tale see, for example, Sara Zfatman, The Jewish Tale in the Middle
Ages. Between Ashkenaz and Sepharad (Jerusalem, 1993), passim; Peter Bietenholz, Historia and Fabula:
Myths and Legends in Historical Thought from Antiquity to the Modern Age (Leiden, 1994), pp.105–6;
Lucy Raspe, ‘Payetanim as Heroes of Medieval Folk Narrative: the Case of R. Shimón B. Yishaq of
Mainz’, in Jewish Studies Between the Disciplines. Judaistik zwischen den disziplinen. Papers in Honour of
Peter Schäfer on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, ed. K. Hermann, M. Schlüter, G. Veltri (Leiden,
Boston, 2003), pp.354–69. For discussion of the tradition of the idea of a Jewish pope in different
versions of Hebrew legends, see Joshua Schwartz, Marcel Poorthuis, Saints and Role Models in Judaism
and Christianity (Leiden, Boston, 2004), pp.289–310.
30  The Ma’aseh Book, 2 vols, ed. M. Gaster (Philadelphia, 1934), Vol. 2, pp.410–18.
31  For recent discussion of the tradition of a Jewish pope in the Ma’aseh Book, see ‘The Jewish Pope’,
in Encyclopedia of the Jewish Story. Sippur okev sippur, ed. Y. Elstein, A. Lipsker, R. Kushelevsky
(Ramat-Gan, 2004), Vol. 1, pp.351–62 and Lucy Raspe, Jüdische hagiographie im mittelalterlichen
Aschkenas (Tübingen, 2006), pp.291–322. For the letters of Alexander III concerned with the Jews,
see Simonsohn, pp.50–62, passim.
34 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

as reflecting a tradition that a twelfth-century anti-pope, Anacletus II (1130–1138),

had been of Jewish descent.32 Yet neither interpretation holds the key to under-
standing the legend since ‘Elhanan’ need not represent any particular pope; what
the tale highlights is how Jews perceived papal protection, the relationship of rab-
binical authorities to the papacy and, at a more fundamental level, the relationship
of Judaism to Christianity.
The legend tells us that the child of a famous rabbi, Simeon the Great of Mainz,
was stolen by a Christian servant, baptized, brought up by priests, became a car-
dinal and subsequently pope. Since he had attained the highest spiritual office in
medieval Europe and was held in great esteem, he chose to remain a Christian;
nevertheless, he remembered he had been a Jew and was the son of a great rabbi.
In order to bring his father to Rome, he wrote a letter to the bishop of Mainz for-
bidding Jews to keep the Sabbath, to circumcise their sons, or to allow women to
take ritual baths. In response the Jews of Germany sent Rabbi Simeon to plead
their cause. Simeon showed the decree to the Jews of Rome, who made contact
with a well-disposed cardinal, asking him to approach the pope with a petition for
protection.33 Pope Elhanan subsequently ordered the German Jews into his pres-
ence and when Rabbi Simeon appeared, beat him at chess—as only a Jew could do!
When the two recognized each other, Elhanan explained that he had only issued
the decree in order to bring his father to Rome and ordered it annulled. The story
ends with Elhanan, having written a book against Christianity, which he left in a
vault in Rome, taking a great deal of money back to Mainz where he embraced
Judaism once more; in Rome they could not account for his disappearance!
This legend is highly informative for several reasons. First, it emphasizes that,
although the son of a rabbi benefitted from Christianity in terms of prestige and

32 Roth, ‘The Popes and the Jews’, 79; Demetrius Zema, ‘The Houses of Tuscany and of Pierleone
in the Crisis of Rome in the Eleventh Century’, Traditio 2 (1944), 169–75; Bietenholz, Historia and
Fabula, p.106. It is worth noting that even Bernard of Clairvaux, who protected the Jews during the
Second Crusade, derided Anacletus on this account. See David Berger, ‘The Attitude of Saint
Bernard of Clairvaux toward the Jews’, Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 40
(1972), 105–8. Despite his zealous defence of Jews against crusader excesses, in an attempt to blacken
Anacletus’s name and ensure that Innocent II (1130–1143), his own candidate for pope, was the
favoured choice of the kings of Europe, Bernard in a number of letters went so far as to claim that a
Jew on the throne of St Peter would be an injury to Christ himself. See Innocent II, ‘Apostolicae sedis
consueta’ (6 October 1131), in Regesta pontificum romanorum ab condita ecclesia ad annum post
Christum natum 1198, ed. P. H. Jaffé, Vol. 1 (Berolini, 1851), no. 5370; Bernard of Clairvaux, Omnia
opera sancti Bernardi, ed. J. Leclercq, C. H. Talbot, H. M. Rochais, Vol. 7 (Rome, 1974), pp.309–19;
pp.320–1; pp.335–6; Vol. 8 (Rome, 1977), pp.134–6. See Berger, ‘The Attitude of St Bernard of
Clairvaux toward the Jews’, 104–8; Anna Abulafia, ‘The Intellectual and Spiritual Quest for Christ and
Central Medieval Persecution of Jews’, in Religious Violence between Christians and Jews: Medieval Roots,
Modern Perspectives, ed. A. Abulafia (Basingstoke, New York, 2002), pp.72–5. Bernard also elsewhere
in his writings used Jews as a standard of comparison for different types of heresy and sin. See Bernard
of Clairvaux, ‘Sermo mihi ad vos’, ed. in Jean Leclercq, ‘L’encyclique de Saint Bernard en faveur de la
croisade’, Revue Bénédictine 81 (1971), 298–9; Berger, ‘The Attitude of St Bernard of Clairvaux
toward the Jews’, 104–5; David Berger, ‘Christian Heresy and Jewish Polemic in the Twelfth and
Thirteenth Centuries’, Harvard Theological Review 68/3–4 (1975), 288.
33  For excellent discussion of the Jewish community in Rome in the twelfth century and its rela-
tionship to the papacy, see Marie Therese Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews
in Twelfth-Century Rome: Papal Attitudes toward Biblical Judaism and Contemporary European Jewry
(Ph.D. Dissertation, Louisiana State University, 2005), pp.1–197, passim.
 Jewish Ideas about the Papacy 35

wealth, he remained a Jew at heart and returned to his faith in the end—without,
of course, losing out financially. He therefore had the best of all worlds: wealth,
spiritual authority over Christian Europe, but ultimately also his Jewish faith.34
Secondly, while recognizing the power and authority of papal decrees, and the fact
that these decrees might well be a source of concern for Jewish communities, it
depicts the pope and his cardinals in Rome with humour and in a positive light.
Thirdly, it portrays both Jews living in Rome and the Jews of Germany as immensely
desirous of and grateful for papal protection, indicating that, since there was no
authoritative equivalent to the pope in Judaism, even rabbis might look to the
papacy for the safeguarding of their communities. Such appropriation of the pope
and insistence on his protective role doubtless reflected the desire of Jewish com-
munities to ensure that papal protection should continue in the future.
Most importantly, by exploring the psychology of the universal father–son rela-
tionship, the tale makes a profound theological point: although popes and rabbis
are both archetypal father figures—pope means father, and rabbi means teacher—
Elhanan, the son, beats his father at chess, inverting the father–son relationship.
In winning the game Elhanan symbolizes the papacy’s claim to ultimate spiritual
authority in Christian Europe, but the tables are turned because he knows that he
is Jewish and abandons papal authority to return to the land and religion of his
rabbi father. The message is clear: Judaism is the father of Christianity; it is also
the true Faith.35
There exists also a grimmer version of the same tale in which Christians and the
papacy are portrayed in a much less favourable light.36 This time Elhanan became
perturbed that he did not know who his father was and enquired of his cardinals
that they should reveal his origins on pain of death. When they replied that he was
a Jew and that his father was Rabbi Simeon, he ordered Simeon to appear before
him. Although the rabbi was afraid that he was being summoned to answer a false
charge, he braced himself and came before Elhanan for questioning. Simeon told
him that he had a son who had been stolen from him as a small boy, but he did not
know whether he was alive or dead, whereupon Elhanan asked him whether the
boy had birth marks on his body. When Simeon replied that he had marks on his
back and hand, Elhanan realized he was the rabbi’s son. Having revealed himself to
his father and assured him that he rejected the claims of Christianity, he asked
what he should do:
His father told him, ‘You have desecrated the name of the Lord in public. Make his
name holy in public and I shall accept you and you shall be a “son of the next world”’.
And he told him ‘in what way shall I act?’ He told him, ‘Invite all your government,
the kings, the dukes, and the bishops and then you shall make the name of God
holy’.37

34  For the tradition of Jewish folktales ending on a happy note, see Yassif, The Hebrew Folktale,
p.253.
35 Yassif, The Hebrew Folktale, pp.306–8.
36  Adolph Jellinek, Bet ha-midrasch ( Jerusalem, 1967), Vol. 6, pp.137–9.
37 Jellinek, Bet ha-midrasch, Vol. 6, pp.138–9.
36 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

So Elhanan climbed to the top of a high tower and declared in front of everyone
that he did not believe in Jesus Christ. His cardinals thought he had gone mad and
plotted to kill him:
And when he realised that, he jumped from the tower to the earth and he said ‘God
forbid that those unclean gentiles should kill me because I believe in the God of my
father’. And immediately when his father, Rabbi Simeon the Great, heard that he
made the Name of God holy, he gave praise and glory to the place and he named it in
the name of his son.38
In this second account many of the same themes remain but there is one important
difference: Elhanan is willing to make the ultimate sacrifice and become a martyr
(qiddush ha-Shem—to ‘make the name of God holy’) rather than remain a Christian
and a pope—just as we shall see in Chapter Two, according to contemporary Hebrew
chronicles, some Jews during the First and Second Crusades were prepared to seek
martyrdom rather than convert.

P o p ula r L e g ends : Pa pal A c t i v i t y

i n t he S efer Y ossipon

Besides legends, popular histories are another key source for understanding ideas
about the papacy circulating in medieval Jewish communities. One such history,
the Sefer Yossipon or Sefer Yosef ben Gurion, of which approximately seventy manu-
scripts are extant, was probably compiled in Hebrew by a southern Italian at the
beginning of the tenth century, before undergoing major interpolation in the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries.39 References to it appear in Ashkenazy works from
the mid-twelfth century, although, like the Ma’aseh Book, it could not be printed until
the fifteenth century.40 For medieval Sefardic, Byzantine, and Palestinian, as well as
Ashkenazy Jews, who believed much of its content to be the work of the first-century
writer Flavius Josephus, it was the single most important post-biblical chronicle and
therefore a vital piece of Jewish historiography.41 Indeed it followed a long historio-
graphical tradition of the reading, copying, reshaping, and re-working not only of
Jewish texts, but also of Christian works which both served as sources for the history
of the Jews and as models for writers in future generations.42

38 Jellinek, Bet ha-midrasch, Vol. 6, p.139.

39  Steven Bowman, The Jews of Byzantium 1204–1453 (Alabama, 1985), pp.134–7; Saskia Dönitz,
‘Historiography among Byzantine Jews: the Case of Sefer Yossipon’, in Jews in Byzantium. Dialectics of
Minority and Majority Cultures, ed. R. Bonfil, O. Irshai, G. G. Stroumsa, R. Talgam (Leiden, Boston,
2012), p.951; p.962; p.967.
40 Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and Papal Sovereignty, p.22; Yerushalmi, Zakhor, p.35; Grossman,
‘The Cultural and Social Background of Jewish Martyrdom in Germany in 1096’, pp.81–3;
Funkenstein, Perceptions of Jewish History, p.15.
41 Yerushalmi, Zakhor. pp.34–5; p.61; Myers, Resisting History, p.13; Dönitz, ‘Historiography
among Byzantine Jews’, p.954.
42 Yassif, The Hebrew Folktale, p.298; p.301; Dönitz, ‘Historiography among Byzantine Jews’,
pp.962–3; p.966.
 Jewish Ideas about the Papacy 37

One particular section of the Sefer Yossipon is pertinent to this survey since it
describes the anointing of the Holy Roman Emperor by the pope and details a
tradition which it claims had existed since the time of Louis II (844–875).43 The
emperor must swear in front of the closed gates of Holy Peter that: ‘if he will come
with God’s help into Rome, he will elevate (my italics) as much as he can the Roman
Church and the pope’.44 After this the emperor is duly anointed by the pope who is
described in fulsome terms as the ‘greatest bishop governing all bishoprics’, ‘the
bishop of Rome’, and ‘the father of all bishops over all the world in government,
called in Rome “pater” (father) which in Greek is patron’.45 Here in a popular
Hebrew text from the High Middle Ages is an explicit reference to, and acknow-
ledgement of, a widely-held medieval theory of the correct balance of power
between the papacy and secular powers:46 the papal claim to wield spiritual
­authority is not just over the clergy but also over the emperor himself, whose duty
on attaining the imperial crown is to serve the Church and the pope. Not only did
this give a Jewish perspective on papal–imperial relations, and in particular on the
transition from the tenth century—for a good part of which the papacy had been
under the thumb of the German emperors—to the eleventh century when it
underwent radical internal reform, but it acknowledged the papacy’s claims to
both spiritual and temporal power and declared that in relation to the former the
papacy was pre-eminent.

Rabb i n i c Res p o nsa : A S t r i k i n g E x am p le

Other important sources for understanding the Jewish communities of western

Europe are rabbinic responsa, pronouncements on a range of practical problems
from money-lending to marriage to kosher law.47 Responsa are not easy to inter-
pret, not least because of the difficulty of determining whether they are contem-
porary practical responses to local difficulties or artificial constructs produced over
many decades as a result of complex academic discussion between rabbis and com-
munity leaders.48 This is not a medium where one would expect to find much

43  The Josippon, ed. D. Flusser, 2 vols (Jerusalem, 1978–9), Vol. 2, pp.33–4.
44  The Josippon, ed. Flusser, Vol. 2, p.34.
45  The Josippon, ed. Flusser, Vol. 2, p.34.
46  There is a very substantial body of scholarship dealing with the issue of the balance of power
between papacy and empire and Jewish self-government. See, for example, discussion in Bernhard
Blumenkranz, ‘The Roman Church and the Jews’, in Essential Papers on Judaism and Christianity in
Conflict, ed. J. Cohen (New York, London, 1991), pp.193–230.
47  For correspondence between Jewish rabbis and authorities during the High Middle Ages, see, for
example, the discussion of the letters of David Maimuni and Solomon Petit over Petit’s ‘Guide for the
Perplexed’ in Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and Papal Sovereignty, p.7. For letters between Jews and
Christians see, for example, the discussion of the correspondence between Wecelin, a convert to
Judaism, and Henry, a court cleric of Henry II of Germany, in the ‘De diversitate temporum’ of Alpert
of Metz in Anna Abulafia, ‘An Eleventh–Century Exchange of Letters between a Christian and a Jew’,
Journal of Medieval History 7 (1981), 153–74.
48  For an early but seminal work on the difficulties of interpreting rabbinic responsa see, for
­example, Irvin Agus, Rabbi Meir of Rothenberg, Vol. 1 (Philadelphia, 1947), pp.xi–xxii; Irvin Agus,
Urban Civilization in Pre-Crusade Europe. A Study of Organised Town-Life in Northwestern Europe
38 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

information about the papacy—popes rarely feature—yet there is a particularly

unusual and striking example where one does: an Ashkenazy responsum attributed
to the Maharam (Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg, c.1215–1293) recorded in a collection
composed towards the end of the twelfth century concerned with money-lending
and entitled The Answer of the Wise People of France or Lotharingia.49 As we have
already noted, debate continues about the extent to which Jews were involved in
lending at interest and in which areas of medieval Europe they operated; yet it is
certain that just as Christian theologians in Paris puzzled over the morality of a
profit economy, so French and German halakhists frequently engaged with the
problem of usury.50
The nature of this responsum makes it difficult to know whether it refers to an
actual historical event or whether it is a case study: either way it is highly signifi-
cant.51 It relates how two Jewish creditors had turned to an (unnamed) pope when
the city’s bishop has refused them aid.52 Both creditors had lent money to the same
person without knowing that the other had done so and in each case the debtor
had provided a promissory note, but had died before the debt could be repaid.53
When the creditors go to the governor of the city to seek satisfaction, he declares
that, since the bishop is not under his jurisdiction and he does not want to incur
his enmity, he cannot help, but he advises them to:
‘go and present your claim to the pope who is the head of the bishops. And he will
order that bishop to compel the inheritors to repay the debt; for they do not come
under my jurisdiction, and I do not want the bishop to hate me. And thereafter come
back to me and I will know what to do for you’.54
The creditors obey and, as the governor had foretold, ‘the pope has done so and
ordered the bishop to compel the inheritors to repay the debt’.55 So, as in the Sefer
during the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries based on the Responsa Literature (Leiden, 1965), pp.1–31. For
money-lending in the responsa, see especially the classic study on the use of response as historical
sources in Haym Soloveitchik, ‘Pawnbroking: A Study in Ribbit and of the Halakah in Exile’,
Proceedings of the Jewish Academy for Jewish Research 38–9 (1970–1), 203–68. For more recent discus-
sions of the genre limitations of responsa, see Einbinder, Beautiful Death, p.34; Yassif, The Hebrew
Folktale, p.284; p.309; Robert Bonfil, Rabbis and Jewish Communities in Renaissance Italy, trans.
J. Chipman (Oxford, 1990), pp.251–69.
49  Kenneth Stow discusses this responsum in some detail in Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and Papal
Sovereignty, pp.5–7, but its importance as one of the very few medieval Ashkenazy responsa which
mention the role of the pope as protector of Jews makes it a crucial text for further discussion in this
chapter.
50  See, for example, Charles Gross, The Exchequer of the Jews of England in the Middle Ages. A Lecture
Delivered at the Anglo-Jewish Historical Exhibition (London, 1887), p.7; Haverkamp, ‘The Jews of
Europe in the Middle Ages’, pp.12–14; Economic History of the Jews (Jerusalem, 1975), ed. N. Gross,
S. W. Baron, A. Kahan, et al (Jerusalem, 1975), pp.30–2; pp.43–6; Lester Little, ‘The Jews in Christian
Europe’, in Essential Papers on Judaism and Christianity in Conflict: from Late Antiquity to the Reformation,
ed. J. Cohen, pp.276–81; Abulafia, ‘Christians and Jews in the High Middle Ages’, p.21.
51 Agus, Rabbi Meir of Rothenberg, Vol. 1, pp.xv–xxii; Agus, Urban Civilization in Pre-Crusade
Europe, Vol. 1, pp.1–27.
52 Rabbinic responsum in Teshuvot hakhme sarfat ve-lotair, ed. J. Muller (Presburg, Vienna, 1881),
no.34, p.206. See Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and Papal Sovereignty, p.6.
53 Rabbinic responsum in Teshuvot hakhme sarfat ve-lotair, ed. Muller, no.34, p.206.
54 Rabbinic responsum in Teshuvot hakhme sarfat ve-lotair, ed. Muller, no.34, p.206.
55 Rabbinic responsum in Teshuvot hakhme sarfat ve-lotair, ed. Muller, no.34, p.206.
 Jewish Ideas about the Papacy 39

Yossipon, which referred to the pope as ‘the greatest bishop governing over all
bishops’, the pontiff is described in the words of the governor of the city—as ‘head
of the bishops’, again a direct reference to his spiritual power.56
Furthermore, as also in the Sefer Yossipon, we see the theme of papal protection
recurring, with the pope here willing to act with or without the aid of secular
powers, and even without the backing of the local clergy.57 Jews knew that the
­dynamic of power which would best serve their interests was complex and that
local church leaders might well lend support to mob accusations of ritual murder
and blood libel.58 Yet when comparing the power of popes with that of the lower
orders of the clergy, they were also well aware that, if local religious authorities such
as the bishop were willing and able to protect their communities, this frequently
counted far more than theoretical statements of papal protection. Of course it was
also true that Jews could sometimes rely on the protective power of secular mon-
archs and emperors. So, for example, although Theobald, Count of Blois had
­ordered the burning of over thirty Jews following a charge of ritual murder in Blois
in 1171, his father-in-law, Louis VII of France (1137–1180), subsequently stepped
in to defend his own neighbouring Jewish subjects.59 Nevertheless, such potent
figures were often—like popes—too far-removed to give active help against local
secular authorities.
In our present responsum the pope—himself far away in Rome—receives a
much better press than one might expect; it is explicitly acknowledged that he is a
surer guarantor of protection than any other authority, either secular or religious.
That these same themes of papal authority and papal protection appear in legends,
popular histories, and in this rabbinic responsum, indicates that at least some
Jewish communities in medieval Europe saw the papacy as an institution for which
they could have a degree of respect and to which they might turn in times of
trouble.

56 Rabbinic responsum in Teshuvot hakhme sarfat ve-lotair, ed. Muller, no.34, p.206; The Josippon,
ed. Flusser, Vol. 2, pp.33–4.
57 Rabbinic responsum in Teshuvot hakhme sarfat ve-lotair, ed. Muller, no.34, p.206; The Josippon,
ed. Flusser, Vol. 2, pp.33–4.
58  The Jew in the Medieval World. A Source Book, 315–1791, ed. J. R. Marcus (New York, 1975),
p.121. For example, the Hebrew chronicler Ephraim of Bonn portrays the Cistercian abbot Bernard
of Clairvaux as an exception to the rule that in general the local clergy cannot be trusted to protect
Jews, or at least not without financial incentive. See Ephraim of Bonn, in Sefer gezerot sarfat ­ve-ashkenaz,
ed. A. M. Habermann (Jerusalem, 1971), p.116; Abulafia, ‘Christians and Jews in the High Middle
Ages’, p.25.
59  For a contemporary account by the chronicler Ephraim ben Jacob of the events at Blois in 1171,
see The Jew in the Medieval World, ed. Marcus, pp.127–30. For discussion of the role of Louis VII, see
Robert Chazan, ‘The Blois Incident of 1171: A Study in Jewish Inter-Communal Organization’,
Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 36 (1968), 13–31; Robert Chazan, Reassessing
Jewish Life in Medieval Europe (Cambridge, 2010), p.92. For another example, see also, in the four-
teenth century, the pogroms which took place in Aragon in 1391. Henry III of Castile, who was
worried that the scapegoating of Jewish tax collectors might damage royal finances, offered Jews some
level of protection and levied harsh penalties on towns not only to stop further violence but to make
up for losses in royal revenues. For very recent and important discussion of the events of 1391 (outside
the chronological remit of this book), see Ryan Szpiech, Conversion and Narrative: Reading and
Religious Authority in Medieval Polemic (Philadelphia, 2013); see also What is the Use of Jewish History?,
ed. L. S. Dawidowicz and N. Kozodoy (New York, 1992).
40 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

J e w i sh C h ro n i cles : P rot ec t i o n f ro m
C h r i s t i an V i o lence

Other important Hebrew sources—chronicles—point in the same direction.

Although some were written long after the circumstances they described, many
were contemporary, and in these we would expect to find more concrete and abun-
dant evidence for papal–Jewish interaction. Chroniclers—unsurprisingly since
their aim was to provide a narrative chronology dealing with important people and
major events—were sometimes interested in how the papacy’s pronouncements
immediately affected their communities; hence they do refer, if infrequently, to
popes. Admittedly there are problems in knowing how to read these texts. It has
recently been argued that, except for times of messianic fervour when there might
be a sudden renewal of interest in contemporary history, writers of medieval
Hebrew chronicles usually absorbed what they recorded into ‘old and established
conceptual frameworks’ rather than recognizing ‘novelty in passing events’.60 Be
that as it may, chronicles, composed and re-composed by different individuals with
a variety of agendas and perspectives, were united by the common goal of attempting
to ensure the defence of Jewish communities and Judaism.61 Hence, the issue of
papal authority and the papacy’s ability to give adequate protection resurfaced at
times of conflict and crisis. Even such occasional references to the papacy, whether
direct or indirect, are thus useful to the historian who attempts to understand how
Jewish communities perceived particular pontiffs.
At times, chronicles exhibit hostility to the papacy; at others, they are well disposed.
Two texts in particular, The Terrible Event of 1007, often referred to as the ‘1007
Anonymous’ and the First Crusade chronicle of Shelomo bar Shimshon provide
insights not only on what Jews thought about individual popes, but on their views
of the papacy as an institution. The anonymous chronicler, probably writing after
1220, detailed an outbreak of violence against Jews in 1007 during the reign of
Duke Robert the Pious/King Robert II of France (972–1031).62 He records how
the king, the queen, and their ministers were swayed by popular demand that the
Jews should be exterminated since ‘this people’s laws and beliefs are different from
those of all other nations’.63 Accordingly, the king summoned the Jews of his
60 Yerushalmi, Zakhor, p.36.
61  For discussion of the role of chronicles in the study of Jewish history and the complex combin-
ation of history and myth in the fifteenth and sixteenth century, see Ephraim Carlebach, ‘Between
History and Myth: the Regensburg Expulsion in Josel of Rosheim’s Sefer ha-miknah’, in Jewish History
and Jewish Memory: Essays in Honour of Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, ed. E. Carlebach, J. M. Efron,
D. N. Myers, pp.40–53.
62  Sefer gezerot sarfat ve-ashkenaz, ed. Habermann, pp.19–21; Kenneth Stow has discussed the text
in great detail in Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and Papal Sovereignty, where he argued for a thirteenth-
century dating and therefore I give only a brief summary of it here. The debate on the dating of this
text is very complex. See Robert Chazan, ‘1007–1012, Initial Crisis for Northern European Jewry’,
Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 39 (1971), 101–17; Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’
and Papal Sovereignty, p.26. I am grateful to Stow who has also very recently discussed with me the
idea that the chronicle was written after 1220. See also Robert Chazan who disputed Stow’s dating of
the text in Robert Chazan, ‘Review of Kenneth Stow, The “1007 Anonymous” and Papal Sovereignty’,
Speculum: A Journal of Medieval Studies 62/3 (1987), 728–31.
63  Sefer gezerot sarfat ve-ashkenaz, ed. Habermann, p.19.
 Jewish Ideas about the Papacy 41

kingdom and demanded on pain of death that they convert to Christianity. Having
consulted among themselves:
they came to the king and told him ‘My Lord, we will not obey you and we will not
leave our religion. You must do as you will with us’. And they placed their heads before
the sword to die as martyrs.64
Many were then killed and in response to this outrage, one of the great rabbis of
the eleventh century, Rabbi Ya’acov bar Yakutiel, declared to those who had mur-
dered them:
‘You have no authority over Israel to convert them or to try to do anything bad to
them. But the pope of Rome has that authority. If you approve it I will go there and
I will meet with him and I will come back and tell you his words’.65
He then travelled to Rome to appeal to the pontiff, probably Pope John XVIII
(1003–1009).66 Addressing him as ‘head of the nations’, Yakutiel asked him to
send letters ordering an end to the massacres and to rule that:
‘no gentile is allowed to kill any Jew for any reason, nor to cause him any damage, nor
to exploit him and take what he has earned from work, nor to force him to abandon
his religion’.67
In return he promised two hundred literaria (pounds) for the papal treasury, which
although not strictly a bribe—it was customary for petitioners of means to offer a
sum to the papal curia—was a very large sum: and in addition twelve horses and
two hundred silver shekels for the travelling expenses of the bishop who would
carry the letter of protection. Having summoned the rabbis of Rome to look after
Yakutiel, the pope deliberated with his bishops for fifteen days, while the Jews
‘cried and prayed to God that the heart of the pope would be wholly with them’.68
The conclusion was indeed favourable: a bishop was despatched with letters of pro-
tection; the decree of Robert was cancelled and the pontiff promised that:
‘if you should need anything further to be done in your country, do not bother your-
self any more but rather send a messenger to me. For I shall do whatever you wish’.69
This is certainly an account which presents a pope in a very favourable light.
Following the call by Urban II (1088–1099) for the First Crusade at the Council
of Clermont in 1095, attention to papal influence on the well-being of Jewish
communities in western Europe resurfaces in Jewish chronicles. It has been sug-
gested that in contrast to the popular legends of the Sefer Yossipon, the Hebrew
crusade chronicles subordinate the description of specific historical events to the
elaboration of a grand historical drama in which the Jewish people play a unique

64  Sefer gezerot sarfat ve-ashkenaz, ed. Habermann, p.19.

65  Sefer gezerot sarfat ve-ashkenaz, ed. Habermann, p.20.
66  For the bull of John XVIII which has not survived taking the Jews under papal protection, see
Simonsohn, p.34.
67  Sefer gezerot sarfat ve-ashkenaz, ed. Habermann, pp.20–1.
68  Sefer gezerot sarfat ve-ashkenaz, ed. Habermann, p.21.
69  Sefer gezerot sarfat ve-ashkenaz, ed. Habermann, p.21.
42 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

role.70 This of course was not special to medieval Jewish writing; Christian writers
too can see history as a series of events enabling God’s plans to unfold: in their case,
for Salvation.71 Yet in the case of these crusade chronicles we see a special signifi-
cance put on the events themselves and an awareness of cataclysmic change.72 It
has been argued that the new religious spirit of the eleventh century which ushered
in the crusades, combined with new social and economic factors, brought about a
considerable deterioration in Christian attitudes to Jews and so to Jewish–Christian
relations.73 The crusades themselves, both for contemporary and later writers, can
be seen as the symbol of a profound shift in attitudes in Latin Christianity.74
Unlike the anonymous chronicler of The Terrible Event of 1007, the First Crusade
chronicler Shelomo bar Shimshon, writing a number of years later, had little good
to say about papal protection, referring explicitly to the pontiff as ‘Satan . . . the
pope of evil Rome’.75 He described how ‘Satan [the pope] intervened among the
nations and they all gathered as one to fulfil the command . . . ’, which suggests that
he is referring to Urban II and his call for the First Crusade to re-capture Jerusalem.76
As we shall see in Chapter Three, the identity of the pope in question, however, is
not secure: it has been argued that Shelomo was referring not to Urban II, but to

70 Myers, Resisting History, p.13.

71 Myers, Resisting History, p.13.
72 Yerushalmi, Zakhor, p.37. For discussion of the complexities surrounding the composition of
the Hebrew chronicles of the First Crusade and of the collective memory which they record (and the
projection of the survivor’s conflicts and doubts onto the martyr to resolve dissonances between the
survivor’s weakness and the heroism of the martyr), see Robert Chazan, Medieval Jewry in Northern
France. A Political and Social History (Baltimore, London, 1973), pp.1–4; pp.30–62; Robert Chazan,
‘The Hebrew First Crusade Chronicles’, Revue des Etudes Juives 133 (1974), 235–54; Robert Chazan,
European Jewry and the First Crusade (London, 1987), pp.40–9; Robert Chazan, In the Year 1096.
The First Crusade and the Jews (Philadelphia, 1996), pp.107–26; Robert Chazan, ‘The Mainz
Anonymous: Historiographic Perspectives’, in Jewish History and Jewish Memory: Essays in Honour of
Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, ed. E. Carlebach, J. M. Efron, D. N. Myers, pp.54–69; Jeremy Cohen, ‘The
Hebrew Crusade Chronicles in their Christian Cultural Context’, in Juden und Christen zur Zeit der
Kreuzzüge, Vorträge und Forschungen 47, Konstanzer Arbeitkreis für mittelalterliche Geschichte, ed.
A.  Haverkamp (Sigmaringen, 1999), pp.17–34; Robert Chazan, God, Humanity and History: the
Hebrew First Crusade Narratives (Berkeley, 2000), pp.124–39; Robert Chazan, Fashioning Jewish
Identity in Medieval Western Christendom (Cambridge, 2004), pp.91–121; Robert Chazan, ‘The First
Crusade Narrative of R. Eliezer bar Nathan’, in Between Rashi and Maimonides. Themes in Medieval
Jewish Thought, Literature and Exegis, ed. E. Kanarfogel, M. Sokolow (New York, 2010), pp.191–
203. For the cultural and social background of Jewish martyrdom, see Grossman, ‘The Cultural and
Social Background of Jewish Martyrdom in Germany in 1096’, pp.73–86, passim.
73  See, for example, Hanz Liebeschütz, ‘The Crusading Movement in its Bearing on the Christian
Attitude towards the Jewry’, in Essential Papers on Judaism and Christianity in Conflict, ed. J. Cohen,
pp.260–75 and especially pp.271–2.
74  Haverkamp, ‘The Jews of Europe in the Middle Ages’, p.5.
75 Shelomo bar Shimshon, in Sefer gezerot sarfat ve-ashkenaz, ed. A. M. Habermann, p.27;
E. Haverkamp, Hebräische berichte über die judenverfolgungen während des ersten kreuzzugs herausgega-
ben von Eva Haverkamp (Hanover, 2005), pp.298–9. For discussion of the Hebrew chronicles of the
First Crusade and their relationship to each other, see n.72 above; also Anna Abulafia ‘The
Interrelationship between the Hebrew Chronicles on the First Crusade’, Journal of Semitic Studies 27/2
(1982), 221–39; also on Rabbi Amnon of Mainz and his relationship to the First and Second Crusades,
see Ivan Marcus, ‘A Pious Community and Doubt: Qiddush Hashem in Ashkenaz and the Story of
Rabbi Amnon of Mainz’, in Julius Carlebach. Festschrift, Studien zur jüdischen Geschichte und Soziologie
(Heidelberg, 1992), pp.97–113.
76  Shelomo bar Shimshon, in Sefer gezerot sarfat ve-ashkenaz, ed. Habermann, p.27.
 Jewish Ideas about the Papacy 43

Wibert of Ravenna, the anti-pope Clement III (1029–1100), and his denunciation
of Jews who, following forced conversions, returned to Judaism after the crusaders
recaptured Jerusalem from the Seljuk Turks.77
Yet even if the reference is to Wibert and Urban II played no part encouraging
persecutions, why, anticipating crusader violence, did he fail to re-issue the
‘Constitutio pro Iudaeis’, on the eve of the crusade?78 As we have seen, this general
letter, otherwise known as the ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, was a papal promise of protection for
the Jews originally decreed by Gregory I (590–604) in 598 and re-issued by a number
of Urban’s successors at times of crisis.79 To ask our present question, however, is to
approach the matter from hindsight: Gregory I’s ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ was originally issued
in response to a petition from the Jews of Palermo who had complained about the
anti-Jewish activities of its bishop; it had no connection with papal authorization
of military action.80 Furthermore, Urban II’s call on Christians to take the Cross
in 1095 was the first of its kind and, according to the accounts of his speech at
Clermont, he envisaged that those who answered his call to arms would be from
the knightly classes and no disordered rabble.81 Perhaps naively, he seems to have
been genuinely amazed by the popular response to his summons and, with no ex-
perience of previous crusades on which to draw, failed to anticipate the ensuing mob
violence against Jews. Consequently it did not cross his mind to issue ‘Sicut Iudaeis’.
Indeed the earliest possible re-issues date from the pontificates of Calixtus II (1119–
1124) and Eugenius III (1145–1153), while the earliest extant version is likely to
have been composed after the time of Gratian (floruit c.1140) and was not issued
until the pontificate of Alexander III, sometime between 1159 and 1181.82 All these
re-issues were long after Urban II’s pontificate.
Since the Jewish First Crusade chronicles portray so many aspects of Christianity
in derogatory terms, Shelomo bar Shimshon’s anti-papal rhetoric is not particularly

77  See, for example, Solomon Grayzel, ‘Pope Alexander III and the Jews’, in Salo W. Baron Jubilee
Volume. American Academy for Jewish Research (Jerusalem, New York, 1975), p.556; Stow, The ‘1007
Anonymous’ and Papal Sovereignty, p.18; Kenneth Stow, ‘Conversion, Apostasy and Apprehensiveness:
Emicho of Flonheim and the Fear of the Jews in the Twelfth Century’, Speculum: A Journal of Medieval
Studies 76/4 (2001), 926. Earlier historians had attributed this protest to Urban II, see, for example,
Roth, ‘The Popes and the Jews’, 79; and his entry (1971) ‘Popes’, in Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem,
1971); another anti-pope who does not come off well in relation to the Jews is Benedict XIII (elected
1394) who was responsible for the Disputation of Tortosa (1413–1414) and a wave of persecution in
the Iberian Peninsula, see Roth, ‘The Popes and the Jews’, 83. For the Jewish and Christian accounts
of the Disputation of Tortosa, see Judaism on Trial: Jewish-Christian Disputations in the Middle Ages,
ed. and trans. H. Maccoby (Rutherford, London, 1982), pp.168–86; pp.187–215.
78  Solomon Grayzel, ‘The Papal Bull “Sicut Iudeis”’, in Studies and Essays in Honour of Abraham
A. Neuman (Philadelphia, Leiden, 1962), p.251.
79  For a discussion of the various re-issues of the ‘Constitutio pro Iudaeis’, see Grayzel, Vol. 1,
pp.76–8; Solomon Grayzel, ‘The Papal Bull “Sicut Iudaeis”’, in Essential Papers in Judaism and
Christianity in Conflict, ed. J. Cohen (New York, London, 1991), pp.231–59.
80 Gregory I, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (June 598), in Simonsohn, pp.15–16; Abulafia, ‘Christians and Jews in
the High Middle Ages’, p.20.
81  See the description of Urban II’s speech at Clermont in The Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hiero­
solimitanorum, ed. R. Hill (Oxford, 1962), p.1.
82  For possible issues which are not extant, see Calixtus II, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (1119–1124), Simonsohn,
p.44 and Eugenius III, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (1145–53), Simonsohn, p.47 and discussed in Grayzel, Vol. 1,
p.76. For the extant issue of Alexander III, see ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (1159–1181), in Simonsohn, pp.51–2.
44 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

remarkable. It has been suggested that such negative portrayals were an outlet for
the rage felt by Jewish communities facing severe persecution, and, even more, an
attempt to consolidate the defence of their communities against forces threatening
Jewish identity itself: in the face of crusader atrocities the narratives emphasize the
importance of martyrdom or qiddush ha-Shem—‘sanctifying the name of God’—
for Rhenish Jews, while several times Jewish women are represented as willing to
sacrifice themselves and their children for their faith.83
One might expect that popes would appear again in chronicles narrating the
events of the Second Crusade authorized by Pope Eugenius III in his general letter,
‘Quantum praedecessores’ of 1145 to rescue the County of Edessa, the first crusader
state in the twelfth century to have reverted to Muslim control. The chronicler
Ephraim of Bonn (1132–1200), who would doubtless have heard stories about
the  persecutions suffered by the Jewish communities of the Rhine at the hands
of  those taking part in the First Crusade, records in his Sefer Zekhirah (Book of
Remembrance) that on the eve of the Second Crusade, a mob again attacked Jews
on the pretext of avenging Christ—this time in France—and that royal officials
had to be bribed to ensure protection.84 Many Jews suffered financially because, as
Ephraim explained:
a lot of their fortune has been taken away, for thus the king of France has ordered that
in the case of anyone who volunteers to go to Jerusalem, if he owes money to the Jews
his debt will be forgiven.85
In other words, Louis VII of France had decreed that interest on debts owed by
anyone who volunteered to crusade to Jerusalem would be cancelled, and these
were often the very people to whom Jews had loaned money.86 Nevertheless,
Ephraim also notes that in England the Second Crusade had less severe repercus-
sions for Jews; King Stephen (1135–1154) ‘had it in his heart to defend them and
save their lives and property’ from crusader excesses.87 It has been argued that

83  Haverkamp, ‘The Jews of Europe in the Middle Ages’, p.6; Abulafia, ‘Christians and Jews in the
High Middle Ages’, p.21; p.25; Schäfer, ‘Jews and Christians in the High Middle Ages’, p.33; Yerushalmi,
Zakhor, p.49; Blumenkranz, ‘The Roman Church and the Jews’, p.214; Cohen, ‘The Hebrew Crusade
Chronicles in their Christian Cultural Context’, pp.17–34; Einbinder, Beautiful Death, pp.30–71. For
the increased attention to militant female piety in the Hebrew chronicles and their similarity to contem-
porary representations of Christian female piety, see especially, Abraham Grossman, Pious and Rebellious.
Jewish Women in Medieval Europe, trans. J. Chipman (Waltham, Mass., 2004), pp.198–211.
84  Ephraim of Bonn, in Sefer gezerot sarfat ve-ashkenaz, ed. Habermann, p.121. For a detailed dis-
cussion of the role of popes in this complex text, see especially Robert Chazan, ‘Rabbi Ephraim of
Bonn’s Sefer Zechirah’, Revue des Études Juives 132 (1973), 119–26; Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and
Papal Sovereignty, pp.4–5; p.7; pp.18–19; p.21; p.48.
85  Ephraim of Bonn, in Sefer gezerot sarfat ve-ashkenaz, ed. Habermann, p.121.
86  Ephraim of Bonn, in Sefer gezerot sarfat ve-ashkenaz, ed. Habermann, p.121; Stow, Alienated
Minority, p.113; Chazan, Medieval Jewry in Northern France, pp.34–6.
87  Ephraim of Bonn, in Sefer gezerot sarfat ve-ashkenaz, ed. Habermann, p.121. By contrast several
English chroniclers recorded an outbreak of violence in 1189–90, associated with Richard I of England’s
preparations for the Third Crusade, against Jewish communities in King’s Lynn, Stamford, Lincoln,
York, and Bury St Edmund’s. See Ralph of Diceto, ‘Opera Historica’, in Rolls Series 68, ed. W. Stubbs
(London, 1876; Kraus Reprint, 1965), Vol. 2, pp.68–9; William of Newburgh, ‘Chronicles of
William of Newburgh’, Vol. 1, Bk 4, ed. R. Howlett, Rolls Series 82 (London, 1884; Kraus
Reprint 1964), pp.293–9; Roger of Hoveden, Chronica 3, ed. W. Stubbs, Rolls Series 51 (London,
 Jewish Ideas about the Papacy 45

Eugenius III’s re-issue of the ‘Constitutio pro Iudaeis’ at the beginning of his pon-
tificate was in anticipation of renewed pogroms on the eve of the Second Crusade.88
Yet there is no direct mention in the chronicle either of Eugenius III or of ‘Quantum
praedecessores’—even though this general letter specifically regulated that:
All those who are encumbered with debts and undertake so holy a journey with pure
hearts need not pay usury on past loans; and if they or others on their behalf are
bound by oath or faith to usurious contracts we absolve them from them by apostolic
authority.89
Unlike the anonymous chronicler of The Terrible Event of 1007 and Shelomo bar
Shimshon, Ephraim apparently considered this important papal pronouncement
irrelevant to the immediate purposes of his narrative. Yet although he says nothing
specific about papal activity, we can deduce from his text that Louis VII took Eugenius
III’s ‘Quantum praedecessores’ very seriously;90 as we have noted, Ephraim specific-
ally blamed the king for cancelling the interest owed to Jews by crusaders.91 Indeed,
Louis identified Jews in particular as among the principal moneylenders in his
kingdom, and in 1146 issued a stern edict releasing crusaders from all obligations to
them beyond the repayment of the principal and forbidding them from recovering
interest lost through profits generated by pledges, especially on land.92

J e w i sh P o lem i cal L i t e r at u r e

Even more informative, though in a very different context from the sources we
have examined so far, is an entirely separate literary genre: polemical literature, an
important component of the great flowering of Christian and Jewish writing
during the High Middle Ages. In the twelfth century anti-Jewish polemic began to
emerge in western Europe, questioning and often contesting many traditional
ideas of the role Jews were supposed to play in the narrative history of Christian
1871; Kraus Reprint, 1964), pp.12–13; ‘Gesta regis Henrici Benedicti Abbatis’, in Rolls Series 49, ed.
W. Stubbs (London, 1867; Kraus Reprint, 1965), Vol. 2, pp.83–4; pp.107–8. See, for e­ xample, the
discussion in Richard Dobson, The Jews of Medieval York and the Massacre of March 1190 (York, 1974),
pp.1–26.
88  Eugenius III, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, in Simonsohn, p.47. The bull has not survived and is known from
its quotation in later editions of the text. See Grayzel, ‘The Church and the Jews in the Thirteenth
Century’, in Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.76. For scepticism about reading too much into papal texts about the
Jews especially with respect to continuity and change, see Kenneth Stow, ‘The Pitfalls of Writing Papal
Documentary History: Simonsohn’s Apostolic See and the Jews’, Jewish Quarterly Review 85/3–4
(1995), 400: ‘Most notably, scholars have calculated the regularity with which the bull “Sicut Iudaeis
non” was reissued as a barometer of so-called favourable papal stances’.
89  The Crusades. Idea and Reality, ed. L. Riley-Smith, J. S. C. Riley-Smith (London, 1981), p.59.
90 Eugenius III, ‘Quantum praedecessores’ (1 December 1145), in Ottonis et Rahewina Gesta
Friderici I Imperatoris, 3rd edn, ed. B. von Simson (Hanover, Leipzig, 1912), pp.55–7. See also the
re-issue of ‘Quantum praedecessores’ (1 March 1146), in Neues archiv der gesellschaft für ältere Deutsche
geschichtskunde 45, ed. P. Rassow (Berlin, 1924), pp.302–5.
91  Ephraim of Bonn, in Sefer gezerot sarfat ve-ashkenaz, ed. Habermann, p.121.
92 Robert Stacey, ‘Crusades, Martyrdom and the Jews of Norman England 1096–1190’, in Juden
und Christen zur Zeit der Kreuzzüge, Vorträge und Forschungen 47, Konstanzer Arbeitkreis für mittelalter-
liche Geschichte, ed. A. Haverkamp (Sigmaringen, 1999), p.241; Stow, Alienated Minority, pp.113–14.
46 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

society.93 Similarly, Jewish anti-Christian polemic began to circulate more widely,

reaching a crescendo in many parts of Europe in the late twelfth and thirteenth
centuries with writers such as Joseph Kimi, Jacob ben Reuben, Meir ben Simeon
of Narbonne, Joseph ben Nathan Official, who composed the Sefer Joseph
Hamekane (the Book of Joseph the Zealot), and his father Nathan Official, Moses of
Salerno, Mordecai of Avignon, Nachmanides, Yacov of Venice, Abraham Abulafia,
and the anonymous author of the Sefer Nisahon Yashan.94
All these authors make concerted efforts to present a coherent case against Chris­
tianity and it is in this context that they refer to the papacy. There are undoubted
difficulties about using polemical literature to understand what Jews thought about
popes and the papacy, not least because it is often difficult to distinguish between the
writer’s personal views and his use of a standard polemical rhetoric and argumenta-
tion to win a particular debate.95 Yet, despite the obviously anti-Christian rhetoric of
Jewish polemic, the popes themselves, as we shall see, are quite frequently portrayed
in a positive light—in contrast to the way secular powers—in particular King Louis
IX of France (1226–1270)—are often represented as mistreating Jews. In this respect
there is a remarkable correlation among the polemicists and the views expressed by
some of the chroniclers we have examined.
The Milhemet Misvah of Meir ben Simeon of Narbonne is a good example of a
polemical text which contains scattered references to popes and frequently refers to
papal claims to spiritual power and authority.96 In one part of the work, ‘The
Letter I would have liked to send to King Louis’ (Louis IX), the author describes
the pope as ‘the Vicar of Christ’ who ‘does not forbid us to lend at interest, for
that would be to forbid us our religion, which permits us to lend to non-Jews’.97
He contrasts the pope very favourably with the king, since the latter arbitrarily
annulled oaths and covenants, whereas the former upheld them. Certainly Meir
ben Simeon recognized the papacy as a force which could be harnessed to help the
Jews, although he also viewed it as not powerful enough, or even at times secure
enough, to ensure reliability.98 His awareness of the limits of papal protection
meant that he was always cautious in his appraisal, never over-enthusiastic.99

93 Funkenstein, Perceptions of Jewish History, pp.172–89, especially p.172.

94 Berger, The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages, p.16.
95 Chazan, Fashioning Jewish Identity in Medieval Western Christendom, pp.339–59.
96  Kenneth Stow discusses this work in detail in Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and Papal Sovereignty,
p.3; pp.24–6; p.34; the pope was ‘Vicarius Christi’, see Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and Papal
Sovereignty, p.22, footnote 72, and footnote 96; see also Chazan, Fashioning Jewish Identity in Medieval
Western Christendom, pp.105–14.
97  Milhemet Misvah, MS Parma 2749, fol. 71r and see also fols 65r, 68r, 70v, and 226v; see Stow,
The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and Papal Sovereignty, p.25.
98  Meir Ben Simeon of Narbonne, Milhemet Misvah, MS Parma, 2749, fols 42v and 125r and v,
and see also fol. 228v; Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and Papal Sovereignty, p.26. For Meir ben Simeon
of Narbonne see, for example, Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, Vol. 9, p.104; Jeremy
Cohen, The Friars and the Jews: The Evolution of Medieval Anti-Judaism (Ithaca, 1982), p.108; p.109,
footnote 14; p.127; Robert Chazan, Daggers of Faith: Thirteenth-Century Christian Missionizing and
Jewish Response (Berkeley, 1989), p.49; p.50; Robert Chazan, Barcelona and Beyond: The Disputation of
1263 and its Aftermath (Berkeley, Los Angeles, 1992), p.189.
99  For detailed discussion of the Milhemet Misvah see, for example, Chazan, Daggers of Faith,
pp.39–44; pp.49–51; pp.52–66; p.69; p.52; Cohen, The Friars and the Jews, p.82. For discussion of
 Jewish Ideas about the Papacy 47

In such polemical literature the issue of protection often arises in the context of
particularly papal concerns about the Talmud. Although the Talmud had been
known about in the West for centuries, it was the flourishing of rabbinic studies in
Europe in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries which led to its wider circulation
among Christians and to a consequent disquiet over its contents. In the twelfth
century both the influential Peter Alfonsi, a Jewish convert from Spain, and Peter
the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny, attacked it, claiming it contained passages pre-
senting an anthropomorphic and therefore blasphemous view of God.100 In the
thirteenth century, anti-Jewish polemic against it was more direct and aggressive,101
the Talmud becoming a dominant theme in polemical literature: either attacked
directly, or used to corroborate Christian arguments against Jewish refusal to rec-
ognize Jesus as the Messiah.102 The Disputation of Paris (1240) was the first of
many such ‘disputations’ between Christians and Jews intended by the Christians
to prove from the Talmud and other writings that the Messiah had already come.103
The Sefer Nisahon Yashan, otherwise known as the Nizzahon Vetus, a contem-
porary polemical anthology, likely intended as a handbook for Jews wanting to
dispute with Christians and probably to be dated to the late thirteenth or early
fourteenth century, but deriving the bulk of its material from an earlier period,
offers a good example of the animosity between Christians and Jews aroused by the
Talmud.104 Thus:
the infidels (Christians) say that the Talmud distorts and spoils all of our Torah, and
causes us not to grasp the Truth, because it diverts us into erroneous ways105

the Milhemet Misvah in relation to the papacy, see Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and Papal Sovereignty,
p.3; p.22; p.24; p.26; p.34; p.38; p.40; p.46.
100  Abulafia, ‘Christians and Jews in the High Middle Ages’, p.23.
101 Jeremy Cohen, ‘Scholarship and Intolerance in the Medieval Academy: The Study and
Evaluation of Judaism in European Christendom’, in Essential Papers on Judaism and Christianity in
Conflict, ed. J. Cohen, p.324.
102 Funkenstein, Rethinking Jewish History, pp.189–98.
103  Cecil Roth, ‘The Medieval Conception of the Jew: A New Interpretation’, in Essential Papers on
Judaism and Christianity in Conflict, ed. J. Cohen, pp.298–9. For an excellent recent edition of the
Hebrew and Latin texts of the trial, see The Trial of the Talmud: Paris, 1240. Hebrew Texts translated by
John Friedman, Latin Texts translated by Jean Cornell Hoff; Historical Essay by Robert Chazan (Toronto,
2012), pp.93–172.
104  For seminal discussion of the Sefer Nisahon Yashan/Nizzahon Vetus, see, for example, Berger,
The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages, pp.32–7 and more recently, for example, Anna
Abulafia, ‘Invectives against Christianity in the Hebrew Chronicles of the First Crusade’, in Crusade
and Settlement. Papers Read at the First Conference of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the
Latin East and Presented to R.C. Smail, ed. P. W. Edbury (Cardiff, 1985), p.70; Chazan, Daggers of
Faith, p.51; p.54; David Berger, ‘On the Uses of History in Medieval Jewish Polemic against
Christianity: The Quest for the Historical Jesus’, in Jewish History and Jewish Memory: Essays in Honour
of Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, ed. E. Carlebach, J. M. Efron, D. N. Myers, pp.27–9; Israel Yuval, Two
Nations in Your Womb. Perceptions of Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages (Berkeley,
Los Angeles, London, 2006), p.257.
105  For an older edition, see ‘Liber nizzachon vetus’, in Tela ignea satanae, ed. J. Ch. Wagenseil
(Frankfurt am Main, 1861), Vol. 1, col. 259; for modern editions, see Sefer Nizzahon Yashan (Nizzahon
Vetus). A Book of Jewish-Christian Polemic. A Critical Edition, ed. M. Breuer (Ramat Gan, 1978),
p.194; ‘Nizzahon Vetus’, in The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages, ed. Berger, pp.163–4;
for an English translation, see Berger, The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages, p.230.
48 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

—and that led to its being condemned at the Disputation of Paris in 1240 for the
specific crime of being a ‘Nova Lex’, in other words a corruption, not a representa-
tion, of Mosaic Law.106 The Nizzahon Vetus responded to such criticism in various
ways, emphasizing that on the contrary the Talmud acted as ‘a safeguard and quali-
fication for all of the Torah’, since the latter’s commandments are scattered among
twenty-four books, whereas the Talmud clearly divides its material into sections:
that ensures that the Talmud in no way diminishes the Torah but rather aids under-
standing of it.107 In the thirteenth century Jewish writers addressed papal attitudes
towards the Talmud in particular, not least because if it were banned, pogroms
against Jews would probably increase.

D i s p u tat i o ns B e t w een C h r i s t i ans and J e w s :

The D i s p u tat i o n o f Pa r i s ( 1 2 4 0 )

The Disputation of Paris of 1240 was the result of enquiries into the Talmud insti-
gated by Pope Gregory IX (1226–1239) and Louis IX of France.108 Details of
the Talmud trial were faithfully recorded in a polemical work known as the The
Argument (Vikkuah) of Rabbi Yacov of Venice (otherwise known as Jacob bar/ben
Elie or Jacob b. Elijah of Venice), probably written in the mid thirteenth century
by a southern French Jew living in exile in the Iberian peninsula. In this work Elie
excoriated the apostate Jew, Nicholas Donin, whom he believed had betrayed
Judaism by his conversion and subsequent collaboration with enquiries into the
content of the Talmud, said to contain blasphemies against Christ and the Virgin
Mary.109 He recounted how the great Jewish leader, Rabbi Yehi’el of Paris, publicly
rejected the converted Donin and how the latter subsequently reported tales of
ritual murder and blood libel at Passover to the pope, hoping to incite him against
the Jews.110

106  ‘Liber nizzachon vetus’, in Tela ignea satanae, ed. Wagenseil, Vol. 1, col. 259; for modern edi-
tions, see Sefer Nizzahon Yashan (Nizzahon Vetus). A Book of Jewish-Christian Polemic. A Critical
Edition, ed. Breuer, p.194; ‘Nizzahon Vetus’, in The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages,
ed. Berger, pp.163–4; for an English translation, see Berger, The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High
Middle Ages, p.230. See discussion of this passage in Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and Papal Sovereignty,
p.23; Berger, The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages, p.343.
107  ‘Liber nizzachon vetus’, in Tela ignea satanae, ed. Wagenseil, Vol. 1, col. 259; for modern edi-
tions, see Sefer Nizzahon Yashan (Nizzahon Vetus). A Book of Jewish-Christian Polemic. A Critical
Edition. ed. Breuer, p.194; ‘Nizzahon Vetus’, in The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages,
ed. Berger, pp.163–4; for an English translation, see Berger, The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High
Middle Ages, p.230. The practice of dividing up theological works into manageable chunks in order to
provide a systematic theology was increasingly important for Christian, as well as Jewish writers from
the twelfth century onwards. See, in particular, Peter Lombard, Sententiae in IV libris distinctae, 3rd edn,
ed. I. C. Brady, 2 vols (Grottaferrata, 1971–81), passim. For discussion, see Martha Colish, Peter
Lombard, Vol. 1 (Leiden, New York, 1994), pp.34–5; pp.77–90; ‘Liber nizzachon vetus’, in Tela ignea
satanae, ed. Wagenseil, Vol. 1, col. 259.
108  Judaism on Trial, ed. Maccoby, pp.19–38.
109  Abulafia, ‘Christians and Jews in the High Middle Ages’, p.24.
110  For an easily accessible text, see Jacob ben Elie, ‘Vikuah R. Ya’acov mivinisya’, in Osar wikuhim
(also spelt Ozar vikkuhim), ed. J. D. Eisenstein (New York, 1929) p.192. But for a more accurate text,
see ‘Vikuah R. Ya’acov mivinisya’, in Sefer Ginze nistarot, ed. J. Kobak (Bamberg, 1868), Vol. 1,
pp.29–30.
 Jewish Ideas about the Papacy 49

Jacob describes Gregory IX as ‘the king who governs all kings. . . . to him be fame
and glory’—not an unusual description, since, as we have already noted, both
Christian and Jewish writers frequently emphasized the pope’s claims to temporal,
as well as spiritual, authority.111 Much more interestingly, he also describes the
pope as ‘honourable’ and ‘innocent’,112 emphasizing that Gregory ‘did not listen
to his [Donin’s] words and knew that they were words of stupidity and evil’.113 He
added that not only the pope but:
the kings of the country did not believe him [Donin] and neither did the inhabitants
of the whole world, except for ignorant savages and evil persons who have the same
evil in them.114
We can interpret such comments in a number of ways. Either Jacob was delib-
erately flattering the pope to ensure that papal protection of Jewish communities
would continue; or he was genuinely convinced of the pope’s desire to protect Jews
against false allegation—or both, which, given the context of the debate, seems the
most likely. Jacob recognized that the spiritual and temporal power of the papacy
ensured that kings took notice of papal injunctions not to harm Jews but to allow
them to exercise their rights undisturbed, and he acknowledged that the pope was
often a safer port of refuge than monarchs or emperors. Of course, this is only a
very general comment, since, as we have already noted, royal and imperial protec-
tion varied dramatically, depending on geography and the individual characters
of secular rulers. One need only compare, for example, the comparatively benign
­legislation of Frederick II—he ruled as Holy Roman Emperor from 1220–1250—
for Jews in southern Italy with the anti-Jewish policies, including expulsions, of
Philip II Augustus of France.115
Besides Jacob bar Elie, other contemporaries appear similarly ambivalent about
the likelihood of royal aid to communities at times of crisis and correspondingly
aware of the importance of gaining papal protection. Joseph ben Nathan Official,
another thirteenth-century authority, regularly came into contact with high

111 Jacob ben Elie, ‘Vikuah R. Ya’acov mivinisya’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. Eisenstein, p.192;
‘Vikuah R. Ya’acov mivinisya’, ed. Kobak, Vol. 1, pp.29–30. It is worth noting that the title ‘Head
of the Nations’ appeared in a 1354 petition to the King of Aragon and in the sixteenth century
chronicle of Eliyahu Capsali who used the term provocatively to refer to both the emperor and the
pope. See Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and Papal Sovereignty, p.22. Compare with the Christian
writer Alexander of Roes who, despite his imperialist sympathies, declared that at the Second
Council of Lyons in 1274 all prelates, kings, Jews, Greeks, and Tartars confessed that the monarchy
of the world belonged to the pope; Alexander de Roes, Notitia Saeculi, Vol. 8, MGH, Vol. 1, Part 1,
pp.149–71. See the discussion in James Mundy, Europe in the High Middle Ages (London, 1973),
p.154; p.323.
112  The word used for the pope is ‘melech’ (king). See Jacob ben Elie, ‘Vikuah R. Ya’acov mivinisya’,
in Osar wikuhim, ed. Eisenstein, p.192; ‘Vikuah R. Ya’acov mivinisya’, ed. Kobak, Vol. 1, pp.29–30.
113  Jacob ben Elie, ‘Vikuah R. Ya’acov mivinisya’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. Eisenstein, p.192; ‘Vikuah
R. Ya’acov mivinisya’, ed. Kobak, Vol. 1, pp.29–30.
114  Jacob ben Elie, ‘Vikuah R. Ya’acov mivinisya’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. Eisenstein, p.192; ‘Vikuah
R. Ya’acov mivinisya’, ed. Kobak, Vol. 1, pp.29–30.
115 Expulsions of the Jews, for example from France which began during the reign of Philip
Augustus, became routine in Europe after 1291; see Roth, ‘The Popes and the Jews’, 75; William
Chester Jordan, The French Monarchy and the Jews: from Philip Augustus to the Last of the Capetians
(Philadelphia, 1989), passim.
50 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

officials and ecclesiastical dignitaries through his father, the elder Official, who had
held public office and was often invited to take part in religious disputations.116
What is particularly striking about the younger Official’s The Disputation of Rabbi
Yehi’el of Paris, perhaps the most famous account of the Talmud’s trial in 1240, is
the central role played by Gregory IX.117 The Jewish witness at the trial was Rabbi
Yehi’el of Paris, head of the local rabbinical academy and a Tossafist, while on the
Christian side were William of Auvergne, bishop of Paris, Adam de Chambly, bishop
of Senlis, Walter Cornutus, archbishop of Sens, Geoffrey of Bellevelle, the royal
chaplain, and possibly Odo (Eudes) of Châteauroux, chancellor of the University
of Paris.118 According to Official, the queen (-mother) of France, Blanche of
Castile, informed Rabbi Yehi’el that it was the pope himself who, concerned about
what he had heard regarding the Talmud, had ordered its trial; while she assured
him of royal protection, nevertheless she bid him to answer Nicholas Donin’s
charges at the pope’s own behest.119 Yehi’el replied that he was afraid that the
queen might not like his replies. He stated:
‘prior to everything I shall call you to court in front of the pope if he should force me
to answer the infidel’s [Donin’s] claims’.120
Donin then himself intervened and declared that ‘this is being done in accordance
with what the pope says’—in other words that the trial would take place at the
pope’s own command—and at this point Yehi’el replied that he would answer the
charges.121 And later in the proceedings too Yehi’el again proclaimed the pope a
safe and certain protector, as having:
‘ordained with all his might to preserve us and to keep us alive and to give us a liveli-
hood in their country and thereby we live as willed by the Creator’.122

116  For Joseph ben Nathan Official see, for example, Baron, A Social and Religious History of the
Jews, Vol. 9, p.104; Cohen, The Friars and the Jews, p.63, footnote 22; p.64, footnote 23; p.65; p.74;
Judaism on Trial, ed. Maccoby, p.20; p.218.
117  For Rabbi Yehi’el see, for example, Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, Vol. 9,
p.104; Cohen, The Friars and the Jews, p.61, footnote 19; p.63; pp.65–6; pp.69–74; p.156; Judaism on
Trial, ed. Maccoby, p.11; p.20; p.21; pp.23–38; p.44; p.61; p.76; p.80; p.111; pp.153–67; p.218.
See also especially Berger, ‘On the Uses of History in Medieval Jewish Polemic Against Christianity’,
p.33. For Joseph ben Nathan Official’s edition of Rabbi Yehi’el’s Hebrew account of the Paris Disputation,
see Cohen, The Friars and the Jews, p.63, footnote 22; Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and Papal Sovereignty,
p.42; Piero Capelli, ‘Rashi nella controversia parigina sul Talmud del 1240’, in Ricercare la Sapienza di
Tutti gli Antichi, Series 39, Vol. 1, Miscellanea in onore di Gian Luigi Prato, ed. M. Milani, M. Zappella
(Bologna, 2013).
118  Shlomo Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History (Toronto, 1991), p.302.
119  Joseph ben Nathan Official, ‘Vikuah R. Yehi’el miparis’. For an easily accessible text, see Osar
wikuhim, ed. J. D. Eisenstein, p.82. But for a more accurate text, see Sefer Ṿ ikuaḥ Ṿ Rabenu Yeḥi’el
mi-Paris, ed. S.  Gruenbaum (Thorn, 1873), p.2. For an English translation (paraphrased) of the
Hebrew text, see Judaism on Trial, ed. Maccoby, pp.153–62. For a translation of the Christian account
of the Paris Disputation, see Judaism on Trial, ed. Maccoby, pp.163–7.
120  Joseph ben Nathan Official, ‘Vikuah R. Yehi’el miparis’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. Eisenstein, p.82;
Sefer Ṿ ikuaḥ Rabenu Yeḥi’el mi-Paris, ed. Gruenbaum, p.2.
121  Joseph ben Nathan Official, ‘Vikuah R. Yehi’el miparis’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. Eisenstein, p.82;
Sefer Ṿ ikuaḥ Rabenu Yeḥi’el mi-Paris, ed. Gruenbaum, p.2.
122  Joseph ben Nathan Official, ‘Vikuah R. Yehi’el miparis’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. Eisenstein, p.86;
Sefer Ṿ ikuaḥ Rabenu Yeḥi’el mi-Paris, ed. Gruenbaum, p.12.
 Jewish Ideas about the Papacy 51

So all three protagonists (Blanche, Donin, Yehi’el) appeal in turn to the pope to
justify their actions: the queen assuring Yehi’el that the pope had commanded him
to speak, Donin reiterating that the trial was taking place with the pope’s blessing,
Yehi’el appealing to papal protection.
In his address Yehi’el deliberately reminded the French monarchy that in the
past popes had ensured a degree of protection to Jewish communities at times
of crisis and voiced confidence that, even though the Talmud was now under
scrutiny, papal protection would continue. That suggests that he was much more
worried by royal, than by papal, reaction to the Disputation. Official’s version of
events may show that he and other Jews were nonplussed by the papacy’s stance
which seemed to lack consistency, and this is then conveyed in the text.123 Or that
the papal position offered protection, but also threatened that those disrespectful
of canon law would lose their privileges. Rabbi Yehi’el’s ambiguity towards the
pope was therefore deliberate.124 Another interpretation is that Yehi’el was so wor-
ried that in future papal protection might be withdrawn that during the trial he
deliberately tried to flatter Gregory IX. Yet this is also unsatisfactory since the
pope was not present and could only have heard Yehi’el’s speech second-hand. A
more likely explanation is that Official was deliberately attempting to distinguish
between the long history of papal protection to which Yehi’el referred and Gregory
IX’s new and particular concern about the Talmud.125 Like Jacob bar Elie, he was
showing appreciation of how important papal authority and its protective power
was for Jewish communities but registering dismay that the Talmud trial might
jeopardize that protection.126

J e w i sh P o lem i c and C h r i s t i an The o l o g y

Yet it is not just from such accounts of public, formal disputations as that about the
Talmud that we learn more about Jewish perceptions of the nature of papacy.
During the High Middle Ages informal contacts between Christians and Jews
­influenced biblical exegesis and recent scholars have shown convincingly that the
reading of Scripture, as well as confirming personal views, enabled both Christians
and Jews to debate more effectively with each other.127 Although in parts of western
Europe intellectual contact between the three monotheistic faiths—Islam, Judaism,
and Christianity—thrived, it was the particular renewal of interest in biblical
123 Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and Papal Sovereignty, p.42.
124 Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and Papal Sovereignty, p.42.
125 For the pope’s letters expressing concern about the ‘books of the Jews’, see Gregory IX,
‘Fraternitati tue presentium’ (9 June 1239), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.238–40; Simonsohn, pp.171–2; ‘Si vera
sunt’ (9 June 1239), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.240–2; Simonsohn, pp.172–3; ‘Si vera sunt’ (20 June
1239), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.242; Simonsohn, p.173; ‘Si vera sunt’ (20 June 1239), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.242;
Simonsohn, p.174.
126  Jacob ben Elie, ‘Vikuah R. Ya’acov mivinisya’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. Eisenstein, p.192.
127 Robert Moore, Jews and Christians in the Life and Thought of Hugh of St Victor (Atlanta, Georgia,
1998), pp.62–3; Chazan, Fashioning Jewish Identity in Medieval Western Christendom, pp.122–40;
George Coats, ‘Abraham’s Sacrifice of Faith. A Form-Critical Study of Genesis 22’, in The Sacrifice of
Isaac. Studies in the Development of a Literary Tradition, ed. E. Yassif (Jerusalem, 1978), pp.1–12.
52 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

studies in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, among others, by the Victorines,
which led to theological discussions between Christians who could read Hebrew
and Jews.128 The Old Testament was accepted as a basis for argument, but Christian
and Jewish writers accused each other of creating a false impression of it by con-
cealing certain passages—sometimes entire books—or by making additions to the
text.129 Christian writers both proposed doctrinal positions which they knew Jews
would reject and also attempted to refute Jewish rabbinical interpretations.130 In
particular, as they became increasingly aware of classical texts and more expert in
grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic, they became convinced that rational proof could
be provided for Christianity, and so felt particularly challenged by continuing
Jewish rejection of its theology.131 The intellectual awakening of the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries, therefore, tended to increase Christian anti-Judaism.132
Christians lampooned Jews for not accepting key aspects of Christianity.133
Debate about the Eucharist within the Church may have encouraged Jews to
reproach Christians with lack of unity in their faith—indeed it has been suggested
that the growth of blood libel and host desecration charges may have been con-
nected with the fact that from the eleventh century onwards Christian theologians
were developing the doctrine of transubstantiation promulgated at Lateran IV in
1215.134 More acquaintance with Jewish works criticizing Jesus, Mary, and
Christian doctrine may also have stimulated inflammatory charges and libels.135
Cross-fertilization of Christian and Jewish writing is evident in works such as the
twelfth-century Dialogus inter Christianum et Iudeum which covered major topics
separating Christianity from Judaism: the validity of the law of Moses, original sin,
the Incarnation, and the Trinity.136 Christian writers such as Peter Damian, Gilbert
Crispin, and Peter of Blois all cited Old Testament texts in their arguments, espe-
cially messianic passages, to prove the Messiah had come, while Peter the Venerable’s
Tractatus contra Iudaeorum inveteratam duritiam included a chapter dedicated to
‘the absurd and stupid tales of the Jews’.137
In much the same way as their Christian counterparts searched for inconsisten-
cies in the Talmud and other authoritative Jewish texts, Jews proposed detailed

128  Harvey Hames, Like Angels on Jacob’s Ladder: Abraham Abulafia, the Franciscans and Joachimism
(Bristol, 2007), p.2; Moore, Jews and Christians in the Life and Thought of Hugh of St Victor, p.65.
129 Blumenkranz, ‘The Roman Church and the Jews’, p.217.
130  Blumenkranz, ‘The Roman Church and the Jews’, p.205.
131  Abulafia, ‘Christians and Jews in the High Middle Ages’, pp.22–3.
132 Cohen, ‘Scholarship and Intolerance in the Medieval Academy’, p.311.
133 For example, Guibert of Nogent’s treatise against the Jews on the Incarnation, written by
c.1111; see Abulafia, ‘Christians and Jews in the High Middle Ages’, p.23.
134 Blumenkranz, ‘The Roman Church and the Jews’, p.224; Abulafia, ‘Christians and Jews in the
High Middle Ages’, p.26; Little, The Jews in Christian Europe, p.287; Roth, The Medieval Conception
of the Jew, pp.303–4.
135  Abulafia, ‘Christians and Jews in the High Middle Ages’, p.27.
136  Anna Abulafia, ‘Jewish-Christian Disputations and the Twelfth-Century Renaissance’, Journal
of Medieval History 15/2 (1989), 118; Abulafia, ‘Christians and Jews in the High Middle Ages’,
pp.21–2.
137 Little, The Jews in Christian Europe, pp.284–5. For Gilbert Crispin’s disputation between a
Christian and a Jew written around 1093, see Abulafia, ‘Christians and Jews in the High Middle Ages’,
p.22.
 Jewish Ideas about the Papacy 53

examinations of the New Testament, identifying what they saw as its internal
contradictions and playing off one text against another in an attempt to show dis-
crepancies between Scripture and later Church dogma.138 Such methods proved a
simple and highly effective way of challenging Christian doctrine and the literature
reveals not only a Jewish desire to engage with Christian arguments but a consid-
erable awareness of Christian theology.139 The main aim of such polemical writing
was to combat the threat of Jews converting to Christianity, not to convert
Christians.140 Although there was an element of disinterested intellectual search
for truth in Jewish religious polemic, which might on occasion be used to proselytize,
the priority was to discourage Jewish apostasy; similarly, of course, Christians
wished to prevent conversions to Judaism.141 Learned Jews frequently came into
contact with Christian polemicists and missionaries and it seems that their know-
ledge of Christian beliefs derived from the arguments of Christian polemicists
­rather than from an in-depth knowledge of Christian theology and philosophy in
their most developed and sophisticated forms.142 To combat Christianity and the
threat of conversion, Jews deployed arguments that were rarely original; sometimes
they may have been derived from heretical groups seeking to undermine the
Catholic faith, or from Muslims, or even on occasion from orthodox Christian
writers whose aim was to reply to heterodox objections.143
The thirteenth-century ‘Edut Adonai Ne‘emena is an excellent example of the
polemical genre: it expounds Christian doctrines and shows how to refute them.144
Yet, despite its expectable dismissal of Christian theology, it refers to papal aid and
protection, albeit cryptically,145 recording, for example, an answer in the form of a
parable supposedly sent by an (unnamed) pope to the king of France ‘to preserve
the Jews for they have not committed the sin of killing Jesus’.146 According to this
parable there was:

138  The method of playing one text off another was a mark of medieval disputational literature
where the goal was to find discordancies in texts and to reconcile them. It was not until the nineteenth
century that we see historical imagination and the idea of an historical critical method which under-
stood the ideas of cultural change and development in texts; for discussion of the criticism and evalu-
ation of medieval authorities, see Colish, Peter Lombard, Vol. 1, pp.44–7; Berger, The Jewish-Christian
Debate in the High Middle Ages, p.31; Chazan, Daggers of Faith, pp.50–1; p.54.
139 Berger, The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages, p.15. Jewish authorities used their
commentaries as a medium for refuting the Christological interpretations of the passages of the Bible
which they shared with Christians; see Anna Abulafia, Christians and Jews in the Twelfth-Century
Renaissance (London, New York, 1995), p.69; Berger, The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle
Ages, pp.9–13.
140  Daniel Lasker, ‘Jewish Philosophical Polemics in Ashkenaz’, in Contra Iudaeos. Ancient and
Medieval Polemics between Christians and Jews, ed. O. Limor, G. G. Stroumsa (Tübingen, 1996),
p.165; p.168.
141  For Jewish proselytizing, see Blumenkranz, ‘The Roman Church and the Jews’, p.209; p.214.
142 Lasker, ‘Jewish Philosophical Polemics in Ashkenaz’, pp.161–4.
143 Lasker, ‘Jewish Philosophical Polemics in Ashkenaz’, pp.164–5.
144  ‘Edut adonai ne‘emena’, in Mehqarim u-meqorot, ed. J. Rosenthal, 2 vols (Jerusalem, 1967),
Vol. 1, pp.420–1.
145  ‘Edut adonai ne‘emena’, in Mehqarim u-meqorot, ed. Rosenthal, Vol. 1, p.420; Stow, The ‘1007
Anonymous’ and Papal Sovereignty, p.23.
146  ‘Edut adonai ne‘emena’, in Mehqarim u-meqorot, ed. Rosenthal, Vol. 1, p.420.
54 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291
a king who had given an orchard to a person whom he loved and ordered this person
to kill anyone who entered the orchard. After a number of days the king wanted to
enter the orchard himself to check whether his command was being followed, and he
disguised himself and came to the gate of the orchard to enter by force and he said that
he was the king. And the guard, the person whom the king loved, said ‘You shall not
enter this place, because the king has ordered that no person shall enter this orchard,
and you are not the king’.147
So the guard did not recognize the king, told him that he was under orders not to
allow anyone to enter, and killed him when he tried to force an entry. Although the
king’s intention had been to show that the man he loved was a hero, he ended up
being slain at his hands. Here then a pope was depicted using a parable to explain
that it was not the Jews’ fault that they had killed Jesus.
In this case it is unclear whether the author has a particular pope in mind or
whether he relates the story as the kind of parable he thinks a pope might tell to try
to exonerate the Jews. Given learned Jews’ knowledge of the New Testament, he
may have known of the Parable of the Vineyard (in the Gospels of Mark 12: 1–11,
Luke 20: 9–18, and Matthew 21: 33–44) which tells a similar type of tale of the
murder of the son—who stands for Jesus—of the owner of a vineyard (God).148
The author of the ‘Edut Adonai Ne‘emena then explained why the pope’s parable
was misguided and which passages from Torah could refute it:
Explanation: God has given the Torah to Israel and said (Exodus 20: 2-3): ‘I am thy
God, thou shalt not have false gods’ and (Deuteronomy 4: 15): ‘And you guarded your
souls for you did not see any image’ and he said (Exodus 33: 20): ‘and no man that shall
see me shall live’. And when Jesus came into the world he came in human form and
pretended to be God and they killed him. Had they known that he is God, they would
not have hurt him. And in the future as well, God shall save us through the Law.149
So the author refutes the pope’s explanation. Nevertheless, the fact that he describes
a pope attempting to portray the Jews’ role in the Crucifixion more positively con-
trasts starkly, for example, with Bede’s famously negative commentaries on the
Parable of the Vineyard in which he accuses the Jews of deliberate deicide, as with
the views of various twelfth-century exegetes who argue that Jews put Jesus to
death out of pure malice and envy.150 Thus, contrary to both popular and intellec-
tual Christian ideas that the Jews had Jesus crucified because he did not live up to
the ‘ideal’ of the promised Messiah, we have a Jewish polemical text portraying a
pope arguing that according to Christian theology the Jews were not guilty of
Christ’s death and should therefore be protected.151

147  ‘Edut adonai ne‘emena’, in Mehqarim u-meqorot, ed. Rosenthal, Vol. 1, p.420.
148  Mark 12: 1–11, Luke 2: 9–18, Matthew 21: 33–44, in Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem,
ed. R. Weber, 2 vols, 2nd edn (Stuttgart, 1975).
149  ‘Edut adonai ne‘emena’, in Mehqarim u-meqorot, ed. Rosenthal, Vol. 1, p.420.
150  ‘Manifestissime Dominus probat Judaeorum principes non per ignorantiam, sed per invidiam
/ invidentiam crucifixisse Filium Dei’, see PL, 92, col. 251; col. 576; and ‘Vere enim Judaei oculum
pravum, id est, nequam habentes intentionem, questi sunt contra benignitatem Dei’, col. 88. See also
Abulafia, ‘Christians and Jews in the High Middle Ages’, p.26.
151 Roth, ‘The Medieval Conception of the Jew’, p.300.
 Jewish Ideas about the Papacy 55

Although, however, the polemical writers are aware of the desires of the popes
to protect Jews, they consistently deride papal claims to an ultimate spiritual
authority. This theme comes up frequently along with Jewish refutations of key
theological features of the Christian faith: the Trinity, the Crucifixion and
Resurrection, the honorary status of Jesus’s mother Mary—in particular belief in
the virgin birth.152 Polemicists also devoted whole chapters to pointing out incon-
sistencies in New Testament passages claiming to support apostolic succession,
being especially eager to debunk the idea of the pope’s authority to absolve sins.153
The Nizzahon Vetus thus rejected this claim:
For you [the Christians] say that the pope is below God and he has the power to bind
and loose . . . but it is to no avail because only God can forgive and even Moses who is
the greatest prophet did not have the authority to forgive.154
Similarly in the Sefer Joseph Hamekane Joseph ben Nathan Official disputed apos-
tolic authority.155 Official is particularly interesting since he relates how Pope
Gregory X (1271–1276) was challenged successfully about papal powers of abso-
lution.156 Gregory asked the sceptic ‘Don’t you believe that I have the power to
bind and to loose, and forgive and grant redemption?’, to which his critic wittily
replied that, although the pope could of course untie and tie the straps of his belt,
he could not forgive and redeem. Gregory then asked him ‘Don’t I represent
St Peter?’ His critic replied that the saint’s supposed powers, like the pope’s, were
nonsense.157 In summary Official quoted Psalms 130: 4: ‘But there is forgiveness
with Thee, that Thou mayest be feared’, and he concluded with the unsurprising
statement that no one can forgive but God alone.158
Such thirteenth-century texts deriding the idea of apostolic authority differed
little from their fourteenth-century successors with which it is therefore worth
comparing them.159 In the fourteenth century the papacy moved from Rome to
Avignon and later there was a serious schism in the Church which might have

152  Haverkamp, ‘The Jews of Europe in the Middle Ages’, p.2; Berger, The Jewish-Christian Debate
in the High Middle Ages, pp.13–15; Abulafia, Christians and Jews in the Twelfth-Century Renaissance,
p.58; p.65, passim. For the increased emphasis in Christian medieval life on the Incarnation and of
Mary’s role in bringing it about see, for example, Miri Rubin, Emotion and Devotion: The Image of
Mary in Medieval Religious Cultures (Budapest, New York, 2009), p.84; Blumenkranz, ‘The Roman
Church and the Jews’, p.221.
153 Christians such as Odo (Eudes) of Châteauroux did the same thing in grouping together
Talmudic texts and classifying them under titles such as ‘Concerning the authority of the law which is
called “Talmud”’, and ‘Concerning blasphemies against Christ and the Virgin Mary’, see Cohen,
‘Scholarship and Intolerance in the Medieval Academy’, p.327.
154  ‘Liber nizzachon vetus’, in Tela ignea satanae, ed. Wagenseil, col. 250. For another translation
of this passage see Berger, The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages, pp.223–4.
155  For biblical interpretations of the Sepher Joseph Hamekane, see Chazan, Daggers of Faith, p.51;
p.54.
156  Joseph ben Nathan Official, in Sepher Joseph hamekane. Metkitse nivdamim, ed. J. Rosenthal
( Jerusalem, 1970), p.86.
157  Joseph ben Nathan Official, in Sefer Joseph hamekane, ed. Rosenthal, p.86. St Peter came in for
special derision among Jewish writers. See, for example, the discussion in Schäfer, ‘Jews and Christians
in the High Middle Ages’, pp.37–8.
158  Joseph ben Nathan Official, in Sefer Joseph hamekane, ed. Rosenthal, p.86.
159  Lasker, ‘Jewish Philosophical Polemics in Ashkenaz’, p.195.
56 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

afforded a very different political and religious context for later Jewish polemics.
Yet they remain strikingly similar in both content and tone. Thus the Jewish phil-
osopher Joseph Albo (c.1340–1444) ridiculed the Christian claim that judgements
of an emperor or a pope could make up for deficiencies in the divine Torah,160 in
particular questioning the authority of pope Sylvester I (314–335), who, according
to legend, not only oversaw the first disputation between a pope and Jews, but
changed the Sabbath observance (Shabbat) from Saturday to Sunday.161 This was
a particular bone of contention since, according to Christian readings of Genesis
and Exodus, the Sabbath was a day beyond the bounds of historical time, and a
weekly anticipation of the end of time, while for Jews it was also a day of rest.162
Citing Exodus 16: 29, Albo argued that ‘the outpouring of manna is proof that the
day of the Shabbat itself was created by the forces of divine power’,163 and com-
plained that:
the Shabbat Mitzvah was adhered to by Jesus and all his disciples, but three hundred
years after Jesus died one pope altered the tradition and ordered that they keep Sunday
instead of Saturday.164
Albo failed to consider how Pope Sylvester’s ‘decision’ derived from the Christian
belief that Jesus rose from the dead on a Sunday. He may not have known first-hand
of Sylvester’s supposed decision, but that is highly unlikely given his familiarity
with Christian theology; or he perhaps thought that the Resurrection—that Jesus
rose from the dead and is the son of God—was so ridiculous or offensive as not to
be worth mentioning to a Jewish audience. More likely—and disingenuously—he
avoided drawing it to his readers’ attention lest they realize that Christians had
what they would consider a convincing explanation for the change.
In the same spirit of refutation, the Sefer Klimat ha–Goyim, a fourteenth-century
polemic written by Profiat Duran (c.1350–1415), a noted rabbi of Perpignan, both
cast doubts on apostolic powers of binding and loosing, and showed sound know-
ledge of Christian arguments and sacred texts.165 In Chapter Eight he discussed the

160  For an easily accessible edition of the text, see Joseph Albo, ‘Vikuah R. Yosef Albo’, in Osar
wikuhim, ed. J. D. Eisenstein, pp.114–15. For a more recent and accurate text, see ‘Sefer ha-
‘iqqarim’/‘Book of Principles’, in Ma’amar 3, ed. I. Husik, Chapter 25 (Philadelphia, 1946), Vol. 3,
p.241. For discussion of the work of Joseph Albo see, for example, Baron, A Social and Religious
History of the Jews, Vol. 9, pp.89–90; p.104 and much more recently Judaism on Trial, ed. Maccoby,
p.50; p.92; p.169; p.178; p.197; p.198; p.200; p.220.
161  Joseph Albo, ‘Vikuah R.Yosef Albo’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. Eisenstein, p.115; ‘Sefer ha-‘iqqarim
/ Book of Principles’, in Ma’amar 3, ed. and trans. Husik, Chapter 25, Vol. 3, p.241; see also the same
complaint about Pope Sylvester I in Hasdai Crescas, ‘Bitul ‘iqarei dat ha-nosrim’, in Osar wikuhim in
J. D. Eisenstein, pp.307–8, and Bitul ‘iqarei dat ha-nosrim, ed. E. Deinard (Kearny, N.J., 1904),
pp.62–3. See Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.293.
162 Yerushalmi, Zakhor, p.42; Blumenkranz, ‘The Roman Church and the Jews’, p.211.
163  Joseph Albo, ‘Vikuah R.Yosef Albo’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. Eisenstein, p.115; ‘Sefer ha-‘iqqarim
/ Book of Principles’, in Ma’amar 3, ed. Husik, Chapter 25, Vol. 3, p.241.
164  Joseph Albo, ‘Vikuah R.Yosef Albo’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. Eisenstein, p.115; ‘Sefer ha-‘iqqarim
/ Book of Principles’, in Ma’amar 3, ed. Husik, Chapter 25, Vol. 3, p.241.
165 Profiat Duran (Isaac ben Moses Efodi) was for a while swayed by the wave of conversions in
1391, but subsequently returned to Judaism and became one of its chief defenders. For discussion of
Profiat Duran see, for example, Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, Vol. 9, p.103; Judaism
on Trial, ed. Maccoby, p.28; p.143; Cohen, The Friars and the Jews, p.191; Frank Talmage, The
Polemical Writings of Profiat Duran (Jerusalem, 1981), pp.16–21. For discussion of the ‘Sefer klimat
 Jewish Ideas about the Papacy 57

claim that the pope has overall charge of Christianity, and the texts used to endorse
this authority.166 He then recounted how, according to the New Testament:
when Jesus went to heaven he left behind him, to substitute him, Peter his disciple,
who will be the shepherd of his flock and will lead the community of his believers and
whatever he shall do shall be done from heaven, and whoever disobeys him and does
not listen to his words does not have a share in Jesus.167
He also explained how Christians:
say that Jesus had given him [St Peter] the keys of heaven. And the purpose of the keys
is to open the gates of hell, to punish the souls of sinners, even though they believe in
Jesus.168
He then described how:
the punishments are in the form of steps, one step is called purgatory, and its purpose
is to absolve and purify sins because this is where the sinning souls will be purified and
will bear their punishment, for the time set for each soul, according to the value of the
sin. One soul will stand there for a very long time, and one soul for a very short time,
and others for a medium length of time, all in accordance with the largeness of the sins
and the smallness of the sins.169
Duran considered the pope’s power of remitting a certain number of days in
Purgatory as of great significance: because the keys of heaven were entrusted to
him as Jesus’ substitute; because he alone had the authority to shorten the length
and type of punishment; because Christians have called this power of the keys a
‘treasure of the Church’.170 Christians, Duran concluded:
were right in giving this name. Because they make the assumption that the pope is the
king of poor and silly souls. He governs the people who believe in this. And he wins
whatever they have, and the treasures of gold and silver have been revealed to him to
enter them into the ‘treasure of the Church’.171

ha-goyim’, see especially Berger, ‘On the Uses of History in Medieval Jewish Polemic against
Christianity’, pp.30–2; pp.34–5. For discussion of Hasdai Crescas, see, for example, Harry Wolfson,
Crescas’ Critique of Aristotle. Problems of Aristotle’s Physics in Jewish and Arabic Philosophy (Cambridge,
Mass., 1957; repr. 1971), pp.1–37; Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, Vol. 9, p.104;
Judaism on Trial, ed. Maccoby, p.50; p.88; p.92; p.180; p.222; Berger, The Jewish-Christian Debate in
the High Middle Ages, pp.29–32.
166 Profiat Duran, ‘Sefer klimat ha-goyim’, ed. N. Posnanski in Ha sofeh me’eres Hagar 3 (1913),
pp.99f.; pp.143f., and 4 (1914), p.37; p.81; p.115; and especially pp.41–2, and ‘Sefer klimat ha-
goyim’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. Eisenstein, pp.279–80. But for a much more recent edition, see Talmage,
The Polemical Writings of Profiat Duran, p.30; p.35; p.44; p.45; p.81.
167 Profiat Duran, ‘Sefer klimat ha-goyim’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. Eisenstein, p.279; Talmage, The
Polemical Writings of Profiat Duran, p.30; p.35; p.44; p.45; p.81.
168 Profiat Duran, ‘Sefer klimat ha-goyim’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. Eisenstein, p.279; Talmage, The
Polemical Writings of Profiat Duran, p.30; p.35; p.44; p.45; p.81.
169  This seems to imply that hell comes after the purgatory stage and is therefore also a stage and
not final—which was (and is) of course not orthodox Christian doctrine.
170 Profiat Duran, ‘Sefer klimat ha-goyim’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. Eisenstein, p.279; Talmage, The
Polemical Writings of Profiat Duran, p.30; p.35; p.44; p.45; p.81.
171 Profiat Duran, ‘Sefer klimat ha-goyim’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. Eisenstein, p.279; Talmage, The
Polemical Writings of Profiat Duran, p.30; p.35; p.44; p.45; p.81.
58 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

Furthermore, since the authority which Jesus bestowed on Peter was also given to
his successors, Christians believe that, as possessor of the power of the keys and as
‘leader of souls’, the pope is able to renew judgements and laws without contra-
vening any of Jesus’ commandments and could even alter his disciples’ teachings to
suit the times.
Duran pointed out that such ideas were based on Matthew 16: 3. 20ff.172 He
then attempted to refute them, stressing that:
it is not found written [in the Gospels] that Peter empowered anyone else and that he
nominated a substitute for this mission when Nero, the emperor of Rome, hanged
him on a tree for spreading the belief in Jesus.173
And he asked from where, even if Peter had nominated another disciple to succeed
him, that power derived since:
it is a very clear rule for them that a disciple does not nominate another disciple unless
it is clearly mentioned in the note of mission and Jesus told him alone that he would
give him the keys of heaven.174
Then, again aiming to show the incoherence of the New Testament, Duran cited
Matthew 18: 18, arguing that ‘this power given by Jesus to Peter was given to all
his disciples’,175 and remarking that when Christians realize the weakness of their
arguments, they try to bolster them by:
saying that Jesus had so much compassion and love for his followers that he has given
up his life to die in an awful way and in misery in order to redeem them, and with his
love and compassion he redeemed them. Therefore there is no doubt that he would
not leave them, as a flock without a shepherd, without a head to substitute him. So
therefore it is obligatory for there to be a leader in each and every generation to sub-
stitute Peter, the messenger of God, and he is the pope . . . 176
Here then is another example of a Jewish polemicist, with a thorough know-
ledge of the New Testament and its Christian interpretation, attempting to show
that it is contradictory and inconsistent, that Christianity is confused and that
Christians are misled.177 Yet despite the anti-Christian rhetoric and the fact that
172 Profiat Duran, ‘Sefer klimat ha-goyim’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. Eisenstein, pp.279–80; Talmage,
The Polemical Writings of Profiat Duran, p.30; p.35; p.44; p.45; p.81.
173 Profiat Duran, ‘Sefer klimat ha-goyim’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. Eisenstein, p.280; Talmage, The
Polemical Writings of Profiat Duran, p.30; p.35; p.44; p.45; p.81.
174 Profiat Duran, ‘Sefer klimat ha-goyim’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. Eisenstein, p.280; Talmage, The
Polemical Writings of Profiat Duran, p.30; p.35; p.44; p.45; p.81.
175 Profiat Duran, ‘Sefer klimat ha-goyim’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. Eisenstein, p.280; Talmage, The
Polemical Writings of Profiat Duran, p.30; p.35; p.44; p.45; p.81.
176 Profiat Duran, ‘Sefer klimat ha-goyim’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. Eisenstein, p.280; Talmage, The
Polemical Writings of Profiat Duran, p.30; p.35; p.44; p.45; p.81.
177  Jews also had their own systems of atonement graded to fit the seriousness of transgressions;
see Schäfer, ‘Jews and Christians in the High Middle Ages’, p.31. Like the ‘Sefer klimat ha-goyim’
the ‘Bitul ‘iqarei dat ha-nosrim’, originally written by the Jewish philosopher Hasdai Crescas in
Catalan c.1398 and later translated into Hebrew by Joseph ben Shem Tov (c.1499–1460), is yet
another attempt to refute Christian doctrines. Although it is outside the chronological remit of this
book, and is derived from the period of the Conciliar Movement, it is worth examining to com-
pare with earlier texts. In Chapter 8, ‘Concerning the Coming of the Messiah’, Crescas referred to
 Jewish Ideas about the Papacy 59

some of its arguments are stronger than others, the Sefer Klimat Ha–Goyim shows
a detailed knowledge of how Christians rely on the Gospels for the formation of
Petrine claims—as they also do for their defence of the theology of penance, abso-
lution, and the doctrine of the Treasury of Merits.178 Duran also stressed the all too
likely exploitation of indulgences by the papal curia for financial gain, an abuse of
which many contemporary Christian writers also complained.179
Works like Duran’s vary in their appraisal of popes, both individually and
­collectively, the tone switching from serious to passionate, or even light and play-
ful.180 Some of them—particularly those written in Northern France and
Germany—were strikingly aggressive.181 The Sefer Joseph Hamekane expressed the
wish that the soul of Gregory X might rot in hell; the Sefer Klimat Ha-Goyim, as we
have seen, referred to Jesus’ teaching as falsehood and witchcraft: Christians, it tells
us, are poor, silly souls with weak arguments whom the pope has tricked, seizing
their gold and silver and emptying it into the ‘treasury of the Church’.182 Yet, given
the gradually deteriorating status of European Jewry which inevitably heightened
defensiveness, when compared with what some contemporary Christian polemi-
cists said about the Jews, the language used in much Jewish polemic about indi-
vidual popes, as distinct from that in discussion of the papacy as an institution,
was comparatively mild.183 Such a relatively positive theme was probably not only
Christians as having had two leaders as popes for approximately twenty years, a reference to the schism
in the Catholic Church which had begun in 1378. For discussion and this reference to the pope, see
The Refutation of the Christian Principles by Hasdai Crescas, ed. and trans. D. J. Lasker (Albany, 1992),
p.2; p.4; p.66. Like Duran, Crescas noted that the Christian idea of the pope as head of their religion
was based on Matthew 17: 13–19 and that Christians believe that this text signifies ‘that Jesus has
given Peter permission to renew the Torah, to add to it and take out from it, as he wishes’. According
to Crescas this contradicts Matthew 5: 17–18, in which Jesus said ‘Do not think that I have come to
refute the Torah, or the prophets. I did not come to undermine but to build’. He then argued that, if
Jesus could not change the Torah, his disciples likewise could not. And, like Joseph Albo, he pointed
out that Pope Sylvester I had changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. Crescas also tried another
line of argumentation. According to both Matthew 26: 75 and John 13: 38, Peter had betrayed Jesus
three times. How then, he asks, ‘did the popes sit on the chair once held by a false witness and a liar,
and were not ashamed?’ Like Joseph Albo, Crescas also cited Matthew 18: 18, John 21: 117, Acts 6:
5, 2 Peter 3: 16, and Galatians 2: 7, to argue that the power Jesus had given to Peter had also been
given to all his disciples and that Peter was therefore given no special advantage. For Chapter 18 of the
work devoted to ‘The Matter of the Pope’, see Hasdai Crescas, ‘Bitul ‘iqarei dat ha-nosrim’, in Osar
wikuhim, ed. Eisenstein, pp.307–8; ‘Sefer ha-‘iqqarim / Book of Principles’, in Ma’amar 3, ed. Husik,
Chapter 25, Vol. 3, p.241. For Joseph Albo, see Joseph Albo, ‘Vikuah R. Yosef Albo’, in Osar wikuhim,
ed. Eisenstein, p.115; ‘Sefer ha-‘iqqarim / Book of Principles’, in Ma’amar 3, ed. Husik, Chapter 25,
Vol. 3, p.241. Jewish authorities used their commentaries as a medium for refuting Christological
interpretations of those passages of the Bible which they shared with Christians; see Abulafia, Christians
and Jews in the Twelfth-Century Renaissance, p.69.
178  As does the ‘Bitul ‘iqarei dat ha-nosrim’. See Hasdai Crescas, ‘Bitul ‘iqarei dat ha-nosrim’, in
Osar wikuhim, ed. Eisenstein, pp.307–8; ‘Sefer ha-‘iqqarim / Book of Principles’, in Ma’amar 3, ed.
Husik, Chapter 25, Vol. 3, p.241. Profiat Duran, ‘Sefer klimat ha-goyim’, in Osar wikuhim, ed.
Eisenstein, pp.279–80; Talmage, The Polemical Writings of Profiat Duran, p.30; p.35; p.44; p.45; p.81.
179 Lasker, ‘Jewish Philosophical Polemics in Ashkenaz’, pp.164–5.
180 Blumenkranz, ‘The Roman Church and the Jews’, p.215.
181 Berger, The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages, p.3; pp.20–4.
182  Joseph ben Nathan Official, in Sepher Joseph Hamekane, ed. Rosenthal, p.86; Profiat Duran,
‘Sefer klimat ha-goyim’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. Eisenstein, p.279; Talmage, The Polemical Writings of
Profiat Duran, p.30; p.35; p.44; p.45; p.81.
183 Berger, The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages, pp.19–22.
60 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

flattery or a desire to curry favour in order to ensure protection for Jewish com-
munities, but reflected an honest appreciation by rabbis and learned Jews of the
reliability of papal protection.

M ess i an i sm : The Relat i o nsh i p B e t w een

P o p e and M ess i ah

Jewish appreciation of papal power had a distinctive religious dimension. Through­

out the High Middle Ages the superseding of Mosaic Law, the rejection of the
Jews, the election of the Gentiles, and the messianic status and divinity of Jesus
remained subjects of major controversy between Christians and Jews, and from the
early thirteenth century onwards required a particular resonance in the context
of a growing millenarian and messianic fervour.184 A number of Hebrew texts
emphasized not only that the papacy offered protection to Jewish communities but
that papal authority would play a crucial part in God’s plans for salvation, and in
particular that the pope would be a significant figure in any future messianic
redemption.185 In the twelfth century too many Christians—for their part—were
fascinated with the idea of the end of times and assigned the Jews an active role in
the coming of the Antichrist.186 Similarly, certain Jewish sects developed messianic
movements, and several Jewish writers claimed that the Messiah would order the
pope to tell the kings of Christendom to release His people so that they might wor-
ship the true God.187 The philosopher Maimonides (1135–1204) had a clearly
developed theology of who the Messiah was and when he would appear, while
Abraham Abulafia (1240–after 1291), Kabbalist, poet, and philosopher—like his
Christian contemporaries who followed the teachings of Joachim of Fiore (c.1135–
1202)—wrote extensively about the coming apocalypse and the Messiah’s
advent.188 Indeed Abulafia visited Rome in 1280, had a number of visions in the

184 Yuval, Two Nations in Your Womb, p.264; David Ruderman, ‘Hope Against Hope: Jewish and
Christian Messianic Expectations in the Late Middle Ages’, in Exile and Diaspora. Studies in the History
of the Jewish People Presented to Professor Haim Beinart, ed. A. Minsky, A. Grossman, Y. Kaplan
(Jerusalem, 1991), pp.185–202.
185 Blumenkranz, ‘The Roman Church and the Jews’, p.218.
186  Joachim of Fiore, writing at the end of the twelfth century was the exception. See Abulafia,
‘Christians and Jews in the High Middle Ages’, p.25.
187  Amos Funkenstein, Maimonide, nature, historie et messianisme. Traduit de l’hébreu par Catherine
Chalier (Paris, 1988), p.26; p.28. See the discussion of Isaac ben Yedaiah in Mark Saperstein,
Decoding the Rabbis: A Thirteenth-Century Commentary on the Aggadah (Cambridge, Mass., 1980),
pp.102–20.
188 Funkenstein, Maimonide, nature, historie et messianisme, pp.33–7. Note that Maimonides con-
sidered Islam to be a much purer expression of Monotheism than Christianity. See Funkenstein,
Maimonide, nature, historie et messianisme, p.91. For Maimonides’ philosophy in relation to the study
of the Torah, see Hava Tirosh-Samuelson, ‘Maimonides’ View of Happiness: Philosophy, Myth, and the
Transcendence of History’, in Jewish History and Jewish Memory: Essays in Honour of Yosef Hayim
Yerushalmi, ed. E. Carlebach, J. M. Efron, D. N. Myers, pp.189–213, passim. For Maimonides and the
idea of philosophy as an exact science, see Funkenstein, Perceptions of Jewish History, pp.122–30. For his
specific views on the coming of the Messiah, see Funkenstein, Perceptions of Jewish History, pp.131–55;
Hames, Like Angels on Jacob’s Ladder: Abraham Abulafia, the Franciscans and Joachimism, pp.2–3; pp.1–10;
pp.102–6; Abulafia, ‘Christians and Jews in the High Middle Ages’, p.21. For Maimonides’ knowledge
 Jewish Ideas about the Papacy 61

months leading up to his appointed audience with Pope Nicholas III (1277–1280),
and when the pope died before the meeting could take place, took this as confirm-
ation that he himself was the pre-ordained Messiah.189
A good example of an account of the relationship between popes and the pro-
spect of messianic redemption at the end of days is to be found in a commentary
on the Aggadah by the thirteenth-century Provencal author, Isaac ben Yedaiah. He
described how:
there, in his palace, dwells the Pope, who rules and presides over all who follow the
faith. And the cardinals, his advisers, surround him, wisely strengthening every breach
in the religion day after day.190
But the Messiah:
will come in Rome before the greatest of all the gentile kings of flesh and blood [the
pope], just as the masters of the prophets came before that great king, Pharaoh, and
all his ministers and servants . . .191
And He:
will go to Rome, and request their supreme leader and his advisers to write to the kings
under his hegemony, and seal it with his bull, that they must restore to him the people
[of Israel], . . . But they [the pope and his advisers] will not believe him until he per-
forms powerful signs and unmistakable portents in the sight of all present. Then will
the Pope know and recognize that he is an emissary of the true God, and he will send
his legate to all the kings, near and far, [informing them] that the Jews are about to go
forth from slavery to freedom, and that they must let every Jew go by himself, freely,
demanding no money, for a redeemer has come to Zion.192
Nachmanides (1194–1227), the foremost Halakhist and biblical scholar of his
age, and Isaac ben Yedaiah’s contemporary, similarly emphasized the important re-
lationship between pope and Messiah, when examining the idea of the Jews being
freed at the end of days.193 The Vikuah Ha-Ramban, a Hebrew narrative in dialogue

of Christian doctrines and desire to refute them, see Daniel Lasker, ‘Rashi and Maimonides on
Christianity’, in Between Rashi and Maimonides. Themes in Medieval Jewish Thought, Literature and
Exegis, ed. E. Kanarfogel, M. Sokolow (New York, 2010), pp.14–19.
189 Hames, Like Angels on Jacob’s Ladder, p.73; p.84; p.88.
190  For Isaac ben Yedaiah, see, for example, translated in Saperstein, Decoding the Rabbis, passim;
Chazan, Daggers of Faith, pp.69–70; p.86; p.88; p.170; Isaac ben Yedaiah translated in Saperstein,
Decoding the Rabbis, p.103.
191 Isaac ben Yedaiah translated in Saperstein, Decoding the Rabbis, p.103.
192 Isaac ben Yedaiah translated in Saperstein, Decoding the Rabbis, p.104.
193  Nachmanides, ‘Vikuah ha-Ramban’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. Eisenstein, p.88; p.90. More re-
cently in Kitve rabenu Mosheh ben Nahman: yotsi’m la’or ‘al-pi kitve yad u-defusim ri’shonim, ed.
H.  D.  Chavel (Jerusalem, 1963), Vol. 1, p.306; p.312; for his translation of the work, see The
Disputation at Barcelona, ed. C. B. Chavel (New York, 1983). For discussion of Nachmanides and his
reading of biblical narratives see, for example, Abulafia, ‘Christians and Jews in the High Middle
Ages’, p.20; Funkenstein, Perceptions of Jewish History, pp.98–121; Rabbi Moses Nahmanides (Ramban).
Explorations in his Religious and Literary Virtuosity, ed. I. Twersky (Cambridge, Mass., London, 1983),
pp.1–9; Lasker, ‘Rashi and Maimonides on Christianity’, ed. Kanerfogel, Sokolow, pp.14–19. For
Nachmanides on the general themes of messianic redemption in the ‘Sefer ha-gedulah’, a later work,
see Chazan, Barcelona and Beyond, pp.172–94.
62 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

form, written from Nachmanides’ perspective and almost certainly by Nachmanides

himself, relates in great detail how he debated with Pablo Christiani, a Jewish
convert to Christianity, at the Disputation of Barcelona in 1263.194 As we shall
examine in Chapter Six, this disputation had been promoted by Dominicans and
Franciscans who petitioned James I of Aragon (1213–1267) for the right to stage
it in public, and it was fully endorsed by Pope Urban IV (1261–1264).195 In his
Vikuah Ha-Ramban Nachmanides reports that it occurred after Pablo Christiani
had assured James that he could prove the truth of Christianity from the Talmud
and other rabbinical writings.196 According to Nachmanides, the presiding judge
questioned him as to whether he believed the Messiah had already come, as the
New Testament declared.197 He replied that there was a difference between saying
that the Messiah had been born and that he had come and continued:
‘and so the Messiah, when the end will come, will come to the pope as ordained by
God and will say “Let my people go and worship me”’198
To this, citing Isaiah 52, Pablo Christiani replied that although Jews said that
the Messiah was more elevated than the angels, this was impossible unless the
Messiah referred to was Jesus, who was himself God.199 And in response to that
Nachmanides explained:
‘Abraham our father brought the nations into the correct faith and spread the law of
God and disputed with Nimrod the king and did not fear him, and Moses has done
more than him, standing humbly before the great king Pharaoh, and smiting him with
the ten great plagues and bringing out His people from his hands.’200
Citing Daniel 10: 20–21 he also argued that although even the ministering angels
and the archangel Michael himself worked for their redemption, yet:

194  Nina Caputo, Nahmanides in Medieval Catalonia: History, Community and Messianism (Notre
Dame, Ind., 2007), pp.91–2. For the Disputation of Barcelona see, for example, Chazan, Barcelona
and Beyond, passim. For Nachmanides see, for example, Baron, A Social and Religious History of the
Jews, Vol. 9, p.104; Abulafia, Christians and Jews in the Twelfth-Century Renaissance, p.140; Chazan,
Barcelona and Beyond, passim; Judaism on Trial, ed. Maccoby, passim; Chazan, Daggers of Faith, passim;
Cohen, The Friars and the Jews, passim. For the ‘Pugio Fidei’ of Raymond Martin, see Funkenstein,
Perceptions of Jewish History, p.196.
195 Caputo, Nahmanides in Medieval Catalonia, pp.172–3.
196  The following are my translations. For further English translations of the ‘Vikuah ha-Ramban’
of Nachmanides, see Oliver Rankin, Jewish Religious Polemic of the Early and Late Centuries: A Study of
Documents here Rendered in English (Edinburgh, 1956), pp.178–210 and more recently Judaism on
Trial, ed. Maccoby, pp.102–46. For a translation of the Christian version of events, see Judaism on
Trial, ed. Maccoby, pp.147–50. See also the discussion of Nachmanides in Saperstein, Decoding the
Rabbis, p.105.
197 Nachmanides, ‘Vikuah ha-Ramban’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. Eisenstein, p.88; Kitve rabenu
Mosheh ben Nahman, ed. Chavel, Vol. 1, p.306.
198 Nachmanides, ‘Vikuah ha-Ramban’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. Eisenstein, p.88; Kitve rabenu
Mosheh ben Nahman, ed. Chavel, Vol. 1, p.306; see also translations in Rankin, Jewish Religious Polemic
of Early and Late Centuries, p.185; Judaism on Trial, ed. Maccoby, p.111.
199 Nachmanides, ‘Vikuah ha-Ramban’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. Eisenstein, p.90; Kitve rabenu
Mosheh ben Nahman, ed. Chavel, Vol. 1, p.312.
200 Nachmanides, ‘Vikuah ha-Ramban’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. Eisenstein, p.90; Kitve rabenu
Mosheh ben Nahman, ed. Chavel, Vol. 1, p.312; see also translations in Rankin, Jewish Religious Polemic
of Early and Late Centuries, p.193; Judaism on Trial, ed. Maccoby, p.122.
 Jewish Ideas about the Papacy 63
‘The Messiah will do more than everybody and will strengthen his heart in the ways of
the Lord, and will come and order the pope and all the kings of the nations to let the
people of God worship Him, and he will use wonders and will not fear them at all.
And he will dwell in the city of Rome until he will destroy it.’201
The same theme of the relationship between the pope and the Messiah con-
tinued in later fourteenth-century Jewish writing. In his Vikuah Ha-Rashbatz,
Simeon ben Zemah Duran, otherwise known as Rashbatz, a rabbinical expert who
fled Spain and became Rabbi of Algiers after the persecutions of the anti-pope
Benedict XIII in 1391, described popes as working deliberately to reinforce the lie
of Christianity,202 claiming that they regularly announced the coming of the
Antichrist in their general letters to the Christian faithful.203 He also noted that
Christians interpreted the Book of Daniel, which they thought prophesied oppos-
ition to Israel, as saying that the Antichrist’s arrival would constitute a deliberate
attempt to confuse Jesus’ teaching and referred to St John the Evangelist who in his
Epistles (1 John 2: 18, 22; 1 John 4: 3; and 2 John 1: 7) and in his Gospel (John
14: 30) claimed that anyone who did not believe that Jesus was from God was the
Antichrist.204 These words, Rashbatz argued, encouraged popes to invent lies
about the Antichrist’s coming, thereby better to confirm the false teachings of
Christianity:
And his [St John’s] words therefore re-enforced the popes when they began sitting in
their chair of governance to invent falsehoods in order to send them to all the coun-
tries to notify them that the Antichrist has already come into the world.205
As we have observed, the belief that popes and the papacy not only had played but
would continue to play an important role in safeguarding the well-being of Jewish
communities and determining their future is not itself surprising; medieval Jews
were fully aware of how the mechanics of power could serve their interests. Yet
assumptions about some future interaction between a pope and the Messiah pro-
vide a different but intriguing insight into their beliefs about the papacy’s protective
as well as theological significance.

Pa pal – J e w i sh Relat i o ns i n J e w i sh S o u rces

From this examination of a diverse if limited number of Hebrew texts—folktales,

chronicles, rabbinic responsa, disputational literature, and polemic—it is unsur-
prising but immensely informative to discover that throughout the High Middle
Ages Jewish perceptions of the papacy were varied and changing. Although friendly,

201 Nachmanides, ‘Vikuah ha-Ramban’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. Eisenstein, p.90; Kitve rabenu
Mosheh ben Nahman, ed. Chavel, Vol. 1, p.312; see also translations in Rankin, Jewish Religious Polemic
of Early and Late Centuries, pp.193–4; Judaism on Trial, ed. Maccoby, pp.122–3.
202  Simeon ben Zemah Duran, ‘Vikuah ha-Rashbatz’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. Eisenstein, p.126.
203 Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and Papal Sovereignty, p.23.
204  Simeon ben Zemah Duran, ‘Vikuah ha-Rashbatz’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. Eisenstein, p.126.
205  Simeon ben Zemah Duran, ‘Vikuah ha-Rashbatz’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. Eisenstein, p.126.
64 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

if pragmatic, relations between individual Jews and Christians might develop—­

accompanied by intellectual and cultural growth within both communities—Jews
throughout the period had to contend with the ups and downs of living under
imperial, royal, and papal power.206 Tensions within Christendom between the
aims of the papacy, the bishops, and the temporal lords show that, despite the
period being a time of great ecclesiastical development—particularly after the papal
reform movement of the eleventh century—theory and practice were often at odds.
Then towards the end of that century, with the onset of the crusades, Christian
attitudes towards Jews, at least in northern Europe, began to harden. Anxiety
about Jews as a separate and marginal people led to an increased hostility which
was difficult for popes to counter, even when they wished.207 And in a period
which saw the growth of an intense scholastic study of all things Jewish, Christian
polemic more and more undermined the security of European Jewry.208 Hence,
even when they wanted to be involved in the affairs of Jewish communities, popes
in practice had increasingly far less power to intervene than one might assume.
For their part, many learned Jews, like their Christian contemporaries, were
aware of the papacy’s special claim to spiritual authority, of the political activities
of individual popes, and of the impact of their pronouncements on Jewish com-
munities. They duly acknowledged the need for papal protection and not infre-
quently valued it more than that of monarchs and emperors or indeed any other
gentile authority figures. So although they knew that papal toleration could be
combined with disquiet over the Talmud and concern about Christian lords treat-
ing ‘their’ Jews more favourably than fellow Christians, they recognized that papal
support could help the survival of their communities.209 Such a positive valuation
of papal protection stemmed partly from the fact that, far away at the papal curia
in Rome, popes, unlike secular powers, could interfere little in the daily lives of
these communities. Yet, re-issues of the ‘Constitutio pro Iudaeis’ reveal that at
times of extreme crisis Jewish communities actively sought the papacy’s help and
protection, and although Jews knew papal protection was carefully circumscribed,
they were in no doubt that they wished to ensure it continued. And although
Jewish perceptions of popes could vary, they might often be more positive than
those of the local clergy. Indeed, as Jews well knew, popes often had to curb the
excesses of such clergy.210
Nevertheless, Jewish writers were determined to emphasize to their own com-
munities that they must resist conversion and remain alert to what they perceived
206 Blumenkranz, ‘The Roman Church and the Jews’, p.215; Schäfer, ‘Jews and Christians in the
High Middle Ages’, p.32.
207  Abulafia, ‘Christians and Jews in the High Middle Ages’, p.27; Schäfer, ‘Jews and Christians in
the High Middle Ages’, p.39; Little, The Jews in Christian Europe, p.292. For an excellent discussion
of the historiography of the idea of anti-semitism, see David Engel, ‘Away from a Definition of
Antisemitism: An Essay in the Semantics of Historical Description’, in Rethinking European Jewish
History, ed. J. Cohen, M. Rosman, pp.30–53; Dominque Iogna-Pratt, Order and Exclusion: Cluny and
Christendom Face Heresy, Judaism and Islam (1000–1150) (Ithaca, London, 2003), passim.
208  The results of the growth of scholasticism during the High Middle Ages were dire for the Jews.
See Cohen, ‘Scholarship and Intolerance in the Medieval Academy’, pp.330–1.
209  For example, Gregory VII, ‘Non ignorat prudentia’ (1081), Simonsohn, pp.38–9.
210 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.45; p.47.
 Jewish Ideas about the Papacy 65

as major incongruities in Christianity—not least the theory of apostolic succes-

sion.211 It is important to recall again that although they valued papal protection,
they were especially hostile to this doctrine. Nevertheless, despite their contempt
for the Scriptural and theological formulations on which Christian claims about
apostolic authority rested, they often respected the spiritual and temporal power
which the papacy exercised over its Christian subjects; indeed they thus contrib-
uted, at times deliberately, at other times unwittingly, to the aura of power and
authority surrounding the papacy itself. Whether through popular legends or
learned disputations, a relatively positive feeling towards individual popes persists
in the Hebrew literature of the High Middle Ages: Christianity was fundamentally
mistaken, but popes were often more reliable sources of protection than their
Christian flock.

211  Abulafia, ‘Invectives against Christianity in the Hebrew Chronicles’, pp.66–72.

 2
The Papal Promise of Protection

T h e N e e d f o r P rot e c t i o n

Papal protection at times of crisis was important for Jewish communities for a
variety of reasons. During the High Middle Ages Jews accounted for approxi-
mately one per cent of the overall population of Europe. Even in the urban areas
in which they tended to congregate, they constituted only a tiny fraction of the
inhabitants of rapidly expanding European towns.1 Yet their life was precarious,
not least because the types of livelihood open to them were limited. In some parts
of Europe they were increasingly confined almost exclusively to money-lending
and commerce; at times they suffered from mob violence and everywhere from a
variety of restrictions and penalties imposed by both clergy and civil authorities.
That such authorities could not be trusted to protect them is clear from the many
expulsions during the period.
Nevertheless, even local authorities varied substantially in their toleration and
treatment of Jewish communities at different times and places. Kings, monarchs,
emperors, and princes often benefitted financially and economically from their
Jewish subjects and in return were willing to protect them.2 In particular the
Crown at times derived much needed revenue from taxing Jewish moneylenders,
especially when their own nobles failed to provide economic support; hence rulers
did not generally welcome the Church’s fierce preaching campaigns against
usury—lending money at extortionate rates of interest.3 Nevertheless, at other
times they seized Jewish assets in an attempt to generate income, or to encourage
crusading enterprises, or to instigate a ‘back-to-basics’ purity drive in their areas of
jurisdiction with a view to capturing the moral high ground and thus enhancing
their own reputations—at which point they would be sure to crack down on

1  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris, 1240. Hebrew Texts translated by John Friedman, Latin Texts trans-
lated by Jean Connell Hoff; Historical Essay by Robert Chazan (Toronto, 2012), p.6.
2  Anna Abulafia, Christian–Jewish Relations 1000–1300: Jews in the Service of Medieval Christendom
(Harlow, 2011), p.221.
3  The Jews and the Crusaders. The Hebrew Chronicles of the First and Second Crusades, trans. and ed.
S. Eidelberg (Madison, 1977), p.6; Kenneth Stow, Alienated Minority: The Jews of Medieval Latin
Europe (Cambridge, Mass., 1992), p.225.
 The Papal Promise of Protection 67

Jewish communities over usury. Such crackdowns were always carefully justified on
biblical—and therefore religious—grounds.4
In the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries Europe witnessed a series of
expulsions of Jewish communities by both secular and religious authorities. About
1010 rumours began to circulate in the West that Jews had encouraged Muslims to
destroy the Holy Sepulchre: that led to pogroms in a number of cities including
Orleans, Rouen, Limoges, and Rome, and throughout the Rhineland.5 In 1026
Jews were expelled from Limoges, with its bishop ordering them to be baptized or
leave. When only a few converted the rest were forced to flee to neighbouring cities.6
In 1143 one hundred and fifty Jews were killed in the French town of Ham.
The plight of Jewish communities in France worsened substantially during the
reign of Philip II Augustus. Only four months into his reign he imprisoned all Jews
in his kingdom and demanded a loan for their release. Then in 1181 he annulled
all loans made by Jews to Christians in order to garner a percentage of the profits,
and the following year he confiscated Jewish property and expelled Jews from the
royal domain.7 Subsequently synagogues were converted into churches.8 Sixteen
years later, in 1198, the king re-admitted Jews to his kingdom, but only in return
for a substantial ransom and as part of a wider initiative to impose a taxation system
which would generate income for the Crown.9 In 1223 Louis VIII (1223–1226)
expelled Jews from Normandy and in 1253 his son Louis IX (1226–1270) once
again expelled them altogether from the royal domains. So that the taint of usury
should not tarnish the Crown’s reputation, in 1230 Louis IX had promulgated the
Ordinances of Mélun which stipulated that Christians ought not to pay interest
on loans. Then in 1235 he ordered Jews to live from their own labours or from
commerce without usury, repeating these injunctions in 1254, and declaring that
those who continued to practice usury must leave the kingdom.10 In other parts of
France nobles ejected Jews from Brittany, Poitou, Saintonge, Anjou, and Maine.
Although those evicted subsequently returned to the royal domains, they were
­expelled yet again in 1306 and 1321.11

4 For example, as I have already noticed, in 1146 Louis VII issued a stern edict releasing crusaders
from their obligations to Jewish lenders beyond the repayment of the principal, and forbade Jews from
­recovering interest lost through profits generated by pledges, especially on land. See Robert Stacey,
‘Crusades, Martyrdom and the Jews of Norman England 1096–1190’ in Juden und Christen zur Zeit
der Kreuzzüge, Vorträge und Forschungen 47, Konstanzer Arbeitskreis für mittelalterliche Geschichte, ed.
A. Haverkamp (Sigmaringen, 1999), p.241; Stow, Alienated Minority, pp.113–14.
5  Jeffrey Richards, Sex, Dissidence and Damnation: Minority Groups in the Middle Ages (London,
1991), p.90.
6  Jonathan Elukin, ‘The Discovery of the Self: Jews and Conversion in the Twelfth Century’, in
Jews and Christians in Twelfth-Century Europe, ed. M. A. Signer, J. Van Engen (Indiana, 2001), p.66.
7  Stacey, ‘Crusades, Martyrdom and the Jews of Norman England 1096–1190’, p.245; Abulafia,
Christian–Jewish Relations 1000–1300, pp.63–4.
8  Shlomo Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History (Toronto, 1991), p.46.
9  William Chester Jordan, The French Monarchy and the Jews: from Philip Augustus to the Last of the
Capetians (Philadelphia, 1989), p.44; Gavin Langmuir, Toward a Definition of Anti-Semitism (Berkeley,
Oxford, 1990), pp.142–3; Abulafia, Christian–Jewish Relations 1000–1300, p.65.
10 Jean Richard, Saint Louis. Roi d’une France féodale, soutien de la Terre sainte (Paris, 1983),
pp.288–9; Abulafia, Christian–Jewish Relations 1000–1300, pp.78–9.
11 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.57.
68 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

In England the situation for Jews varied considerably from decade to decade—
even from year to year. Henry I (1100–1135), Richard I (1189–1199), and John
(1199–1216) all issued charters which, similar to those of contemporary German
rulers, envisaged the Jews as primarily a community of merchants and recognized
them as a special group in the kingdom who earned their living primarily by
money-lending. Richard granted Jews freedom of residence, freedom of passage,
the right to possess and inherit land, loans and property, and judicial rights. Yet
at other times the situation for Jews was dire.12 Since over time they came to be
exclusively identified with money-lending, they were regularly exploited by the
Crown.13 They were also the target of violence. In 1189 a Jewish deputation
­attending Richard’s coronation was attacked by a mob in London and pogroms
quickly spread to other parts of England: Lincoln, York, and Bury St Edmunds. In
the thirteenth century the situation for Jews only worsened. In 1231 they were
expelled from Leicester, while, according to The London Chronicle, in 1264 the
­authority of Simon de Montfort (1208?–1265) inspired a massacre in London.14
There were also expulsions from Newcastle in 1234, Southampton in 1236,
Berkhamstead in 1242, and Derby in 1263.15
In a bid to seize Jewish assets, in 1275 Edward I (1282–1307) inspired ‘The
Statute of the Jewry’, a legal document which compelled Jews over the age of seven
to wear an identifying yellow badge and outlawed all usury.16 Many Jews were
­arrested, three hundred being hanged and their property given to the Crown. In 1280
Edward ordered Jews to attend conversionary sermons by Dominican friars and in
1287 arrested Jewish elders demanding that their communities pay massive ran-
soms for their safe return. In the same year he expelled Jews from Gascony—a
French province still under his control—and when he found this profitable, in
1290 ejected them entirely from England.17
Many explanations—social, political, economic, and religious—have been
advanced for this final expulsion. Some have argued that a renewal of crusading
enthusiasm played its part and that Edward, a crusader king, aimed to expel Jewish
infidels from his lands just as he had tried to expel Muslim infidels from the Near
East.18 Others have suggested papal influence and have argued it was no coinci-
dence that the expulsion coincided with the Second Council of Lyons of 1274
which issued stringent decrees against usury.19 Yet, as we shall see in Chapter Four,
Lyons II legislated against usury in general, not specifically Jewish usury; indeed
the major papal decree against specifically Jewish usury had been issued much
earlier at the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215. Thus at the beginning of the thirteenth

12 For documents relating to Jews in England in this period, see Joseph Jacob, The Jews of Angevin
England: Documents and Records (London, 1893), passim.
13 Richards, Sex, Dissidence and Damnation, p.99.
14  Stephen Inwood, A History of London (London, 1998), p.70.
15 Richards, Sex, Dissidence and Damnation, p.112.
16 Robin Mundill, England’s Jewish Solution. Experiment and Expulsion, 1262–1290 (Cambridge,
1998), pp.291–3.
17  Michael Prestwich, Edward I (London, 1988), pp.334–6.
18 Mundill, England’s Jewish Solution, p.253.
19 Mundill, England’s Jewish Solution, p.249; p.253; p.269.
 The Papal Promise of Protection 69

century Lateran IV legislated that Jews must refrain from extorting ‘oppressive and
excessive interest’ from Christians, must wear distinguishing garb, must not hold
public office, and if converted must not maintain any of their old rites.20 These
decrees profoundly affected the status and well-being of Jewish communities since
they were subsequently repeated and enforced at provincial and diocesan councils
and synods.21 Such increasing ‘official’ ecclesiastical legislation, coupled with
Gregory IX’s call for the Paris Disputation of 1240 in which the Talmud was put
on trial, condemned, and copies confiscated and burned, further diminished Jewish
legal and social rights.
Yet other historians have argued that there was a deliberate change in papal atti-
tudes towards Jews in the 1280s and that this influenced Edward’s actions.22
Nevertheless, Edward’s ‘Statute of the Jewry’ forbidding Jewish usury also declared
categorically that it was the will and sufferance of Holy Church that they should live
and be preserved.23 Edward well knew that the papacy was committed to the
Pauline-Augustinian idea of protection, and that this did not sanction expulsions.
So it is more likely that the conversionary activities of Dominicans and Franciscans
influenced his behaviour.24 As we shall see in Chapter Six, in August 1278 Nicholas
III promulgated ‘Vineam Sorec’, a highly rhetorical letter instructing Dominicans
in Lombardy to preach missionary sermons to Jews, while less than two years later,
in January 1280, Edward endorsed the desire of English Dominicans to force Jews
to listen to such harangues.25 Hence at least indirectly, papal endorsement of the
activities of the friars may have encouraged hostility to Jews and paved the way to
their expulsion, a point to which we shall return in that chapter.
In 1286 Honorius IV complained about Jews in England who, he claimed,
studied the Talmud, encouraged converts to Judaism through gifts, invited
Christians into their synagogues, maintained Christians in their households as ser-
vants, employed Christian wet nurses, ate and drank with Christians, and even at
times had the temerity to abuse and curse them publicly.26 This complaint was
probably in response to John Peckham, archbishop of Canterbury, who, preparing
for a forthcoming council of the Church to be held at Exeter, may well have written
to Honorius asking for a statement on Jews to guide the council. Following the
pope’s letter, in 1287 John Peckham then issued a series of decrees against Jews at
the Council of Exeter—with orders that all synagogues be closed and Jewish phys-
icians prohibited from treating Christians.27 As we shall see, the stipulations of this
Council went far beyond the pope’s demands. Hence, although Jews were harmed
20  Tanner, Vol. 1, pp.265–6: ‘graves et immoderatas usuras’: ‘oppressive and excessive interest’.
21  Tanner, Vol. 1, pp.265–7. For example the Council of Narbonne of 1227 decreed that Jews must
be forced to wear a distinguishing badge. See Mansi, Vol. 23, col. 21; Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.316–18 at
p.316. See also Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.317, footnote 3.
22 Mundill, England’s Jewish Solution, pp.271–2.
23 Mundill, England’s Jewish Solution, p.292.
24 Mundill, England’s Jewish Solution, p.270.
25 Nicholas III, ‘Vineam sorec velut’ (4 August 1278), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.142–5; Simonsohn,
pp.249–52; Mundill, England’s Jewish Solution, p.275.
26 Honorius IV, ‘Nimis in partibus’ (30/18 November 1286), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.157–62; Simonsohn,
pp.262–4.
27 Mundill, England’s Jewish Solution, p.272.
70 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

by the decrees of local Church councils and by the fervour of religious mobs which
often resulted indirectly from papal legislation, popes themselves never directly
endorsed expulsions—although they might have done much more to prevent them.
Meanwhile despite the fact that the French authorities allowed Jews who sur-
vived expulsion from England to enter France, on his accession in 1285 Philip IV,
‘the Fair’ (1285–1314) imprisoned all French Jews; then in 1306 he confiscated
their property and forced them to leave the country;28 only in 1315 would Louis
X (1314–1316) permit their return.29 But then, until their definitive expulsion by
Charles VI (1380–1422) in 1394, they continued to suffer from outbreaks of vio-
lence in several French regions—in part because they were blamed for the onset
and spread of the Black Death, which, as with their Christian contemporaries, wiped
out many communities.30
So throughout the thirteenth century Jews were expelled from numerous parts of
western Europe: Brittany in 1240, Gascony between 1287–1288, Anjou and Maine
in 1289, Niort in 1291, Nevers in 1294, and England in 1290.31 During the last
decade of the thirteenth century there were thousands of Jewish conversions in the
south of Italy and persecutions in the north.32 In Germany too there were expulsions
and persecutions: in 1012 the Emperor Henry II (1014–1024) had expelled Jews
from Mainz; in 1235 an accusation of ritual murder was advanced in Fulda—which
led in 1236 to an investigation by Frederick II (1220–1250) and the issue of a priv-
ilege in favour of the Jews. That privilege refuted the accusations, forbade the repeti-
tion of the charge, and stated that Jews were under the Emperor’s special protection
as ‘servants of our chamber’ (‘servi camere nostre’), thereby extending protection to
the whole of Germany. Such protection included guarantees on freedom of worship,
travel, disposal of property, protection from unlawful exaction, and from the for-
cible conversion of children and servants to Christianity.33 Notwithstanding, in
1247 a further ritual murder charge was brought against Jews in the French town of
Valréas, while in Spain in 1250 the death of a choir boy under suspicious circum-
stances in Saragossa prompted another. In 1285 a charge of blood libel in Munich
resulted in 180 Jews being burned alive in the town’s synagogue, while following yet
another ritual murder accusation, in 1287 a mob in Oberwesel killed forty Jewish
men, women, and children. In 1289 Charles of Anjou (king of Sicily, 1266–1285)
expelled Jews from all his domains in France and southern Italy.34 In only one
instance did the papacy approve such an expulsion—in 1253 when the archbishop

28 Abulafia, Christian–Jewish Relations 1000–1300, p.61.

29 Abulafia, Christian–Jewish Relations 1000–1300, p.84.
30 Abulafia, Christian–Jewish Relations 1000–1300, p.84; Jody Enders, ‘Dramatic Rumors and
Truthful Appearances. The Medieval Myth of Ritual Murder by Proxy’, in Rumor Mills. The Social
Impact of Rumor and Legend, ed. G. A. Fine, V. Campion-Vincent, C. Heath (New Brunswick, London,
2004), p.21.
31  William Chester Jordan, ‘Jews, Regalian Rights and the Constitution in Medieval France’, in
Ideology and Royal Power in Medieval France: Kingship, Crusades and the Jews, ed. W. C. Jordan (Aldershot,
2001), pp.1–2.
32 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, pp.350–1.
33 David Abulafia, Mediterranean Encounters, Economic, Religious, Political, 1100–1550 (Aldershot,
Burl., 2000), XII, p.219; Richards, Sex, Dissidence and Damnation, pp.98–9.
34 Mundill, England’s Jewish Solution, pp.299–302.
 The Papal Promise of Protection 71

of Vienne asked Innocent IV’s permission to expel Jews from his province, claiming
that Christian souls were at risk from intercourse with Jews and that the latter had
proved disobedient to statutes issued by the Apostolic See. This may have been a sequel
to a charge of ritual murder at Valréas in 1247, but in any case the expulsion was only
brief.35 Generally the papacy endeavoured to protect Jews from such expulsions.36
Alongside outbursts of persecution and expulsion, there were also times of relative
calm which allowed for the development and flourishing of Jewish society and
culture. As we saw in Chapter One, from the eleventh century onwards Jewish
communities in western Europe produced and disseminated a great outpouring of
Hebrew works: chronicles, annals, rabbinic responsa, biblical commentaries, disputa-
tional literature, and polemic.37 In the north of France there were important centres
of Talmudic studies, especially in the Île-de-France, Champagne, and the Loire valley,
while in the south, Jewish communities flourished in Languedoc and Provence where
they contributed significantly to grammar, linguistics, philosophy, and science and
translated many Arabic and Latin texts, religious and other, into French.

T h e Cl e rgy an d J e ws

Despite notable exceptions, throughout Europe the activities of local clergy were
frequently detrimental to the well-being of Jewish communities. At times bishops
made an effort to aid Jews living in their dioceses; in 1084 Bishop Rudiger of
Speyer invited them to settle in his town, apparently hoping that they would form
a merchant community which, despite their own laws and customs, would engage
in both local and general trade and employ Christians. He guaranteed them a
walled quarter of the town in which to live—which suggests that he realized their
vulnerability and their need for protection from the townspeople. Six years later
the emperor Henry IV (1056–1105) confirmed this charter of Speyer and issued a
similar document for the Jews of Worms.38
Yet, as we have seen with the archbishop of Canterbury John Peckham, the pro-
nouncements of many other clergy affected Jewish communities adversely. So, for
example, in 1267 the Synod of Breslau ordered Jews to live in a segregated quarter
of the city. And in particular, as we shall examine in Chapter Four, in the twelfth
century as part of the Church’s effort to tackle usury, which it saw as an especial
scourge, canonists and theologians condemned it, thereby encouraging the clergy

35 Innocent IV, ‘Sicut tua nobis’ (23 July 1253), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.292; Simonsohn, p.207. See Simonsohn,
The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.23.
36 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.42.
37  Peter Schäfer, ‘Jews and Christians in the High Middle Ages: The Book of the Pious’, in The Jews
of Europe in the Middle Ages (Tenth to Fifteenth Centuries). Proceedings of the International Symposium
held at Speyer, 20–25 October 2002, ed. C. Cluse (Turnhout, 2004), p.30; Anna Abulafia, ‘Christians
and Jews in the High Middle Ages: Christian Views of Jews’, in The Jews of Europe in the Middle Ages
(Tenth to Fifteenth Centuries). Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Speyer, 20–25th October
2002, ed. C. Cluse, p.24; Ephraim Kanarfogel, Jewish Education and Society in the High Middle Ages
(Detroit, 1992), pp.15–17.
38 Richards, Sex, Dissidence and Damnation, pp.98–9.
72 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

to preach harsh sermons against Jewish money-lending.39 And, as we have seen,

from the second half of the thirteenth century the mendicant friars increasingly
forced Jews in France, England, and Spain to listen to conversionary sermons.40
Alongside such wider attempts to regulate the behaviour of Jews in Christian
society, at a more ‘unofficial’ level there was also unpleasant discrimination against
Jews by the local parish clergy. So, for example, in Chalons-sur-Saône and Béziers
clergymen approved and encouraged the popular ‘custom’ of stoning Jews on Palm
Sunday as a reminder of their responsibility for condemning Jesus and as a punish-
ment for their denial that Mary was the Mother of God.41 Or in Toulouse, where
in a tradition going back to the ninth century and not abolished until the twelfth,
it was customary for a Jew to be chosen to stand up in the town square before
St Stephen’s Church to receive a blow on the face as symbolic punishment for an
­alleged historical betrayal of the town by Jews to Muslim troops.42 And each year
in the Kingdom of Aragon a mob ritually stoned Jewish quarters during Holy
Week.43 Thus not infrequently during the eleventh and twelfth centuries local
­ecclesiastical sanction was given to popular violence against Jews.
Despite the legislation of Lateran IV and the Paris Disputation of 1240, Jewish
communities continued to seek assurances of protection from the papacy at times
of crisis and popes continued to issue statements of protection. During the reign of
Louis IX, new outbreaks of persecution surfaced in France—in particular attacks
at the outset in 1236 of the ‘Barons’ Crusade’ of Richard of Cornwall and Thibaut
of Champagne—on a number of Jewish communities in Anjou and Poitou, during
which crusaders attempted forcibly to baptize Jews and slaughtered any who resist-
ed.44 Contemporary and later accounts estimate that the death toll associated with
this particular crusade was somewhere between 2,500 and 3,000 Jews. Although
such figures must be treated with caution, it may well have been in the thousands.45
We know of these events not least from Gregory IX’s correspondence with French
prelates and with Louis IX in which he complained bitterly about the ill-treatment
of Jews by crusaders.46
What role did the papacy play in protecting Jewish communities throughout
the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries? From an objective perspective
papal protection was a failure. Although popes insisted on the protection of Jews

39  Kenneth Stow, ‘Papal and Royal Attitudes toward Jewish Lending in the Thirteenth Century’,
American Jewish Studies Review 6 (1981), 161.
40  Jeremy Cohen, The Friars and the Jews. The Evolution of Medieval Anti-Judaism (Ithaca, London,
1982), pp.82–5.
41  James Parkes, The Jew in the Medieval Community. A Study of his Political and Economic Situation
(New York, 1976), pp.42–3.
42 Parkes, The Jew in the Medieval Community, pp.43–4.
43  Paola Tartakoff, Between Christian and Jew: Conversion and Inquisition in the Crown of Aragon,
1250–1391 (Philadelphia, 2012), pp.6–7.
44  Michael Lower, The Barons’ Crusade. A Call to Arms and Its Consequences (Philadelphia, 2005),
pp.118–20.
45  Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.226.
46  Gregory IX, ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum in’ (5 September 1236), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.226–8;
Simonsohn, pp.163–4; ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum in’ (5 September 1236), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.228–30;
Simonsohn, p.165.
 The Papal Promise of Protection 73

at various times of crisis, the extent to which their activities were ineffective is
obvious from the eventual expulsion of Jews from almost every part of medieval
­

Europe by the end of the Middle Ages. Yet again it is crucial to remember that
protecting Jews was only one of a great number of concerns of medieval popes—
and although they frequently did more to protect them than their clergy or the
secular leaders, protection was never a concern high on the agenda. That the papal
curia was far away from most Jewish communities, with the exception of that of
Rome, meant that any communication—never easy in the medieval world—was
often delayed.47 Furthermore the nature of the protection popes were prepared to
offer was itself variable. This is difficult to grasp because based on theological prin-
ciples in which tolerance of other religions and ways of life—tolerance of what
historians have in recent years termed ‘the Other’—was never a primary nor even
a pressing concern. What that protection was which popes believed it was their
duty as heads of Christian society to offer to Jews, and the reasons why they felt
such a duty existed, is the subject to which we now turn.

Papal T r a d i t i o n

Papal attitudes towards the Jews in the High Middle Ages were complex because—
as we have emphasized—the papacy’s stance comprised a mixture of protection
and restriction. Yet from its earliest beginnings popes were committed to guaran-
teeing basic rights of life and religious observance to Jewish communities. Jews
were to live unharmed in Christian society because the teachings of St Paul empha-
sized that they were witnesses to the truth of the Old Testament. In Romans 11,
Paul had argued that the Jews would be reconciled to the Christian faith at the end
of days when a remnant of them would be saved and their conversion en masse
would signal the dawn of a new era—as predicted by the prophets of the Old
Testament.48 Citing Genesis 25: 23 ‘the elder shall serve the younger’ Paul had ar-
gued that God had instituted a new covenant for Christians that replaced their old
Jewish covenant. Whereas Grace saved Christians who lived by Faith, the Jews,
who lived only by the Torah—the first five books of the Old Testament—Genesis,
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy—had been led to perdition.
As we have seen, in the fifth century St Augustine of Hippo had developed and
expanded such Pauline ideas. In the De civitate Dei and the Contra Iudaeos, as in
Contra Faustum, he had argued that Jews were living, though unwitting, witnesses
to Christ. Augustine believed that they held a specific role in the divine plan for the
development of human society because their very existence provided a useful set of
arguments for preaching Christianity to pagans.49 As we noted in the Introduction,

47  Sophia Menache, The Vox Dei. Communication in the Middle Ages (New York, Oxford, 1990), passim.
48 Romans 11: 11–12, Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, 2 vols, 2nd edn, ed. R. Weber
(Stuttgart, 1975), Vol. 2; Romans 11: 25–6, Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, ed. Weber, Vol. 2.
49  St Augustine, De civitate Dei 2, ed. B. Dombart, A. Kalb (Stuttgart 1981), Bk 18, Ch. 46, p.329;
St Augustine, Adversos Iudaeos, The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 27, ed. R. J. Deferrari (New York, 1955),
pp.391–414; De civitate Dei 1, ed. Dombart, Kalb, Bk 4, Ch. 34, pp.188–9; Vol. 2, Bk 18, Ch. 46,
74 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

the reasons for this were fourfold. First, since the Jews’ acceptance of the Old
Testament was a disinterested testimony to the truth of biblical Christological
prophecy, the Jews were therefore a living testimony to the truth of Christianity.
Secondly, their suffering as a result of their diaspora showed that God had punished
them for rejecting Christ. Hence their responsibility for His death and their disper-
sion was a testimony to the error of Judaism and the truth of Christianity. Thirdly,
Jews reminded Christians of the difference between the old carnal Israel and the
new spiritual Israel. Lastly, as a rhetorical personification of carnality and sin, Jews
constantly reminded Christians that sin was part of the human condition.
Alongside such Pauline and Augustinian theology, the papacy had long held that
the rights of Jews living within Christian society must be legally restricted. In
­particular it came to rely on the fifth-century Theodosian Code, a set of laws prom-
ulgated in 438 which were a comprehensive compilation of imperial constitutions
covering reigns of all emperors from Constantine I (272–337) to Theodosius II
(401–450) and which—considering its scope and magnitude—contained a sur-
prisingly detailed blueprint for the treatment of Jews in Christian society.50 It
restricted the erection of new synagogues, threatened the curtailment of privileges
if Jews insulted Christianity, and forbade Jews from owning Christian slaves.51 Yet
it also protected basic rights for Jews: affirming their citizenship, allowing them to
set their own market prices and rules, specifying that they should exercise ordinary
jurisdiction in ritual matters, allowing recourse to arbiters in civil affairs, and out-
lawing attacks on synagogues. Perhaps most significantly it granted Jews due legal
process, forbidding Christians to call them to court on the Jewish Sabbath and
prohibiting arbitrary cancellation of their rights.52 The Code of Justinian was also
important since it legislated that synagogues should not be allowed to exist on land
belonging to an ecclesiastical institution—indeed the emperor Justinian (c.482–565)
had himself ordered that all existing synagogues in the empire be converted into
churches.
So from the fifth century onwards the papacy insisted on the implementation of
the Theodosian Code concerning Jews and pursued an agenda of simultaneous
protection and restriction. With the pontificate of Gregory I in the sixth century
came further elaboration of that position. What is striking about Gregory’s corres-
pondence is how—in the context of his day—his stance towards Jews was so
comparatively mild; in over twenty of his letters he expressed approval of the pro-
tection the Theodosian Code demanded. In ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, which, as we have seen,
became the basis for the twelfth-century letter of protection, the ‘Constitutio pro
Iudaeis’, he argued that although Jews should not be accorded any liberties beyond
those allowed in civil law, within that law they should not suffer discrimination.
Furthermore, although he insisted, in line with the Theodosian Code, that the

pp.328–9; St Augustine, Adversus Iudaeos, ed. Deferrari, pp.391–414, passim; De civitate Dei 1, ed.
Dombart, Kalb, Bk 4, Ch. 34, pp.188–9; Vol. 2, Bk 18, Ch. 46, pp.328–9.
50  Codex Theodosianus 16,8,1–29, trans. P. Lang (Bern, Frankfurt, New York, Paris, 1991), pp.84–159.
51  Mark Cohen, Under Crescent and Cross: the Jews in the Middle Ages (Princeton, 1994), pp.32–5.
52  Codex Theodosianus 16,8,1–29, trans. Lang, pp.84–159, passim. See Stow, Alienated Minority,
p.23; Cohen, Under Crescent and Cross, pp.32–4.
 The Papal Promise of Protection 75

a­ ctivities of Jews in Christian society must remain limited, he also urged that clergy
ensure they be treated justly and granted their legal rights; as a result Jews too bene-
fitted from the Code.53
Gregory emphasized that Jews must not be forced to accept baptism and that
only Jews who of their own free will and religious conviction sought refuge among
Christians were to be baptized. One of his letters stating that conversion was to
be by persuasion alone was considered by later canonists to be so important that
it  was included in Gratian’s Concordia discordantium canonum (‘Harmony of
Discordant Canons’). This seminal work of canon law—otherwise known as the
Decretum—appeared about 1140 and became the bedrock of all later work by both
Decretists—canon lawyers who commented on the Decretum—and Decretalists—
those who commented on twelfth- and thirteenth-century papal decretals. The
only exception to Gregory’s protective stance towards Jews was his approval of the
limited tightening of restrictive measures against them instigated by the Visgothic
King Reccared at the Third Council of Toledo in 589. That included legislation
about Jews owning Christian slaves, the exclusion of Jews from public office,
Jewish proselytizing, and most crucially intermarriage between Christians and
Jews: any offspring from such marriages were to be forcibly baptized.54
Much later, in the eleventh century, Gregory’s ideas were revisited and empha-
sized anew by Alexander II in the particular context of the Spanish Reconquista.
In his letter ‘Placuit nobis’ (1063) Alexander praised Spanish bishops for restraining
those campaigning against Muslims in Spain from also attacking Jews, thereby
re-affirming the traditional teaching of the Church. Such leniency would ensure,
he hoped, that the Jews might be reconciled to Christianity when, according to Pauline
theology, a remnant of them would be saved after recognizing Christ as the Messiah
at the end of the world.55 Alexander explicitly cited Gregory I on forbidding
Christians to harm Jews, declaring that God in His Mercy had spared the latter so
that they might live scattered throughout the globe:
Thus also the blessed Gregory prohibited certain men who were inflamed to destroy
them [the Jews]. He denounced it as impious to want to destroy those who had been
preserved by the mercy of God . . . that they should live dispersed throughout the ter-
ritories and lands of the whole world.56
Alexander stated categorically that Jews must be protected, because, unlike the
Muslims in Spain who drove Christians from their homes, they were everywhere
prepared to serve Christians.57 His letter outlining the papacy’s attitude towards

53 Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue, pp.214–15; pp.220–1.
54 For full details of the restrictive legislation of Reccared, see Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the
Jews. History, pp.40–2.
55 For the idea of Jewish service, see St Augustine, Adversus Iudaeos, ed. Deferrari, Ch. 8, p.407. See
Stow, Alienated Minority, pp.17–19; p.39; John Watt, The Theory of Papal Monarchy in the Thirteenth
Century: the Contribution of the Canonists (New York, 1965), p.139.
56  Alexander II, ‘Placuit nobis’ (1063), Simonsohn, p.36: ‘Sic etiam beatus Gregorius quosdam qui
ad eos delendos exardescebant prohibuit, impium esse denuntians eos delere velle, qui Dei misericor-
dia servati sunt, ut . . . per terrarum orbis plagas dispersi vivant.’
57  The phrase is ‘hi vero ubique parati sunt servire’. See Alexander II, ‘Placuit nobis’, Simonsohn, p.36.
76 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

Jews living in Christian lands was so clear and emphatic that it came to be regarded
by later canonists as an important milestone in the history of the Church’s treat-
ment of Jews. For this reason and alongside Gregory’s original letter stating that
conversion must be by persuasion alone, it was later included in the Decretum and
became an axiom of canon law.58
Pointed reference to Jewish subservience may have reminded Christians of the
stipulation of the Theodosian Code that Jews who showed contempt for Chris­
tianity forfeited their privileges and ought to be regarded as adversaries of Christ.
In his letter itself Alexander did not refer to the Code, suggesting that rather than
emphasizing the restrictive as well as the protective nature of traditional Roman law,
he preferred to stress the importance of Christian clemency.59 By citing Gregory’s
disapproval of the forced conversion of Jews, he signalled his commitment to reaf-
firming the Church’s stance of comparative toleration. Hence, the idea of Christian
kindness towards Jews was not based on any post-Enlightenment idea of toleration
or respect for other religions, but on the belief that Jews were willing to fulfil a role
in medieval society which highlighted the Christian theological position that, as
the people of the Old Covenant who had been replaced by those of the New, they
must naturally be subservient to the latter. That was why Alexander cited Gregory’s
letter forbidding Christians from harming Jews and declared that God in His mercy
had spared them so that they might live dispersed, but unharmed, throughout the
world. Thus, as we should expect from a successor of St Peter, Alexander’s state-
ments reaffirmed the traditional teaching of the Church as enunciated by St Paul
and St Augustine: Jews were to live unharmed in Christian communities in order
that they might eventually be reconciled to Christianity.
The letters of Gregory the Great had a profound influence on the papacy’s stance
towards the Jews in the eleventh century and also in the twelfth and thirteenth cen-
turies. Yet in contrast to their comparative leniency and clemency, we have observed
how another, competing strand of legislation concerning Jewish protection and
restriction also greatly influenced Church pronouncements. The Councils of Toledo
were a series of eighteen Spanish councils which began in the fourth century and
ended shortly before the Muslims conquered Spain in 711. Their decrees were par-
ticularly harsh on Jews, perhaps because of ongoing fears about the infidel ‘Other’
manifested in the many military campaigns against Muslims at the time, or perhaps
because, given the large numbers of Jews in Spain compared to many other parts of
Europe, Spanish Christians felt the need to exercise a stricter control.
Certainly the decrees of these councils were very different in tone from the cor-
respondence of Gregory the Great. Particularly influential was Canon 57 of the
Fourth Council of Toledo (633), which, although it condemned forced baptism,

58  Gratian, C.23.q.8.c.11, col. 955. See Gilbert Dahan, Les intellectuels chrétiens et les juifs au moyen
âge (Paris, 1990), p.115; Heinz Schreckenberg, Christlichen Adversus-Iudaeos-Texte und ihr literarisches
und historisches Umfeld (Frankfurt am Main, 1982), p.149; Gregory I, ‘Scribendi ad fraternitatem’
(June 591), Simonsohn, pp.4–5; Gratian, D.45. c.3, cols 160–1. See Dahan, Les Intéllectuels chrétiens
et les juifs au moyen âge, p.114; Schreckenberg, Die Christlichen Adversus-Iudaeos-Texte, p.145; Parkes,
The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue, pp.210–11.
59 Stow, Alienated Minority, p.39.
 The Papal Promise of Protection 77

decreed that Jews who had been baptized in the past should be compelled to remain
Christian. Yet one of the principal tenets of papal re-issues of the ‘Constitutio pro
Iudaeis’ in the eleventh and twelfth centuries was that baptism should never be
forced. This principle went back to the rulings of King Sisebut and to the Fourth
Council of Toledo, was repeated by Gregory I in his correspondence, and together
with his seminal letter ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, was later included in Gratian’s Decretum and
thereby given significant status in canon law.60 Nevertheless, since the overall thrust
of Canon 57 of the Fourth Toledan Council was that those who had already been
forcibly baptized should be compelled to remain Christians, it might seem to under­
mine Gregory’s testimony against forced baptism. Perhaps for this reason in the
eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries, popes seem to have generally ignored
the Toledan ruling. Even the great twelfth-century legal mind, Alexander III, who
in his re-issue of the ‘Constitutio pro Iudaeis’ insisted again that Jews should not be
forced to accept baptism—thereby deliberately recalling Gregory’s teaching—never
referred to Canon 57 in any of his correspondence concerned with Jews.
Yet as the power of the papacy grew, the meaning of ‘forced’—Latin ‘coacti’—
i.e. conversion by force, was more closely defined. As we shall see in Chapter Three,
when many Jews, forcibly converted to Christianity by crusaders, returned to their
old faith in 1095–1096, the anti-pope Clement III (1080, 1084–1100) com-
plained bitterly—unlike the rightful pope Urban II who made no comment on
these reversals. The pope who tackled the issue head on was Innocent III, who—
typically—exhibited a more complex and nuanced stance in his treatment of the
Jews than many of his predecessors. In his 1199 re-issue of the ‘Constitutio pro
Iudaeis’—entitled ‘Licet perfidia Iudaeorum’—like Alexander III he echoed
Gregory I in arguing that no Christian should use violence to force Jews into bap-
tism and that only Jews who sought refuge among Christians through their own
free will and religious conviction ought to be baptized.61 But, only a few years after
this re-issue, in a letter ‘Maiores ecclesie’ of 1201 to the archbishop of Arles—
deemed important enough by canonists, including Alexander of Hales, to be later
entered into the Liber extra decretalium—he argued that even if enough force was
applied to indicate the unwillingness of an individual to accept Christianity, he
must still remain a Christian.62 It would be an insulting denial of the sacrament of
baptism if Jews reverted to their original Judaism. This seemed to undermine the
essence of ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ which clearly stated that conversion by force was never
acceptable to God, and apparently attempted to reconcile Gregory’s position with
the harsher decrees of Canon 57 of Toledo IV.63
Similarly, while in ‘Maiores ecclesie’ Innocent confirmed that it was contrary to
the Christian faith for anyone completely opposed to baptism to be compelled to

60  Gratian, D.45.c.5, cols 161–2. See Dahan, Les Intéllectuels chrétiens et les juifs au moyen âge,
p.114; Schreckenberg, Die Christlichen Adversus-Iudaeos-Texte, p.145.
61 Innocent III, ‘Licet perfidia Judeorum’ (15 September 1199), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.92–4;
Simonsohn, pp.74–5.
62 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, pp.256–7.
63 Innocent III, ‘Maiores ecclesie causas’ (September–October 1201), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.100–2;
Simonsohn, pp.80–1; X, 3, 42, 3, cols 644–6.
78 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

adopt and observe the Faith, yet at the same time—ever the canon lawyer—he was
careful to distinguish between types of willingness for baptism and claimed that
there was an important distinction between them. In typical legal fashion and with
great attention to detail, he argued that those who had received baptism because
they feared violence and wished to avoid loss of property should be forced to con-
tinue in the Christian faith, since by being baptized some of them had expressed a
conditional willingness to embrace Christianity. By contrast those who had never
consented and wholly objected to baptism should not be compelled to remain
Christian. So Innocent seemed to be advocating a much harsher stance on forced
baptism than any of his predecessors. Perhaps it was the ever-changing economic,
political, and social position of Jews in late twelfth- and early thirteenth-century
society that impelled him to regard it as his duty to send out a clear message in
response to the continuous presence of Jews in Christian society. Perhaps he him-
self viewed this presence with deep unease.
Despite its controversial nature, Innocent’s position was repeated later by
Nicholas IV in ‘Sicut nobis significare’ (1288) to inquisitors in France after an
anti-Jewish riot in the County of La Marche which led to a number of terrorized
Jews consenting to baptism. Nicholas followed the example of his predecessor in
confirming that, since these converts had not been ‘strictly forced’ (‘precise coacti’),
they must remain Christians,64 an interpretation which, according to the Liber
Sextus, Boniface VIII also later accepted.65

P rot e c t i o n an d r e st r i c t i o n i n t h e
‘ c o nst i tut i o p ro i u d a e i s ’

In line with the teachings of St Paul and St Augustine, the precepts of the Theodosian
Code, the correspondence of Gregory the Great, and even to some extent the Toledan
Councils, the goal of popes in the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries was on
the one hand to protect Jews physically—along with their property—but on the
other to ensure that they demonstrated their theologically assigned and restricted
place in Christian society. Even within this broad theological framework, however,
we have seen that there were subtle variations in papal attitudes. Were these merely
personal or were they tied to other social developments, and when and why did they
develop? It is important to remember that throughout the period popes issued a
number of letters of protection for Jews, usually at the behest of Jewish communities
and sometimes to individuals in response to special cases. Yet several popes re-issued
the ‘Constitutio pro Iudaeis’ at times of crisis. Calixtus II (1119–1124) was the first
pope to do so, with the incipit—‘Sicut Iudaeis’: a clear reference to the letter of
Gregory I. Although this general letter, issued sometime between 1119 and 1124,
does not survive, we know of it from the mention of his name in later re-issues.66

64  Nicholas IV, ‘Sicut nobis significare’ (7 May 1288), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.165–7, especially footnote 3.
65  Boniface VIII, Liber Sextus decretalium, 4 Parts (Lyons, 1524), 5,2,13.
66 Calixtus II, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (1119–24), Simonsohn, p.44.
 The Papal Promise of Protection 79

Like Alexander II before him, Calixtus was reminding the faithful that the Christian
clemency advocated in his letter of protection was at one with the position of Gregory
I who had intimated that, although Jews must be accorded no further liberties
than those allowed by civil law, they should not be deprived of their possessions or
livelihood.67
A similar letter of protection issued by Eugenius III (1145–1153) has also not
survived.68 However, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, the first extant version of the ‘Constitutio pro
Iudaeis’ issued by Alexander III between 1159 and 1181, stated categorically that
Jews were under papal protection. They were not to be forced to accept baptism,
wounded, killed, or deprived of their property, nor disturbed in celebrating their
religious rites, nor compelled to render unaccustomed services to Christians. Their
cemeteries were not to be rifled, nor their corpses disinterred to extort money.69
This letter was re-issued by Clement III and Celestine III, although Celestine’s
letter has not survived and we know of its existence only from the letters of
Innocent III and his thirteenth-century successors.70
As we shall see in Chapter Three, although the ‘Constituito pro Iudaeis’ did not
refer specifically to crusading, its five re-issues between 1199 and 1250, as its pre-
vious issues in the twelfth century, were often linked with papal calls for crusades
and in response to associated appeals by Jewish communities.71 In September
1199, soon after his accession, Innocent III re-issued it, even though his imme-
diate predecessor Celestine III had already done so, probably near the end of his
pontificate.72 Like his predecessor Alexander II, Innocent laid down that Jews,
whose guilt for Christ’s death condemned them to perpetual servitude, must still
be protected as the servants of Christians.73
As we noted in the Introduction, Innocent III’s re-issue of the ‘Constitutio pro
Iudaeis’, differed significantly in tone from its previous re-issues.74 Although it
repeated the protection they granted, it contained an additional paragraph at the
beginning with a reference to Psalms 59: 12:
Although the Jewish perfidy is in every way worthy of condemnation, nevertheless,
because through them the truth of our own Faith is proved, they are not to be severely
oppressed by the faithful. Thus the Prophet says, ‘Thou shalt not kill them, lest at any

67  Gregory I, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (June 598), Simonsohn, pp.15–16. See Dahan, La Polémique chrétienne
contre le Judaïsme au moyen âge (Paris, 1991), p.27.
68 Eugenius III, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (1145–53), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.76; Simonsohn, p.47.
69  Alexander III, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (1159–1181), Simonsohn, pp.51–2.
70 Clement III, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (10 May 1188), Simonsohn, pp.66–7; Celestine III, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’
(1191–1198), Simonsohn, p.68; Clement III, ‘Quam gravis et’ (27 May 1188), ed. J. von Pflugk-
Harttung, Acta pontificum Romanorum inedita, Vol. 3: Urkunden der Päpste vom Jahre c.590 bis zum
Jahre c.1197 (Stuttgart, 1888), pp.363–4.
71  Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.76.
72 Innocent III, ‘Licet perfidia Judeorum’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.92–4; Simonsohn, pp.74–5; ‘Graves
orientalis terrae’ (31 December 1199), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.98; Simonsohn, p.78; ‘Nisi nobis dictum’
(4 January 1200), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.98; Simonsohn, pp.78–9; see Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.76, footnote 3.
73 Innocent III, ‘Etsi Judeos quos’ (15 July 1205), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.114–16; Simonsohn, pp.86–8.
74 Robert Chazan, ‘Pope Innocent III and the Jews’, in Pope Innocent III and his World, ed. J. C. Moore
(Aldershot, 1999), pp.194–7.
80 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291
time they forget thy law’, or more clearly stated, thou shalt not destroy the Jews com-
pletely, so that the Christians should never by any chance be able to forget Thy Law. . . . 75
This addition was intended to explain that only Jews who had not conspired
against Christianity were to be protected: ‘We wish, however, to place under the
protection of this decree only those (Jews) who have not presumed to plot against
the Christian Faith’.76 The quotation from Psalms, the use of the word ‘perfidy’
(‘Perfidia’), and the phrase ‘to plot against the Christian Faith’ were consistent with
Innocent’s tendency to be more severe—as well as more colourful in his rhetoric—
than his forebears.77 He wanted to emphasize the Church’s traditional teaching
that, despite their error in not accepting Christ, the Jews had an important part to
play in Christian society,78 but he also reflected and encouraged a growing suspi-
cion that Jews might want deliberately to harm the ‘societas Christiana’ (‘Christian
society’). It is not surprising therefore that his letters often appear more hostile to
Jews than those of his predecessors. Like them, he remained committed to the
Pauline and Patristic idea of protection.79
Despite Innocent’s re-issue of the ‘Constitutio pro Iudaeis’ near the end of his pon-
tificate, his successor Honorius III also re-issued it on his election in 1217.80 Honorius
omitted the paragraph—added by Innocent—at the beginning about Jewish perfidy,
but retained Innocent’s last sentence granting protection only to Jews not plotting
against the Christian faith.81 In 1235 Gregory IX again re-issued the ‘Constitutio pro
Iudaeis’, this time following papal calls the previous year for action against Muslims
in the Holy Land—which were to result in the ‘Barons’ Crusade’ of 1236.82
Next the ‘Constitutio pro Iudaeis’ was re-issued twice during the pontificate of
Gregory’s successor Innocent IV. The first occasion, in 1246, was a response
to Jewish petitioning following a rebellion in Navarre that had forced Thibaut to
­impose restrictions on the Jews. The second, in 1247, responded to allegations of
a ritual murder in Valréas about which Jews living in the province of Vienne had
protested.83 Thus, in the re-issue of the ‘Constitutio pro Iudaeis’ of 1247, Innocent

75 Innocent III, ‘Licet perfidia Judeorum’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.92; Simonsohn, p.74: ‘Licet perfidia
Judeorum sit multipliciter improbanda, quia tamen per eos fides nostra veraciter comprobatur, non sunt
a fidelibus graviter opprimendi, dicente propheta; “Ne occideris eos ne quando obliviscantur legis tue”,
ac si diceretur appertius; ne deleveris omnino Judeos, ne forte Christiani legis tue valeant oblivisci . . . ’.
76 Innocent III, ‘Licet perfidia Judeorum’, Grayzel, p.94; Simonsohn, p.75: ‘Eos autem dumtaxat
hujus protectionis presidio volumus communiri, qui nihil machinari presumpserint in subversionem
fidei Christiane.’
77 Innocent III, ‘Licet perfidia Judeorum’, Grayzel, p.94; Simonsohn, p.75: ‘qui nihil machinari
presumpserint in subversionem fidei Christiane’.
78 Dahan, La Polémique chrétienne contre le Judaisme, p.27; Bernhard Blumenkranz, Histoire des
Juifs en France, Vol. 1 (Toulouse, 1972), p.35; Jeremy Cohen, Living Letters of the Law: Ideas of the Jew
in Medieval Christianity (Berkeley, 1999), pp.317–18.
79 For example, see Innocent III, ‘Mandatur ut inhibeant’ (1215–1216), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.142;
Simonsohn, p.100.
80  Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.76, footnote 3.
81 Honorius III, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.144; Simonsohn, p.102.
82  Gregory IX, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (3 May 1235), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.218; Simonsohn, pp.154–5; ‘Rachel
suum videns’ (17 November 1234), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.216; Simonsohn, pp.152–3; ‘Pravorum molestiis
eum’ (13 April 1235), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.218; Simonsohn, pp.153–4. See Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.76, footnote 3.
83 Innocent IV, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (22 October 1246), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.260–2; Simonsohn, p.189;
‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (9 July/June 1247), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.274; Simonsohn, pp.192–3. See Grayzel, Vol. 1,
p.76, footnote 3.
 The Papal Promise of Protection 81

IV objected to accusations at Fulda that Jews killed Christians to utilize their blood
as part of the Passover ritual, insisting that no-one should accuse Jews of using
human blood in their religious rites—thereby refuting charges of blood libel and
re-iterating that Jews must always be protected.84 That his predecessor Gregory IX
had already addressed the archbishops and bishops of Germany over blood libels
suggests such serious allegations were becoming commonplace.85 As with Honorius
III, the re-issues of the ‘Constitutio pro Iudaeis’ by Gregory and Innocent IV
­excluded Innocent III’s first paragraph but included his additional final sentence.
This suggests that although these later popes used less vehement language than
their predecessor, they knew of Innocent III’s re-issue and subscribed to his idea
that Jews were a potential threat to Christian society.
The ‘Constitutio pro Iudaeis’ was issued eight more times in the second half of the
thirteenth century, in every case with the addition of the final sentence.86 Alexander
IV issued it in 1255, Urban IV in 1262, Gregory X in 1272 and again possibly in
1274, Nicholas III, in 1278, Martin IV in 1281, Honorius IV sometime between
1285–1286/7—we do not have a date for the actual letter—and Nicholas IV
between 1288 and 1292. Martin IV’s re-issue significantly contained a further add-
itional clause limiting the freedom of action of the Inquisition with regard to Jews,
forbidding inquisitors or indeed anyone else to use force against them in their inves-
tigations; this was not repeated in Honorius IV’s and Nicholas IV’s re-issues.87
Hence a consistent commitment to protection persisted throughout the thirteenth
century, but, as we shall see, the idea of Jews as potential enemies was beginning to
infiltrate this traditional position.

P rot e c t i o n f ro m R i tual M u r d e r , B l o o d
L i b e l , an d H o st D e s e c r at i o n

In the twelfth century there is growing evidence for the persecution of Jews by
Christian communities. For the first time in medieval chronicles and annals we
hear of accusations of the ritual murder of Christian children. The idea driving
such accusations was that Jews kidnapped pious Christian children in order to

84 Innocent IV, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.274; Simonsohn, pp.192–3. See Christendom and
its Discontents, ed. S. Waugh, P. Diehl (Cambridge, 1996), p.222.
85 Innocent IV, ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum Alemannie’ (5 July 1247), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.268–70;
Simonsohn, pp.194–5.
86 Alexander IV, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (22 September 1255), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.55–7; Simonsohn,
pp.211–12; Urban IV ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (26 April 1262), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.70–1; Simonsohn, p.219;
Gregory X, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (7 October 1272), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.117–20; Simonsohn, pp.242–3; and
possibly ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (10 September 1274), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.133–4; Simonsohn, p.246; Nicholas
III, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (2 August 1278), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.139–42; Simonsohn, p.249; Martin IV, ‘Sicut
Iudaeis’ (1 March 1281), Simonsohn, p.254; ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (2 August 1281), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.147–50;
Simonsohn, pp.254–5; Honorius IV, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (1285–1286/7), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.162–3;
Simonsohn, p.260 and Nicholas IV, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (1288–1292), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.191–2; Simonsohn,
p.265.
87  Martin IV ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.147–50; Simonsohn, pp.254–5. We should note
that neither Boniface VIII nor Clement V seem to have issued the ‘Constitutio pro Iudaeis’.
82 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

enact a mockery of Christ’s crucifixion.88 A predictable series of events frequently

followed such supposed murders: Christians claimed that the child’s corpse, or the
grave or shrine built to commemorate his or her death, manifested miraculous
signs indicating not only Jewish guilt but also Christian martyrdom.
In England charges of ritual murder began during the reign of Stephen (1135–
1154) with the discovery of the body of a boy—known as William of Norwich—
who had supposedly been murdered by Jews in 1144: the first Jewish ritual murder
on record in medieval Europe. Several decades later, in 1173, the Benedictine
monk Thomas of Monmouth, who does not seem to have been present in Norwich
in 1144, but was extremely interested in the case, wrote The Life and Miracles of
St.  William of Norwich in which he claimed that William was seen entering a
Jewish house with a stranger, was subsequently tortured and crucified, and that when
discovered his body showed miraculous signs of martyrdom.89 Thomas was con-
vinced that Jews had perpetrated the crime, pointing to the testimony of Theobold,
a converted Jew from Cambridge, who he claimed had informed him that:
in the ancient writings of his Fathers it was written that the Jews, without the shedding
of human blood, could neither obtain their freedom, nor could they ever return to
their fatherland. Hence it was laid down by them in ancient times that every year they
must sacrifice a Christian in some part of the world to the Most High God in scorn
and contempt of Christ, that so they might avenge their sufferings on Him.90
In particular Jews were supposed to carry out a ritual murder annually at the
time of the Passover, since—again according to Theobold—it made sense at that
time for the people who spilt God’s blood to seek to re-enact the Crucifixion.91
Theobold’s claim that Jews sacrificed Christians every year because they needed to
shed Christian blood in order to ‘return to their fatherland’ suggests that some
Christians believed that Jews mistakenly thought that Christian blood would bring
salvation. By contrast, in line with traditional Christian theology as expressed in the
‘Constitutio pro Iudaeis’, they in fact believed that salvation could only be attained
through conversion to Christianity and that Jews would never achieve it until—in
accordance with Pauline theology—the Remnant was saved at the end of days.92
The incident at Norwich in 1144 was followed by a whole spate of similar accusa-
tions in England: at Gloucester in 1168, Bury St Edmunds in 1181, Bristol in 1183,

88  Brenda Deen Schildgen, Pagans, Tartars, Moslems, and Jews in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales (Florida,
2001), p.99.
89  The Jew in the Medieval World: A Source Book, 315–1791, ed. J. Marcus (New York, 1975),
p.121. For a recent edition of the work, see Thomas of Monmouth, The Life and Passion of William of
Norwich, ed. and trans. M. Rubin (London, 2014), passim.
90  The Life and Miracles of St William of Norwich by Thomas of Monmouth, ed. and trans. A. Jessop,
M. R. James (Cambridge, 2011) pp.93–4: ‘Referebat quidem in antiquis partum suorum scriptis
scriptum haberi, iudeos sine sanguinis humani effusione nec libertatem adipisci nec ad patrios fines
quandoque regredi. Unde ab ipsis antiquitus decretum est omni anno eos in obprobrium et contume-
liam Christi christianum ubicunque terrarum deo litare altissimo, ut sic suas in illum ulciscantur
iniurias cuius mortis causa ipsi et a sua exclusi sunt patria et tanquam serui exulant in aliena.’
91  Marvin Perry, Frederick Schweitzer, Antisemitism: Myth and Hate from Antiquity to the Present
(London, 2002), pp.47–8.
92 Romans 11: 11–12, Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, ed. Weber, Vol. 2; Romans 11: 25–6,
Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, ed. Weber, Vol. 2.
 The Papal Promise of Protection 83

Winchester in 1192, 1225, 1235, and Lincoln in 1255. Charges were also brought
in France at Pontoise and Braisne in 1182 and Valréas in 1247, in Germany at Fulda
in 1235, Frankfurt in 1241, and Oberwesel in 1287, and in Spain at Saragossa in
1182 and 1250.93 Of course child murders were not always blamed on Jews; in
1022 a group of heretics at Orleans were similarly found guilty of infanticide.94
Nevertheless, ritual murder was increasingly defined as a particularly Jewish
practice. St Augustine had advocated toleration of the Jews, arguing that although
blind to the truth of Christianity, they still provided evidence of the Messiah
through their Scriptures.95 As we have seen, this idea had been echoed in the
papal re-issues of the ‘Constitutio pro Iudaeis’ and was especially emphasized
in the introductory paragraph of Innocent III’s text.96 Yet in contrast to all that,
medieval readings of Matthew 27: 25 ‘his blood be upon us and upon his children’,
led to many Christians being sure that the Jews had killed Christ in the certain
knowledge that he was Christ and that they were therefore primarily responsible
for his death. In the eleventh century St Anselm (c.1033–1109) made it clear in
his Cur Deus Homo that he believed the Jews killed Jesus fully aware that he was
the son of God:
. . . For, when he [Christ] says to the Jews, of his Father: ‘If I say that I know him not,
I shall be a liar, like unto you,’ and, in this sentence, makes use of the words: ‘I know
him not,’ who says that he could not have uttered these same four words, or expressing
the same thing differently, have declared, ‘I know him not?’ Now had he done so, he
would have been a liar, as he himself says, and therefore a sinner. Therefore, since he
could do this, he could sin.97
Furthermore, as the Talmud began to be better known in the West, Jews were
increasingly associated in popular culture not with the Old and New Testament,
but with Talmudic literature viewed as a stumbling block to their eventual recog-
nition of Christ as the Messiah—and that therefore they were undeserving of the
toleration advocated by St Augustine.98 Hence, although Jews were believed to
be  deliberately and stubbornly blind to the truth of Christianity, they were in

93 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, pp.52–6.

94  Heresies of the High Middle Ages. Selected Sources Translated and Annotated, ed. W. Wakefield,
A. Evans (New York, London, 1969), p.79; Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe. Documents in
Translation, ed. E. Peters (London, 1980), p.69; Jeffrey Victor, Satanic Panic: The Creation of a
Contemporary Legend (Chicago, 1993), p.277.
95  St Augustine, De civitate Dei 2, ed. Dombart, Kalb, Bk 18, Ch. 46, p.329; St Augustine, Adversos
Iudaeos, The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 27, ed. Deferrari, pp.391–414; De civitate Dei 1, ed. Dombart,
Kalb, Bk 4, Ch. 34, pp.188–9; Vol. 2, Bk 18, Ch. 46, pp.328–9; St Augustine, Adversus Iudaeos, ed.
Deferrari, pp.391–414, passim; De civitate Dei 1, ed. Dombart, Kalb, Bk 4, Ch. 34, pp.188–9; Vol. 2,
Bk 18, Ch. 46, pp.328–9.
96 For the introductory paragraph, see Innocent III, ‘Licet perfidia Judeorum’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.92;
Simonsohn, p.74.
97  St Anselm, ‘Cur Deus Homo’, Book 2, Chapter Ten, in S. Anselmi Cantuariensis archiepiscopi
opera omnia/ad fidem codicum recensuit Franciscus Salesius Schmitt, ed. F. S. Schmitt, 6 vols (Edinburgh,
1946–1961), Vol. 2 (1946), p.106: ‘ . . . Cum enim dicat Iudaeis de patre: “si dixero quia non scio eum,
ero similis vobis mendax”, et inter haec verba dicat: “non scio eum”: quis eum dicet easdem tres
nequivisse proferre dictiones sine aliis verbis, ut sic diceret: “non scio eum”? Quod si faceret, ut ipse
ait, esset mendax, quod est esse peccatorem. Quare quoniam hoc potuit, peccare potuit.’
98 Richards, Sex, Dissidence and Damnation, pp.94–7.
84 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

no sense blind to who Christ was but fully aware of what they had done in killing
him.99 It is not hard to see how in the popular imagination this could encourage
the suspicion that those who had spilt God’s blood might seek to re-enact the
Crucifixion by annually killing Christian children at Passover.100
Certainly in contemporary literature we find numerous references to Jews as
a  particular threat to children. The theological idea of Jewish stubbornness
(‘Duritia’)—which we will explore in Chapter Eight—may have become associ-
ated in popular culture with the idea of the male Jew as ‘hard-hearted’, ‘stubborn’
and hence a threat even to his own offspring. Since the Jewish male was circum-
cised, he could never be fully converted but would always show traces of his Jewish
past: that contrasted with Jewish women and (female) children who had no such
physical characteristic and whom it was believed could be more easily influenced,
converted, and brought to the Christian faith.101 In his De Gloria Martyrum—
dated c.590, but becoming increasingly popular after 1100—Gregory of Tours
relates how a Jewish boy, after witnessing and taking communion, was punished by
being thrown into an oven by his father but remained unharmed because he was
protected by the Virgin Mary.102 The boy, as well as his mother and many other
Jews, subsequently converted to Christianity; the father on the other hand was
burned alive in the oven. In this tale of ‘The Jewish Boy’, while the child and
mother saw the error of their ways and earned salvation through conversion—a
common motif of a Jewish family in Christian narratives—the father remained a
figure of evil. The tale became so popular that it was retold in a number of different
versions in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.103 Similarly in Matthew Paris’

99 Richards, Sex, Dissidence and Damnation, pp.94–7.

100  Perry, Schweitzer, Antisemitism, pp.47–8.
101  Miri Rubin, Gentile Tales: The Narrative Assault on Late Medieval Jews (New Haven, 1999; repr.
2004), p.71; Miri Rubin, ‘Desecration of the Host: The Birth of an Accusation’, in Medieval Religion:
New Approaches, ed. C. Hoffman Berman (New York, London, 2008), pp.367–8.
102  William MacLehose, ‘A Tender Age’: Cultural Anxieties Over the Child in the Twelfth and
Thirteenth Centuries (New York, 2008), p.115: ‘De puero iudeo cum aliis communicante. Quidam
puer iudeus accepit cum aliis corpus Christi quem pater eius in fornacem ardentem misit. Erat autem
super altare ubi communionem acceperat imago beate uirginis quam ipse diligenter inspexerat.
Cum autem esset in fornace apparuit ei beata uirgo in specie imaginis quam super altare uiderat et eum
eciam sine sensu caloris liberauit. Hoc bituricas factum est.’ In 1329 John XXII wrote a general letter
to all Christians telling them that Philip VI (1328–1350) of Valois had informed him that a certain
Jew who had accepted baptism falsely and had been baptized and had taken the name William, con-
tinued to practise Judaism secretly and one day in the Cistercian monastery of Cambon, in the diocese
of Cambrai, he five times stabbed with a sword an image of the Virgin Mary painted on one of the
walls. See John XXII, ‘Gloriosus Deus’ (22 March 1329), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.336–7; Simonsohn,
pp.357–9. When the news of this act spread, William lied that he was blameless and so went unpun-
ished until a certain John Flamens of Lessines, a carpenter, hearing that no fitting punishment had
been imposed for the man’s crime, challenged him to a judicial ordeal by duel (this was perhaps illegal,
since done without the authority of a court of law). See Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.337, footnote 2. With a duel
William felled the Jew and when the Jew was bound to the stump of a tree to be burnt, he publicly
confessed his guilt. A chapel was then built in the monastery in front of the image of the Virgin Mary
in order to honour her who had been so dishonoured. The incident seems to have taken place in 1322.
The pope acceded to the king’s request and granted a remission of sins to anyone who made a pilgrimage
to the chapel. Here then is an example of a pope seeming to believe charges of disrespect for the Virgin
Mary. See Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.337, footnotes 1 and 3.
103 Rubin, Gentile Tales, pp.8–28.
 The Papal Promise of Protection 85

thirteenth-century Chronica majora in which a rich Jew suffocates his wife after she
has cleaned a statue of the Virgin Mary that he had defiled in a latrine, the male
Jew is again depicted as the villain.104
Some have argued that during the twelfth century the rise in devotion to the
Virgin Mary, the popularity of the Marian Tale, and the depiction of the Christ-
Child in iconography and literature not only affected the development of accusa-
tions of ritual murder but that writers deliberately used them to manipulate the
emotions of Christian communities and thus foster a more united Christian iden-
tity.105 It was important that a boy be at the centre of these accusations since this
provided an explicit connection with the image of the suffering infant-Christ, with
the boy becoming a symbol of the Christ-Child, since a male child rather than
an adult was the supposedly ideal symbol for a mock Crucifixion.106 That would
explain why although, for example, in the case at Winchester in 1225, no child’s
corpse was ever found, an accusation of ritual murder was still brought against the
Jews. What mattered was what the murder of the child was supposed to represent.
Other historians have argued that such accusations resulted from a Christian
sense of guilt and inadequacy at child rearing and a transference of these feelings
onto their Jewish neighbours, who, increasingly living in particular sections of the
town, were likely to be extremely vigilant about the activities of their children.107
Their decision to live apart from their Christian neighbours might be choice—to
preserve their Jewish identity and maintain the autonomy and cohesion of their
communities—or as a result of coercion by civil or religious authorities. Hence, for
example, in 1267 the Synod of Breslau ordered Jews to live in a segregated quarter
of the city. However, whether or not Jews were more watchful of their children
than their Christian counterparts, it seems very unlikely that Christians would see
Jews as better parents. More probably ritual murder was becoming an urban myth,
a popular explanation of the occasional disappearance and death of Christian chil-
dren which otherwise could not be explained.108
Closely linked to charges of ritual murder was the charge of blood libel: that Jews
practised ritual murder for the express purpose of obtaining Christian blood, as
alleged at Fulda in 1235. Many medieval Christians believed in the supernatural
powers of blood, particularly since, according to popular medicine, the human
body was understood in terms of balance, so that too much or too little blood could
cause illness; hence medical practice included bloodletting at certain times of the
moon’s cycle. They may also have believed that Jews had an especially complex
relationship with blood, partly because they knew they circumcised their baby boys,
partly because male Jews in particular were believed to suffer from haemorrhoids

104  Anthony Bale, ‘Fictions of Judaism in England before 1290’, in The Jews in Medieval Britain:
Historical, Literary and Archaeological Perspectives, ed. P. Skinner (Woodbridge, 2003), p.136.
105  Bale, ‘Fictions of Judaism in England before 1290’, pp.129–35.
106 On the cult of William of Norwich, see Ronald Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims: Popular Beliefs
in Medieval England (London, 1977), pp.118–21; The Christ Child in Medieval Culture: Alpha Es et
O!, ed. M. Dzon, T. M. Kenney (Toronto, 2012), p.84, passim.
107  Martin Goodman, The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies (Oxford, 2002), p.167.
108 Irvene Resnick, Marks of Distinction: Christian Perceptions of Jews in the High Middle Ages
(Washington D.C., 2012), p.243; pp.194–206.
86 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

and to bleed anally.109 According to one popular tradition this was God’s punish-
ment for Judas who according to the New Testament Gospels had betrayed Christ
to the Romans.110 When Judas hanged himself in remorse, his belly exploded, yet
because he had betrayed Christ with a kiss, when at death his soul needed to escape
his body, it could not do so through the mouth but only anally. Psalms 77: 66: ‘He
smote his enemies in their posteriors, He set them in everlasting shame’ was cited
as exegetical proof of the idea of such Jewish flux, while the popular motif found in
late antiquity and throughout the Middle Ages that ‘the bad man was punished by
God with a bleeding anus’ was also based on Christian canonical texts.111
Some medieval writers believed that Matthew 27: 25, ‘his blood be upon us and
upon our children’, showed not only that Jews were devoid of purified blood but
that Jewish males in particular required pure blood from another source; hence
the need for a Christian child. So, according to the thirteenth-century anatomist
Thomas of Cantimpré, Jews ‘customarily spill Christian blood’, because they
mistakenly believed it would heal their affliction and achieve salvation.112 The
thirteenth-century Dialogue of Miracles recorded a story in which it was claimed
that on the Friday before Easter (‘Good Friday’) Jews lost ‘a flux of blood’ (‘fluxus
sanguinis’), possibly because, according to legends, Jewish men were regarded as
‘inframen’ who suffered from monthly menstruation like women.113 It was at
Easter and in particular on Good Friday when Jews suffered in this way—the time
at which they were accused of crucifying Christian children—and the association
with blood must stem from a connection between Jews generally and Judas.114 As
we shall see, Easter, close to the Jewish Passover, was considered the time of choice
for Jewish abuse of the Eucharist.115
Whatever their origins, charges of blood libel became more frequent in France
following the burning at Blois in 1171 of more than thirty Jews convicted of mur-
dering a Christian child, purportedly to use his blood for Passover rites.116 Then,

109 David Katz, ‘Shylock’s Gender: Jewish Male Menstruation in Early Modern England’, The
Review of English Studies 50 (1999), 452.
110 Irvene Resnick, Marks of Distinction, pp.181–8.
111  The Life and Miracles of St William of Norwich by Thomas of Monmouth, ed. and trans. Jessop and
James, pp.111–12; Willis Johnson, ‘The Myth of Jewish Male Menses’, Journal of Medieval History
24/3 (1998), 275; 281.
112 Resnick, Marks of Distinction, pp.199–201. See p.200, n.99: ‘ . . . Iudaei secundum consuetudi-
nem, . . . Christianum sanguinem fundant’.
113  There is a huge historiography on this subject which cannot be detailed here. See for example,
Leon Poliakov, The History of Anti-Semitism, Vol. 4: From Mohamed to the Marranos, trans. N. Gerardi,
Vol. 2 (London, 1974), p.145; Katz, ‘Shylock’s Gender’, 448; Johnson, ‘The Myth of Jewish Male
Menses’, 286–8.
114  Johnson, ‘The Myth of Jewish Male Menses’, 287.
115 Rubin, Gentile Tales, p.72.
116 Richard Dobson, The Jews of Medieval York and the Massacre of March 1190 (York, 1974), p.19;
Gavin Langmuir, Toward a Definition of Anti-Semitism (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 1996), p.307;
Robert Stacey, ‘Crusades, Martyrdom and the Jews of Norman England 1096–1190’, in Juden und
Christen zur Zeit der Kreuzzüge Vorträge und Forschungen 47, Konstanzer Arbeitkreis für mittelalterliche
Geschichte, ed. A. Haverkamp (Sigmaringen, 1999), p.236; Kenneth Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and
Papal Sovereignty: Jewish Perceptions of the Papacy and Papal Policy in the High Middle Ages (Cincinnati,
1984), p.23; Christendom and its Discontents, ed. Waugh, Diehl, p.221; Robert Chazan, In the Year
1096: The First Crusade and the Jews (Philadelphia, 1996), p.2.
 The Papal Promise of Protection 87

following the death of five children at Fulda in 1235, thirty-four Jews were accused
of their murder and killed by crusaders on their way to join the ‘Barons’ Crusade’.
The details of the accusation were that the Jews had burned down a house ­inhabited
by children as a means of disguising the fact that they had collected their blood,
supposedly for medicinal purposes.117 They were then supposed to have confessed
under torture that the blood was a ‘remedium’—in other words for remedial, not
ritual purposes—although since the confession was obtained under torture it must
be treated cautiously. We have seen how Frederick II set up an enquiry to look into
such charges in 1236, and that when his commission rejected them, he acquitted
the Jews.118
Given their prevalence, it is not therefore surprising that the issue of protection
came to the fore in papal correspondence in response to particular violence against
Jews and especially with regard to such charges of ritual murder and blood libel.119
In the thirteenth century the number of such charges, as well as those of host dese-
cration and well poisoning, increased. The charge of host desecration involved
supposedly bloodthirsty, usurious Jews ‘torturing’ the incarnation of Christ in the
communion wafer to see if it would bleed.120 Such charges were levelled against
Jews in the Rhineland, Alsace, and Franconia, at Cologne, at Saint-Dié, near
Épinal, and in Büren (Westphalia) in the 1280s and were a growing concern to
both secular and civil authorities.121 In 1243 the Council of Avignon decreed
that all Jews over the age of nine should keep away from any consecrated Host or
pay a fine:
And we ordain for God’s honour and reverence that when Christ’s body will be carried
to the sick, no Jew or Jewess older than nine years old should stay in the Jewish street
in Its presence, had rather go away and hide, and whoever acts against this should be
fined 5 sous.122
Then in 1267 the Council of Vienne—which forbade the employment of
Christians by Jews and any sexual mingling between the two faiths, as well as
limiting the construction of synagogues—also restricted Jewish presence near the
Host by requiring that Jews remain inside with their doors and windows closed
whenever a bell was rung to announce that the parish priest was carrying the
Eucharist to the sick:

117  MacLehose, ‘A Tender Age’, pp.112–13.

118 Richards, Sex, Deviance and Damnation, p.105.
119 For papal letters of protection, for example, see reference to one of John XVIII (beginning of
1007) following the persecution of Jews in France in 1007, in Simonsohn, p.34; see also Alexander II,
‘Omnes leges’ (1063), Simonsohn, p.35; ‘Placuit nobis’, Simonsohn, pp.35–6; ‘Noverit prudentia’
(1063), Simonsohn, p.36.
120 Enders, ‘Dramatic Rumors and Truthful Appearances’, p.16; Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and
the Jews. History, pp.58–60.
121 Rubin, ‘Desecration of the Host’, p.366.
122  Coutumes et règlements de la République d’Avigonon au trezième siècle (Paris, 1879), ed. M. A. de
Maulde, no.125, p.195: ‘Item statuimus, ad honorem Dei et reverentiam, quod, dum corpus Christi
portabitur ad infirmos, nullus Judeus vel Judea major novem annis remaneat in carreria in ejus presentia,
sed se removeant et abscondant; et si quis contrafecerit, pro qualibet vice in V sol. puniatur.’ See
Rubin, Gentile Tales, p.30.
88 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291
And if it happens that the sacrament of the altar be carried in front of the houses of
the Jews, those Jews, having heard the heralding sound [of a bell], should be made by
us or by the church’s bishops to enter into their houses and close their windows and
doors; lest they presume to dispute the Catholic faith with simple folk.123
When in 1281 a case arose where a Jew had purportedly thrown stones at a
priest passing the Jewish quarter on his way to take communion to a sick man, the
bishop of Worcester sent a mandate to the archdeacons of Westbury and Bristol to
ostracize the Jews of the city for having inflicted injury on the Host.124 By 1299 a
royal ordinance for the south of France relating to Jewish ‘perfidy’ included among
Jewish offences the desecration of the Host:
. . . Jews . . . provoke Christians as a result of their heretical depravity . . . and with their
abominable hands they have wickedly presumed to handle the most holy body of
Christ and to blaspheme the other sacraments of our faith, by seducing a very great
number of simple folk and by circumcising those who have been seduced . . .125
As for the charge of well poisoning, this was certainly more prevalent in the four-
teenth century, but there were instances in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries in
Troppau (Bohemia) in 1163, Breslau (1226), and Vienna (1267).126
When Jewish communities appealed for statements of protection against such
charges, popes expressed their disbelief and displeasure, albeit with more or less
enthusiasm. We know from his letter ‘Etsi non displiceat’ of 1205 that Innocent III
was inclined to believe reports that the mysterious murder in 1204 of a scholar found
dead in a latrine in the town of Sens could have been perpetrated by Jews, although
nothing in his letter suggests that he supposed it to be a case of ritual murder.127 He
also seems to have believed a tale of host desecration by a Christian woman in Sens
who had purportedly come under the malign influence of a Jewish family and lost
her faith—which eventually resulted in the conversion of the whole family to
Christianity. That followed a miracle in which they discovered their Parisian coins
miraculously changed into wafers.128
As we noted in the Introduction, at the end of the century, at Easter 1290,
Boniface VIII was asked to pronounce on a story of host desecration in Paris. An
impoverished Christian widow had supposedly helped a Jew to beat, boil, stab, and

123  Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.248: ‘Si vero sacramentum altaris ante domos eorum deferri contigerit: ipsi
Judaei, audito sonitu praevio, intra domos suas se recipiant, et fenestras ac ostia sua claudant. Hoc
etiam in quolibet die parasceves per praelatos ecclesiae facere compellantur. Nec praesumant de fide
catholica cum simplicibus disputare . . . ’, also translated in Rubin, Gentile Tales, p.29.
124 Rubin, ‘Desecration of the Host’, p.366.
125  Les Juifs du Languedoc antérieurement au XIV siècle (Paris, 1881), ed. G. Saige, no. 20, pp.235–6:
‘ . . . Judei . . . Christianos sollicitant de heretica pravitate . . . et suis nephandis manibus presumpserunt
nequiter pertractare sanctissimum corpus Christi et alia sacramenta nostre fidei blasphemare, sim-
plices plurimos seducendo et circuncidendo seductos . . . ’. See Rubin, ‘Desecration of the Host’,
pp.365–6.
126 Richards, Sex, Dissidence and Damnation, p.103.
127 Innocent III, ‘Etsi non displiceat’ (16 January 1205), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.104–8; Simonsohn,
pp.82–4.
128 Innocent III, ‘Operante illo qui’ (10/8 June 1213), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.136–8; Simonsohn,
pp.98–9.
 The Papal Promise of Protection 89

torture the communion Host which miraculously bled and then ‘resurrected’,
thereby proving that it was truly the embodiment of Christ.129 Not only does
Boniface appear to have believed the story, but, following the confiscation of
the Jew’s house, he even granted his petitioner, a certain Raynerius Flamingi, the
authority to build a chapel on the site where the Host was said to have been boiled
­

but where again, in a miraculous turn of events, the boiling water had turned to
blood.130 A cult soon developed around the miraculous Host in the parish church
of Saint-Jean-en-Grève which held the ‘holy knife’.131
In contrast to Boniface, in earlier decades Innocent IV and Gregory X went out
of their way to refute such reports and charges. In his letters ‘Divina justitia nequa-
quam’, ‘Si diligenter attenderet’, and ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum Alemannie’, Innocent
emphasized that he would not be fulfilling his role as pope if he did not insist
on  protection for the Jews against such accusations.132 He complained bitterly
at charges of ritual murder—in this particular case that of a little girl—made at
Valréas in 1247 about which the Jews of the province of Vienne were so concerned
that they petitioned the curia for a special letter of protection:
If the Christian religion were to give careful heed and rightly analyze by use of reason,
how inhuman it is and how discordant with piety for it to afflict with many kinds of
molestations, and to smite with all sorts of grave injuries, the remnant of the Jews, to
whom, left as witnesses of His saving passion and of His victorious death, the benig-
nity of the Saviour promised the favour of salvation, it would not only draw back its
hands from harming them, but as a show of piety and for the sake of the reverence of
Christ, it would, at least, extend the solace of human kindness to those whom it holds,
as it were, in tribute.133
Innocent realized not only that such accusations were false but that they were
an  easy way for negligent Christians to extort money and seize property from
Jewish communities, while at the same time providing an opportunity to scapegoat
the ‘Other’ in their midst. Two months later, when he re-issued ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ for
the second time in July 1247, Innocent therefore added a paragraph denouncing the
blood libel charge and threatening deprivation of honour and office and a sentence

129 Enders, ‘Dramatic Rumors and Truthful Appearances’, p.16.

130 Boniface VIII, ‘Petitio dilecti filii’ (17 July 1295), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.196–9; Simonsohn,
pp.283–4. See Kenneth Stow, ‘The Church and the Jews: St Paul to Pius IX’, in Popes, Church and Jews
in the Middle Ages: Confrontation and Response, ed. K. Stow (Aldershot, 2007), pp.39–40; Rubin,
‘Desecration of the Host’, p.365.
131 Rubin, ‘Desecration of the Host’, p.365.
132 Innocent IV, ‘Divina justitia nequaquam’ (28 May 1247), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.262–4; Simonsohn,
pp.191–2; ‘Si diligenter attenderet’ (28 May 1247), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.264–6; Simonsohn, pp.190–1;
‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum Alemannie’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.268–70; Simonsohn, pp.194–5; ‘Sicut
Iudaeis’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.274; Simonsohn, pp.192–3.
133 Innocent IV, ‘Si diligenter attenderet’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.264; Simonsohn, p.190: ‘Si diligenter
attenderet religio Christiana et recte discuteret examine rationis quam inhumanum sit et dissonum
pietati ut reliquias Judeorum, quibus Salvatoris benignitas sue salutifere passionis mortisque victricis
relictis testibus salutis gratiam repromisit, variis affligat molestiis vel diversis gravaminum conterat
nocumentis, non solum ab ipsorum injuria manus retraheret, verum etiam eis, quos habet quasi tribu-
tarios, saltem pietatis obtentu et ob Christi reverentiam, humanitatis solatia exhiberet.’
90 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

of excommunication for anyone who flouted his decree.134 Gregory X’s letter
‘Tenorem litterarum quas’ of 1274 re-issued Innocent IV’s ‘Lachrymabilem
Judeorum Alemannie’ of 1247 on behalf of Jewish communities in Germany and
reiterated that such accusations of ritual murder were false, not least because Jews
were expressly forbidden in Jewish law from consuming any blood, let alone that
of humans.135
Yet, despite such papal interventions in response to particular allegations, Jews
became an increasingly popular target for such charges. Through the association of
Jews with the Crucifixion, with blood, and with the representation of the cruel
male Jew—together with a growing iconography and literature of the Christ-
Child, the inevitable occasional unexplained deaths of children, and the increased
circulation of popular literature, especially by Benedictine houses—more accusa-
tions of ritual murder, blood libel, and host desecration emerged. Popes might
continue to reject them, but to stamp them out they would have had to pursue a
much more active ‘policy’, not merely that of intervening to emphasize protection
of the Jews in response to particular petitions and appeals and of re-issuing the
‘Constitutio pro Iudaeis’. They did not do so because the plight of Jewish commu-
nities was of relatively little concern to them, beset as they were with other reli-
gious, political, and social issues.136 Indeed, even had they had taken a much more
proactive stance, their ability to prevent or control such charges from far away
Rome was certainly very limited.

T h e L i m i ts o f Papal P rot e c t i o n : J e ws
as M ag i c i ans an d P h ys i c i ans

Jews were often associated with magic. To what extent did the papal promise of pro-
tection extend to safeguarding Jews against charges of practising magic? Belief in
magic was extremely common in the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries.137
One reason why Jews were sometimes accused of host desecration—of stealing and
mutilating consecrated wafers—was that they were believed to use them for magical
purposes, a crime of which Christians were at times also accused. With the onset
of the Inquisition in the thirteenth century, accusations of magic became more
and more assimilated to charges of heresy.138 The theory was that by use of a sacred

134 For Innocent IV’s first re-issue of the ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, see Innocent IV, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, Grayzel,
Vol. 1, pp.260–2; Simonsohn, p.189. For his second re-issue and the additional paragraph denouncing
the blood libel charge, see Innocent IV, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.274; Simonsohn, pp.192–3;
MacLehose, ‘A Tender Age’, p.113.
135  Gregory X, ‘Tenorem litterarum quas’ (7 July 1274), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.123–6; Simonsohn,
pp.245–6.
136  Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.82.
137  Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.305–6, footnote 2; Richard Kieckhefer, ‘The Specific Rationality of Medieval
Magic’, American Historical Review 99/3 (1994), 814; Aron Gurevich, Medieval Popular Culture:
Problems of Belief and Perception, trans. J. M. Bak, P. A. Hollingsworth (Cambridge, 1988), p.219;
Sophie Page, Magic in Medieval Manuscripts (Toronto, 2004), p.5.
138  Bronislaw Geremek, The Margins of Society in Late Medieval Paris, trans. J. Birrell (Cambridge,
1987), p.307.
 The Papal Promise of Protection 91

object a magician could force the powers of darkness to do his will—which it was
believed might, if the magician was a Jew, have serious consequences for Christians
and Christian society. The use of statues or pictures to bring pain or misfortune to
the person represented was frequently blamed on Jews: hence, for example, Las Siete
Partidas, a Castilian statutory code first compiled during the reign of Alfonso X of
Castile (1252–1284), contained a prohibition against Jews making waxen images
of the Crucifixion.139 In England, regulations enacted around 1237 for the govern-
ment of the diocese of Coventry referred to such accusations, stating:
Since God left us for this purpose nothing more valuable upon earth after his ascen-
sion to heaven than the sacraments in the sight of which his memory is preserved,
we ought to venerate them to such an extent that no blasphemy ever exist against
them or against their authority. Yet there are certain persons who, on account of their
disdain of Christ, as for example skeptics or others who on account of their contempt,
descend into the profound abyss, or others, as for example, wicked Christians and
Jews, who, on account of their practice of magic, are accustomed to try with outra-
geous daring various shameful acts against the eucharist and the holy oil. We therefore
command that these objects shall be placed in separate vases, and kept under the most
efficient lock. . . . 140
Indeed it is likely that, although Jewish scholars like Maimonides frequently tried
to discourage belief in magic, it may well have been common practice among Jews.
Nevertheless, though some Jews, as some Christians, may have practiced magic,
there are several particular reasons why by the twelfth and thirteenth centuries
Christians increasingly identified them with magicians.141 First, they often found
Jewish customs and rituals strange and ‘Other’—reason enough to attribute them
to magic. Then, because of the traditional emphasis on learning in their commu-
nities, Jews were often more knowledgeable than their Christian counterparts—
notably in astrology and medicine, arts often popularly considered to have magical
aspects. Since Christians commonly believed that Hebrew—the language of
the Old Testament—was the language of both good and evil spirits, stories of
legendary figures, for example of King Solomon with his ring of magic powers,
served to further hostile interpretations. Perhaps most importantly of all, since,
according to Matthew 27: 25, the Jews were supposed to have put Christ the
Redeemer of the world to death, there seemed an inevitable connection between
Jews and the Devil. Jews were believed to have the evil eye; that was why they were
forbidden to be present at the coronation of Richard I of England in 1189. Those

139  Albert Bagby, ‘The Jew in the Cantigas of Alfonso X, El Sabio’, Speculum: A Journal of Medieval
Studies 46/4 (1971), 673–4.
140  Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.328: ‘Ad hec cum nihil carius reliquerit nobis Deus in terris post ascensionem
suam ad coelos, quam sacramenta in quorum visione ipsius habetur memoria, ipsa debemus venerari
in tantum, ut contra ipsa, immo contra ipsorum auctoritatem, nulla possit fieri blasphemia. Quia ergo
solent quidam propter opprobria Christi, ut increduli, quidam, qui propter minimum contemptum
descenderunt in profundum abyssi, quidam autem, qui propter veneficia, ut mali Christiani et Judei,
aliqua turpia circa Eucharistiam et Chrisma et oleum sanctum, ausu temerario, immo nimis ausi,
presumere; precipimus ut sub optima clausura clavium reponantur in diversis vasis, prout decet
honestius . . . ’.
141  Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.74, footnote 145.
92 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

who watched the proceedings were accused of attempting to bewitch the king; that
led to rioting and persecution.142
Certainly there are numerous examples of the popular belief that Jews were sor-
cerers and magicians, yet that did not entail that Church councils prohibiting
magic necessarily singled out the Jews for special censure. So, for example, Canon
15 of the Council of Arles (1234) which prohibited Christians from consulting
magicians, made no specific mention of Jews.143 Nevertheless, particularly in
England and France, councils and synods increasingly warned against consulting
Jewish fortune tellers. Thus we find that during the pontificate of Innocent IV the
Synod of Worcester in 1240 decreed that:
When men and women magicians shall be found, and also such as consult Jews for the
purpose of finding out by magic about their life or actions, they shall be brought
­before the bishop to be punished in accordance with his decision.144
while the Provincial Council of Béziers in 1255, held during the pontificate of
Alexander IV, stated:
Jews shall desist from usury, blasphemy, and magic. The Talmud, as well as other books
in which blasphemies are found, shall be burned. The Jews who refuse to obey this shall
be expelled, and transgressors shall suffer punishment according to law.145
In such cases, the councils were probably referring not only to the practice of
magic but also to astrology which, along with the interpretation of dreams, was a
common method of—dangerously—predicting the future.
Given that magic was so prevalent in medieval society it is unlikely that a pro-
hibition on consulting Jews was due only to disbelief in its efficacy; rather that it
was also another attempt by the Church to separate Jews from Christians.146 It is
also probable that while the legislation was supposed to ban all practices of magic—
however popular and whether by Jews or by Christians—the councils targeted
Jews because clerics frequently believed—rightly or wrongly—that they were espe-
cially skilled at and frequent practitioners of these arts.
In particular magic was associated with Jewish physicians. How far did the papal
promise of protection extend to safeguarding Jews who practised medicine?
Although popes themselves often employed Jewish physicians they were concerned
that the employment of such by Christians might lead to undue Jewish influence
in Christian society.147 Nevertheless, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the
study of medicine flourished at universities such as Salerno and Montpellier, while

142 Richards, Sex, Dissidence and Damnation, p.102.

143  Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.326–7, footnote 2.
144  Grayzel. Vol. 1, pp.330–1: ‘Sortiarii autem et sortiarie cum detecti fuerint, maxime autem, qui
Judeos consuluerint super vita, vel actibus sorte discutiendum; ad episcopum destinentur, pro sue
discretionis arbitrio, puniendi . . . ’.
145  Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.336–7: ‘Judei cessent ab usuris et blasphemiis, sortilegiis. Et Talmud quam
alii libri, in quibus inveniuntur blasphemie, comburantur. Et Judei qui hoc servare noluerint, expel-
lantur, et transgressores legitime puniantur.’
146  Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.74, footnote 146.
147 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, pp.171–80.
 The Papal Promise of Protection 93

popular medicine was widely practised by both Christians and Jews at a more
‘grassroots’ level.148 By the mid thirteenth century medicine seems to have become
the most common profession among Jews after money-lending.149 A number of
rabbis—including Maimonides himself—practised as physicians.150
Indeed some historians have argued that by the thirteenth century Jews
­accounted for approximately fifty per cent of doctors in several European coun-
tries.151 Certainly they seem to have been particularly common in the south of
France, Italy, and Spain.152 Perhaps Christians were more likely to tolerate Jews
than Muslims as physicians because, as Alexander II had enunciated in ‘Placuit
nobis’, Jews unlike Muslims were not hostile to Christians but prepared to serve
them—and perhaps Jewish doctors were willing to be paid less than their Christian
counterparts. In 1285 Honorius IV ratified the Constitutio super Ordinatione Regni
Siciliae, a set of provisions and ordinances for the kingdom, ­including a stipulation
that the fine for homicide should not exceed a hundred augustales for Christians
and fifty augustales for Jews and Muslims.153 Since Jewish lives were regarded as
worth less than Christians, Jewish work similarly was seen as less valuable. Jewish
physicians therefore were unable to charge as much for their services—which was
often an incentive for Christians to seek their aid.
Yet increasingly in the thirteenth century there was a movement, probably ori-
ginating in the south of France, for more rigorous control of the medical profession
as part of a wider Church initiative against heresy. Universities such as Montpellier
were encouraged to insist that no university member could practice medicine
­unless examined and licensed by the bishop and his own examiners, unless he held
a licentia docendi conferred by the university itself.154 Hence Jews would need to
be formally authorized before they could practice, certainly among Christians.
Once they had passed the examination, they might be granted a general license—
which differed from the special license sometimes issued to allow them to practice
among Christians. Special licenses were occasionally granted to Jews by ecclesias-
tical authorities on religious grounds and were an absolution from the canonical
regulations which forbade Jewish doctors to practice on Christians or for Christians
to employ them.155
Regulations prohibiting the association of Jewish physicians with Christians
­became increasingly prominent in civil legislation during the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries. Furthermore, if Jews were unable to cure their patients they might be

148  Popular Medicine in Thirteenth-Century England. Introduction and Texts, ed. T. Hunt (Cambridge,
1990).
149 Joseph Shatzmiller, Jews, Medicine, and Medieval Society (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London,
1994), p.1.
150 Cecil Roth, ‘The Qualification of Jewish Physicians in the Middle Ages’, Speculum: A Journal of
Medieval Studies 28/4 (1953), 836.
151 Shatzmiller, Jews, Medicine, and Medieval Society, p.1.
152 Isaac Alteras, ‘Jewish Physicians in Southern France during the Thirteenth and Fourteenth
Centuries’, Jewish Quarterly Review, new series, 68/4 (1978), 14.
153 Honorius IV, ‘Justitia et pax’ (17 September 1285), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.155–7; Simonsohn,
pp.260–1.
154 Roth, ‘The Qualification of Jewish Physicians in the Middle Ages’, p.838.
155 Roth, ‘The Qualification of Jewish Physicians in the Middle Ages’, p.842.
94 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

punished by the secular authorities, as in Bohemia in 1161 when eighty-six of

them were charged with poisoning their patients and burned at the stake,156 or
at the end of the thirteenth century when Philip IV ordered the bailiff of Rouen
to imprison and seize the property of Jewish doctors who had given medicine to
patients who had subsequently died.157 In the Kingdom of Aragon Las Siete
Partidas decreed that Christians be prohibited from receiving medicines or cathar-
tics prepared by Jews, with the proviso that they might obtain them on the advice
of a knowledgeable Jew, as long as they were prepared by a Christian fully aware of
their content.158 The Faculty of Medicine at Vienna went so far as to allege that
Jewish physicians followed a special private code requiring them to murder one
patient in ten.159
Not only civil but also religious authorities frequently warned Christians against
employing Jewish doctors since contact with Jews not only encouraged sympathy
for and interest in Judaism, but also because they believed Jewish physicians might
be tempted to poison their patients as part of a wider plot to harm Christian com-
munities and by extension the Christian faith.160 Conciliar decrees in the twelfth
century had published no rules for Jewish doctors, probably because medicine had
not yet taken off as a popular profession for either Christians or Jews.161 Nevertheless,
as we have seen, a desire to control it began to appear in papal correspondence from
Innocent III onwards, becoming increasingly prominent in Church councils. Thus
Constitution 22 of Lateran IV decreed:
so we by this present decree order and strictly command physicians of the body, when
they are called to the sick, to warn and persuade them first of all to call in physicians
of the soul so that after their spiritual health has been seen to they may respond better
to medicine for their bodies; for when the cause ceases so does the effect. This among
other things has occasioned this decree, namely that some people on their sickbed,
when they are advised by physicians to arrange for the health of their souls, fall into
despair and so they more readily incur the danger of death. If any physician trans-
gresses this our constitution, after it has been published by the local prelates, he shall
be barred from entering a church until he has made suitable satisfaction for a trans-
gression of this kind. Moreover, since the soul is much more precious than the body,
we forbid any physician, under pain of anathema, to prescribe anything for the bodily
health of a sick person that may endanger his soul.162

156 Richards, Sex, Dissidence and Damnation, p.102.

157  Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.74–5, footnote 147.
158 Shatzmiller, Jews, Medicine, and Medieval Society, p.87.
159 Richards, Sex, Dissidence and Damnation, p.102.
160 Shatzmiller, Jews, Medicine, and Medieval Society, p.87.
161 Shatzmiller, Jews, Medicine, and Medieval Society, p.91.
162  Tanner, Vol. 1, pp.245–6: ‘decreto praesenti statuimus et districte praecipimus medicis corpo-
rum, ut cum eos ad infirmos vocari contigerit, ipsos ante omnia moneant et inducant, quod medicos
advocent animarum, ut postquam infirmis fuerit de spirituali salute provisum, ad corporalis medicinae
remedium salubrius procedatur, cum causa cessante cesset effectus. Hoc quidem inter alia huic causam
dedit edicto, quod quidam in aegritudinis lecto iacentes, cum eis a medicis suadetur, ut de animarum
salute disponant, in desperationis articulum incidunt, unde facilius mortis periculum incurrunt. Si
quis autem medicorum huius nostrae constitutionis, postquam per praelatos locorum fuerit publicata,
transgressor extiterit, tamdiu ab ingressu ecclesiae arceatur, donec pro transgressione huiusmodi satis-
fecerit competenter. Ceterum cum anima sit multo pretiosior corpore, sub interminatione anathematis
 The Papal Promise of Protection 95

Yet although Lateran IV promulgated a number of decrees about the treatment

of Jews in Christian society, it made no statement forbidding Jewish physicians to
practice. Indeed we know from the sixteenth-century Shebet Yehudah (The Tribe of
Judah), that the Jewish physician Don Isaac Benveniste, personal doctor to the
king of Aragon, was chosen by his community to represent the Jews of his region
at the Council of Montpellier in 1214, and also, aware of the likelihood that anti-
Jewish legislation would be promulgated at the Fourth Lateran Council—a fear
which would prove well-founded—organized a delegation to go to Rome.163
Indeed it is possible that his standing in the Jewish community and his fame more
widely as a healer was the reason why, despite the legislation against Jews enacted
at Lateran IV, there were no specific regulations against Jewish physicians. Honorius
III granted Isaac and his family the special right not to have to wear any distin-
guishing garb.164
After Lateran IV more medical legislation was promulgated. The Council of
Trèves (1227) urged clergy to instruct all those under their care to take no drink or
medicine from Jews and enjoined temporal lords to make sure that no Jew offered
help or medicine to Christians,165 while another such council at Trèves in 1277
similarly forbade Christians from receiving medicine from Jews.166 The Council of
Béziers of 1246 decreed that Christians who entrusted themselves for healing and
medical treatment to Jews should be excommunicated;167 two Councils of Albi in
1254 made similar pronouncements.168 No specific reason was given for such pro-
hibitions. Beside fear of poisoning it is possible that clerics were worried that
Jewish doctors might stop Christians from receiving the last sacraments in extremis,
or that they might use their position of power to engage in sexual liaisons with female
Christian patients.169 Perhaps it was for this latter reason that Church legislation
prohibiting Christians employing Jewish physicians usually followed a repetition
of the stipulation—also originally derived from the decrees of Lateran IV—that
Jews must wear distinguishing clothing.170 Hence the councils of Béziers and Albi
(1255), Vienna (1267), and Exeter (1287) all threatened excommunication of
Christians who employed Jewish doctors.171
Popes often employed physicians. We know, for example, that Gaufre Isnard,
bishop of Cavaillon in the Comtat Venaissin, was the personal physician to John

prohibemus, ne quis medicorum pro corporali salute aliquid aegroto suadeat, quod in periculum ani-
mae convertatur.’
163  Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.63–4, especially footnote 106; The Shebet Yehudah of Shelomo ibn Verga, ed.
A. Shohat (Jerusalem, 1947), p147.
164 Honorius III, ‘Sedes Apostolica pia’ (26 August 1220), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.152–4; Simonsohn,
pp.108–9; ‘Cum te sicut’ (27 August 1220), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.154; Simonsohn, pp.109–10; ‘Illum te
genere’ (3 September 1220), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.156; Simonsohn, p.110. See also Grayzel, Vol. 1,
pp.63–4.
165  Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.318–19; Shatzmiller, Jews, Medicine, and Medieval Society, p.91.
166  Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.270.
167  Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.332–3; Richards, Sex, Dissidence and Damnation, p.102.
168  Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.336–7; Shatzmiller, Jews, Medicine, and Medieval Society, p.91.
169 Shatzmiller, Jews, Medicine, and Medieval Society, pp.88–9; p.91.
170 Shatzmiller, Jews, Medicine, and Medieval Society, p.91.
171 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.177.
96 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

XXII (1316–1334).172 So what was the papacy’s stance on Jewish physicians and
in particular on their alleged interest in magic? Certainly popes and the clergy at
large were interested in medicine. John XXI (1276–1277) had himself studied in
Siena and Paris and wrote the well-known medical treatise, Tesaurus pauperum,
while his contemporaries Andreas Abalat, bishop of Valencia and Theoderic,
bishop of Bari and later of Ravenna, wrote seminal works on surgery.173
Yet, since there was often a presumed connection between magic and heresy,
from the thirteenth century onwards the Inquisition—which after the pontificate
of Gregory IX exercised jurisdiction over heresy—also had jurisdiction over Jews
charged with practising sorcery. As we have noted and shall discuss further in
Chapter Five, in 1240 Gregory IX ordered the Paris Disputation which put the
Talmud under intense scrutiny for blasphemy and heresy. His successor Innocent
IV claimed that qua pope he had a special duty to protect the souls of all Jews as
well as all Christians. Then in 1267 Clement IV declared in ‘Turbato corde’ that
inquisitors had the right to investigate any aspect of Jewish life which might invite
charges of magic.174 Despite these initiatives, however, popes were surprisingly
reticent in making pronouncements accusing Jews of practising magic. In ‘Sane
mirantes’, a letter of 1262, Urban IV withdrew from a certain Gratianus Belmonte
a privilege which his predecessor Alexander IV had granted—namely to allow him
to collect a substantial portion of the money which the people of Guarcino in Italy
paid annually to the Church.175 Urban recounted how Gratianus had abused his
position and:
in contempt of our Saviour, he (Gratianus Belmonte) had no qualms about bringing
along a Jewish ‘magician’ who sinfully boasted that he knew everything the men and
women (of Guarcino) were doing in secret . . .176

172 Shatzmiller, Jews, Medicine, and Medieval, Society, pp.9–10.

173 Shatzmiller, Jews, Medicine, and Medieval, Society, p.9.
174 It was not, however, during our period but rather in the fourteenth century that the papacy
became more generally exercised about magic. In a letter ‘Successor Petri’ of 1318 John XXII asked
churchmen to enquire into the activities of a certain Robert, bishop of Aix. He was accused of blas-
phemous acts including believing in and practising magic and fraternizing with both Christians and
Jews who practiced it. See John XXII, ‘Successor Petri’ (7 January 1318), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.305–6 and
footnote 2; Simonsohn, pp.304–7. This letter was written only a few months after the sensational trial
of Hugh Géraud, bishop of Cahors, accused of trying to murder the pope and members of the curia
not only with poison but by spells and wax images. And a certain Bernard Jourdain of Toulouse was
supposed to have manufactured images of the pope and two of his cardinals. Then two years later, in
1320, John XXII instructed the archbishop and his suffragans, alongside the Franciscans and Dominicans
to enquire into the Talmud which supposedly contained not just blasphemies, errors, and falsehoods,
but also curses. See John XXII, ‘Dudum felicis recordationis’ (4 September 1320), Grayzel, Vol. 2,
pp.316–19; Simonsohn, pp.321–3. In 1321 Jews were accused of poisoning wells by simultaneously
throwing powder into the water and uttering strange prayers. See Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.73–4, especially
footnote 145. And in another letter of 1324 to the king of France, about a man who was tried for
practising magic, John XXII named a convert from Judaism—a certain Johannes de Foresio (Jean de
Forez)—as a witness. See Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.305–6, footnote 2.
175  Urban IV, ‘Sane mirantes’ (29 June 1262), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.73–4.
176  Urban IV, ‘Sane mirantes’, Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.74: ‘Quendam autem Judeum sortilegum illuc
ducere non est veritus in nostri contumelia Redemptoris, qui se nequiter jactando cognoscere asserit
universa occulta que ab hominibus et mulieribus committuntur . . . ’.
 The Papal Promise of Protection 97

Yet this was a rare example of papal interference. Despite the association be-
tween magic and medicine and the frequent condemnation of the use of Jewish
doctors in conciliar legislation, not only secular rulers but popes themselves often
­employed Jews as doctors, even claiming that they alone had the requisite know-
ledge to treat certain illnesses and diseases, and at times going to some lengths to
protect them.177 So, in 1220 Honorius III sent the letter ‘Cum te sicut’ to James I
of Aragon in which he placed the king’s doctor, a certain Isaac from Barcelona,
under his particular protection, despite his being a Jew.178 Then between 1287 and
1292 Nicholas IV employed the well-known Jewish physician Isaac Ben Mordecai
(otherwise known as Master Gaio the Jew) at the curia.179 Later, in the fourteenth
century, Jewish physicians would be regularly employed at the papal court in
Avignon—so much so that this became a source of complaint from the papacy’s
detractors.180 John XXII was himself the alleged target of a murder plot by Hugo
Geraldi (Géraud), bishop of Cahors, including magic and sorcery which allegedly
involved Jewish accomplices.181
Nevertheless, at times popes too, like other clergy and secular authorities,
showed unease at the employment of Jewish physicians. In 1298 a Jewish phys-
ician was fined thirty pounds for performing an abortion in Manosque.182 In his
letter ‘Ecce isti’, Alexander IV warned against the use of non-Christian doctors,
whether Jews, Muslims, or others, whom he described as magicians, diviners,
and ‘de schola diaboli’ (‘from the school of the devil’).183 Here he had in mind
Gratian who in the decretal ‘Nullus’ recorded in Causa 28 of the Decretum had
warned against Christians mingling with infidels and had forbidden Christians
not only from bathing with Jews and eating unleavened Passover matzot, but also
from employing Jewish doctors.184 Notwithstanding, Alexander’s statement was
unusually prescriptive. In general it was local councils, rather than popes, who
worried about the issue, a point well illustrated by comparing the stance of
Honorius IV with that of the Council of Exeter in 1268. As we have seen, in his
letter ‘Nimis in partibus’ of that year to the archbishop of Canterbury and his suf-
fragans, Honorius asked the English clergy who were to attend the Council to
condemn the Talmud. Yet he said nothing about prohibiting Christians from
­employing Jewish physicians. By contrast the council, which obeyed the pope in
condemning the Talmud, subsequently forbade the use of Jewish doctors on its
own initiative.185

177  Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.346–7.

178 Honorius III, ‘Cum te sicut’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.154; Simonsohn, pp.109–10.
179 Shatzmiller, Jews, Medicine, and Medieval Society, p.94.
180  Susan Einbinder, No Place of Rest: Jewish Literature, Expulsion, and the Memory of Medieval
France (Philadelphia, 2009), p.115.
181 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.359.
182 Shatzmiller, Jews, Medicine, and Medieval Society, p.84.
183  Alexander IV, ‘Ecce isti’ (no date), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.68–9.
184  Gratian, C 28.q.1.c.13.
185 Honorius IV, ‘Nimis in partibus’ Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.157–62, and especially p.162, footnote 10;
Simonsohn, pp. 262–4.
98 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

P rot e c t i o n f ro m C rusa d e r s

The papal promise of protection as articulated in the ‘Constitutio pro Iudaeis’

­forbade forced conversion of Jews, yet Jewish communities often feared forced
conversion to Christianity at the hands of crusaders. According to the Hebrew
First Crusade chronicles, which, as we saw in Chapter One, recounted the mass
suicide of Jews in the Rhineland in 1096 to avoid forced conversion by crusaders
on their way to the Near East, approximately 1,200 Jews are supposed to have
committed suicide by practising qiddush ha-Shem—‘sanctifying the name of
God’—namely the suicide of all members of a family with a special ceremony
performed in a specific way in the presence of the entire community.186 Jewish
chroniclers who described these events gave details of this ceremony in which chil-
dren as well as adults died. According to one account, a Jewish mother named
Rachel allowed her own children to be killed with the words:
Four children have I. Have no mercy on them either, lest those uncircumcised ones
come and seize them alive and raise them in their ways of error.187
Later, in 1140 on the eve of the Second Crusade, the chronicler Solomon bar
Simson described how at Worms ‘bridegrooms slew their betrothed, and merciful
women their only children’ in order to avoid forced conversion,188 while at Mainz
he recounted how ‘the most gentle and tender of women slaughtered the child of
her delight’ in order to prevent his conversion.189 Such descriptions reminded Jews
of the words of Jeremiah 31: 15:
Thus says the Lord: A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping.
Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children,
­because they are not.190
Some scholars have argued that prayers used in synagogues such as ‘they stood
their watch and slaughtered them crying’ referred to these specific acts of parents
performing qiddush ha-Shem on their children.191 Others believe that the practice
of qiddush ha-Shem was not universally accepted by medieval Jews and that there
is strong evidence of debates from the first half of the twelfth century onwards as
to whether suicide was the best answer to Christian attempts at forced conver-
sion.192 Some historians have seen the Hebrew chronicles as not only historical
accounts but also didactic and educational texts deliberately written for the benefit
of local communities,193 while others as literary adaptations of Jewish polemic
186 Simha Goldin, ‘The Socialisation for Kiddush ha-Shem among Medieval Jews’, Journal of
Medieval History 23/2 (1997), 117–38.
187  Goldin, ‘The Socialisation for Kiddush ha-Shem among Medieval Jews’, 117–38.
188  The Jews and the Crusaders: The Hebrew Chronicles of the First and Second Crusaders, trans. and
ed. S. Eidelberg (New Jersey, 1977; repr. 1996), p.23.
189 Peggy McCracken, The Curse of Eve, the Wound of the Hero: Blood, Gender and Medieval
Literature (Philadelphia, 2003), p.62.
190  Jeremiah 31: 15, Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, ed. Weber, Vol. 1.
191  The Jews and the Crusaders, trans. and ed. Eidelberg, p.29, pp.35–7.
192  Goldin, ‘The Socialisation for Kiddush ha-Shem among Medieval Jews’, 117–38.
193  Goldin, ‘The Socialisation of Kiddush ha-Shem among Medieval Jews’, 117–38.
 The Papal Promise of Protection 99

against the values of Christianity and especially against crusading ideals.194 Hence
it has been argued that Jewish chroniclers of the First Crusade such as Kalonymos
Bar Yehuda and Eliezer Ben Natan manipulated the Rhineland events to normalize
the practice of dying for qiddush ha-Shem and to emphasize how important it was
that their communities resist any attempt to impose Christianity, even if this
meant death.195
So we have seen how the emergence of accusations of ritual murder, blood libel,
host desecration, and charges of magic against Jews in the eleventh, twelfth, and
thirteenth centuries coincided with and encouraged the developing notion that
Jews might be capable of and willing to plot violence against Christian communi-
ties. It is likely that as Christians became increasingly aware of and interested in the
works of Jewish writers this influenced their perception of Jews. The Hebrew cru-
sade chronicles began to emerge in western Europe just as the first accusations of
ritual murder also began to circulate. That has led some historians to argue that as
Christians gained knowledge of these chronicles and so aware of the events of the
Rhineland at the time of the First Crusade in which children were killed—and, as
they saw it, Jews were actively preventing themselves from achieving salvation
through conversion—they might also easily have been led to believe that Jews were
capable of extreme violence against children, and in particular of killing Christian
children as an enactment of a mock Crucifixion.196 Certainly in relating the events
at Blois in 1171 Ephraim bar Jacob of Bonn described the suicide of Jews following
charges of ritual murder as ‘obligatory Jewish behaviour’, which suggests that
Jewish writers might use such events to advocate qiddush ha-Shem.197 Since Jews at
Blois had been accused of ritual murder, and had chosen death rather than conver-
sion, there might appear to be a connection between such accusations and the
possibility of Jews practising qiddush ha-Shem; all of that would have reinforced
beliefs about ritual murder in Christian minds.198 It is therefore possible that the
effect of crusading on the Jews had a direct connection with the development of
charges of ritual murder and blood libel.
There are, however, considerable difficulties with this argument. Although in
the twelfth and thirteenth centuries Christian scholars and intellectuals may have
become acquainted with Hebrew crusade chronicles, it is unlikely that they would
have been widely circulated and known in more popular levels of society. Indeed,
even if they had been, it was easy for Christians to build up negative images of Jews
without recourse to the works of Jewish writers, which in any case they probably
viewed with great suspicion. So it seems unlikely that these chronicles had a direct
influence on charges that Jews deliberately targeted and killed Christian children.
Yet it is undoubtedly true that tales Christians heard of Jews killing their own children

194  Jeremy Cohen, ‘A 1096 Complex Constructing the First Crusade’, in Jews and Christians in
Twelfth-Century Europe ed. M. A. Signer, J. Van Engen (Notre Dame, Ind., 2001), p.13, p.19; Jeremy
Cohen, Sanctifying the Name of God (Philadelphia, 2006), p.39.
195  Goldin, ‘The Socialisation for Kiddush ha-Shem among Medieval Jews’, 117–38.
196  MacLehose, ‘A Tender Age’, p.109.
197  Bale, ‘Fictions of Judaism in England before 1290’, pp.129–44, passim.
198  Goldin, ‘The Socialisation for Kiddush ha-Shem among Medieval Jews’, 117–38.
100 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

to avoid conversion would only have added to a general hostility to Judaism in the
society at large.199 For this and other reasons explored in the next chapter, papal
authorization of crusades had an indirect but profoundly negative effect on the
Jewish communities of western Europe and popes found it increasingly difficult to
retain the spirit of Pauline/Augustinian protection in the ever-changing social and
political conditions of the age.

199  Church, State and Jew in the Middle Ages, ed. R. Chazan (New York, 1980), p.161.
 3
The Impact of the Crusades

From the eleventh century onwards popes authorized crusades against Muslims in
the Near East and pagans in the Baltic, and, from the thirteenth century, against
heretics and political enemies of the Church through the promulgation of general
letters to the Christian faithful throughout Europe. The notaries who formulated
and drew up these letters used stock words and phrases to signal to the faithful that
a crusade was being preached; the faithful were called on to take the Cross, and to
make a vow to join a military expedition with defined aims.
Contemporary chroniclers, annalists, canon lawyers, and preachers leave us in no
doubt that the authorization of such crusades had a profound effect on the Christian
community: religiously, socially, and politically. From Urban II’s call at Clermont in
1095 for the First Crusade to the fall of Acre—the last bastion of crusader power in
the Holy Land—in 1291, they not only changed the politics of the Near East and of
Europe itself, but helped to mould and foster Christian society. Some crusades were
large, elaborately organized affairs with vast numbers of professional soldiers, money
put aside to buy mercenaries, and accompanied by many hangers-on and camp-
followers. Others were small—no more than scattered bands of men known as pil-
grims or ‘crucesignati’—those ‘signed with the Cross’—who answered the papal call
and departed on a croiserie, iter, peregrinatio, bellum sacrum, guerre sainte, passagium
generale, expeditio crucis or negotium Jhesu Christi—a holy journey, pilgrimage, or the
‘business of the faith’ as it was termed by chroniclers and annalists.1

C rusa d in g an d t he De v elo p men t of t he

I d ea of J e w s as ‘ I n t e r nal’ E nemies

Although the Jews were a minority group who rejected Christianity, popes never
authorized crusades against them as they did against Muslim infidels.2 Rather, as we
have seen, they continued to proclaim and endorse the traditional theology which
insisted that Jews be allowed to live unharmed, albeit with limited rights, in
Christian society. In The Formation of a Persecuting Society Robert Moore argued for
the inter-changeability, as far as society’s élites were concerned, of different outcast

1  Christopher Tyerman, The Invention of the Crusades (Basingstoke, 1988), pp.49–55.

2  Much has been written on the effect of crusading on Jews in the twelfth century, but significantly
less about Jewish–Christian relations in the context of those of the thirteenth century. There has been
surprisingly little investigation of papal letters concerning Jews despatched from the curia after papal
authorization of crusades both to the Near East and in Europe.
102 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

groups such as heretics and Jews, both viewed as ‘the Other’.3 Perhaps fear of her-
etics as a threat to orthodox Christianity increased hostility to Jews as another po-
tential enemy in Europe.
As we saw from their re-issues of the ‘Constitutio pro Iudaeis’, which contained
the additional statement that only Jews who did not plot against the Christian faith
were to be protected, to a greater or lesser extent, popes in the thirteenth century
increasingly viewed Jews, like Cathars and other heretics, as potential enemies and
believed that the Church must be defended against them, as it must be defended
against Muslim foes in the Near East. It is even possible that concern over the threat
of heretics augmented papal sensitivities to the idea of heresy within Judaism which,
as we shall see, they came to think was manifested in the Talmud. Although we
should not infer that popes systematically collapsed the categories of heretics and
Jews into one overarching ‘Other’, nevertheless the concept of ‘internal’ enemies is
no mere modern construct, developed by recent historians to group together
non-Christians living in medieval Europe.4 To some extent it reflects ideas and con-
cerns shared by all the popes of the thirteenth century who increasingly believed
they had authority over the souls of all who lived in Christian society.
Yet there were substantial differences between the two groups. Whereas heretics
deviated from the Faith, Jews did not accept it. Since Judaism in western medieval
Europe was not a proselytizing religion, the papacy did not see Jews, unlike
Cathars, and at times various other heretical groups such as the Waldensians, as an
immediate threat.5 Yet, as we saw in Chapter One, the Hebrew crusade chronicles
which recorded the atrocities of the First and Second Crusade show that, even
when they wished to be well disposed towards Jewish communities, secular and
religious authorities could not always control the societies—or at least sections of
the societies—which they governed, particularly when unruly mobs were seized by
crusading enthusiasm, greed for Jewish wealth, or millenarian eschatological fer-
vour.6 As we shall see, mob violence resulting from crusading fervour recurred
during later crusading enterprises: at the Shepherds’ Crusade of 1251.7 Crusading
regularly bore the potential for arousing anti-Jewish animus.8 It is therefore not
surprising that the papacy, despite its theological commitment to the protection of
Jews, often failed to prevent crusader excesses.

3  Moore, Robert, The Formation of a Persecuting Society: Authority and Deviance in Western Europe,
950–1250, 2nd edn (Oxford, 2007), passim.
4 Moore, The Formation of a Persecuting Society, passim.
5  Of course not all heretics were seen as a threat because they proselytized. In fact, various heresies
(notably the Heresy of the Free Spirit) were created by churchmen for theological reasons; there was no
proselytizing group involved. See Robert Lerner, The Heresy of the Free Spirit in the Late Middle Ages
(Berkeley, 1972), passim; Malcom Lambert, Medieval Heresy, 2nd edn (Oxford, 1992), p.393. Also,
Jews may well have proselytized in periods and societies where this was not prohibited and punished
by death.
6  The Jews and the Crusaders. The Hebrew Chronicles of the First and Second Crusades, trans. and ed.
S. Eidelberg (Wisconsin, 1977), pp.5–8.
7 Gary Dickson, The Children’s Crusade: Medieval History, Modern Mythistory (Basingstoke, 2008),
p.78.
8  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris, 1240. Hebrew Texts translated by John Friedman, Latin Texts trans-
lated by Jean Connell Hoff; Historical Essay by Robert Chazan (Toronto, 2012), p.33.
 The Impact of the Crusades 103

So Jews often suffered indirectly from papal calls for crusades. Living in Christian
Europe, yet no part of mainstream culture, their peculiarly complex status made
them particularly vulnerable. Indeed papal correspondence suggests that from the
eleventh century onwards, papal attitudes to Jews were themselves significantly
affected by the onset of the crusades, and the papacy’s decision in the thirteenth
century to authorize crusading against heretics and political enemies only helped
change attitudes further.
Thus, in letters appealing for military aid or commenting on specific issues
arising in the course of a crusade, popes from time to time made specific pro-
nouncements concerning Jews.9 These often concerned their special status as an
‘internal’ minority and were designed to deal with crusader hostility—including
forced baptisms—or to restore property seized by crusaders.10 Yet despite such
­attempts, violence against Jews continued sporadically throughout the eleventh,
twelfth, and thirteenth centuries by those who took the Cross and embarked on
crusades. Many crusaders believed that as Muslims should be punished for threat-
ening the Holy Land—the place of Christ’s life and Passion—so Jews must be
punished for their complicity in Christ’s crucifixion. Such sentiments were en-
hanced by the fact that they believed strongly that a crusade was an expedition
organized on God’s behalf; that was part of a wider agreement that force could be
justly employed for religious purposes. Theologians, influenced by works of
St Augustine, proposed sophisticated theories of just war and in particular the
premise that, although violence was evil, in intolerable conditions, subject to strin-
gent rules, and with the proviso that its goals were limited to the restoration of
order and the status quo, God might condone war as the lesser evil.11 Isidore of
Seville (c.560–636) had summarized this by stating that war was lawful when
waged upon command to recover property or repel attack.12 From such premises
canon lawyers argued that war must have a just cause—which usually stemmed
from some aggressive or injurious action—that it must be proclaimed by a legit-
imate authority, and that it must be based on right intention—in other words that
its participants ought to have honourable motives.

C rusa d in g , C anon L aw, an d t he J e w s

During the eleventh and twelfth centuries collections of legal texts and commen-
taries discussing these ideas were multiplying across Europe. They included material
concerned with the authorization of military campaigns and greatly influenced
popes, some of whom were themselves trained in canon law. In particular the

9  There are no extant letters of Celestine IV (1241) concerned with crusading and the treatment
of Jews. From what survives we can roughly estimate that the total number of papal letters concerned
with Jews in the twelfth and thirteenth century was approximately 240; 237 letters are recorded in
Simonsohn.
10  Simonsohn, passim; Grayzel, Vol. 1, passim; Grayzel, Vol. 2, passim.
11  Jonathan Riley-Smith, What were the Crusades? 4th edn (Basingstoke, 2009), p.6.
12 Riley-Smith, What were the Crusades?, p.6.
104 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

twelfth-century Decretum examined questions about Church discipline, collected

authoritative texts including canons of Church councils, opinions of early Church
fathers and papal pronouncements, as well as providing an intellectual framework
within which contradictions could be resolved.13 The selection of texts in the
Decretum depended heavily on the works of earlier canonists, and although the
collection and commentary, as opposed to the basic texts which it contained, had
no formal status in the Church, it was highly influential in moulding the attitudes
of canon lawyers, senior churchmen, and popes. In particular it contained important
material from the Church fathers and earlier popes concerned with the justifica-
tion of violence in a good cause as well as the status of Muslims, heretics, and Jews
in Christian society.14
Yet although the Decretum was compiled almost fifty years after Urban II
launched the First Crusade in 1095, no part of it was specifically devoted to cru-
sades. Thus Causa (Case Study) 17 dealt with the canonical status of a vow and its
implications, but made no mention of the crusade vow in particular.15 This was
probably because most texts it cited were pre-twelfth century and much of Gratian’s
thinking was shaped by the earlier work of canon lawyers such as Anselm II of
Lucca and Ivo of Chartres writing just prior to the First Crusade.16 Nevertheless,
despite the fact that there was no specific treatment of crusades, it remained an
important text for the later development of the idea of crusading because it elab-
orated on the canonical tradition, stemming from the early Church, about just
violence and just wars. Thirteenth-century crusade preachers who regarded crusades
as one type of just war frequently cited it in their sermons.
Causa 23 of the Decretum was particularly pertinent to popes’ authorization of
military campaigns against those perceived as enemies of the Church because it
enquired as to whether violence could ever be considered just.17 It treated the
hypothetical case of certain heretical bishops who had begun to compel neigh-
bouring Catholics under threat of torture to espouse their beliefs and the response
of a pope who ordered the loyal bishops to defend these Catholics and compel the
heretics to return to the Faith. Subsequently the Catholic bishops sent soldiers to
round up the heretics who were then executed, deprived of their possessions or
ecclesiastical appointments, or imprisoned until they recanted. The complexity of
the case, the number of ‘Quaestiones’ (‘questions’) raised, and the fact that many of
the answers which provided the basic justification for force were extracts from the
writings of Church fathers—in particular from the letters of St Augustine—were
now claimed to demonstrate that war was not intrinsically sinful and that some
wars were more moral than others. Hence the case emphasized the intricate prob-
lems connected with the authorizing of violence in what the Church considered
a just cause.

13  Gratian, passim.

14 Rebecca Rist, The Papacy and Crusading in Europe, 1198–1245 (London, 2009), pp.6–7.
15  James Brundage, Medieval Canon Law and the Crusader (Madison, London, 1969), pp.40–5.
16  Jonathan Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading (London, 1986), pp.5–7.
17  Gratian, ‘Causa 23’, cols 889–965.
 The Impact of the Crusades 105

The next case study in the Decretum, Causa 24, was also important for cru-
sading—particularly for crusades against heretics and political enemies of the
papacy—because it dealt exclusively with writings of the Church fathers about jur-
isdiction over heretics. It detailed another fictional case, this time of a bishop who
had deprived priests of their office and declared them excommunicated, but who
after his death was himself accused of heresy and—with his followers—officially
condemned. In Quaestio 1 Gratian asked whether a heretic could deprive others of
office or pronounce them excommunicated, in Quaestio 2 whether someone could
be excommunicated after death, and in Quaestio 3 whether a man’s family should be
excommunicated for his personal sins. Again he drew on traditional authorities to
argue that the Church must defend itself and be defended against heresy.
The emphasis which the Decretum placed on the need to fight to defend the
Church from its enemies was a familiar theme to theologians, and canon lawyers
and popes as early as the eleventh century. Nicholas II (1058–1061) declared that
anyone who tried to seize the prerogatives of the Roman Church (‘Romanae eccle-
siae privilegium’) conferred by Christ, fell into heresy because his action injured
Christ himself, while Peter Damian (c.1007–1072/3) declared that anyone who set
aside the idea of papal privilege and failed to show obedience or seek the advice of
the Apostolic See was a heretic.18 Indeed years before Urban II authorized the First
Crusade the canonist Anselm II of Lucca (1036–1086) had compiled a collection of
legal documents endorsing the Church’s right to employ violence against enemies of
the peace, excommunicates, and heretics—a collection on which the Decretum drew
extensively to defend the employment of ecclesiastical officials to punish heretics.
The collections of papal letters—known as decretals—made by canon lawyers in
the twelfth and thirteenth centuries were commonly referred to as Decretales extrav-
agantes—since they ‘wandered outside’ Gratian’s Decretum—and they multiplied
rapidly in the last third of the twelfth century.19 Of these, some of the most influential,
each containing five books, were known collectively as the Quinque compilationes
antiquae and—since they became the standard source for papal decretals—were
cited as authoritative texts from the moment of their compilation. The importance
of the Quinque compilationes antiquae was reflected in the sheer number of summae,
glossae, and apparatus (collections of glosses) analysing them which appeared
throughout our period.20
An even more influential factor in the development of canon law was the Liber
extra decretalium, or Liber extra of Raymond of Peñafort (c.1175–1275), an offi-
cial collection of papal decretals commissioned by Gregory IX in 1230. Although
less bulky than the Decretum which it supplemented, it was still over 30,000 words
and its influence on later canon lawyers is evident from the fact that it was the
subject of systematic exposition and study at Bologna and elsewhere—as we see by
many thirteenth-century commentaries on it. Raymond was one of many
Bolognese authors to make constant use of the Quinque compilationes antiquae
18  Gratian, D.22. c.1, col. 73.
19 John Clarence Smith, Medieval Law Teachers and Writers, Civilian and Canonists (Ottawa,
1975), p.32.
20 Rist, The Papacy and Crusading in Europe, 1198–1245, p.122.
106 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

when composing his Liber extra and he retained the same arrangement of five
books. His earlier writings, especially the Summa iuris canonici and the Summa de
casibus penitentiae, had brought him to Gregory’s attention and in 1234 the pope
officially communicated his new collection to the masters and students of Bologna.
Not only did the Liber extra consolidate the Quinque compilationes antiquae, it also
incorporated most of their contents, superseded them, and added some of Gregory’s
own decretals. For this reason it was frequently cited as the Liber ‘extra’.21
Despite the fact that both the Quinque antiquae compilationes and Liber extra
contained a number of papal general letters concerned with crusades, there were
no special sections—known as Tituli (titles)—in either of them concerned specif-
ically with crusading. So although the term ‘crucesignati’ occurs in letters of popes
recorded in the Quinque antiquae compilationes and Liber extra, there is no par-
ticular Latin noun in these letters to designate a crusade. Rather, as we have seen,
popes referred to a crusade as an ‘iter sanctum’ (holy journey), a ‘peregrinatio’ (pil-
grimage) or the ‘negotium fidei’ (‘business of the faith’).22 It suggests that even in
the late twelfth and thirteenth centuries the Church had developed no ‘official’
vocabulary to describe crusading: legal questions relating to crusades were covered
in more general Tituli on warfare and vows. Armed with such canon law and col-
lections, however, popes and canon lawyers were anxious to convert Urban II’s
crusade-preaching into an institution capable of realizing its immediate goal—the
conquest of the Holy Land—which they saw as a righteous cause because they
­believed it rightfully belonged to Christians; Muslims, who held it illicitly, could
justly be conquered and expelled.
So when in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries several popes tried to control
the physical mistreatment of Jews by crusaders, this was partly because, in accord-
ance with Gratian’s Decretum, the Church was supposed to tolerate ‘infidels’ if they
were Jews. This was because, set apart from Christian society, they were not subject
to Christian law:
As for those who are not of our Law, the Apostle says in the First Epistle to the
Corinthians [I Cor. 5: 12–13]: For what does it concern me to judge those who are
outside? God will judge them.23
Jews, however, it could also be claimed, were a more problematic category since the-
ology and Church tradition also dictated that they should be protected within
Christian society. Thus canon lawyers, while claiming that the Church had the
power to discipline Christians, were unsure whether Jews, ‘internal’ to Christian
society yet a potential ‘external’ threat because outside the Faith, should also be sub-
ject to ecclesiastical authority.24 As we shall see in Chapter Five, the twelfth-century
canonist Huguccio eventually decided in the affirmative, claiming ecclesiastical

21 Rist, The Papacy and Crusading in Europe, 1198–1245, p.123.

22 Tyerman, The Invention of the Crusades, p.51; Riley Smith, What were the Crusades?, p.2.
23  Gratian, C.23.q.4.c.16, col. 904: ‘De his, qui non sunt nostri iuris, ait Apostolus, in epistola
prima ad Chorinthios: “Quid enim michi attinet de his, qui foris sunt, iudicare? De his enim Dominus
iudicabit”.’ See Walter Pakter, Medieval Canon Law and the Jews (Ebelsbach, 1988), pp.46–7.
24 Pakter, Medieval Canon Law and the Jews, pp.51–4.
 The Impact of the Crusades 107

competence over Jews who violated Church law. The inclusion of the papal decretal
‘Per miserabilem’ of Innocent III—originally a letter calling for the Fourth Crusade
and entitled ‘Post miserabile’—in the Compilatio tertia confirmed this judgement.
Hence, by the time the Liber extra was published in 1239, Jews were appearing
before canonical courts if they violated ecclesiastical legislation concerning their
status in society; for example, if they held public office in defiance of the decrees of
the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215. By the 1230s they were clearly regarded as
subject to ecclesiastical authority.25

Pa pal C on t rol Ov e r t he E ffec t s

of C rusa d in g on J e w s

Among the intellectual élites of Christian Europe, including popes and bishops,
a positive attitude to force prevailed in which violence and persecution were not
intrinsically evil, but deemed morally sustainable by the right intentions of their
perpetrators.26 Yet although such ideas underpinned medieval theories of holy war,
this was not a level of debate which affected ordinary Christians. Ordinary men and
women accepted a cruder belief that God is intimately associated with specific pol-
itical events, that violence in the support of these would positively advance His
intentions for mankind, and—even more importantly—that crusading in particular
was a wonderful way of doing penance. Whatever their other financial and political
motives, many crusaders believed that in taking the Cross they were embarking on
campaigns in which their obligations, once completed, would stand as an act of
condign self-punishment and that the penance they undertook by going on crusade
would be so severe that it would be fully ‘satisfactory’: God would be repaid not only
the debts of punishment for their recent sins, for which they had not yet done pen-
ance, but also for any residue left over from earlier insufficient penances.27 Such
ideas were encouraged by popes who in their correspondence called on crusaders
not to travel in state but to dress and behave as penitential pilgrims.28 When in
formal, public ceremonies men and women, rich and poor, priests and laymen
vowed to take part in a crusade, they attached cloth crosses to their clothing as a sign
that they were fully committed to the completion of their vows.29
Christians took the Cross in a fervent atmosphere, if not a fever, inspired by a
heady mix of collective eschatological hope, individual mystical experience, and the
expectation of glory and renown from a papally-blessed military venture. Although
the successes of the First Crusade were never repeated, the continuing hope that
they might be became a major impetus for subsequent crusading. Those ‘signed

25 Pakter, Medieval Canon Law and the Jews, pp.60–3.

26 Riley-Smith, What were the Crusades?, p.6.
27  Jonathan Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, 1095–1131 (Cambridge, 1997), pp.67–75.
28 For example, Eugenius III, ‘Quantum praedecessores’ (1 December 1145), in Ottonis et
Rahewina Gesta Friderici I Imperatoris, 3rd edn, Bk 1 (Hanover, Leipzig, 1912), pp.55–7; ‘Quantum
praedecessores’ (1 March 1146), in Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für altere Deutsche Geschichtskunde 45,
ed. P. Rassow (Berlin, 1924), pp.302–5.
29 Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, p.11.
108 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

with the Cross’ (‘crucesignati’) were enthusiastic to answer a call made by the pope
himself in his capacity as Christ’s representative on earth, and the Council of
Clermont, assuring them of protection for their families’ interests and assets in their
absence, added to their confidence.30 Besides such material privileges there was also
the promise of spiritual rewards and in particular the grant of indulgences. Even
when popes authorized crusades elsewhere than to the Near East, they deliberately
equated them with the Holy Land crusade, since an important feature of the plenary
indulgence—or in the case of early crusades simply the remission of penance or
‘remission of sins’—was that it was especially associated with the recovery of
Jerusalem and the defence of Palestine. Crusaders were fired by visions of the Holy
Land, and it is hardly surprising that in this heady atmosphere of religious fervour
Jews were often scapegoated as Christ-killers.
Crusaders’ fear of the Muslim enemy in the Near East almost certainly encour-
aged hostility towards Jewish communities. Christians thought of Jews, like
Muslims, as infidels, and it is not surprising that an infidel living in one’s midst was
often viewed as a similar threat—sometimes perhaps even a more dangerous one—
to the infidel living far away in the Near East. Peter the Venerable summed up this
mentality when he said of the crusades:
What is the good of going to the end of the world at a great loss of men and money to
fight the Saracens when we permit among us other infidels who are a thousand times
more guilty towards Christ than the Mohammedans. . . 31
Despite their shared heritage of the Old Testament, to medieval Christians the prac-
tises and religious rites of their Jewish neighbours seemed alien and strange. Although,
as we have seen, learned Christians and Jews continued to engage each other in
rigorous intellectual discourse about their respective faiths at a highly sophisticated
level, such debates did not touch the lives of simple men and women. To the vast
majority of Christians, Jews, like heretics, remained a potentially dangerous and sub-
versive ‘Other’ in their midst: an easy target after setbacks and misfortunes. Ironically
enough, over time, papal calls for crusades would only foster the idea of Jews as
‘internal’ enemies of Christian society, despite repeated papal calls for protection.
The papacy sought to maintain control over the effects of crusading on the Jews
in a number of different ways. As we have seen, a constant one was the ‘Constitutio
pro Iudaeis’, sometimes issued to protect Jews specifically at times of crusade in
response to pleas from the Jews themselves for protection. During the Central
Middle Ages Calixtus II first issued this formal statement of protection, probably
from a growing concern for the safety of Jews in Europe after the destruction of
their communities by armies on their way to take part in the First Crusade.32 If so,

30 Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, p.106.

31  The Letters of Peter the Venerable, ed. G. Constable, Vol. 1 (Cambridge, Mass., 1967): ‘Sed quid
proederit inimicos Christianae spei in exteris aut remotis finibus insequi ac persequi, si nequam blas-
phemi, longeque Sarracenis deteriores Iudaei, non longe a nobis, sed in medio nostri, tam libere, tam
audacter, Christum. . . ’. For the above translation, see Jeffrey Richards, Sex, Dissidence and Damnation:
Minority Groups in the Middle Ages (London, 1991), p.92.
32  Calixtus II, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (1119–1124), Simonsohn, p.44.
 The Impact of the Crusades 109

he probably drew on Alexander II’s letters for guidance.33 A similar reissue of the
same letter of protection issued by Eugenius III after anti-Jewish upheavals con-
nected with the Second Crusade has also not survived.34 Clement III’s re-issue was
in the same month as his general crusading letter ‘Quam gravis et’ (1188) exhorting
the faithful to take part in the Third Crusade.35 As we have noted, these re-issues
show that, despite the election of new popes, papal protection continued and that
pontiffs, well aware of a history of crusader violence against Jews, believed it neces-
sary to signal particular protection on the eve of each fresh crusade.36
So although the ‘Constituito pro Iudaeis’ made no specific reference to cru-
sading, its five re-issues between 1199 and 1250, as its previous issues in the twelfth
century, were often linked with papal calls for crusades and in response to conse-
quent appeals by Jewish communities.37 In September 1199, Innocent III re-issued
it soon after his accession—despite the fact that his immediate predecessor
Celestine III may well have issued it near the end of his pontificate—and shortly
before despatching his general crusading letters ‘Graves orientalis terrae’ and ‘Nisi
nobis dictum’ calling for the Fourth Crusade—and again at the request of Jews
who presumably anticipated violence.38
Yet despite Innocent’s re-issue of the ‘Constitutio pro Iudaeis’ at the end of his
pontificate, his successor Honorius III re-issued it again on his election in 1217,
probably as part of his planning for the Fifth Crusade.39 Gregory IX then issued it
in 1235 in connection with preparations for the ‘Barons’ Crusade’ of Thibaut of
Champagne and Richard of Cornwall in 1236; this time it followed papal calls the
previous year for action against Muslims in the Holy Land.40 According to the
English chronicler Matthew Paris the re-issue was in response to the petitioning of
Jews in France, frightened that they would be mistreated and imprisoned by nobles
aiming to exact money:

33  Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.76; Robert Chazan, God, Humanity and History: the Hebrew First Crusade
Narratives (Berkeley, 2000), p.3; Jeremy Cohen, ‘The Hebrew Crusade Chronicles in their Christian
Cultural Context’, in Juden und Christen zur Zeit der Kreuzzüge, Vorträge und Forschungen 47,
Konstanzer Arbeitskreis für mittelalterliche Geschichte, ed. A. Haverkamp (Sigmaringen, 1999), pp.17–18;
Robert Hiestand, ‘Juden und Christen in der Kreuzzugspropaganda und bei den Kreuzzugspredigern’,
in Juden und Christen zur Zeit der Kreuzzüge, Vorträge und Forschungen 47, Konstanzer Arbeitskreis für
mittelalterliche Geschichte, ed. Haverkamp, p.190.
34  Eugenius III, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (1145–1153), Simonsohn, p.47. See Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.76.
35  Clement III, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (10 May 1188), Simonsohn, pp.66–7; ‘Quam gravis et’ (27 May
1188), in Acta pontificum Romanorum inedita, Vol. 3: Urkunden der Päpste vom Jahre c.590 bis zum
Jahre c.1197, ed. J. von Pflugk-Harttung (Stuttgart, 1888), pp.363–4.
36  Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.9; p.76; Robert Stacey, ‘Crusades, Martyrdom and the Jews of Norman
England 1096–1190’ in Juden und Christien zur Zeit der Kreuzzüge, Vorträge und Forschungen 47,
Konstanzer Arbeitskreis für mittelalterliche Geschichte, ed. Haverkamp, pp.234–5.
37  Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.76.
38 Innocent III, ‘Licet perfidia Judeorum’ (15 September 1199), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.92–4;
Simonsohn, pp.74–5; ‘Graves orientalis terrae’ (31 December 1199), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.98; Simonsohn,
p.78; ‘Nisi nobis dictum’ (4 January 1200), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.98; Simonsohn, pp.78–9. See Grayzel,
Vol. 1, p.76, footnote 3.
39  Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.76, footnote 3.
40 Gregory IX, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (3 May 1235), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.218; Simonsohn, pp.154–5; ‘Rachel
suum videns’ (17 November 1234), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.216; Simonsohn, pp.152–3; ‘Pravorum molestiis
eum’ (13 April 1235), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.218; Simonsohn, pp.153–4. See Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.76, footnote 3.
110 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291
In the same year the Jews obtained a privilege from the Roman pope that they should
not be disgracefully treated by kings or nobles in order to exact money, nor delivered
into prison.41
This letter, however, may have had a detrimental effect on Jews, since Christians
accused the pope of accepting bribes to publish it and of attempting to weaken the
power of the king and his nobles by forbidding them to demand money.42 Possibly,
however, Matthew Paris referred not to the ‘Constitutio pro Iudaeis’ of 1235 but
to another letter of protection granted the following year, also following a com-
plaint from French Jews.43 This time Gregory emphasized to the archbishop of
Bordeaux and the bishops of Saintes, Angoulême, and Poitiers his anger at cru-
saders killing many Jews in Anjou, Poitou, and Brittany. He ordered the clergy to
ensure that those living in their dioceses make amends for any property seized,44
and passionately urged Louis IX to force crusaders to return all stolen property.45
Nevertheless, although, as we have seen, a number of popes also continued to re-issue
the ‘Constitutio pro Iudaeis’ in the second half of the thirteenth century—Innocent
IV in 1246 and again in 1247, Alexander IV in 1255, Urban IV in 1262, Gregory
X in 1272 and possibly 1274, Nicholas III in 1278, Martin IV twice in 1281,
Honorius IV between 1285–1286/7, and finally Nicholas IV between 1288–
1292—these re-issues were not connected with crusading. However important,
re-issues of the ‘Constitutio pro Iudaeis’ in the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth
centuries were only one of a number of ways by which the papacy sought to main-
tain control over the effects of crusading on the Jews. In order to assess other
approaches we turn to an examination of the impact of papal statements on Jews
in the particular context of individual crusades.

The Pa pacy an d Violence A g ains t J e w s

A ssociat e d w i t h t he F i r s t C rusa d e

As we saw in Chapter One, various Hebrew chronicles recorded pogroms against

Jews in Germany before the First Crusade; it seems that a number of the crusaders
then held Jews directly responsible for the death of Christ.46 The impetus for the
crusade originated in 1095 when at the Council of Clermont Urban II preached
an armed pilgrimage to the Near East to support the eastern Byzantine Christians

41  Matthew Paris, Chronica majora 3, ed. H. L. Luard, Rolls Series 57 (London, 1877; Kraus
Reprint, 1964), p.309: ‘Eodem anno Judaei privilegium impetrarunt a pontifice Romano, ne a regibus
aut principibus pro exactione pecuniae turpiter tractarentur, vel in carcere traderentur.’
42  Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.219, footnote 2.
43  Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.219, footnote 2.
44 Gregory IX, ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum in’ (5 September 1236), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.226–8;
Simonsohn, pp.163–4. For the lead up to the ‘Barons’ Crusade’, see Michael Lower, ‘The Burning of
Mont-Aimé’: Thibaut IV of Champagne’s Preparations for the Barons’ Crusade’, Journal of Medieval
History 29/2 (2003), 95–108.
45 Gregory IX, ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum in’ (5 September 1236), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.228–30;
Simonsohn, p.165.
46  Stacey, ‘Crusades, Martyrdom and the Jews of Norman England 1096–1190’, p.238.
 The Impact of the Crusades 111

against the Turks and to liberate the Holy Land and in particular Jerusalem, thereby
bringing together ideas of pilgrimage and holy war which together formed the
theological and ideological basis for future crusading.47
We have a number of contemporary and near contemporary sources which
record Urban II’s speech: the Gesta Francorum Jerusalem Expugnantium of Fulcher of
Chartres, the Historia Hierosolymitana Gesta Francorum of Robert the Monk,
Balderic of Dol’s, Historia Hierosolymitana Libri IV and Guibert of Nogent’s Historia
quae dicitur Gesta Dei per Francos.48 Hence we know that Urban journeyed through
France with a large entourage from Italy. One in a long line of eleventh-century
reforming popes, Urban saw it as a principal duty of his pontificate to reform the
French Church, so he was at pains to stop en route to dedicate cathedrals, churches,
and altars, and to preside over ecclesiastical councils before preaching his first public
crusade sermon at Clermont.49 That seems to have been a carefully stage-managed
event in which the crowd responded fervently to a sermon by the bishop and papal
legate Adhémar of le Monteil and where monks were on hand to act as recruiting
agents for the crusade.50
In responding to an appeal for assistance from the Byzantine Alexius I Comnenus
(1048/56–1118), and calling for the recovery of the Holy Sepulchre from the Seljuk
Turks, Urban seems to have hoped to achieve both the shorter-term goal of freeing
the holy places for Christian pilgrims and the longer-term goal of uniting the Greek
and Latin churches. Certainly all the accounts agree that his aims for the crusade
included liberation: of the Holy Sepulchre, of the eastern churches, and of Christianity
itself from the Muslims.51 In his appeal to save his Byzantine brethren from the
Muslim infidel, Urban deliberately introduced the Cross as a distinctive symbol of
the vow of commitment and drew on Scriptural passages from Matthew 16: 24 and
from Luke 12: 27—‘If any man will come after me, let him deny himself and take up
his cross and follow me’. No account suggests that he said anything specific about the
infidel Jew—protective or otherwise—to those about to take the Cross.
Nevertheless, we know that dreadful pogroms against Jews soon broke out, per-
petrated not by the knightly classes whom Urban’s speech had targeted—including
an impressive list of the foremost nobility of western Europe—but rather from
those involved in the ‘Peasants Crusade’ led by Peter the Hermit. According to
popular legend Peter had been on pilgrimage to the Holy Land, had been mal-
treated by Seljuk Turks and on his return to Europe had subsequently persuaded
Urban to call the First Crusade.52 Although the story proved unfounded, neverthe-
less the preaching of the crusade took several months and brought an unexpected
response from the poor who—incited by Peter and other clergy and preachers such
as Walter the Penniless, the priests Gottschalk and Volkmar, and Count Emicho of
47  Carl Erdmann, Die Enstehung des Kreuzzugs Gedankens (Stuttgart, 1935), The Origin of the Idea
of Crusade, trans. M. W. Baldwin, W. Goffart (Princeton, 1977), p.333.
48 Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, pp.60–1.
49 Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, pp.54–5.
50 Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, p.58.
51 For discussion of the idea of ‘liberation’, see Erdmann, The Origin of the Idea of Crusade,
pp.355–71.
52 Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, p.56.
112 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

Leiningen—set out in different groups across France, Germany, and Hungary to

Constantinople. Despite the fact that many of them only got as far as the Balkans,
there were ferocious persecutions of Jewish communities in which not only were
many Jews killed, but a further number were forcibly converted, particularly in the
Rhineland, in Speyer, Worms, and Mainz—the local Jewish community at Mainz
was almost wiped out—but also in France, Bavaria, and Bohemia.53
The attitudes Christians displayed towards the Jews after such attacks by cru-
saders were complex. Apparently several bishops, including the bishop of Speyer
and the bishop of Prague, tried hard to protect the Jews, while the archbishop of
Mainz and the archbishop of Trier were also prepared to assist them until it became
obvious they were powerless to control the crusader mobs.54 In 1097 Emperor
Henry IV (1056–1105) permitted those converted by force to return to Judaism
and emphasized the need to protect Jews in a country-wide peace proclaimed at
Mainz in 1103, while in England William II (1087–1100) also attempted to pro-
tect them.55 However, despite the crusade being Urban’s initiative, we have no
evidence that he himself said anything about the pogroms or condemned the
rioters. Yet he voiced no objection to the return to Judaism of those forcibly con-
verted—in marked contrast to Wibert of Ravenna, the antipope Clement III
(1029–1100), who declared any reversion to Judaism contrary to canon law.
As we saw in Chapter One, it may have been for this reason that the Jewish
chronicler Shelomo bar Shimshon, who wrote about the First Crusade a number of
years after the pogroms had occurred, referred to papal protection—or the lack of
it—in derogatory terms. In his chronicle he referred to the pope as ‘Satan. . . the
pope of evil Rome’56 and described how ‘Satan (the pope) intervened among the
nations and they all gathered as one to fulfil the command . . . ’.57 Some scholars
have argued that Shelomo was blaming Urban II and in particular his speech at
Clermont for the anti-Jewish riots that resulted from crusading fervour. Others
believe that Shelomo was referring rather to anti-pope Clement III who complained
that Jews who had been forcibly converted had returned to Judaism once the cru-
saders had recaptured Jerusalem from the Seljuk Turks.58

53 Richards, Sex, Dissidence and Damnation, p.91.

54 Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, pp.53–4.
55 Richards, Sex, Dissidence and Damnation, p.91.
56  Shelomo bar Shimshon in Sefer gezerot sarfat ve-ashkenaz, ed. A. M. Habermann (Jerusalem,
1971), p.27; Eva Haverkamp, Hebräische berichte über die judenverfolgungen während des ersten kreuz-
zugs herausgegaben von Eva Haverkamp (Hanover, 2005), pp.298–9. For discussion of the Hebrew
chronicles of the First Crusade and their relationship to each other, see Chapter One, footnote 72
above; also Anna Abulafia ‘The Interrelationship between the Hebrew Chronicles on the First
Crusade’, Journal of Semitic Studies 27/2 (1982), 221–39; also on Rabbi Amnon of Mainz and his
relationship to the First and Second Crusades, see Irvin Marcus, ‘A Pious Community and Doubt:
Qiddush Hashem in Ashkenaz and the Story of Rabbi Amnon of Mainz’, in Julius Carlebach. Festschrift,
Studien zur jüdischen Geschichte und Soziologie (Heidelberg, 1992), pp.97–113.
57  Shelomo bar Shimshon, in Sefer gezerot sarfat ve-ashkenaz, ed. Habermann, p.27.
58  See, for example, Solomon Grayzel, ‘Pope Alexander III and the Jews’, in Salo W. Baron Jubilee
Volume. American Academy for Jewish Research (Jerusalem, New York, 1975) p.556; Kenneth Stow, The
‘1007 Anonymous’ and Papal Sovereignty: Jewish Perceptions of the Papacy and Papal Policy in the High
Middle Ages (Cincinnati, 1984), p.18; Kenneth Stow, ‘Conversion, Apostasy and Apprehensiveness:
Emicho of Flonheim and the Fear of the Jews in the Twelfth Century’, Speculum: A Journal of Medieval
 The Impact of the Crusades 113

Be that as it may, as we noted in Chapter One, it might seem at best a terrible

oversight that Urban II failed to anticipate that his speech at Clermont and the
subsequent enthusiasm for his crusade might precipitate violence against Jewish
communities, and therefore that consequently he failed to re-issue ‘Constitutio pro
Iudaeis’ before the crusade began, as his successors were to do on the eve of subse-
quent crusades.59 As we have seen, the earliest possible re-issues of ‘Sicut Iudaeis’
date from Calixtus II and Eugenius III, while the earliest extant version was com-
posed after Gratian and was not issued until the pontificate of Alexander III, at
some point between 1159 and 1181.60 Urban had only the precedent of his ancient
predecessor Gregory I who had issued ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ under very different circum-
stances and, as we have seen, for very different reasons: in response to a plea from
the Jews of Palermo concerned about the anti-Jewish activities of its bishop.61 When
Urban called for the First Crusade in 1095 he had no crusading precedent on which
to draw. His aim was to encourage the knightly classes and he had no idea that his
call would also resonate with the peasantry;62 on the contrary, he seems to have been
taken aback by it. As he had no reason to envisage the ensuing mob violence, there
was no obvious reason for him to issue ‘Sicut Iudaeis’.
Since Shelomo bar Shimshon’s First Crusade chronicles portray so many aspects
of Christianity in derogatory terms, his anti-papal stance is hardly surprising.
Possibly his negative portrayal vented the rage he felt in the face of severe persecu-
tion; or perhaps he was attempting to consolidate the defence against Christian
forces threatening Jewish identity. Certainly, as we have seen, in the face of crusader
atrocities the chronicles emphasized the importance of martyrdom or qiddush
ha-Shem among the Jews of the Rhineland, even representing Jewish women as
willing to sacrifice themselves and their children for their faith.63 So although it is
Studies 76/4 (2001), 926. Earlier historians had attributed this protest to Urban II; see, for example,
Cecil Roth, ‘The Popes and the Jews’, Church Quarterly Review 123 (1936/7), 79; and his entry (1971)
‘Popes’, in Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem 1971), cols 851–61; another anti-pope who does not
come off well in relation to the Jews is Benedict XIII (elected 1394) who was responsible for the
Disputation of Tortosa (1413–1414) and a wave of persecution in the Iberian Peninsula; see Roth,
‘The Popes and the Jews’, 83. For the Jewish and Christian accounts of the Disputation of Tortosa, see
Judaism on Trial: Jewish-Christian Disputations in the Middle Ages, ed. and trans. H. Maccoby
(Rutherford, London, 1982), pp.168–86; pp.187–215.
59  Solomon Grayzel, ‘The Papal Bull “Sicut Iudeis”’, in Studies and Essays in Honour of Abraham A.
Neuman (Philadelphia, Leiden, 1962), p.251. For a discussion of the various re-issues of the
‘Constitutio pro Iudaeis’, see Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.76–8; Solomon Grayzel, ‘The Papal Bull “Sicut
Iudaeis”’, in Essential Papers in Judaism and Christianity in Conflict, ed. J. Cohen (New York, London,
1991), pp.231–59.
60  For possible issues which are not extant, see Calixtus II, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, Simonsohn, p.44 and
Eugenius III, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.76; Simonsohn, p.47. For the extant issue of Alexander
III, see Alexander III, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (1159–1181), Simonsohn, pp.51–2.
61 Gregory I, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (June 598), Simonsohn, pp.15–16; Anna Abulafia, ‘Christians and Jews
in the High Middle Ages: Christian Views of Jews’, in The Jews of Europe in the Middle Ages (Tenth to
Fifteenth Centuries). Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Speyer, 20-25 October 2002, ed.
C. Cluse (Turnhout, 2004), p.20.
62  For example, see the description of Urban II’s speech at Clermont in The Gesta Francorum et
aliorum Hierosolimitanorum, ed. R. Hill (Oxford, 1962), p.1.
63  Alfred Haverkamp, ‘The Jews of Europe in the Middle Ages: By Way of Introduction’, in The
Jews of Europe in the Middle Ages (Tenth to Fifteenth Centuries). Proceedings of the International
Symposium held at Speyer, 20-25 October 2002, ed. C. Cluse, p.6; Abulafia, ‘Christians and Jews in the
114 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

possible that Jews may have appealed to Urban to take action—perhaps through
the Jewish community in Rome—it was not until almost twenty years after Henry
IV’s proclamation of protection that one of his successors, Calixtus II, would issue
‘Sicut Iudaeis’ sometime between 1119 and 1124.

The Pa pacy, T w elf t h - C en t u ry

C rusa d es , an d J e w s

After the crusaders had taken Jerusalem and many had returned home, Urban II
commissioned the archbishop of Milan to preach the Cross in Lombardy and on
his death his successor Paschal II (1099–1118) continued to encourage crusading,
with recruitment initiatives spreading to France and Germany and generating new
armies. Yet although both Paschal II and his successor Calixtus II authorized cru-
sades to the Near East, we have no surviving references to their preaching. Certainly
the contingents setting out on crusade were much smaller—until 1145 when
Eugenius III authorized the Second Crusade in his general letter ‘Quantum praede-
cessores’ after the fall of the northernmost crusader County of Edessa, the first to
revert to Muslim control. According to his contemporaries, Odo of Deuil and
William, archbishop of Tyre, this crusade was organized by Bernard of Clairvaux
(1090–1153); this time its leaders were crowned heads of Europe: Louis VII of
France and Conrad III of Germany (1138–1152). Yet again there is evidence for
anti-Jewish preaching, in particular by Rudolph, a dissolute monk who preached
the crusade in Germany: resulting in massacres of Jews at Cologne, Speyer, Mainz, and
Würzburg.64 In France too there were massacres, at Carentan, Sully, and Ramerupt.
The Jewish chronicler Ephraim of Bonn, who would doubtless have heard stories
about the previous persecutions suffered by the Rhineland Jewish communities at
the hands of those taking part in the First Crusade, recorded in his Sefer Zekhirah
(Book of Remembrance) that on the eve of the Second, a mob again attacked Jews on
the pretext of avenging Christ—this time in France—and that royal officials had
to be bribed to ensure protection.65 Many Jews suffered financially because, as
Ephraim explained:

High Middle Ages’, p.21; p.25; Peter Schäfer, ‘Jews and Christians in the High Middle Ages: The Book
of the Pious’, in The Jews of Europe in the Middle Ages (Tenth to Fifteenth Centuries). Proceedings of the
International Symposium held at Speyer, 20–25 October 2002, ed. C. Cluse, p.33; Yosef Yerushalmi,
Zakhor. Jewish History and Jewish Memory (Seattle, London, 1982), p.49; Bernhard Blumenkranz,
‘The Roman Church and the Jews’, in Essential Papers on Judaism and Christianity in Conflict, ed.
J. Cohen (New York, London, 1991), p.214; Cohen, ‘The Hebrew Crusade Chronicles in their Christian
Cultural Context’, pp.17–34; Susan Einbinder, Beautiful Death. Jewish Poetry and Martyrdom in
Medieval France (Princeton, Oxford, 2002), pp.30–71. For the increased attention to militant female
piety in the Hebrew chronicles and their similarity to contemporary representations of Christian
female piety, see especially Abraham Grossman, Pious and Rebellious. Jewish Women in Medieval
Europe, trans. J. Chipman (Waltham, Mass., 2004), pp.198–211.
64 Richards, Sex, Dissidence and Damnation, p.92.
65  Ephraim of Bonn, in Sefer gezerot sarfat ve-ashkenaz, ed. Habermann, p.121. For a detailed dis-
cussion of the role of popes in this complex text, see especially Robert Chazan, ‘Rabbi Ephraim of
Bonn’s Sefer Zechirah’, Revue des Études Juives 132 (1973), 119–26; Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and
Papal Sovereignty, pp.4–5; p.7; pp.18–19; p.21; p.48.
 The Impact of the Crusades 115
a lot of their fortune has been taken away, for thus the king of France has ordered that
in the case of anyone who volunteers to go to Jerusalem, if he owes money to the Jews
his debt will be forgiven.66
As we noted in Chapter One, Louis VII of France had decreed the cancellation
of interest on debts owed by those volunteering to crusade to Jerusalem, because
frequently Jews had loaned money to these people.67 We have seen how Ephraim
noted that in England the Second Crusade had less severe repercussions for Jews
because King Stephen wished to defend them from crusader excesses.68
One might expect that the pope would again be highlighted over the issue of
protection in Ephraim’s chronicle. Indeed some historians have argued that
Eugenius III’s re-issue of the ‘Constitutio pro Iudaeis’ at the very beginning of his
pontificate was in anticipation of renewed pogroms on the eve of the Second
Crusade.69 Yet Ephraim makes no direct mention of Eugenius or of ‘Quantum
praedecessores’—even though Eugenius specifically regulated that:
All those who are encumbered with debts and undertake so holy a journey with pure
hearts need not pay usury on past loans; and if they or others on their behalf are
bound by oath or faith to usurious contracts we absolve them from them by apostolic
authority.70
So unlike Shelomo bar Shimshon, Ephraim apparently considered this important
papal pronouncement irrelevant to his narrative. Yet, although he says nothing spe-
cific about papal activity, we can deduce from Ephraim that Louis VII took
‘Quantum praedecessores’ very seriously.71 Ephraim blamed the king for cancelling
the interest that crusaders owed to Jews.72 In fact, although ‘Quantum praedeces-
sores’ set out particular procedures for money-lending to crusaders, it said nothing

66  Ephraim of Bonn, in Sefer gezerot sarfat ve-ashkenaz, ed. Habermann, p.121.
67  Ephraim of Bonn, in Sefer gezerot sarfat ve-ashkenaz, ed. Habermann, p.121; Kenneth Stow,
Alienated Minority: the Jews of Medieval Latin Europe (Cambridge, Mass., London, 1992), p.113;
Robert Chazan, Medieval Jewry in Northern France. A Political and Social History (Baltimore, London,
1973), pp.34–6.
68  Ephraim of Bonn, in Sefer gezerot sarfat ve-ashkenaz, ed. Habermann, p.121. By contrast several
chroniclers recorded an outbreak of violence in England in 1189–90 on the eve of the Third Crusade.
See Richard Dobson, The Jews of Medieval York and the Massacre of March 1190 (York, 1974),
pp.1–26.
69  Eugenius III, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, Simonsohn, p.47. The bull has not survived and is known from its
quotation in later editions of the text. For a proponent of this view, see Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.76. However,
for scepticism about reading too much into papal texts about the Jews especially with respect to con-
tinuity and change, see Kenneth Stow, ‘The Pitfalls of Writing Papal Documentary History:
Simonsohn’s Apostolic See and the Jews’, Jewish Quarterly Review 85/3–4 (1995), 400: ‘Most notably,
scholars have calculated the regularity with which the bull “Sicut Iudaeis non” was reissued as a bar-
ometer of so-called favourable papal stances.’
70  Eugenius III, ‘Quantum praedecessores’, p.57; ‘Quantum praedecessores’, p.304: ‘Quicunque
vero ere premuntur alieno et tam sanctum iter puro corde inceperint, de preterito usuras non solvant
et, si ipsi vel alii pro eis occasione usurarum astricti sunt sacramento vel fide, apostolic eos auctoritate
absolvimus’; see trans. in The Crusades. Idea and Reality, ed. L. Riley Smith, J. S. C. Riley Smith
(London, 1981), p.59.
71 Eugenius III, ‘Quantum praedecessores’, pp.55–7. See also in the re-issue of Eugenius III,
‘Quantum praedecessores’, pp.302–5.
72  Ephraim of Bonn, in Sefer gezerot sarfat ve-ashkenaz, ed. Habermann, p.121.
116 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

specific about Jewish moneylenders. Nevertheless, Louis identified Jews as some

of the principal moneylenders in his kingdom and in 1146 issued a stern edict
releasing crusaders from all financial obligations to them beyond the repayment of
the principal and forbidding them from recovering interest lost through profits
generated by pledges, especially on land.73
As we have already noted, Eugenius may have issued the ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ because
he feared the fallout for Jews arising from his promulgation of ‘Quantum praede-
cessores’ which called for the Second Crusade.74 Certainly the Church’s concern
about protection of Jewish communities was more apparent during the Second
Crusade than it had been during the First. What is particularly striking about the
account of Ephraim of Bonn, who, as we have seen, described pogroms against
Jews during the preparations for the Second Crusade, is his depiction of Bernard
of Clairvaux.75 We know that on the eve of the Second Crusade, crusaders extorted
protection money from Jewish communities in the Rhineland in return for a
promise not to attack them. This was despite Bernard’s attempts to prevent any
recurrence of bloodshed by preaching against instigations to violence orchestrated
by Rudolph, a fellow Cistercian.76
Ephraim recorded that many crusaders extorted protection money from Jews,
but God took pity on their suffering and sent Bernard whom he described as a
decent priest, a great man, and a rabbi who knew about and understood Judaism.77
In preaching against Rudolph, Bernard argued that anyone laying violent hands on
a Jew was laying hands on Christ himself, citing Psalms 59: 12, ‘Kill them not, lest
my people forget’, to demonstrate that in inciting crusaders to kill Jews, Rudolph
was theologically unsound.78 Clearly Ephraim believed that had it not been for
Bernard’s preaching, the Jewish communities would have been destroyed and there-
fore portrayed him as a great protector and saviour, going out of his way not only
73 Stacey, ‘Crusades, Martyrdom and the Jews of Norman England 1096-1190’, p.241; Stow,
Alienated Minority, pp.113–14.
74  Eugenius III, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, Simonsohn, p. 47. See Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.76.
75  Ephraim of Bonn, Sefer Gezerot Sarfat ve-Ashkenaz ed. Haberman, p.116; Abulafia, ‘Christians
and Jews in the High Middle Ages’, p.25.
76  Bernard of Clairvaux, ‘Epistolae’, Opera Sancti Bernardi, ed. J. Leclercq, C. H. Talbot, H. M.
Rochais (Rome, 1957–77), Vol. 7 (1974), passim; Hebraische Berichte über die Judenverfolgungen
während der Kreuzzüge, ed. A. Neubauer, M. Stern (Berlin, 1892), pp.1–78; Stacey, ‘Crusades,
Martyrdom and the Jews in Norman England 1096-1190’, p.240; David Berger, ‘The Attitude of St
Bernard of Clairvaux toward the Jews’, Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 40
(1972), 89–108, passim.
77  For letters of Bernard calling for the Jews to be protected from crusaders, see PL, 182, cols
563–72. See also in Sancti Bernardi . . . Opera, Vol. 1, ed. J. Mabillon (Paris, 1719), cols 329–30; col.
332; Bernard of Clairvaux, ‘Epistolae’, Opera Sancti Bernardi, 8 vols, ed. J. Leclercq, C. H. Talbot,
H. M. Rochais, Vol. 8 (Rome, 1977), pp.311–17; The Letters of St Bernard of Clairvaux, trans. B. S.
James, 3rd edn (Stroud, 1998), pp.462–3; p.466; Ephraim of Bonn, in Sefer Gezerot Sarfat ve-Ashkenaz
ed. Habermann, p.116.
78  Actually it is a partial citation and somewhat doubtful. The first to cite the text in full is Innocent
III in his re-issue of ‘Sicut Iudaeis’—see Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and Papal Sovereignty, passim. For
St Bernard’s emphasis that the Jews must be saved because they will eventually be converted, see The
Letters of Bernard of Clairvaux, trans. James, p.463. For discussion of Bernard’s letters protecting the
Jews, see Hebraische Berichte über die Judenverfolgungen während der Kreuzzuge, ed. A. Neubauer,
M. Stern (Berlin, 1892), pp.1–78; Berger, ‘The Attitude of St Bernard of Clairvaux toward the Jews’,
89–108; Stacey, ‘Crusades, Martyrdom and the Jews of Norman England 1096–1190’, p.240.
 The Impact of the Crusades 117

to emphasize that Bernard was universally regarded as a holy man and that he
eschewed bribery, but that, unlike Rudolph, he understood that traditional
­
Christian theology demanded protection for the Jews.79 No doubt he hoped that,
by praising such a prominent cleric, he might better ensure future protection for
Jewish communities.80
Ephraim portrayed Bernard as an exception to the rule, making it clear that in
general the local clergy could not be trusted to protect Jews, or at least not
without some financial incentive. Bernard himself had called on kings to apply
the precepts of ‘Quantum praedecessores’ decreeing that the debts of crusaders
should be annulled,81 yet Ephraim reported nothing about Bernard’s dislike of
Jewish money-lending and pronouncements against it—even though Bernard
had implored king Louis to take action against usury in the same pastoral letter
which decried crusader violence.82 Indeed since Ephraim said nothing of Bernard’s
dislike of Jewish usury, some historians have argued that he was deliberately ten-
dentious in his one-sided praise of Bernard.83 However, it is not certain that
Ephraim would have known the full contents of Bernard’s correspondence with
the king of France. Indeed even if he did know that Bernard had urged Louis
to cancel interest owed by crusaders, this may have seemed of little importance
beside actions to save Jewish lives. What Ephraim wanted to emphasize was that
Bernard, unlike many other clergy, was willing to protect the Jews because he
espoused correct Christian theology.
Although, as Bernard later lamented in the De Consideratione, the Second
Crusade ended in failure and resulted in the crusaders abandoning the siege of
Damascus and surrendering to the Muslim leader Nur-al-Din. Less than thirty
years later, Gregory VIII (1187), devastated by the news of the fall of Jerusalem
to Saladin in 1187, called for yet another military venture—the Third Crusade.
According to two contemporary texts, the Continuations of the History of William
Archbishop of Tyre and the Chronica majora of Matthew Paris, this crusade, organ-
ized by Archbishop Joscius of Tyre, and led by Philip II Augustus, Richard I, and
Frederick I Barbarossa (1155–1190), was funded in England by the ‘Saladin tithe’.
Yet once again a pope’s call for crusade led indirectly to violence. Several English
chroniclers recorded it in 1189–1190—associated with Richard’s preparations
for the crusade—as directed against Jewish communities in King’s Lynn, Stamford,

79  Ephraim of Bonn, Sefer Gezerot Sarfat ve-Ashkenaz ed. Habermann, p.116.
80  St Augustine, De civitate Dei 2, ed. B. Dombart, A. Kalb, (Stuttgart, 1981), Bk 18, Ch. 46,
p.329. See Stow, Alienated Minority, p.18.
81  Bernard of Clairvaux, ‘Sermo mihi ad vos’ (1146), ed. in Jean Leclercq ‘L’Encyclique de Saint
Bernard en faveur de la croisade’, Revue Bénédictine 81 (1971), 295–300. See Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’
and Papal Sovereignty, p.4.
82 Peter the Venerable also made a number of negative pronouncements about Jewish usury; Stacey,
‘Crusades, Martyrdom and the Jews of Norman England 1096–1190’, p.241; Stow, Alienated
Minority, pp.113–14. For Bernard’s remarks on freeing all crusaders from exactions of usury, see his
letter in PL 182, col. 568; Sancti Bernardi . . . Opera, Vol. 1, ed. Mabillon, col. 330. For discussion of
Bernard’s stance on usury for example in Lester Little, ‘The Jews in Christian Europe’, in Essential
Papers on Judaism and Christianity in Conflict, ed. Cohen, p.292.
83  For example, Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and Papal Sovereignty, p.5.
118 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

Lincoln, York, Norwich, and Bury St Edmund’s.84 Ralph of Diceto observed

that those intending to go on this crusade attacked the Jews because they saw
them as a legitimate target, claiming that many English crusaders in their quest
to re-capture Jerusalem believed that they had a duty to rise up against the Jews
before they invaded the lands of the Muslims.85 German crusaders also attacked
Jews in Mainz when the crusade was proclaimed. Despite these attacks, by con-
trast to Eugenius III’s letter of protection for the Jews just before the Second
Crusade, no such letter was issued by Gregory VIII on the eve of the Third.
So during the pontificate of Celestine III there were attacks on German and
English Jews in Mainz and York. In response, Richard I issued strict orders to his
sheriffs that in future the peace of the Jews was not to be disturbed. Celestine
made no reference to these attacks in his correspondence but he must have been
aware of them: indeed his recognition of the potential for violence against Jewish
communities is clear from his re-issue of ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ in response to a specific
request for confirmation of papal protection.86 Furthermore, we know that
during the same pontificate a vassal of Philip Augustus was accused of murdering
a Jew in the Champenois town of Bray-sur-Seine, that the Jewish community
sought the protection of Marie de Champagne, and that the king, recently
­returned from the Third Crusade, hastened to the town—with the result that
approximately eighty Jews were massacred on royal orders. It is likely that this
event was brought to Celestine III’s attention and that it too encouraged him to
re-issue ‘Sicut Iudaeis’.87

84 Ralph of Diceto, Opera historica, ed. W. Stubbs, Rolls Series 68 (London, 1876; Kraus
Reprint, 1965) 2, pp. 68–9; William of Newburgh, ‘Chronicles of William of Newburgh’, Vol. 1,
Bk 4, ed. R. Howlett, Rolls Series 82 (London, 1884; Kraus Reprint, 1964), pp. 293–9; Roger of
Hoveden, Chronica 3, ed. W. Stubbs, Rolls Series 51 (London, 1871; Kraus Reprint, 1964), pp.12–13;
Gesta regis Henrici Benedicti Abbatis 2, ed. W. Stubbs, Rolls Series 49 (London, 1867; Kraus Reprint,
1965), pp.83–4; pp.107–8. See Dobson, The Jews of Medieval York and the Massacre of March 1190,
pp.1–26.
85 Ralph of Diceto, Opera historica 2, ed. Stubbs, p.75.
86  Celestine III, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (1191–1198), Simonsohn, p.68. See Marie Therese Champagne,
‘Celestine III and the Jews’, in Pope Celestine III (1191–1198): Diplomat and Pastor, ed. J. Doran, D. J.
Smith (Farnham, Burlington, 2008), p.278.
87  Champagne, ‘Celestine III and the Jews’, p.280. Two letters of Celestine III show the pope’s
response to petitions from the French clergy since in both Capetian domain and in the duchy of
Normandy there were tensions and difficulties between Jewish communities and clerics over the
confiscation of several synagogues by Philip II Augustus; see Champagne, ‘Celestine III and the
Jews’, p.281. The first letter confirmed the king’s decision to donate a synagogue to the dean and
canons of Saint-Sauveur in Orleans. See Celestine III, ‘Justis petentium desideriis’ (14 May 1193),
Simonsohn, pp.68–9. The second, Celestine III, ‘Cum Iudaice duricia’ (23 May 1193), Simonsohn,
pp.69–70, ordered that all financial and other relations with the Jews of Rouen should cease until
they had compensated the parish church for loss of its customary dues from the Christian proper-
ties they were holding and enforced the prohibition by excommunication. See Champagne,
‘Celestine III and the Jews’, pp.281–2. It seems that these directives of Celestine in the Rouen crisis
anticipated subsequent directives of Innocent III in dealing with the problem of excessive interest
on loans. See Champagne, ‘Celestine III and the Jews’, p.282. So at such a distance from Rome and
in the face of the action of Philip Augustus which was uncompromising, Celestine III failed to raise
the restrictions placed on Jewish communities in line with ‘Sicut Iudaeis’. See Champagne, ‘Celestine
III and the Jews’, p.283.
 The Impact of the Crusades 119

The Pa pacy, J e w s , an d
Thi rt een t h - C en t u ry C rusa d es

As in the twelfth century, during the first half of the thirteenth century popes
­authorized a number of crusades in Europe: crusades not against Muslims in the
Near East but against heretics and political enemies of the papal states much nearer
to home. Innocent III, Honorius III, Gregory IX, and Innocent IV all issued letters
authorizing and attempting to control these crusades. Of the surviving letters only
a very small percentage from the first half of the thirteenth century referred to
Jews.88 Of these, the number concerned with Jews in the specific context of cru-
sades, whether within Europe or to the Near East, was even smaller.89 Some, such
as those authorizing particular crusades, only mentioned them in passing, but
others, indicating disapproval of crusader violence, emphasized the particular
status of Jews as a settled population living in Christian Europe, albeit outside the
Christian faith.
The papacy’s call for the Fourth Crusade—the first of the thirteenth-century cru-
sades to the Near East—stemmed again from the desire to retake Jerusalem. Those
who had taken part in the Third had achieved a military victory in recovering Acre,
but the enterprise as a whole had been only a partial success; indeed the Muslim
world controlled by Saladin had benefitted most from it. According to contempor-
aries Robert of Cleri and Geoffrey of Villehardouin, the main leaders of the new
crusade were Enrico Dandalo, the Doge of Venice, Boniface of Montferrat, and
Baldwin IX of Flanders, aided by the particular involvement not only of the preacher,
Fulk of Neuilly, but also by the papal legates Peter Capuano and Soffredo.90 In his
general crusading letters ‘Post miserabile’ of 1198, ‘Graves orientalis terrae’ of 1199,
and ‘Nisi nobis dictum’ of 1200 sent to all the clergy of Europe, Innocent III called
for the Fourth Crusade and issued very specific instructions regarding crusades and
Jewish usury.91 As we shall examine in Chapter Four, two of these, ‘Post miserabile’—
which was later cited in Titulus 10 of Book 5 of the Compilatio tertia as ‘Per misera-
bilem’ and in Capitulum 12 of the Liber extra as ‘Post miserabilem’—and ‘Graves
orientalis terrae’, were especially aimed at controlling the treatment of Jews by the
clergy with regard to money-lending.92
Much to Innocent III’s chagrin and disgust, the crusaders, in debt to the
Venetians who had organized the campaign, sacked first Zara on the Dalmatian
Coast and then Constantinople, rather than attempting their original goal: the cap-
ture of Jerusalem. Indeed the intention of the subsequent Fifth Crusade, organized

88  Thirty-two of Innocent III, twenty-four of Honorius III, forty-six of Gregory IX, and thirty-two
of Innocent IV, according to Grayzel, Vol. 1. In Simonsohn the numbers are respectively: 29, 25, 49,
and 35.
89 See Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.1–83, passim for the exact number.
90  Jonathan Philips, The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople (London, 2004), p.7.
91  Innocent III, ‘Post miserabile(m) Hierosolymitanae’ (17/15 August 1198), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.86;
Simonsohn, p.71; ‘Graves orientalis terrae’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.98; Simonsohn, p.78; ‘Nisi nobis dictum’,
Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.98; Simonsohn, pp.78–9.
92  Innocent III, ‘Post miserabile(m) Hierosolymitanae’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.86; Simonsohn, p.71;
‘Graves orientalis terrae’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.98; Simonsohn, p.78.
120 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

by Innocent and Honorius III and led by John of Brienne (titular king of Jerusalem),
King Andrew II of Hungary, and Duke Leopold VI of Austria under the spiritual
guidance of the preachers Robert of Courçon, Oliver of Paderborn, and James of
Vitry, as well as the papal legate Pelagius, was originally to re-take Jerusalem and,
when this failed, to secure the strategically placed town of Damietta. Once again
the papacy intervened both to protect and to restrict Jewish communities. In par-
ticular, Innocent’s general letter ‘Quia maior’ of 1213 calling for the new crusade
issued specific instructions regarding crusades and Jewish money-lending at inter-
est.93 Innocent also ordered the archbishop of Arles to ensure that those wielding
temporal power force Jews to remit the interest on debts for crusading against
heretics in the south of France.94
Yet, as we have seen, Innocent’s correspondence reveals that throughout his pon-
tificate, he, like his predecessors, remained committed to the Pauline and Patristic
idea of protection. So, for example, in one letter, ‘Mandatur ut inhibeant’, of which
only the rubric survives, but which was addressed to the clergy of France, he categor-
ically forbade all Christians, and especially crusaders, from harming Jews or their
families.95 Issued in 1215 or 1216 it suggests that, reacting to the precedents of the
First, Second, and Third Crusades, he was concerned that religious fervour engen-
dered by preparations for the upcoming Fifth Crusade might lead to new outbreaks
of violence.96 However, as we shall see in Chapter Four, his pronouncements with
regard to specifically Jewish usury and the crusades were rather more complex and
ambiguous than they at first appear. In particular he seems to have been angered by
Philip Augustus’s treatment of his legate, Robert of Courçon, who was preaching the
Fifth Crusade in France. Nevertheless, he admitted that Robert had received no
mandate to preach against usury and noted that he had ordered him to moderate his
preaching—which suggests that he realized it was causing problems for the Jews
and, indirectly, for the Crown, which profited from Jewish usury.97 Innocent knew
that the clergy also benefitted, albeit indirectly, from it; Abbot Suger, who in the
twelfth century had derived revenues from taxing Jewish lenders on his estates, used
the money for the construction of the great monastery of St Denis and was therefore
willing to tolerate money-lending by Jews provided the interest was moderate.98
Innocent’s successor Honorius III repeated the stipulations of ‘Quia maior’ that
Jews must remit usury to crusaders.99 Yet again, like Innocent, he also seems to
have been aware that the French clergy were inclined to treat the Jews more harshly
than he himself and his predecessors would have wished.100 Hence during the
Fifth Crusade he expressed concern about such behaviour, complaining to the

93  Innocent III, ‘Quia maior nunc’ (22 April 1213), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.136; Simonsohn, p.97.
94  Innocent III, ‘Gloriantes hactenus in’ (11 November 1209), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.134; Simonsohn, p.96.
95  Innocent III, ‘Mandatur ut inhibeant’ (1215–1216), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.142; Simonsohn, p.100.
96  Innocent III, ‘Mandatur ut inhibeant’ Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.142; Simonsohn, p.100.
97  Innocent III, ‘Quanto melior est’ (14 May 1214), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.138–40.
98 Stow, Alienated Minority, p.226.
99 Honorius III, ‘Dilecta in Christo’ (21 June 1219), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.150–2; Simonsohn,
pp.106–7.
100  Honorius III, ‘Cum olim nobilis’ (28 January 1217), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.144; Simonsohn, p.102;
‘Dilecta in Christo’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.150–2; Simonsohn, pp.106–7.
 The Impact of the Crusades 121

abbot and prior of St Geneviève in Paris, to the canons of Bourges, to the abbots
of St Jean de Vignes in Soissons and in Valsecret, and to the dean of Soissons that
they had done nothing to prevent Jews living in the territories of the countess of
Champagne from being harassed.101
Honorius III’s successors continued to make pronouncements about Jews in
the context of the crusades. Although the crusaders on the Fifth Crusade achieved
brief military success at Damietta, the Muslim Ayyubids were ultimately victorious
and the crusading army was defeated.102 Nevertheless, attempts to regain the
Holy Land continued and Gregory IX reiterated earlier statements about cru-
sading Jews and money-lending,103 in particular addressing the French clergy and
ordering the French bishops to ensure they remit usury to crusaders.104 In letters
to the bishop of Chichester, the bishop-elect of Valence (who was in England
at the time), and the abbot of the monastery of St Augustine in Canterbury, he
referred to the ‘burdensome and immoderate usury’ which he believed Jews were
exacting.105 In other letters he informed the archbishop of Sens and the bishop of
Senlis that he had called on Louis IX to send the profits of Jewish usury to aid the
Latin Empire,106 and he told the abbot of Joigny to investigate the possibility that
the king of Navarre had used money extorted from Jews to fund his new crusade
to the Near East.107
Yet Gregory was not only concerned with problems arising from Jewish–Christian
financial interaction, but again with the protection of Jewish communities. In par-
ticular he was concerned about the fallout for the Jews from the ‘Barons’ Crusade’,
issuing two letters to the archbishop of Bordeaux, the bishops of Saintes, Angoulême,
and Poitiers, and to the king of France, all concerned with protecting Jews from
crusaders taking part in this campaign.108 It seems that in response to these letters,
which complained about massacres perpetrated locally by crusaders, the Council
of Tours (1236) decreed that no crusader or other Christian should kill or flog

101  Honorius III, ‘Cum olim nobilis’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.144; Simonsohn, p.102; ‘Dilecta in Christo’,
Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.150–2; Simonsohn, pp.106–7.
102  James Powell, Anatomy of a Crusade 1213–1221 (Philadelphia, 1986), pp.175–91.
103 Gregory IX, ‘Ardenti desiderio aspirantes’ (21 October 1228), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.180; Simonsohn,
pp.126–8; ‘Rachel suum videns’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.216; Simonsohn, pp.152–3; ‘Pravorum molestiis
eum’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.218; Simonsohn, pp.153–4; ‘Ex parte karissimi’ (22 March 1238), Grayzel, Vol.
1, pp.234–6; Simonsohn, pp.168–9; ‘Ex parte karissmi’ (29 November 1238), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.236;
Simonsohn, pp.169–70; ‘Cum karissimo in’ (10 December 1238), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.238; Simonsohn,
p.170.
104 Gregory IX, ‘Ardenti desiderio aspirantes’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.180; Simonsohn, pp.126–8;
‘Pravorum molestiis eum’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.218; Simonsohn, pp.153–4.
105 Gregory IX, ‘Dilectus filius magister’ (5 January 1237), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.230–2; Simonsohn,
pp.165–7. The phrase is ‘super immoderato gravamine usurarum’, see Gregory IX, ‘Dilectus filius
magister’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.232; Simonsohn, p.166. Gregory took the side of a certain cleric, Robert of
Glove, against the archbishop of Canterbury. The pope was worried that the archbishop had refused
to accept letters sent from the curia which complained about the ‘burdensome and immoderate usury’
which Jews were extorting from crusaders.
106 Gregory IX, ‘Ex parte karissimi’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.234–6; Simonsohn, pp.168–9; ‘Cum karissimo
in’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.238; Simonsohn, p.170.
107 Gregory IX, ‘Ex parte karissimi’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.236; Simonsohn, pp.169–70.
108 Gregory IX, ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum in’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.226–8; Simonsohn, pp.163–4;
‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum in’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.228–30; Simonsohn, p.165.
122 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

Jews, invade or steal their property, or otherwise injure them.109 Gregory expressed
with particular vehemence his horror at the killing of Jews and emphasized that
such evil desires aroused divine displeasure.110 He added that, since the papacy had
granted privileges to the Jews, crimes against them injured the Apostolic throne
itself.111 In other letters too he showed particular compassion for Jews, com-
plaining bitterly to the archbishop of Bordeaux and the bishops of Saintes,
Angoulême, and Poitiers about crusader violence.112 It is clear that although he
was extremely concerned about Jewish usury, like his predecessors he remained
committed to the protection of Jews.
Nevertheless, during the 1240s conciliar legislation against Jews profiting finan-
cially from the crusades remained as severe as it had during the pontificate of
Innocent III. Constitution 5 of the First Council of Lyons (1245) repeated the
stipulations of the Fourth Lateran and of Innocent III’s own letters that Jews were
to remit the ruinous interest owed by crusaders. The new legislation also added
that until the Jews had done this they were to be cut off from contacts with
Christians, including those concerned with mercantile and business contracts—
which anticipated Innocent IV’s latter letters concerning the Seventh Crusade and
Jewish debt.113 Led by Louis IX of France, Robert of Artois, and Charles of Anjou
but under the spiritual guidance of the papal legate Odo of Châteauroux, Robert,
Patriarch of Jerusalem, and Galeran bishop of Beirut, the Seventh Crusade
achieved, albeit briefly, military success in the conquest of Damietta. In the lead up
to the crusade, papal suspicions of the clergy’s often hostile attitude to the Jews
was confirmed by reports in 1240 of the inflammatory preaching of Odo of
Châteauroux. Notwithstanding, Innocent IV continued to issue letters relating
crusading and Jewish usury in 1247, 1248, 1252, and 1253 in connection with
Louis IX’s preparation for a further crusade in the Near East.114 Hence, to those
109  Mansi, Vol. 23, col. 411; Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.326–8; Gregory IX, ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum in’,
Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.226–8; Simonsohn, pp.163–4; ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum in’, Grayzel, Vol. 1,
pp.228–30; Simonsohn, p.165.
110 Gregory IX, ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum in’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.226–8; Simonsohn, pp.163–4. For
the ‘Barons’ Crusade’ of 1239, see Michael Lower, ‘The Burning at Mont-Aimé: Thibaut of Champagne’s
Preparations for the Barons’ Crusade of 1239’, Journal of Medieval History 29 (2003), 95–108;
Michael Lower, The Barons’ Crusade: A Call to Arms and its Consequences (Philadelphia, 2005), passim.
111 Gregory IX, ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum in’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.228–30; Simonsohn, p.165.
112 Gregory IX, ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum in’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.226–8; Simonsohn, pp.163–4.
113  Tanner, Vol. 1, p.299; Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.330; Innocent III, ‘Post miserabile(m) Hierusolymitanae’
(17/15 August 1198), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.86; Simonsohn, p.71; ‘Graves orientalis terrae’, Grayzel, Vol. 1,
p.98; Simonsohn, p.78; ‘Nisi nobis dictum’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.98; Simonsohn, pp.78–9; ‘Gloriantes
hactenus in’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.134; Simonsohn, p.96; ‘Quia maior nunc’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.136;
Simonsohn, p.97; Honorius III, ‘Cum olim nobilis’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.144; Simonsohn, p.102; ‘Dilecta
in Christo’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.150–2; Simonsohn, pp.106–7; Gregory IX, ‘Ardenti desiderio aspir-
antes’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.180; Simonsohn, pp.126–8; ‘Pravorum molestiis eum’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.218;
Simonsohn, pp.153–4; ‘Rachel sum videns’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.216; Simonsohn, pp.152–3; Innocent IV,
‘Cum laicorum obsequiis’ (3 April 1247), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.262; Simonsohn, p.189; ‘Afflicti corde pro’
(1252), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.290; Simonsohn, p.206; ‘Planxit hactenus non’ (2 April 1253), Grayzel, Vol. 1,
p.290; Simonsohn, p.206; ‘Pravorum molestiis eum’ (21 July 1248), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.280; Simonsohn,
pp.199–200.
114  Innocent IV, ‘Cum laicorum obsequiis’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.262; Simonsohn, p.189; ‘Pravorum
molestiis eum’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.280; Simonsohn, pp.199–200; ‘Planxit hactenus non’, Grayzel, Vol. 1,
p.290; Simonsohn, p.206; ‘Afflicti corde pro’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.290; Simonsohn, p.290.
 The Impact of the Crusades 123

laymen who accompanied a certain Bishop Lucus to his diocese in Morocco and
remained there, he extended all the same crusader privileges, including those con-
cerned with usury and Jewish money-lending, as were in place for going to the
Holy Land.115 He also reminded his legate, the bishop of Tusculum, of the rulings
of his predecessors concerning Jewish money-lending to crusaders,116 ordered the
Dominicans of Paris to urge Christians to come to the aid of Louis IX and his army
in the Near East who were in desperate need of re-enforcements, and reaffirmed
their crusader privileges.117
Papal preoccupation with the propagation, recruitment, and smooth-running
of the crusades continued throughout the second half of the thirteenth century. In
response to the precarious situation of the Latin kingdoms and principalities in
Syria and Palestine, in 1263 Urban IV sent ‘Cum praedicationem crucis’ to the
former bishop of Regensburg, empowering him to recruit volunteers for a cru-
sading army wherever German was spoken.118 Likewise, papal preoccupation with
usury remained paramount—in the same year Urban reminded the Dominicans
and Franciscans whom he had appointed to oversee the preaching of his new
crusade of the stipulations of Ad liberandam, Constitution 71 of Lateran IV con-
cerned specifically with Jewish money-lending.119 Subsequently, in 1274 Gregory
X issued ‘Si mentes fidelium’—an urgent call for volunteers for a crusading army
recently established by the Second Council of Lyons (1274) and insisted that
Jews  be compelled by the secular authorities to remit interest they had already
collected.120 In short, throughout the thirteenth century the papacy remained
committed on the one hand to protection of the Jews from crusader violence and
on the other to ensuring that no-one was deterred from setting out on crusade by
debts owed to Jews.

The Pa pacy, C rusa d in g , an d J e w ish

C ommuni t ies in S pain

In the second half of the eleventh century warfare against the Muslim Almoravids in
the Spanish peninsula became linked to the re-conquest of the Holy Land, and the
Reconquista began to be viewed as a religiously justified war of defence and liber-
ation. In particular from about 1080–1140 French crusaders who had travelled to
Spain to aid Christian kings in conquering their Islamic neighbours, turned this

115  Innocent IV, ‘Cum laicorum obsequiis’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.262; Simonsohn, p.189.
116  Innocent IV, ‘Pravorum molestiis eum’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.280; Simonsohn, pp.199–200. By
contrast although Clement IV and Gregory X called for the Eighth Crusade led by Louis IX and
Prince Edward of England with the aim of taking Tunis, they despatched no letters concerned specif-
ically with usury, Jews, and crusading.
117  Innocent IV, ‘Planxit hactenus non’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.290; Simonsohn, p.206.
118  Urban IV, ‘Cum praedicationem crucis’ (20 February 1263), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.77–8; Simonsohn,
pp.220–1.
119  Urban IV, ‘Cum negotium crucis’ (23 October 1263), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.79–80; Simonsohn,
pp.222–3.
120 Gregory X, ‘Si mentes fidelium’ (17 September 1274), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.126–7; Simonsohn,
pp.246–7.
124 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

enterprise into a much wider programme of re-conquest. But in 1147 the Almoravids
were succeeded by the Almohads, another Berber group who defeated the armies of
Aragon and Castile, conquered Madrid, and crushed a Jewish revolt in Granada in
1165. In response to that, Spanish Christians rallied against the Muslim foe and the
second half of the twelfth century saw the development of three distinct Spanish
kingdoms: Castile, Portugal, and the Crown of Aragon, the latter comprising the
union of Catalonia and Aragon, while the duchy of Portugal achieved its independ-
ence in 1143 by declaring itself a fief of the papacy.
The eleventh-, twelfth-, and thirteenth-century papacy supported and justified
such anti-Muslim campaigns and its encouragement to Christians to fight the
‘infidel’ had serious repercussions for Spain’s large and well-integrated Jewish popu-
lation. We have seen how in his letter ‘Placuit nobis’ of 1063 Alexander II praised
Spanish bishops for restraining those campaigning against Muslims in Spain from
also attacking Jewish communities.121 Given the political backdrop of anti-Muslim
rhetoric, it is not surprising that he specifically distinguished between wars waged
against Muslims who attacked Christians and Christian territory and which were
just, from unjust violence against Jews whom Divine Mercy had saved and who
everywhere were prepared to serve.122 In the following year, he also promised that
those who took part in an expedition against the town of Barbastro would merit an
indulgence; that was thirty years before Urban II called for the First Crusade.
From Barbastro onwards popes began to grant indulgences to those taking part
in campaigns in Spain, but it was not until the Council of Clermont in 1095 that
the Reconquista could bring together the two distinctive crusading ideals of pil-
grimage and of defensive military service for Christ.123 Urban II even attempted to
persuade those fighting at Tarragona to stay in Spain rather than join the First
Crusade to the Near East by promising the same remission of their sins as for those
­embarking for the Holy Land—a clear signal that he saw both enterprises as vital
for the defence of Christianity and Christian Europe.124 Indeed Urban’s pontifi-
cate marked a milestone for Spain because from then on popes, not least Paschal
II, would continue to emphasize the grant of spiritual rewards for ‘milites Christi’
(‘soldiers of Christ’) fighting for Christ in the Iberian peninsula.125
So between 1050 and 1150 there was an increasing amount of Hispano-Papal
contact, with Spanish churchmen regularly attending papal councils. At the First

121  Alexander II, ‘Placuit nobis’ (1063), Simonsohn, pp.35–6. See especially p.36: ‘Sic etiam beatus
Gregorius quosdam qui ad eos delendos exardescebant prohibuit, impium esse denuntians eos delere
velle, qui Dei misericordia servati sunt, ut . . . per terrarum orbis plagas dispersi vivant.’ For the idea of
Jewish service, see St Augustine, Adversus Iudaeos, The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 27, trans. C. T. Wilcox
and ed. R. J. Deferrari (New York, 1955), Ch. 8, p.407. See Stow, Alienated Minority, pp.17–19; p.39;
John Watt, The Theory of Papal Monarchy in the Thirteenth Century: the Contribution of the Canonists
(New York, 1965), p.139.
122  In my view Alexander II’s letter was intended to signal the papacy’s unreserved protection of the
Jews, not to threaten that the Church would wage war on the Jews if, like the Muslims, they began to
oppose Christian rule. See Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and Papal Sovereignty, p.13.
123 Erdmann, The Origin of the Idea of Crusade, pp.328–34; Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the
Idea of Crusading, pp.13–30.
124 Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, pp.19–20.
125 Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, p.125.
 The Impact of the Crusades 125

Lateran Council of 1123—which discussed campaigns in Spain in detail and was

attended by at least three Spanish bishops or their representatives—Calixtus II
made it clear to the Christian faithful that he regarded the Spanish wars as
crusades:
Those who have put crosses on their clothes, with a view to journeying to Jerusalem or
to Spain, and have later taken them off, we command by our apostolic authority to
wear the crosses again and to complete the journey between this Easter and the fol-
lowing Easter.126
Indeed a few months earlier the archbishop of Compostela, Diego Galmirez, had
already taken the unprecedented step of proclaiming a Spanish crusade.
During the Second Crusade of 1146–1149 crusades in Spain were given a much
clearer definition by Eugenius III in his general letter ‘Divini dispensatione’ where
he broadened the whole theatre of crusading by including the Baltic and the Iberian
peninsula as well as Palestine and Syria127 Then in 1155 Canon One of the Council
of Valladollid (January 1155), held under the presidency of the papal legate
Cardinal Hyacinth, who himself took the Cross and prepared to lead a crusade
against Muslim forces in Spain, restated the doctrine of crusade indulgences.
Crusading in Spain continued into the thirteenth century, culminating in 1212
when the French, Navarese, Castilian, Portuguese, and Aragonese armies led by
Peter II of Aragon united against Muslims in the massive battle of Las Navas de
Tolosa.128 The battle was such a decisive victory for the Christian kingdoms that
after 1212 the only Muslim state to survive intact in the Iberian peninsula was
Granada. That finally fell in 1236 and became a vassal state of Castile for the next
250 years. Nevertheless thirteenth-century popes continued to promulgate military
ventures in Spain; in particular Clement IV who in 1265 issued ‘Non sine misterio’
charging the archbishop of Seville to continue to preach the crusade.129
During the Reconquista the papacy became increasingly concerned with three
major issues in Spain which concerned Jews. The first was the use of Jews as royal
officials. As early as 1081 Gregory VII complained to Alfonso VI of León and
Castile (1065/1072–1109) that such practices gave too much authority to Jews
over Christians:
You should no longer in any way allow Jews in your land to rule over Christians or to
hold power over them. For what is it to place Christians below Jews and to subject
them to their judgement but to oppress the church of God and to exult the synagogue
of Satan, and, while you wish to please the enemies of Christ, to set at naught Christ
himself.130

126  Tanner, Vol. 1, p.192: ‘Eos autem qui vel pro Hierosolymitano vel pro Hispanico itinere cruces
sibi in vestibus posuisse noscuntur et eas dimisisse, cruces iterato assumere et viam ab instanti pascha
usque ad sequens proximum pascha perficere, apostolica auctoritate praecipimus’.
127  Eugenius III, ‘Divini dispensatione’ (11 April 1147), ‘Epistolae et Privilegia’, PL 180, cols
1203–4.
128 Rist, The Papacy and Crusading in Europe, 1198–1216, p.57; p.219.
129  Clement IV, ‘Non sine misterio’ (26 March 1265), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.85–9.
130  Anna Abulafia, Christian-Jewish Relations 1000–1300: Jews in the Service of Medieval Christendom
(Harlow, 2011), pp.113–14: ‘in terra tua Iudeos Christianis dominari vel supra eos potestatem exercere
126 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

Nevertheless, despite such papal censures Spanish monarchs and even bishops
­continued to employ Jewish officials, in particular as tax collectors. So although by
the end of the thirteenth century Spanish rulers began to take note of Church and
civic councils on the issue, Jews continued to hold office in Spain into their expul-
sion from the peninsula in 1492.131
The second papal concern was with tithes—the tenth of their income which
medieval peasants paid annually to the Church either in money or goods. Whereas
the papacy demanded that Jews pay tithes, kings were not happy since this form of
taxation diverted Jewish money from the Crown. In 1205 Innocent III complained
to Alfonso VIII of Castile (1158–1214) that he was exempting Jews from their
payment of the tithe, granting them more land on which tithes were due and
making the Church pay huge compensation to Jews for their converted slaves:132
We have also heard that when slaves of Jews, bought or homeborn, become converted
to the Faith, although the price to be paid for them is canonically fixed, you neverthe-
less permit the Jews to seize as much of the good of the bishopric as they (the Jews)
affirm by oath that the slaves were worth to them. Whence recently you ordered that
200 aurei be paid by our Venerable Brother the bishop of Burgos for a certain Saracen
woman the servant of some Jew, though the bishop says she was worth hardly ten
solidi. And although in the matter of your not allowing the Jews and Saracens of your
Kingdom to be compelled to pay the tithe from their possessions, we have already had
apostolic letters sent to you, you nevertheless have not only refused to have them com-
pelled to pay the tithe, but have even granted them greater opportunity not to pay the
tithe, and given them greater rights in the buying of more extensive possessions. Thus
while the Synagogue grows in power the Church becomes weaker, and the handmaid
is openly preferred.133
Then in 1215 the Fourth Lateran Council declared that Jews were liable for tithes
on property that had passed to them from Christians.134 And in 1218 and 1219
Honorius III complained yet again that Jews in Spain were not paying the tithe
and insisted that the archbishop of Toledo end all commercial relations between
Jews and Christians until they did.135 The result was that the archbishop brokered

ulterius nullatenus sinas. Quid enim est Iudeis Christianos supponere, atque hos illorum iudicio sub-
icere, nisi Ecclesiam Dei opprimere et Satane Synagogam exaltare, et dum inimicis Christi velis placere
ipsum Christum contemnere?’
131 Abulafia, Christian-Jewish Relations 1000–1300, pp.113–14.
132  Innocent III, ‘Non minus pro’ (5 May 1205), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.112; Simonsohn, pp.85–6.
133  Innocent III, ‘Non minus pro’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.112; Simonsohn, p.85: ‘Accepimus autem . . . et,
cum servi Judeorum emptitii sive vernaculi convertuntur ad fidem, licet pretium quod pro talibus dari
debet, in canone sit taxatum, per Judeos ipsos tantum facis de bonis episcopalibus detineri, quantum
ipsi eosdem servos valuisse firmaverint juramento. Unde, nuper a venerabili fratre nostro . . . . Burgensi
episcopo, pro quadam Sarracena, Judei cujusdam ancilla, quam vix asserit decem solidos valuisse,
ducentos aureos recipi mandavisti et, licet, super eo quod Judeos et Sarracenos tui regni compelli ad
solvendas decimas de possessionibus non permittis, litteras tibi apostolicas duxerimus transmittendas,
tu tamen, nedem eos noluisti ad decimarum solutionem inducere, verum etiam liberiorem eis decimas
non solvendi et emendi ampliores possessiones licentiam tribuisti, ut, Synagoga crescente, decrescat
ecclesia, et libere preponatur ancilla.’
134  Tanner, Vol. 1, p.266.
135  Honorius III, ‘In generali concilio’ (26 January 1218), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.144–6; Simonsohn,
p.103; ‘Ad audientiam nostram’ (3 September 1220), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.156–8; Simonsohn, p.111.
 The Impact of the Crusades 127

an agreement with the Jews of Toledo whereby they became liable to a poll tax
­instead of tithes on Christian property which they already held, an agreement then
sanctioned by Ferdinand III of Castile (1217–1252).136 Finally in 1254 Alfonso X
decreed that all Jews and Muslims in Cordoba should pay tithes on Christian land
and houses they held both inside and outside the city and the following year that
the church of Seville should merit the same privilege for Christian houses owned
by Jews outside the Jewish quarter.
The third papal concern was with dress distinguishing Jews from Christians. As we
shall examine in Chapter Five, the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 declared that:
A difference of dress distinguishes Jews or Saracens from Christians in some provinces,
but in others a certain confusion has developed so that they are indistinguishable.
Whence it sometimes happens that by mistake Christians join with Jewish or Saracen
women, and Jews or Saracens with Christian women. In order that the offence of such
a damnable mixing may not spread further, under the excuse of a mistake of this kind,
we decree that such persons of either sex, in every Christian province and at all times,
are to be distinguished in public from other people by the character of their dress—
seeing moreover that this was enjoined on them by Moses himself, as we read.137
Yet despite such legislation, in 1219 Honorius III conceded to the archbishop of
Toledo, who was responding to a petition by the Jews of Castile, that there Jews
need not wear a distinguishing mark on their garments. This concession followed
complaints that such legislation would encourage Jews to leave Castile and even to
plot against the Crown:138
. . . we have been informed that the Jews who reside in the Kingdom of Castile are so
seriously wrought up over that which was decided with regard to them in the General
Council in the matter of wearing a sign, that some of them choose rather to flee to the
Moors than be burdened with such a sign. Others conspire because of this, and make
secret agreements. . . . Wherefore we have been humbly petitioned both on behalf
of this King as well as yourself, that our permission be given you to set aside the
execution of this edict, since you cannot proceed to its enforcement without great
trouble.139

136 Abulafia, Christian-Jewish Relations 1000–1300, p.115.

137  Tanner, Vol. 1, p.266: ‘In nonnullis provinciis a christianis Iudaeos seu Saracenos habitus dis-
tinguit diversitas, sed in quibusdam sic quaedam inolevit confusio, ut nulla differentia discernantur.
Unde contingit interdum, quod per errorem christiani Iudaeorum seu Saracenorum et Iudaei seu
Saraceni christianorum mulieribus commisceantur. Ne igitur tam damnatae commixtionis excessus per
velamentum erroris huiusmodi excusationis ulterius possint habere diffugium, statuimus ut tales utri-
usque sexus in omni christianorum provincia et omni tempore, qualitate habitus publice ab aliis popu-
lis distinguantur, cum etiam per Moysen hoc ipsum legatur eis iniunctum.’
138  Honorius III, ‘Ex parte karissimi’ (20 March 1219), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.150; Simonsohn,
pp.105–6.
139  Honorius III, ‘Ex parte karissimi’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.150; Simonsohn, p.105: ‘fuit propositam
coram nobis quod Judei existentes in regno Castelle, adeo graviter ferunt quod de signis ferendis ab
ipsis statutum fuit in concilio generali ut nonnulli eorum potius eligant ad Mauros confugere quam
signa hujusmodi bajulare, alias occasione hujusmodi conspirationes et conventicula facientes . . . Quare
nobis fuit tam ex dicti regis quam ex tua parte humiliter supplicatum ut executioni constitutionis
super hoc edite tibi supersedere de nostra permissione liceret, cum absque gravi scandalo procedere
non valeas in eadem.’
128 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

The following year Honorius made the same concession to James I of Aragon
in a letter to the archbishop of Tarragona after James had assured him that Jews in
his realm were already easily distinguishable enough and that legislation on dress
was being used as a way of extorting Jewish money.140 Nevertheless, papal preoccu-
pation with the desire to distinguish Jews and Muslims from Christians by their
clothing continued: in 1221 Honorius again complained to the archbishop of
Toledo that he had heard reports that Jews there could not be distinguished from
Christians and that the archbishop must make sure that they wear clothes which
set them apart.141

Pa pal Au t ho r izat ion of t he A lbi g ensian

C rusa d e an d J e w s

During the late twelfth and the thirteenth century, popes were seriously disturbed
by the theological, social, and political threat of the Cathar heresy and used cru-
sading as a means of promoting orthodox Catholic belief in Christian Europe and
in particular in the south of France. According to contemporary clerical accounts,
Cathars held that there were two Gods, a god of the spiritual world and a God who
had created the material world in which the soul is imprisoned, and that they
believed that to free their souls, they must give up everything ‘worldly’—including
abstinence from meat, milk, or eggs and from sexual relations—and must deny
the Trinity and renounce the Church; hence they could not be considered
Christians at all.142 By 1200 Innocent III believed that Catharism had become so
widespread in the remote, mountainous regions of south-western France that he
was seriously concerned not only at the threat such beliefs posed to orthodox
Christianity but because many Cathars were supposedly being protected by
southern French lords.
In response to this perceived threat and following the murder of his legate Peter
of Castelnau in 1208, seemingly by Count Raymond VI of Toulouse, Innocent III
proclaimed a crusade in the south of France. Since Raymond himself came to
terms with the Church in an attempt to save his skin, the crusaders invaded the
lands of his vassal Raymond Roger Trencavel instead—which resulted in the
­destruction of the towns of Béziers and Carcassonne.143 The northern French
baron, Simon de Montfort, was given control of the Trencavel lands and over the
next two years annexed many castles and villages in those areas of the south of

140  Honorius III, ‘Ad audientiam nostram’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.156–8; Simonsohn, p.111.
141  Honorius III, ‘Cum in generali concilio’ (24 November 1221), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.168–70;
Simonsohn, pp.118–19.
142 Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay, The History of the Albigensian Crusade, ed. and trans. W. A and
M. D. Sibly (Woodbridge, 1998), pp.10–14.
143 Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay, The History of the Albigensian Crusade, ed. Sibly and Sibly,
pp.48–55.
 The Impact of the Crusades 129

France which still resisted his rule; he even invaded the county of Toulouse in
1211, attempting unsuccessfully to take Toulouse itself.144
In the summer of 1213, Peter II of Aragon (1196–1213), believing that his
interests in the region were threatened by Simon, intervened on the side of the
southern French. Simon and his crusaders met the combined force of Aragon and
Toulouse at Muret, defeated them, and killed Peter himself. Raymond VI of  Toulouse
was forced to flee and in 1215 at the Fourth Lateran Council Simon de Montfort
was formally invested by Innocent III with the County of Toulouse and lands
adjacent which had been overrun by crusaders.145 Raymond and his son—the
future Raymond VII of Toulouse—returned from exile in 1216, and although
Simon tried to take Toulouse from them he was himself killed in 1218.146 Despite
an expedition in 1219 by Prince Louis, heir to the throne of France, Raymond
VII began to recover his ancestral territories and only in 1226 did Louis, now
king of France, gain control of the region and—by 1229—force Raymond to sue
for peace.147
Innocent III’s view that Jews as well as heretics posed a potential threat to
Christian society was particularly clear in letters concerned with the Albigensian
Crusade, and it is striking that heretics and Jews might both be viewed as an
­‘internal’ threat in his correspondence to France. Indeed it is possible that Innocent’s
drive to eliminate heretics heightened his sensitivity to Jews. Hence in a letter ‘Etsi
non displiceat’ of 1205 he both complained to Philip Augustus about what he saw
as pernicious Jewish activities in France and urged him to bestir himself to remove
heretics from his kingdom.148 He ordered Philip Augustus to take steps to remove
heretics as part of his attempt to eliminate heresy in Languedoc which would
culminate in his call for the Albigensian Crusade.149 Later, writing in 1207 to
Raymond VI of Toulouse on the eve of the launch of the crusade which was to be
sent against him, Innocent blamed the count for entrusting Jews with public
office.150 In 1208 he declared that he had called on Christian soldiers to exter-
minate the followers of wicked heresy and he urged the king of France to induce
Jews to remit all usury owed by crusaders.151
Such correspondence reflected an increasing number of anti-Jewish allegations—
to be explained at least in part by the huge interest which Jews were charging

144 Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay, The History of the Albigensian Crusade, ed. Sibly and Sibly,
pp.123–5.
145 Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay, The History of the Albigensian Crusade, ed. Sibly and Sibly,
pp.253–5.
146 Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay, The History of the Albigensian Crusade, ed. Sibly and Sibly, p.277.
147  Laurence Marvin, The Occitan War. A Military and Political History of the Albigensian Crusade,
1209–1218 (Cambridge, 2008), pp.301–2.
148  Innocent III, ‘Etsi non displiceat’ (16 January 1205), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.104–8; Simonsohn,
pp.82–4.
149  Innocent III, ‘Etsi non displiceat’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.104–8; Simonsohn, pp.82–4.
150  Innocent III, ‘Si parietem cordis’ (29 May 1207), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.124; Simonsohn, p.92.
151  Innocent III, ‘Ut contra crudelissimos’, Grayzel, Vol. 1 (9 October 1208), p.132; Simonsohn,
pp.94–5. He also repeated this call in his general crusading letter ‘Quia maior’ calling for the Fifth
Crusade to the Near East. See Innocent III, ‘Quia maior nunc’ (22 April 1213), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.136;
Simonsohn, p.97.
130 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

Christians and which caused envy and anger.152 These accusations were not new to
the thirteenth century. In the twelfth century Peter the Venerable had levelled a
similar charge at the Jews when he complained to Louis VII that goods stolen from
churches were secreted away in Jewish houses to be sold in synagogues,153 and, as we
saw in Chapter Two, charges of Jews killing Christians increased in England after
the murder, supposedly, by Jews, of William of Norwich in 1144, following the exe-
cution at Blois in 1171 of more than thirty Jews accused of the murder of a Christian
child.154 Innocent’s reference to the story of the murdered scholar suggests that he
might have believed allegations of ritual murder even though the scholar in question
does not seem to have been a child and ritual murder accusations typically involved
children.155
Nevertheless, despite these letters, only a very small proportion of the corres-
pondence of Innocent III, Honorius III, and Gregory IX concerned with the
Albigensian Crusade refer to Jews, and those that do are primarily concerned with
usury, as, for example, ‘Gloriantes hactenus in’ of 1209.156 Yet Church councils
from the same period tell us much about the position of Jews in the south of
France vis-à-vis the Church. Since such councils legislated against heretics, it is not
surprising that they also issued decrees against Jews as another minority group.
Indeed, both the decrees of Lateran IV and Innocent III’s correspondence had a
profound influence on the legislation of Church councils in France and vice versa.157
Thus the decrees of the Council of Montpellier (1195) declared that Jews must
exercise no office over Christians nor employ Christian servants or nurses, that
converts from Judaism to Christianity should receive back from Christians their
stolen goods and patrimony, and that all such converts were under the protection
of the Apostolic See—which anticipated similar statements of Innocent III.158 The
Council of Montélimar (1209), which addressed the perceived close relationship
between the nobility in the south of France and suspected heretics, seems to have
been directly influenced by ‘Si parietem cordis’, a letter of Innocent of 1207 to

152  Some historians have argued that, among the learned, a growing awareness of the role played
by intention in human action and behaviour encouraged the idea of Jewish culpability for Christ’s
crucifixion, and so horror and anger at the Jews. See Christendom and its Discontents, ed. P. Diehl,
S. Waugh (Cambridge, 1996), pp.227–8.
153  Innocent III, ‘Etsi non displiceat’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.104–8; Simonsohn, pp.82–4.
154 Dobson, The Jews of Medieval York and the Massacre of March 1190, p.19; Gavin Langmuir,
Toward a Definition of Anti-Semitism (Berkeley, London, 1996), p.307; Stacey, ‘Crusades, Martyrdom
and the Jews of Norman England 1096-1190’, p.236; Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and Papal
Sovereignty, p.23; Christendom and its Discontents, ed. Diehl, Waugh, p.221; Chazan, God, Humanity
and History: the Hebrew First Crusade Narratives (Berkeley, London, 2000), p.2.
155  Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.108, footnote 8.
156  Innocent III, ‘Gloriantes hactenus in’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.134; Simonsohn, p.96.
157  Innocent III, ‘Post miserabile(m) Hierusolymitanae’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.86; Simonsohn, p.71;
‘Graves orientalis terrae’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p. 98; Simonsohn, p.78; ‘Nisi nobis dictum’, Grayzel, Vol. 1,
p.98; Simonsohn, pp.78–9; ‘Maiores ecclesie causas’ (September-October 1201), Grayzel, Vol. 1,
pp.100–2; Simonsohn, pp.80–1; ‘Quia maior nunc’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.136; Simonsohn, p.97; ‘Quanto
melior est’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.138–40.
158  Mansi, Vol. 22, col. 669; Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.298. See also Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.299, footnote 1; Innocent
III, ‘Etsi non displiceat’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.104–8; Simonsohn, pp.82–4; ‘Etsi Judeos quos’ (15 July
1205) Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.114–16; Simonsohn, pp.86–8; ‘Si parietem cordis’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.124;
Simonsohn, p.92.
 The Impact of the Crusades 131

Raymond VI of Toulouse complaining that the count was fostering the Cathar
heresy.159
In 1209 the Council of Avignon, summoned as part of the legate Milo’s plan to
encourage crusading activities against heresy, reiterated that Jews were to be
removed from the administration of public and private affairs and that they must
not employ Christians as servants.160 It threatened excommunication against
Christians who entered into commercial relations with Jews, forbade Jews from
exacting usury, and compelled them to remit usurious profits. That was in accord-
ance with Innocent III’s general crusading letter to the faithful, ‘Post miserabile’
calling for the Fourth Crusade in 1198.161 Jews were now forbidden to work
in public on Sundays or festivals or eat meat on days of Christian abstinence—in-
dicating that the clergy believed that since Jews were ‘internal’ to Christian society
they must comply with Christian religious practices.
Then, following crusading successes in the south of France, the Council of
Pamiers of 1212, called by Simon de Montfort and southern French prelates,
­declared that, like heretics, no Jew should act as provost, bailiff, assessor, witness
in a law-suit, or legal representative. Yet, unlike heretics, he might bring testimony
against other Jews.162 It is even possible that, in accordance with the draconian
Third Council of Toledo (589), Jews who had been baptized during the Albigensian
Crusade were to be compelled to remain Christian.163 As we shall discuss further
in Chapter Four, in 1215 Lateran IV decreed not only that Jews should not extort
heavy and immoderate interest from Christians in general, but that they should
remit usury owed by crusaders.164 The Council of Narbonne (1227), which
­determined that Jews be forced to wear a distinguishing badge—referring to stipu-
lations of Raymond VII who, after his victory over Simon de Montfort in 1217,
had dispensed them from wearing it—also repeated that Jews should not receive
immoderate interest from Christians.165 The Council of Paris, formally ending
the Albigensian Crusade in 1229, reiterated that Jews, like those suspected of
heresy, should not act as bailiffs, nor buy up state taxes, nor the taxes imposed on
cities, castles, or travellers.166 It is thus clear that one of the indirect outcomes of
papal authorization of the Albigensian Crusade was the formulation and reiter-
ation of decrees by the French Church concerning the proper treatment—and
restriction—of Jews in Christian society.

159  Mansi, Vol. 22, cols 770–82; Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.302. See also Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.302–3, footnote
1; Innocent III, ‘Si parietem cordis’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.124; Simonsohn, p.92.
160  Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.305, footnote 1. See X.5.6.13; 1 Comp., 5.5, p.55.
161  Mansi, Vol. 22, col. 785; Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.304. See Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.305, footnote 3; X.5.19.12,
col. 814; Innocent III, ‘Post miserabile(m) Hierusolymitanae’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.86; Simonsohn, p.71.
See Dahan, Les intellectuels chrétiens et les juifs au moyen âge, p.116; Stow, Alienated Minority,
pp.222–3.
162  Mansi, Vol. 22, col. 858; Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.304. See Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.305, footnote 1.
163  Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.311, footnote 1.
164  Tanner, Vol. 1, pp.265–6; p.269; Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.306–8; p.312.
165  Mansi, Vol. 23, col. 21; Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.316. See Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.317, footnote 3.
166  Mansi, Vol. 23, col. 165; Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.320. See Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.321, footnote 2.
132 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

Po p es , ‘ Po p ula r ’ C rusa d es , an d J e w s

In the thirteenth century a general weariness with the failures of the highly organ-
ized nobility-led crusades encouraged spontaneous, ‘popular’ crusades such as the
Children’s Crusade of 1212, and the Shepherds’ Crusade of 1251.167 These cru-
sades involved groups of rural poor from the borders between France and the
German Empire, lasted only a few months, and never reached the Near East; but
they often led to mob attacks on Jewish communities. As spin-offs from the much
larger ‘official’ crusading movements, popular preaching for the Albigensian Crusade
authorized by Innocent III against the Cathars prepared the ground for the
Children’s Crusade,168 while during the pontificate of Innocent IV the Shepherds’
Crusade (the ‘Crusade of the Pastoureaux’) of 1251 followed hard on Louis IX’s
disastrous campaign in Egypt.169
Since the participants left no records, it is certain that these ‘people’s’ ventures had
no papal authorization and it seems that even most of the local clergy were against
them. In each case they arose from popular enthusiasm and demagogic propaganda.
Hence, according to vulgar mythology, the leader of the Children’s Crusade of 1212
was a boy prophet who promised to lead hordes of children from France and
Germany to Jerusalem to convert the Muslims; in fact it led to their shipwreck on
the way to the Holy Land and their being sold into slavery. Actually, in 1212 there
seems to have been at least two movements: the first, a German enterprise led by a
boy from Cologne named Nicholas which made its way up the Rhine and crossed
the Alps into Lombardy on its way to Genoa, after which it dispersed in various
directions.170 The second, a French enterprise, supposedly led by a shepherd boy
named Stephen of Cloyes from a village in northern France who claimed he pos-
sessed a letter from Jesus Christ for Philip Augustus and who purportedly worked
miracles, but seems to have had no real intention to go to Jerusalem.171
Probably most of those participating in both movements were not children but
men and women from the marginal classes of rural society—including shepherds,
younger sons, labourers, wage earners, and drifters—fired by ideas of apostolic
poverty—increasingly fashionable in the thirteenth century—and the preaching of
the Albigensian Crusade and reacting to the disastrous results of the crusades of
Louis IX.172 Yet, unlike the Crusade of Peter the Hermit or the later Shepherds’
Crusades, the Children’s Crusade did not generate attacks on Jews, even though
the pueri passed through Chartres, Saint-Denis, Paris, and Saint-Quentin in Picardy,
all of which housed Jewish communities.173

167 Gary Dickson, The Children’s Crusade: Medieval History, Modern Mythistory (Basingstoke,
2008), passim; Gary Dickson, ‘The Advent of the Pastores’, in Religious Enthusiasm in the Medieval
West, ed. G. Dickson (Aldershot, 2000), VI, pp.249–67.
168 Gary Dickson, ‘The Genesis of the Children’s Crusade (1212)’, in Religious Enthusiasm in the
Medieval West, ed. G. Dickson (Aldershot, 2000), IV, p.25.
169 Dickson, ‘The Advent of the Pastores’, VI, p.258.
170 Dickson, The Children’s Crusade, p.76.
171 Dickson, The Children’s Crusade, pp.66–77.
172  The Atlas of the Crusades, ed. J. S. C. Riley-Smith (London, 1991), p.82.
173 Dickson, The Children’s Crusade, pp.78–9.
 The Impact of the Crusades 133

These popular movements never had official papal backing and many of the
clergy were strongly opposed to what they saw as uncontrolled mass hysteria. Later
enterprises such as that of the Crusade of the Shepherds in 1251 were similarly
fired by ideas of the power of the poor, the pure, and the young, but ended with
pogroms against Jewish communities. During the Seventh Crusade, a certain Master
of Hungary, an old Hungarian monk, claimed that the Virgin Mary had given him
a letter promising that the innocent and humble, not the rich and pious, would be
the ones to retake Jerusalem and that he should lead the shepherds of France to
rescue Louis IX who in 1249 had been defeated and captured in Egypt. On arrival
in Paris he met Louis’s mother, Blanche of Castile, who was acting as regent. The
chronicler Matthew Paris emphasized in his Chronica majora that the Shepherds’
Crusade of 1251 had no papal authorization:
There was a 60-year-old Hungarian . . . this imposter, who could speak French, German
and Latin, wandered about everywhere preaching without papal authority or the
license of any prelate, falsely claiming that he had received an order from Blessed Mary,
the mother of the Lord, to summon shepherds and herdsmen . . . He said that heaven
had granted them in their humility and simplicity the privilege of recovering the Holy
Land . . . 174
After leaving Paris the enthusiasts split up and created disturbances in Rouen,
Tours, and Orleans, while in Amiens and Bourges, they attacked Jews but were
dealt with severely—and excommunicated—by the local authorities and clergy.
Again there is no doubt that the papacy strongly disapproved of this crusade.
How do such enterprises compare with later movements in the early fourteenth
century? By contrast we know much more about the latter. The Popular Crusade
of 1309 seems to have been unwittingly sparked by Clement V who in 1308 issued
‘Exurgat Deus’ to the Knights Hospitallers in which he appealed to the whole of
Christian Europe to organize yet another crusade for the redemption of the Holy
Land.175 It seems that the Grandmaster of the Hospitallers had advised him on
how to organize it and suggested that Jews should contribute at least a tenth of
their property—indeed that it might even be fitting to confiscate all of it. This re-
sulted in pogroms against Jews by bands of unorganized crusaders who, having
arrived in the cities along the Rhine and the Netherlands made their way to
Avignon attacking and killing Jews en route. Some of those killed may have been
exiles from England and France, others of German origin, under the protection of
Duke Jean II of Brabant who eventually came to their aid and drove the crusaders
away. In 1310, from Avignon, Clement V ordered them to disperse.
The Shepherds’ Crusade of 1320 also produced violence against Jews. Although
by the early fourteenth century the days of crusades to the Holy Land on a large

174  Matthew Paris, Chronica majora 5, ed. H. R. Luard, Rolls Series (London, 1857) (Kraus Reprint,
1964), pp.246–7: ‘Quidam natione Hungarus . . . aetate sexagenarius . . . Impostor igitur memoratus, qui
linguam Gallicam et Germanicam (et) Latinam noverat, sine Papali auctoritate aut alicujus praelati
patrocinio huc illucque praedicans vagabatur, mentiens se tale praeceptum a beata Maria matre
Domini suscepisse, ut videlicet pastores ovium et aliorum animalium convocaret, quibus caelitus, ut
aiebat, concessum fuit, Terram Sanctam in sua humilitate et simplicitate . . . adquirere . . . ’.
175  Clement V, ‘Exurgat Deus’ (11 August 1308), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.214–16; Simonsohn, p.291.
134 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

scale were over, Philip IV of France had promised to crusade and had used the vow
as an excuse to raise an extra tithe. On his death his son Philip V (1316–1322)
took the Cross in 1314 and went so far as to appoint Louis, Count of Clermont,
captain of the crusading forces in 1318. Inspired by the intended project, a teenage
shepherd from Normandy claimed to have been visited by the Holy Spirit, who
instructed him to fight Muslims in Spain and sparked a movement which marched
to Paris to meet Philip V but then went south, attacking castles, royal officials,
priests, lepers, and above all Jews, until at Avignon John XXII ordered them to
­desist. James II of Aragon (1291–1327) also prohibited them from entering Spain
and instructed his nobles to ensure that Jewish communities were safeguarded.
Nevertheless, at the fortress of Montclus in Barcelona over three hundred Jews
were killed; James’ son Alfonso ordered those responsible to be put to death.
So, according to contemporary accounts the shepherds began rioting in Paris
and moved rapidly southward, attracted by places with Jewish populations and
egged on by sympathetic locals.176 John XXII knew that not only was Jewish
property being attacked but that Jews were being killed. He condemned the
Shepherds in no uncertain terms and in 1320 issued a letter ‘Cum difficile procul’
to the archbishop of Narbonne confirming that reports had reached him that
Shepherds had gathered for the ostensible purpose of going on a crusade to the
Holy Land but had resorted to killing and looting. He instructed the archbishop
to force these shepherds and their followers to desist and wait for Philip V of
France to redeem his promise to crusade himself.177 In another letter ‘Per tuas
litteras’ to the archbishop of Toulouse he acknowledged a letter from the arch-
bishop which had informed him of the excesses of the so-called Shepherds and of
their wanting to campaign against Jews.178 The same month he despatched
‘Significasti nobis’ to the seneschal of Toulouse who had also informed him of the
excesses of the Shepherds and had asked for advice on how to proceed.179 John
replied that he had heard the news and had written letters to bishops urging both
spiritual means and secular force to ensure the rioters disbanded. The following
month he issued ‘Decet sedis apostolice’ commanding all Christians in France to
protect Jews as witnesses to the truth of the Catholic faith.180 In later letters he
also insisted that the property and goods of those who converted as a result of the
Shepherds’ Crusade should be protected, in the hope of persuading those forcibly
baptized to remain Christian.181
When in 1321 the movement eventually dispersed, Philip fined communities
where Jews had been killed—which led in Paris to an urban riot!182 As we have

176 John XXII, ‘Cum difficile procul’ (19 June 1320), Grayzel, Vol. 2, 310–11; Simonsohn,
pp.313–15.
177  John XXII, ‘Cum difficile procul’, Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.310–11; Simonsohn, pp.313–15.
178  John XXII, ‘Per tuas litteras’ (June 1320), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.311–13; Simonsohn, pp.316–18.
179  John XXII, ‘Significasti nobis’ (June 1320), Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.313; Simonsohn, p.318.
180  John XXII, ‘Decet sedis apostolice’ (9 July 1320), Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.314; Simonsohn, p.319.
181  John XXII, ‘Dignum arbitrantes’ (22/31 July 1320), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.315; Simonsohn, p.320;
‘Dignum arbitrantes / arbitramur’ (31 July 1320), Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.316; Simonsohn, pp.320–1.
182 We have also seen how in 1320 John XXII gave precise instructions to his officers to protect
Jews against violence associated with the Crusade of the Shepherds, and if he did order expulsion of
 The Impact of the Crusades 135

noted, references to papal aid in times of need continue to be prominent not only
in chronicles and responsa but in the works of later literary histories looking back
to the Middle Ages. The Shebet Yehudah, a sixteenth-century account of the perse-
cutions of Jews in various countries and epochs, including their expulsion from
Spain in the fifteenth century, distinguished carefully between kings (and aristoc-
racy) and the papacy; the latter, it claimed, being generally well disposed to the Jews
while the masses and lower clergy were usually hostile.183
Chapter Fourteen of the Shebet Yehudah described ‘a gracious (hasid) pope who
had good qualities’ and whose ‘leadership is of one who is a truthful man’.184 This
seems to be a reference to the same John XXII who, although during his pontificate
called for the burning of the Talmud, and expelled Jews from papal territory, as we
have seen, also defended Jewish communities against the Crusade of the Shepherds
of 1320.185 ‘Hasid’ implies more than justice alone, both in biblical and post-
biblical Hebrew, and possessed strong overtones of going much beyond the letter
of the law.186 So throughout the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries and
into the fourteenth, popes showed their willingness to protect Jews against such
‘popular’ crusades, and indeed against crusading in general. Yet, at the theological
level, the papacy’s stance was much clearer and less convoluted before the advent of
the crusades. Furthermore, as we have seen, popes were also deeply concerned to
prevent Jews charging extortionate rates of interest to crusaders. It is to Jewish
money-lending and more widely to the papacy’s involvement in monitoring mon-
etary transactions between Jews and Christians to which we now turn.

Jews in 1322 in the Comtat Venaissin this decision was quickly annulled. See René Moulinas, Les Juifs
du Pape: Avignon et le Comtat Venaissin (Paris, 1992), pp.25–6; p.31; Moulinas, Les Juifs du pape en
France, pp.24–5.
183 Yosef Yerushalmi, The Lisbon Massacre of 1506 and the Royal Image in the Shebet Yehudah
(Cincinatti, 1976), pp.44–6; p.49.
184  The Shebet Yehudah of Shelomo ibn Verga, ed. A. Shohat (Jerusalem, 1947), Chapter 14, p.60. It
is worth noting that elsewhere in his work Ibn Verga even describes Manuel I, king of Portugal
(1495–1521) as ‘hasid’, even though he had ordered the mass conversion of Portuguese Jews in 1497.
This seems to be because he allowed the New Christians (former Jews) to emigrate from Portugal in
1507. See Yerushalami, The Lisbon Massacre of 1506 and the Royal Image in the Shebet Yehudah, p.3;
p.62. Other kings are also described as ‘hasid’, p.42.
185  Yerushalmi, The Lisbon Massacre of 1506 and the Royal Image in the Shebet Yehudah, p.43.
186 Yerushalmi, The Lisbon Massacre of 1506 and the Royal Inage in the Shebet Yehudah, pp.42–3.
 4
Jews and Money

Just as the papacy’s wish simultaneously to protect and to restrict Jews is apparent in
the increase during the High Middle Ages of papal letters concerning the crusades,
the wearing of distinctive clothing, regulations on interaction with Christians, and the
forbidding of Jews from holding public office, so it is also obvious in relation to all
Jewish financial transactions with Christians, and in particular with regard to the
Church’s collection of tithes and regulations concerning usury. Yet by contrast, they
had little to say about clergy who pawned vestments, ornaments, and vessels to Jews.1
By the late Middle Ages money-lending had become the most economically
­important occupation for Jews, and often included money-changing.2 Although in
Rome in particular Jewish banking was extremely important, most Roman Jews
were artisans: spinners, tailors, dyers, hatters, tinsmiths, armourers, shoemakers, and
saddlers, as well as businessmen, doctors, lawyers, and rabbis.3

T h e Papacy, J e w s , a n d T i th e s

We possess a number of letters in which twelfth-century popes attempted to regu-

late business transactions with Jews and in particular to ensure that when Jews
obtained property which had once belonged to Christians they would continue to
pay the same tithes and first fruits from those lands and possessions as had their
former Christian holders. So, for example, in a letter of unknown date but written
sometime between 1144 and 1145, Lucius II (1144–1145) confirmed to Rainer,
bishop of Rimini, and his successors the privileges of the Church of Rimini, which
included Christian and Jewish revenues from the seashore.4
Papal concern that Jews pay the tithe became particularly apparent during
the pontificate of Alexander III. Since in the twelfth century the tithe had often
become the mainstay of Church finances in many parts of medieval Europe, the
papacy came to insist that Jews pay the tithe when they acquired property that had
once belonged to Christians and which would therefore have been liable to such
taxation.5 In a landmark letter issued sometime between 1159 and 1170, deemed
important enough by later canonists to be included in the Liber extra, Alexander

1 Shlomo Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History (Toronto, 1991), p.187.
2 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.410; p.414.
3 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.415.
4  Lucius II, ‘In eminenti’ (21 May 1144), Simonsohn, pp.45–6.
5 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, pp.180–5.
 Jews and Money 137

informed the bishop of Marseilles that, just like Christians, Jews must be com-
pelled to pay the tithe on any property they owned.6 Sometime between 1172 and
1173 he also told an unknown bishop—as well as Richard archdeacon of Poitiers—
that if the apparent facts of the case were established, Silvester, treasurer of Lisieux,
and his sureties should be freed from further interest owed on a debt to a London
Jew. The case was complex, since, after Thomas Becket’s quarrel with Henry II
(1154–1189), Silvester had followed Becket into exile, and as a result Henry had
temporarily taken control of his prebend at Waltham.7
In a further letter written sometime between 1174 and 1179 Alexander ordered
the archbishop of Canterbury to force Jews in his jurisdiction to pay the tithe on
property they occupied.8 Then in 1179 he wrote to Henry II himself asking him
not to press Robert, abbot of the monastery of St Augustine of Canterbury, to
repay various debts he owed to Jews.9 And in 1193 his successor, Celestine III, also
issued an important letter concerned with tithing and ordered a certain dean John,
William de St Valery, an archdeacon, and Magister Roger Normannus, a canon of
Rouen, to compel Jews to pay the tithe on property they owned; they were to
forbid Christians all dealings with Jews who failed to obey.10
Papal preoccupation with tithing continued in the thirteenth century. Consti­
tution 67 of Lateran IV referred specifically to Jews and tithes:
We decree, under the same penalty, that Jews shall be compelled to make satisfaction
to churches for tithes and offerings due to the churches, which the churches were
­accustomed to receive from Christians for houses and other possessions, before they
passed by whatever title to the Jews, so that the churches may thus be preserved from
loss.11
Like Alexander III before him, Innocent III made several specific financial pro-
nouncements in light of petitions sent to Rome. In 1205 he asked Alphonso VIII
of Castile (1158–1214) to ensure that the Jews of Castile pay a tithe on their
property;12 in 1207 he commanded the Jews of Toledo to pay in its entirety the
tithe for possessions they had legally acquired from Christians;13 and in the same
year he urged the bishop of Auxerre to proceed against Jews who refused to pay
tithes from churches and properties they had bought.14

6  Alexander III, ‘Quia super his’ (1159–1179), Simonsohn, p.50.

7  Alexander III, ‘Idem…si episcopo’ (1172–1173), Simonsohn, p.53.
8  Alexander III, ‘Non sine multa’ (1174–1179), Simonsohn, p.57.
9  Alexander III, ‘Audivimus regiae’ (16 February 1179), Simonsohn, pp.60–2.
10  Celestine III, ‘Cum Iudaice duricia’ (23 May 1193), Simonsohn, pp.69–70.
11  Tanner, Vol. 1, pp.265–6: ‘Ac eadem poena Iudaeos decernimus compellendos ad satisfaciendum
ecclesiis pro decimis et oblationibus debitis, quas a christianis de domibus et possessionibus aliiis
percipere consueverant, antequam ad Iudaeos quocumque titulo devenissent, ut sic ecclesiae conser-
ventur indemnes.’
12 Innocent III, ‘Non minus pro’ (5 May 1205), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.112; Simonsohn, pp.85–6.
13 Innocent III, ‘Precibus dilectorum filiorum’ (4/2 January 1207), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.122;
Simonsohn, pp.90–1.
14 Innocent III, ‘Tue fraternitatis discretio’ (16 May 1207), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.124; Simonsohn,
pp.91–2.
138 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

As we might expect from a pope who in his earlier life had been a meticulous
compiler of the Liber censuum Romanae Ecclesiae and had showed a keen interest
in papal finances, Honorius III, in a number of letters, took it upon himself to
supervise Christian money transactions with Jews throughout the whole of Europe.
So, in 1217 he complained to the abbot and the prior of St Geneviève of Paris and
to a Master Gerard Canon of Bourges, that he had received complaints that the
archbishop of Sens and his suffragans were using double weights and refusing to
allow Jews living under the patronage of Blanche of Champagne the same privil-
eges they were accustomed to enjoy in the domains of Philip II Augustus.15 And
in 1225 and 1226 he ordered that the Jews of the diocese and city of Worms be
compelled, like all other citizens, to contribute money to Troyes to which Worms
itself was in debt.16 Four of Honorius’s letters specifically mentioned Jews and the
payment of the tithe. In 1217, 1218, and 1219 he complained that Jews in Spain
were not paying the tithes and offerings which churches had usually received from
Christians before various properties came into Jewish hands, but instead were
trying to circumvent Constitution 67 of Lateran IV.17 Yet he was also at times
willing to show leniency: as in a letter of 1226 in which he expressed concern that
the bishop of Breslau, about whom the Duke of Silesia had complained, was
making unwarranted exactions from his subjects—including Jews—when col-
lecting the tithe.18
Like Honorius, Gregory IX was concerned that Jews continue to pay the tithe.
In a letter of 1229 he complained to the bishop of Palencia that Jews refused to pay
gifts and tithes for their houses and other possessions even though their previous
Christian owners had made such contributions to the churches of the diocese
where they were located.19 He also wrote to the bishop of Burgos and the deans of
Burgos and Calahorra to register his dissatisfaction that Ferdinand III of Castile
had annulled a regulation that Jews must pay tithes from estates originally Christian
but which they now possessed.20 Then in 1233 he confirmed to the bishop of
Baeza that Jews, along with others who held large possessions, must pay the tithe
in accordance to the law.21 Indeed one of Gregory’s many charges against Frederick
II’s treatment of the Church in Sicily was that certain churches no longer held jur-
isdiction over Jews who had formerly belonged to their dioceses.22 Although he
was also well aware that Jews were often the victim of extortion by their Christian

15  Honorius III, ‘Cum olim nobilis’ (28 January 1217), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.144; Simonsohn, p.102.
16  Honorius III, ‘Cum olim tibi’ (8 July 1225), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.168–70; Simonsohn, p.119;
‘Ex parte tua’ (4 June 1226), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.176–8; Simonsohn, pp.123–4.
17  Honorius III, ‘Cum in generali concilio’ (27 January 1217), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.142; Simonsohn,
p.101; ‘In generali concilio’ (26 January 1218), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.144–6; Simonsohn, p.103; ‘Ad
audientiam nostram’ (18 March 1219), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.148; Simonsohn, pp.104–5.
18  Honorius III, ‘Dilectus filius nobilis’ (2 March 1226), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.174–6; Simonsohn,
pp.122–3.
19  Gregory IX, ‘Ad audientiam nostram’ (11 October 1229), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.182–4; Simonsohn,
pp.129–30.
20  Gregory IX, ‘Miramur si vera’ (4 April 1231), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.188–90; Simonsohn, pp.132–4.
21  Gregory IX ‘Justis petentium’ (13 January 1233), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.194; Simonsohn, p.140.
22 Gregory IX, ‘De Judeis ablatis’ (17 August 1236), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.224; Simonsohn,
pp.162–3.
 Jews and Money 139

neighbours—as in 1231 when he complained to the archbishops of Tours and

Rouen and to the bishop of Paris that the clergy were trying to extort tithes from
the Mendicant friars ‘as if from the houses of the Jews’—he continued to enforce
the same stance throughout his pontificate.23 Likewise his successor Innocent IV,
though knowing that Christians often extorted money unjustly from Jews,24
nevertheless maintained that the latter must always make full satisfaction for tithes
due to churches.25
Papal concerns about tithes as well as other business transactions involving Jews
continued throughout the second half of the century. In 1255 Alexander IV wrote
to the civil authorities of the Apostolic See and the Kingdom of Sicily decreeing that
Jews were not to be burdened with taxes during their journeys to and from the papal
curia.26 Then, in 1259, in response to a long-running dispute, he confirmed to the
cathedral chapter of Pamplona that he had cancelled an agreement originally made
between Thibaut II King of Navarre (1253–1270) and the bishop of Pamplona.27
The agreement had stipulated that Jews should pay tithes to parish churches for
possessions held outside the city and had decreed that the king’s and bishop’s pos-
sessions should be shared jointly, with one half held by the king and one by the
Church, and that this should include vineyards, fields, mills, and transit taxes on
Jews. His successor Urban IV also made interventions when necessary, as in a letter
of 1262 in which he ratified an agreement reached in a dispute between the abbot
and the convent of St Anthony in Pamier.28 The abbot should receive the feudal
census which the Jews of the town paid annually as well as the tithes and first fruits
from lands held in fee by a certain Rabbi David.
Further letters concerned with tithes and the Jews are to be found in the corres-
pondence of Gregory X. In 1273, following complaints of the local clergy, he
­reproved the king of Portugal for confiscating the property of Jews and Muslims
who had been baptized, compelling Muslim slaves owned by Jews who had been
baptized to return to their masters, and not forcing Jews and Muslims who acquired
land from Christians to pay tithes or first fruits to churches which had once received
them from their previous Christian owners.29 In 1276 John XXI reserved, for the
direct use of the Apostolic See, income derived from benefices which Gregory had
granted his chaplain, Raymond de Peralta—including a tithe paid by Jews.30

23  Gregory IX, ‘Nimis iniqua’ (23 August 1231), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.190; Simonsohn, pp.135–6;
for the phrase, see Gregory IX, ‘Nimis iniquia’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.190; Simonsohn, p.135: ‘sicut de
Judeorum domibus’.
24 Innocent IV. ‘Nimis iniqua vicissitudine’ (17 September 1245), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.258;
Simonsohn, p.185: ‘sicut de Judeorum domibus’; ‘Nimis iniqua vicissitudine’ (9 May 1246), Grayzel,
Vol. 1, p.258; Simonsohn, p.186: ‘sicut de Judeorum domibus’.
25 Innocent IV. ‘Conquesti sunt nobis’ (27 April 1250), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.286; Simonsohn,
pp.202–3.
26  Alexander IV, ‘Nolentes ut’ (1 February 1255), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.54–5; Simonsohn, p.211.
27  Alexander IV, ‘Justis petentium’ (17 September 1259), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.66–7; Simonsohn,
pp.216–18.
28  Alexander IV, ‘Ea que judicio’ (24 November 1262), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.74–5.
29  Gregory X, ‘Scire debes fili’ (28 May 1273), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.120–2; Simonsohn, pp.243–4.
30  John XXI, ‘Licet felicis recordationis’ (8 December 1276), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.135–6.
140 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

Later, Nicholas III instructed his chancellor to prepare a general letter on the
subject of Jews paying tithes on property that had once belonged to Christians,31
and in a letter to the bishop of León and to the dean and archdeacon of Ledesma
in Salamanca of 1284, Martin IV set out a number of complaints concerning Jews
which clergy had made against King Dionysius (1279–1325). One was that in the
case of Jews or Muslims who had gained possession of a Christian’s property by
purchase or through default on a loan, the king was not only flouting Constitution
67 of Lateran IV which had decreed that tithes and first fruits of this land must still
be paid, but was even going out of his way to cancel these taxes if the new owners
farmed the territories themselves.32 In 1289 Nicholas IV wrote to the archbishop
of Braga and the bishops of Portugal confirming a forty-point document on which
the king of Portugal and the Church had reached an understanding, including how
to deal with the failure to compel Jews to pay tithes to local churches.33 In 1290 he
repeated the general letter of Pope John XXI which, as we have seen, had reserved all
the benefices enjoyed during his lifetime by Raymond de Peralta to the Apostolic
See.34 Part of the income Raymond enjoyed had come from tithes paid by the Jews of
Calatayud. Thus throughout this entire period the papal curia kept on eye on busi-
ness dealings with Jews, particularly if they involved money owed to the Church.

T h e Papacy a n d U s ury i n C hr i s t i a n Soc i e ty

Lending at high rates of interest, otherwise known as usury, was a particular con-
cern of the medieval Church which regarded it as a crime on the same scale and of the
same order as homicide, sacrilege, perjury, sodomy, incest, parricide, and simony.35

31  Bulls of Nicholas III (1277–1278), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.137–9.

32  Gregory X, ‘Isti sunt articuli’ (1 April 1284), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.152–4; Simonsohn, pp.257–9;
the king said he had not and would do this in the future and if his father issued an edict condoning
these acts he would revoke it.
33 Nicholas IV, ‘Cum olim inter’ (7 March 1289), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.172–4; Simonsohn,
pp.268–70.
34 Nicholas IV, ‘Tenorem quarundam’ (27 November 1290), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.184–5. After 1291
popes continued to issue letters concerned with business transactions and Jews. In 1299 Boniface VIII
confirmed an ecclesiastical agreement between the ecclesiastical and secular rulers of Pamiers, one of
whose sections stipulated an equal division of income derived from ovens, mills, banks, markets,
courts, and from Jews. See Boniface VIII ‘Ea que judicio’ (17 February 1299), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.202–
3. In 1305 Clement V excused Philip of France from having forced financial contributions from the
French Church and from Lombards and Jews. See Clement V, ‘Sane nobis’ (1305), Grayzel, Vol. 2,
pp.210–11. He also ordered that Jews must be boycotted if they did not pay tithes in the parish of
Mainz on property which had once been Christian. See Clement V ‘Sua nobis’ (14 March 1312),
Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.222–3; Simonsohn, pp.293–4. And he requested that the archbishops of Bremen
and the bishops of Hildesheim and Brandenburg help the archbishop and church of Magdeburg to
regain the archbishop’s property and rights again with the threat of a boycott against the Jews. See
Clement V, ‘Si ex iniuncti’ (1 July 1312), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.223–4; Simonsohn, pp.295–6. In the
fourteenth century John XXII would continue to make pronouncements about financial transactions
and Jews. See John XXII, ‘Apostolice sedis’ (11 April 1330), Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.338; Simonsohn,
pp.360–1. Note that nothing was said in this case about the debt being usurious.
35  James Parkes, The Jew in the Medieval Community (London, 1938), p.283; Kenneth Stow, ‘Papal
and Royal Attitudes toward Jewish Lending in the Thirteenth Century’, American Jewish Studies
Review 6 (1981), 163.
 Jews and Money 141

Usury was a sin, for which penance had to be done, and a canonical crime, for
which Church courts might impose penalties. It was not remittable by a local
parish priest and had to be referred to the bishop. During the late eleventh and
twelfth centuries, as the economy became more diversified and towns and cities
began to grow, incentives to disregard the Church’s ban on interest increased
and people began to question the reasons for the ban. Church councils, how-
ever, continued to issue decrees forbidding Christians to lend for profit. This
stipulation was based on several biblical passages. Texts from the Old Testament:
Exodus 22: 25; Deuteronomy 23: 19–20; and Leviticus 25: 35–7, all of which
forbade the exaction of usury, were frequently quoted,36 as also was Luke
6: 34–5:
And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive what thanks can you expect?
Even sinners lend to sinners to get back the same amount. Instead, love your enemies
and do good, and lend without any hope of return.37
This of course referred to Deuteronomy 23: 19–20:38
You shall not lend upon interest to your brother, interest on money, interest on vict-
uals, interest on anything that is lent for interest. To a foreigner you may lend upon
interest, but to your brother you shall not lend upon interest.39
It is not surprising that during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the papacy
i­ ncreasingly legislated against usury as part of its duty of providing moral guidance
and spiritual care for Christian society. Innocent IV condemned it for its evil con-
sequences: in moral terms, avarice; in social terms, poverty; while Alexander IV
officially identified it with heresy and placed it under the jurisdiction of the
Inquisition. St Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle’s Politics, declared usury a
­logical anomaly, since it was selling something twice—the money and the use of
the money.40 In the fourteenth century the Council of Vienne of 1311 declared
that anyone maintaining that usury is no sin was a heretic.41
In order to understand the papacy’s position towards specifically Jewish usury
we need first to understand the Church’s position towards usury in general. The

36 Exodus 22: 25, Deuteronomy 23: 19–20, and Leviticus 25: 35–7, Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam
versionem, ed. R. Weber (Stuttgart, 1994).
37  Luke 6: 34–5, Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, Vol. 2, ed. Weber: ‘ . . . et si mutuum
dederitis his a quibus speratis recipere quae gratia est vobis nam et peccatores peccatoribus fenerantur
ut recipient aequalia verumtamen diligite inimicos vestros et benefacite et mutuum date nihil des-
perantes. . . ’
38 Parkes, The Jew in the Medieval Community, p.276; Jeremy Cohen, Under Crescent and Cross: the
Jews in the Middle Ages (Princeton, 1994), pp.82–3.
39 Deuteronomy 23: 19–20, Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, Vol. 1, ed. Weber: ‘ . . . non
fenerabis fratri tuo ad usuram pecuniam nec fruges nec quamlibet aliam rem sed`alieno fratri autem
tuo absque usura id quod indiget commodabis’. For a discussion of the biblical texts, see Parkes, The
Jew in the Medieval Community, p.278; John Moore, ‘Pope Innocent III and Usury’, in Pope, Church
and City: Essays in Honour of Brenda Bolton, ed. F. Andrews, C. Egger, C. M. Rousseau, The Medieval
Mediterranean, 56 (Leiden, 2004), p.60.
40  For Aquinas on usury see Summa Theologiae, ed. T. Gilby (London, 1975), Vol. 34, pp.260–2.
41  Jeffrey Richards, Sex, Dissidence and Damnation: Minority Groups in the Middle Ages (London,
1991), p.113.
142 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

situation is more complex than it at first appears. The writings of medieval theolo-
gians and canon lawyers reveal that what it meant to forbid usury depended on
the particular context, that ‘usury’ did not necessarily mean ‘credit’, and that
throughout the period the relationship between debtors and creditors was not
static but varied according to their social and institutional roles.42 Papal oppos-
ition to usury came to be not to all interest but to extortionate rates of interest.
Hence, despite the fact that popes who attempted to implement prohibitions on
usury frequently failed to secure their objectives, they recognized that eco-
nomic policy was a moral as well as a practical and intellectual issue, and that
the price of credit was a key factor in the operation of the medieval economy.
Indeed the medieval papacy’s ‘anti-usury regulations’ can be seen as the first
systematic attempt in the West to develop an economic theory and put it into
practice. Religiously motivated, the theory rested on the assumption that freely
available consumer credit would result from the abolition of excessively high
interest on loans, and popes tried hard to make the theory work, even though
the public often failed to act as the theory predicted it would. Although medi-
eval usury theory was not consistent and often produced results that popes did
not expect, it was a significant effort to construct a rational economic policy
and to try to apply it to social problems through decretals, conciliar legislation,
and canon law.
In the twelfth century usury was an important concern of two great ecumenical
councils, the Second Lateran of 1139 and the Third Lateran of 1179. Canon 13 of
Lateran II, held during the pontificate of Innocent II, legislated generally against
usurers in Christian society.43 Lateran III, the general council called by Pope
Alexander III, also emphasized the papacy’s commitment to combating usury
which nevertheless continued to grow as trade and mercantile activity increased.44
In particular, Canon 25 of the council ruled that usurers be refused communion
and Christian burial, and that clergy who showed them favour be suspended from
office.45 Thus:
Nearly everywhere the crime of usury has become so firmly rooted that many, omit-
ting other business, practice usury as if it were permitted, and in no way observe
how it is forbidden in both the Old and New Testament. We therefore declare that
notorious usurers should not be admitted to communion of the altar or receive
Christian burial if they die in this sin. Whoever receives them or gives them Christian
burial should be compelled to give back what he has received, and let him remain

42  Giacomo Todeschini, ‘Usury in Christian Middle Ages. A Reconstruction of the Historiographical
Tradition (1949-2010)’, in Religion and Religious Institutions in the European Economy, 1000–1800,
ed. F. Ammannati (Firenze, 2012), p.122.
43  Tanner, Vol. 1, p.200.
44 Parkes, The Jew in the Medieval Community, pp.282–3. For economic growth, see Cohen, Under
Crescent and Cross, pp.77–82; pp.87–8; Robert Chazan, Medieval Stereotypes and Modern Anti-
Semitism (Berkeley, 1997), p.305; Kenneth Stow, Alienated Minority: the Jews and Medieval Latin
Europe (Cambridge, Mass., 1992), p.222.
45  Tanner, Vol. 1, p.223.
 Jews and Money 143
s­ uspended from the performance of his office until he has made satisfaction according
to the judgement of his own bishop.46
The alms of usurers were also to be rejected. For the next hundred years this ban
was reiterated by numerous Church councils.
Alexander III’s especial concern with usury was clear not only from the legisla-
tion of a council over which he presided, but also from many of his letters. His
position is set out as early as 1163 when he prohibited the exaction of immoderate
interest by Christians,47 even declaring that the children of usurers should make
restitution for their parents’ gains from their inheritance.48 That his letter was later
included in Gregory IX’s Liber extra, showed the importance future canonists
­attributed to this prohibition.
Concern continued to grow during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. As a
result of Lateran III, from 1179 onwards a significant number of local councils in
France, England, and Germany continued Alexander III’s effort to ensure that the
decrees laid down at the ecumenical council were enforced by enacting further
­legislation against Christian and—increasingly—Jewish usury. So, among others,
in France the councils of Avignon (1209), Paris (1212), Montpellier (1214),
Narbonne (1227), Rouen (1231), Rheims-Château Gontur (1231), Béziers-Lyon
(1246), Albi (1254), Béziers (1255), and Vienne (1267) all issued stringent decrees
against usurers and the practice of usury.49 The Fourth Lateran Council (1215)
was the next ecumenical council to pronounce against it: Constitution 67 is con-
cerned very specifically with Jewish usury, while Constitution 71 tackles Jewish
usury in the context of the papal promulgation of the Fifth Crusade. Next followed
the First Council of Lyons in 1245, Constitution 1 of which condemned usury in
general, while Constitution II.5 again took up Jewish usury in the context of yet
another crusade to the Near East.50

46  Tanner, Vol. 1, p.223: ‘Quia in omnibus fere locis crimen usurarum ita inolevit, ut multi aliis
negotiis praetermissis quasi licite usuras exerceant, et qualiter utriusque Testamenti pagina con-
demnentur nequaquam attendant, ideo constituimus, ut usurarii manifesti nec ad mommunionem
admittantur alteris nec christianam, si in hoc peccato decesserint, accipiant sepulturam, sed nec eorum
oblationem quisquam accipiat. Qui autem acceperit aut eos christianae tradiderit sepulturae, et ea
quae acceperit reddere compellatur et, donec ad arbitrium sui episcopi satisfaciat, ab officii sui maneat
exsecutione suspensus.’
47 Stow, ‘Papal and Royal Attitudes toward Jewish Lending in the Thirteenth Century’, 166.
48  X.5.19.9, cols 813–14. See Parkes, The Jew in the Medieval Community, p.283.
49  Council of Avignon, Mansi, Vol. 22, cols 783–98 at col. 786; Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.304; Council of
Paris: Mansi, Vol. 22, cols 817–54 at col. 852; Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.306; Council of Montpellier: Mansi,
Vol. 22, cols 935–54 at col. 946; Council of Narbonne: Mansi, Vol. 23, cols 19–26 at col. 21; Grayzel,
Vol. 1, pp.316–18 at p.316; Council of Rouen: Mansi, Vol. 23, cols 213–22 at col. 213; Grayzel, Vol. 1,
pp.322–4 at p.322; Council of Rheims-Château Gontur: Mansi, Vol. 23, cols 222–42 at col. 239;
Council of Béziers-Lyon: Mansi, Vol. 23, cols 689–704 at col. 701; Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.332; Council of
Albi: Mansi, Vol. 23, cols 832–52 at col. 850; Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.334–6 at p.334; Council of Béziers:
Mansi, Vol. 23, cols 875–84 at cols 882–3; Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.336; Council of Vienne: Mansi, Vol. 23,
cols 1167–78 at cols 1172–3 and cols 1175–6. See John O’ Brien, ‘Jews and Cathari in Medieval
France’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 10 (1967), 217–19; Parkes, The Jew in the Medieval
Community, p.283.
50  Tanner, Vol. 1, pp.265–6; p.269; pp.293–5; pp.299–300.
144 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

This widespread condemnation of usury is not surprising since twelfth- and

thirteenth-century popes disliked the idea that Christians such as the Lombards
from Northern Italy and the Cahorsins—Italian moneylenders who became prom-
inent businessmen in a number of towns and cities in Flanders in the thirteenth
century and who derived their name from the town of Cahors in south-central
France, one of the major banking centres in medieval Europe—continued to lend
at interest despite papal prohibitions. Popes believed that usury was detrimental to
Christian society in general, and not least in relation to crusading.51

T h e Papacy, U s ury, a n d C ru s a d i n g

As we saw in Chapter Three, one way in which the papacy sought to control the
effects of crusading on Jews was by its pronouncements regarding money-lending.
Popes were aware that many of those who responded to calls to take part in a cru-
sade could not raise sufficient cash on their own and turned to Jews to borrow it.
Even Jewish women, as well as men, might lend money at interest.52 As early as
1095, realizing that many crusaders found it difficult to secure funds for the First
Crusade, Urban II encouraged monasteries to lend them money as a pious contri-
bution.53 Yet, if crusaders could not attach themselves to a lord with connections
to monastic lands, they often had to borrow by pledging whatever land they them-
selves held, either with mortgages or, more commonly, vifgages—living pledges or
security—and many possessed inadequate land to pledge.54
In 1156 Alexander III forbade the taking of mortgages on the grounds that they
were usurious—which added to the difficulties crusaders experienced trying to
raise money. Such financial problems presumably encouraged them to borrow
money from Jews, particularly as, from the pontificate of Eugenius III onwards,
the papacy was stern in condemning money-lending by Christians, especially by
clerics.55 Papal prohibitions on the extortion of ‘heavy and immoderate usury’
(‘graves et immoderatae usurae’) from Christians by Jews, rather than an outright
ban, were therefore an attempt to prevent the exploitation of crusaders while at the
same time permitting Jews to engage in controlled money-lending—which they
51  Raymond de Roover, The Emergence of International Business 1200–18, Vol. 2, Money, Banking
and Credit in Medieval Bruges, A Study in the Origins of Banking (London, New York, 1999), pp.99–100;
James Murray, Bruges, Cradle of Capitalism, 1280–1390 (Cambridge, 2005), pp.138–48.
52  Judith Baskin, ‘Some Parallels in the Education of Medieval Jewish and Christian Women’,
Jewish History, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Spring, 1991), 45.
53  Jonathan Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, 1095–1131 (Cambridge, 1997), pp.125–9.
54  Marcus Bull, Knightly Piety and Lay-Response to the First Crusade: the Limousin and Gascony
(c.970–c.1130) (Oxford, 1993), pp.212–15; pp.268–71; pp.276–81; Robert Stacey, ‘Crusades,
Martyrdom and the Jews of Norman England 1096–1190’, in Juden und Christen zur Zeit der
Kreuzzüge, Vorträge und Forschungen 47, Konstanzer Arbeitskreis für mittelalterliche Geschichte, ed.
A. Haverkamp (Sigmaringen, 1999), p.238.
55 Eugenius III, ‘Quantum praedecessores’ (1 December 1245), 3rd edn, ed. B. von Simson,
Ottonis et Rahewina Gesta Friderici I Imperatoris 1 (Hanover, Leipzig, 1912), pp.55–7; ‘Quantum
praedecessores’ (1 March 1146), in Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere Deutsche Geschichtskunde 45,
ed. P. Rassow (Berlin, 1924), pp.302–5. See Stacey, ‘Crusades, Martyrdom and the Jews of Norman
England 1096-1190’, p.240.
 Jews and Money 145

rightly saw as necessary for Europe’s economic prosperity. Indeed popes never chose
simply to forbid money-lending to Jews.56 As we shall see, their stance on the issue
of lending at interest, whether that involved Jewish or Christian lenders, was much
more complex than might at first appear.
Papal letters reveal a regular concern that crusaders should not be prevented from
embarking on their journey because they could pay back neither the money they
had borrowed in order to set out nor the interest accruing from it. The cost of trav-
elling to the Near East, which has been estimated as at least four times many cru-
saders’ annual revenue, meant that, despite small subsidies paid to crusaders from
the mid-thirteenth century onwards, most of them needed to borrow money for
their journey.57 As we have seen, in his major crusading encyclical ‘Quantum
praedecessores’ (1145) Eugenius III had ruled that crusaders must be absolved
from the payment of interest on debts accrued either previously or in order to take
the Cross for the Second Crusade:
. . . with regard to the past, they should not pay usurious loans, and if they themselves,
or others, are bound by them, by oath or pledge, we absolve them by apostolic
authority.58
These rules were then repeated, often word for word, for the benefit of Christians
by later popes in their letters authorizing crusades. Yet neither Eugenius III nor his
successors until Innocent III ever prohibited Jews in particular from lending at
interest.59 Up to 1198, no papal letter had pronounced on specifically Jewish
money-lending to crusaders.60
Nevertheless, although there was silence on Jewish money-lending in ‘Quantum
praedecessores’, the Council of Paris (1188) imitated an earlier English council in
specifically decreeing that crusaders, and even clergy and nobility who were not
embarking on crusades, were to be absolved from the debts they owed to both
Christians and Jews prior to the king taking the Cross—not the usual procedure
for crusaders’ debt set out in ‘Quantum praedecessores’.61 This alleviation was
to  be extended after the king’s departure for two years from All Saints Day
(31  October) and creditors were to be given one third of the debt on each of
the next three All Saints Days. From the day on which debtors took the Cross no

56 Nor indeed to regulate the rate of mortgages as for money-lending.

57 Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, 1095–1131, p.112; Stacey, ‘Crusades, Martyrdom and the
Jews of Norman England 1096–1198’, pp.237–8. For subsidies, see Simon Lloyd, English Society and
the Crusade, 1216–1307 (Oxford, 1988), pp.145–53; Jonathan Riley-Smith, ‘The Crown of France
and Acre, 1254 –1291’, in France and the Holy Land, ed. D. H. Weiss, L. Mahoney (Baltimore, London,
2004), pp.45–62.
58 Eugenius III, ‘Quantum praedecessores’, p.57; ‘Quantum praedecessores’, p.304: ‘ . . . de praet-
erito usuras non solvent; et si ipsi, vel alii pro eis occasione usurarum astricti sunt, sacramento vel fide
apostolica eos auctoriate absolvimus.’
59  For example, Gregory VIII, ‘Audita tremendi severitate’ (29 October 1187), Chronicle of the
Reign of Henry II and Richard I, 2, Chronicles and Memorials, ed. W. Stubbs, Rolls Series 49 (London,
1867), pp.15–19. See Stow, Alienated Minority, p.114.
60 Innocent III, ‘Post miserabile(m) Hierusolymitanae’ (17/15 August, 1198), Grayzel, Vol. 1,
p. 86; Simonsohn, p. 71; ‘Graves orientalis terrae’ (31 December 1199), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.98; Simonsohn,
p.78; ‘Nisi nobis dictum’ (4 January 1200), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.98; Simonsohn, pp.78–9.
61  For details, see Grayzel, Vol. 1, p. 297, footnotes 1 and 2.
146 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

additional interest should accrue from any part of the debt previously contracted.62
So, although the language and style of papal letters was often similar to that of
contemporary church councils concerned with Jews and the crusades, concern
about Jews is often much more visible in the decrees of church councils than in
papal correspondence.
During the twelfth century Lombard and Italian banking generally was begin-
ning to flourish. Despite papal prohibitions which may have tilted the balance in
favour of Christian money-lending, many historians have argued that in this
period the number of specifically Jewish moneylenders increased. If so, the strict
prohibition on Christians may be an important part of the explanation.63
Grounding themselves on biblical precepts, Jews were forbidden to lend at interest
to co-religionists but not to foreigners. Furthermore, it seems that, despite rabbinic
discouragement of Jews from taking interest from gentiles in the Babylonian
Talmud, from the twelfth century onwards several European rabbis justified
exacting usury from Christians for economic reasons such as poverty, heavy tax-
ation, the exclusion of Jews from holding land, and the need to ward off persecu-
tion, if necessary through bribery.64 Yet the profits Jews and other usurers received
from their money-lending became a concern for clergy and crusade preachers
alike.65 Bernard of Clairvaux, whose influence on the political as well as religious
stage of medieval Europe was immense, made it abundantly clear that he was par-
ticularly concerned about Jews lending at interest and called on kings to apply the
precepts of Eugenius III’s ‘Quantum praedecessores’.66 More radically, Peter the
Venerable, abbot of Cluny (c.1092–1156), declared that since all Jewish wealth
was the product of money-lending and therefore of theft, the property of Jews
should be confiscated and the proceeds put into financing crusades.67 According to
several chronicles, in 1171 Louis VII expressed unusual sympathy for French Jews
after—as we saw in Chapter Two—the execution of more than thirty at Blois on
the charge of murdering a Christian child.68 Yet, as we saw in Chapter Three, in
1146, he had issued a stern edict releasing crusaders from their obligations to
Jewish lenders beyond the repayment of the principal, and had forbidden Jews

62  Mansi, Vol. 22, col. 578; Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp. 296–8; Eugenius III, ‘Quantum praedecessores’,
p. 57; ‘Quantum praedecessores’, p.304.
63  For Jews as moneylenders, see Cohen, Under Crescent and Cross, pp.82–8; Christendom and its
Discontents, ed. S. Waugh, P. Diehl (Cambridge, 1996), pp.220–1; Dobson, The Jews of Medieval York
and the Massacre of March 1190, p.9; p.38; Parkes, The Jew in the Medieval Community, p.304; Stacey,
‘Crusades, Martyrdom and the Jews of Norman England 1096–1190’, p.238.
64 Cohen, Under Crescent and Cross, pp.82–3; this is a huge subject which can only be touched on
here.
65 Stow, ‘Papal and Royal Attitudes toward Jewish Lending in the Thirteenth Century’, p.161.
66  Bernard of Clairvaux, ‘Sermo mihi ad vos’ (1146), ed. in J. Leclercq, ‘L’Encyclique de Saint
Bernard en faveur de la croisade’, Revue Bénédictine 81 (1971), 295–300. See Kenneth Stow, The ‘1007
Anonymous’ and Papal Sovereignty: Jewish Perceptions of the Papacy and Papal Policy in the High Middle
Ages (Cincinnati, 1984), p.4.
67  Peter the Venerable, The Letters of Peter the Venerable, ed. G. Constable, Harvard Historical
Studies 78 (Cambridge, Mass., 1967) 1, pp.327–30. See Stacey, ‘Crusades, Martyrdom and the Jews
of Norman England 1096-1190’, p.241.
68  Christendom and its Discontents, ed. Waugh, Diehl, p.221; Robert Chazan, God, Humanity and
History: the Hebrew First Crusade Narratives (Berkeley, 2000), pp.2–17, passim.
 Jews and Money 147

from recovering lost interest through profits generated by pledges, especially on

land. That proclamation was probably a response to Bernard and Peter.69 Concern
about usury continued throughout the thirteenth century, particularly from senior
clergy but also from popes themselves.

I n n oc e n t III a n d U s ury

As we would expect from a pope concerned with every aspect of his role as head of
the spiritual well-being of all Christians, Innocent III’s correspondence shows that
throughout his pontificate he had a strong desire to direct and oversee the regula-
tion of money-lending. By threatening to excommunicate Christians who consorted
with usurious Jews, he in effect encouraged the isolation of Jewish communities so
as to ensure that they followed the laws of Christian society. This measure, known
as the ‘Judgement of the Jews’, enabled popes to penalize Jews, who, as non-Christians,
could not, of course, be excommunicated.70 Such a ‘policy’ of isolation was not
new. Alexander III had already implemented it to force Jews to honour tithes owed
to the Church for property acquired from Christians71 while Celestine III forbade
Christians all intercourse with Jews if the latter failed to pay such tithes.72 So, simi-
larly in his general letter ‘Post miserabile’ (1198) calling for the Fourth Crusade,
and in other general crusading letters, Innocent asserted that if Jews did not remit
usury, they were to be cut off from the Christian faithful:73
We order that the Jews shall be forced by you . . . and by the secular powers, to remit
the usury to them; and until they remit it, we order that all intercourse with faithful
Christians, whether through commerce or other ways, shall be denied the Jews by
means of a sentence of excommunication.74
Innocent’s determination to ostracize Jews who failed to remit usury to crusaders
reflected his enduring concern that nothing should impede his authorized crusades
to the Holy Land.
As well as issuing letters on Christian money-lending, Innocent also determined
to regulate specifically Jewish lending, particularly in France where there seems to
have been a higher proportion of Jewish moneylenders than anywhere else in
Europe. Indeed the relationship between the French Crown and Jewish money-
lending already had a long and tortuous history. As we have seen, following the

69 Stacey, ‘Crusades, Martyrdom and the Jews of Norman England 1096–1190’, p.241; Stow,
Alienated Minority, pp.113–14.
70 Walter Pakter, Medieval Canon Law and the Jews (Ebelsbach, 1988), pp.58–9.
71  Alexander III, ‘Quia super his’, Simonsohn, p.50; Pakter, Medieval Canon Law and the Jews, p.58.
72  Celestine III, ‘Cum Iudaice duricia’, Simonsohn, pp.69–70.
73 Innocent III, ‘Post miserabile(m) Hierusolymitanae’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.86; Simonsohn, p.71:
‘Judeos vero ad remittendas ipsis usuras per vos, filii principes, et secularem compelli precipimus
potestatem; et donec eas remiserint, ab universis Christi fidelibus, tam in mercimoniis, quam aliis, per
excommuniationis sententiam eis jubemus communionem omnimodam denegari… ’.
74 See also Innocent III, ‘Graves orientalis terrae’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.98; Simonsohn, p.78; ‘Nisi
nobis dictum’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.98; Simonsohn, pp.78–9; ‘Quia maior nunc’ (22 April 1213), Grayzel,
Vol. 1, p.136; Simonsohn, p.97.
148 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

arrests of various French Jews in 1180, Christians were freed in the next year from
all debts owed to Jews made on royal land, and in 1182 Jews were expelled from
the royal domain altogether by Philip Augustus.75 Yet despite objections from the
clergy, they were re-admitted in July 1198; probably the king regretted the finan-
cial losses resulting from their expulsion—unless the expulsion itself was a means
for immediate financial gain and not intended to be permanent.76 In 1206, how-
ever, Philip put a ceiling on the interest Jews could charge Christians.77 Jewish
usury was not to exceed two pennies per pound per week and there was to be a
prohibition on the use of Church vessels as pledges. Furthermore, interest owed by
crusaders in particular was frozen at the same standard rate.78 Since there were 240
pence in the pound, this meant that the king was fixing a huge rate of return for
the Jews: 43 per cent per annum.79 In order to prevent too massive a profit, how-
ever, Philip added that interest was not to be compounded until a full year had
elapsed.80 In the previous year, 1205, Innocent III had rebuked Philip for policies
he considered too favourable towards Jews, and it is possible that this condemna-
tion induced the king to issue the safeguard.81 Even so, the edict was extremely
favourable to Jewish money-lending and so, from its profits, to royal revenues.
Innocent III pronounced regularly on usury, not just in the context of crusading
but much more widely. According to his Register, in 1205 he complained about
‘vicious’ Jewish usury in the kingdom of France;82 in 1207 he urged the bishop
of  Auxerre to punish all usurers;83 and in 1208 he complained to the count of
Nevers about specifically Jewish usury.84 In the same year he ordered Philip
Augustus to compel French Jews to remit all usury to debtors departing for cru-
sades, in particular in favour of those joining that crusade against heretics in the
south of France.85 These letters, together with growing criticism by the French
clergy of royal support for Jewish usury, regarded by many as sinful, may indeed
have encouraged the rounding up of French Jews by the Crown in 1210.86 Yet later
in his pontificate, in 1214, Innocent was again to complain to Philip that usury
had grown to such an enormous degree in France that he was afraid there would

75 Stacey, ‘Crusades, Martyrdom and the Jews of Norman England 1096–1190’, p.245.
76 William Chester Jordan, The French Monarchy and the Jews: from Philip Augustus to the Last of
the Capetians (Philadelphia, 1989), p.44; Gavin Langmuir, Toward a Definition of Anti-Semitism
(Berkeley, Oxford, 1990), pp.142–3.
77  Honorius III, ‘Cum olim nobilis’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.144; Simonsohn, p.102.
78  Church, State and Jew in the Middle Ages, ed. R. Chazan (New York, 1980), pp.205–7.
79  Church, State and Jew in the Middle Ages, ed. Chazan, pp.205–7.
80  Church, State and Jew in the Middle Ages, ed. Chazan, pp.205–7.
81 Innocent III, ‘Etsi non displiceat’ (16 January 1205), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.104–8; Simonsohn,
pp.82–4.
82 Innocent III, ‘Etsi non displiceat’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.104–8; Simonsohn, pp.82–4. See Grayzel,
Vol. 1, pp.104–6; Simonsohn, p.82: ‘sub specie usurarie pravitatis’.
83 Innocent III, ‘Tue fraternitatis discretio’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.124; Simonsohn, pp.91–2.
84 Innocent III, ‘Ut esset Cain’ (17 January 1208), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.126–30; Simonsohn,
pp.92–4.
85 Innocent III, ‘Ut contra crudelissimos’ (9 October 1208), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.132; Simonsohn,
pp.94–5.
86 Jordan, The French Monarchy and the Jews, p.73.
 Jews and Money 149

not be enough money available to subsidize the Fifth Crusade.87 Perhaps in response,
a royal edict, promulgated sometime between 1206 and 1219, tightened legisla-
tion against Jewish usury. No interest was to accrue after the first year had elapsed,
while a further edict in 1219 reasserted the limit on the rate of interest which could
be charged and prohibited it being compounded.88
As we have seen, one reason for Innocent’s concern about Jewish money-lending
was his preoccupation with crusading. Hence at the very beginning of his pontifi-
cate in 1198 he addressed the specific issue of Jewish usury for the first time at
the end of ‘Post miserabile’, his general crusading letter on the Fourth Crusade
addressed to the Christian faithful.89 His remarks were set in the context of a gen-
eral prohibition on money-lending: those about to embark on crusade and bound
to pay usury should be absolved from their oath and creditors were to desist from
further exactions. If creditors compelled crusaders to pay, they were to be forced to
return the money:
If anyone of those about to depart thither be held bound to pay usury, you, brother
archbishops and bishops, shall force their creditors in your dioceses, by means of the
same measure with no obstacle of appeal, completely to absolve the crusaders from
their oath, and to desist from any further exaction of usury. But if any of the creditors
should compel them to pay usury, you shall, by similar punishment without appeal,
force him to return it.
However, as noted earlier, there then followed the specific reference to Jews:
‘Indeed we order that the Jews shall be forced by you, my sons the princes, and by
the secular powers, to remit the usury to them . . . ’. This ruling was repeated in fur-
ther general letters concerned with the Fourth Crusade—‘Graves orientalis terrae’
and ‘Nisi nobis dictum’—as well as in the general letter ‘Quia maior’ calling for the
Fifth Crusade, and again in the decrees of Lateran IV and the First Council of
Lyons.90
Both the papal legate, Robert of Courçon, and the prelate and well-known
preacher, Fulk of Neuilly, two disciples of the prominent Paris master Peter the
Chanter, were at Innocent’s request active in preaching against usury.91 According

87 Innocent III, ‘Quanto melior est’ (14 May 1214), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.138–40.
88 Innocent III, ‘Quanto melior est’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.138–40. See Church, State and Jew in the
Middle Ages, ed. Chazan, pp.207–10.
89 Innocent III, ‘Post miserabile(m) Hierusolymitanae’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.86; Simonsohn, p.71:
‘Si qui vero proficiscentium illuc ad prestandas usuras juramento tenentur astricti, vos, fratres archie-
piscopi et episcopi, per vestras dioeceses creditores eorum, sublato appellationis obstaculo, eadem
districtione cogatis ut eos a sacramento penitus absolventes, ab usurarum ulterius exactione desistant.’
Jordan, The French Monarchy and the Jews, p.73; Moore, ‘Pope Innocent III and Usury’, pp.66–7.
90 Innocent III, ‘Post miserabile(m) Hierusolymitanae’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.86; Simonsohn, p.71:
‘Judeos vero ad remittendas ipsis usuras per vos, filii principes, et secularem compelli precipimus
potestatem . . . ’. See also Innocent III, ‘Graves orientalis terrae’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.98; Simonsohn, p.78;
‘Nisi nobis dictum’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.98; Simonsohn, pp.78–9; ‘Quia maior nunc’, Grayzel, Vol. 1,
p.136; Simonsohn, p.97; Tanner, Vol. 1, p.269; p.299.
91  John Baldwin, Masters, Princes and Merchants, Vol. 1 (Princeton, 1970), p.18; pp.20–2; p.36;
Jessalynn Bird, ‘Reform or Crusade? Anti-Usury and Crusade Preaching during the Pontificate of
Innocent III’, in Pope Innocent III and his World, ed. J. C. Moore (Aldershot, 1999), pp.165–85, passim;
Moore, ‘Pope Innocent III and Usury’, p.60.
150 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

to the chroniclers Roger Howden and Guillaume le Breton, Robert and Fulk both
railed against money-lending while promoting the Fifth Crusade in France.92
Robert preached that usury was evil, that it should not be used to finance military
campaigns, and that the elimination of all usurers would benefit the Church and
Christian society.93 This antagonized not only members of the French clergy
but also Philip Augustus, who derived much money from taxing Christian and,
increasingly, also Jewish moneylenders,94 and was made anxious by Robert’s
­inflammatory sermons.95 Indeed his preaching had such an impact that the king
and various of his nobles made a formal complaint to Rome. In response Innocent
attempted to reconcile and mollify the opposing parties;96 yet he also reproved the
king for condemning the actions of his legate, emphasizing that the rapid growth
of usury was of particular concern to the papacy because Christians were oppressed
by excessive interest, and stating categorically that unless immoderate usury was
prohibited, there would be insufficient money raised from churches, by knights
and by others, to subsidize the new crusade to the Near East:
. . . since in your kingdom the pest of usury has grown to unusual proportions, con-
suming and devouring the potentialities of the churches, the knights, and of many
others to such an extent that, unless an effective medicine be found for so great a disease,
there would not be enough for a subsidy to the Holy Land . . . 97
This letter did not specifically mention money-lending by Jews, which may suggest
that Innocent was primarily concerned to oppose any lending at interest.
Nevertheless, both Robert of Courçon and Innocent himself must have been well
aware of the existence of many earlier papal decrees and letters, such as ‘Quantum
praedecessores’ of Eugenius III, which prohibited Christians from money-lending
and which, by discouraging Christians from the practice, had helped ensure
­increasing numbers of specifically Jewish moneylenders.98 Philip Augustus’s anger
at Robert’s preaching reveals just how much kings and nobles had come to rely on
taxing the profits of Jewish usury and the important role which Jews played in the
economic growth of the French kingdom.

92  Roger of Hoveden, Chronica 4, ed. W. Stubbs, Rolls Series 51 (London, 1871; Kraus Reprint,
1964), pp.76–7; Henri-François Delaborde, Oeuvres de Rigord et de Guillaume le Breton, Vol. 1 (Paris,
1882), pp.303–4. See Stow, Alienated Minority, pp.224–5; Jordan, The French Monarchy and the Jews,
p.79.
93  George Lefèvre, Le traité ‘De usura’ de Robert de Courçon: Texte et traduction publiés avec une
introduction’, Travaux et mémoires de l’université de Lille 10, Mémoire no. 30 (Lille, 1902), p.35.
94 Stow, Alienated Minority, p.225.
95 Innocent III, ‘Quanto melior est’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.138–40; Jordan, The French Monarchy and
the Jews, p.73; Langmuir, Toward a Definition of Anti-Semitism, p.145.
96 Innocent III, ‘Quanto melior est’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.138–40. See Jordan, The French Monarchy
and the Jews, p.73; Baldwin, Masters, Princes and Merchants, Vol. 1, p.22.
97 Innocent III, ‘Quanto melior est’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.140: ‘. . . quia tamen in regno tuo plus solito
usuraria pestis increverit, in tantum facultates ecclesiarum, militum, aliorumque multorum devorans
et consumens, quod nisi tanto languori adhiberetur efficax medicina, intendere non sufficerent ad
subsidium terre sancte’.
98 Jordan, The French Monarchy and the Jews, pp.73–8, passim; Stow, Alienated Minority,
pp.113–14.
 Jews and Money 151

This letter of Innocent III was issued in 1214, a year before he presided over the
Fourth Lateran Council. As we would expect, both his pronouncements and those
of his predecessors on the subject of usury were summarized in the Council’s
­decrees. Hence Quanto amplius, Constitution 67 (Lateran IV), was a lengthy docu-
ment revealing Innocent’s concern about Jewish money-lending:99
The more the Christian religion is restrained from usurious practices, so much the
more does the perfidy of the Jews grow in these matters, so that within a short time
they are exhausting the resources of Christians. Wishing therefore to see that Christians
are not savagely oppressed by Jews in this matter, we ordain by this synodal decree
that if Jews in future, on any pretext, extort oppressive and excessive interest from
Christians, then they are to be removed from contact with Christians until they have
made adequate satisfaction for the immoderate burden. Christians too, if need be,
shall be compelled by ecclesiastical censure, without the possibility of an appeal, to
abstain from commerce with them.100
As we have already seen, that Jewish usury also continued to worry later popes is
suggested by the inclusion of Quanto amplius in the Liber extra.101 Yet the extent
to which Jews were actually involved in money-lending to Christians remains a
matter of debate, though the popes certainly believed that a growing number of
Christians were indebted to Jews and that if crusaders had too many debts they
would be unable to afford to set out.102
Decrees of Innocent III about money-lending were not confined to crusades to
the Near East. In March 1208 he wrote to the archbishops of Tours, Paris, and
Nevers stating that moneylenders must not charge debtors interest while they cam-
paigned against heretics in the south of France, albeit implying that charges would
resume when crusaders returned home.103 Yet in October of the same year he
re-stated in a letter to all the clergy of France the pronouncement on money-
lending he had first made in ‘Post miserabile’ in 1198: namely that creditors must
be forced to absolve crusaders from any oaths to pay past usury and were to desist
from further exactions.104 If any creditor had forced crusaders to pay usury the
money was to be restored. Innocent now also added that bishops should try as far

99 Robert Chazan, ‘Pope Innocent III and the Jews’, in Pope Innocent III and his World, ed.
J. C. Moore (Aldershot, 1999), p.193.
100  Tanner, Vol. 1, p.265: ‘Quanto amplius christiana religio ab exactione compescitur usurarum,
tanto gravius super his Iudaeorum perfidia inolescit ita, quod brevi tempore christianorum exhauriunt
facultates. Volentes igitur in hac parte prospicere christianis, ne a Iudaeis immaniter aggraventur, syno-
dali decreto statuimus ut si de caetero quocumque praetextu Iudaei a christianis graves et immoderatas
usuras extorserint, christianorum eis participium subtrahatur, donec de immoderato gravamine
satisfecerint competenter. Christiani quoque, si opus fuerit, per censuram ecclesiasticam appellatione
postposita compellantur ab eorum commerciis abstinere.’ See also Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.306.
101  X.5.19.18, col. 816. See Gilbert Dahan, Les Intéllectuels chrétiens et les juifs au moyen âge (Paris,
1990), p.116.
102  For recent discussions see, for example, Jordan, The French Monarchy and the Jews, pp.38–55;
Mundill, England’s Jewish Solution (Cambridge, 1998), pp.108–18; Chazan, ‘Pope Innocent III and
the Jews’, pp.192–3.
103 Innocent III, ‘Inter caetera quae’ (4 March 1208), PL 215, col. 1348. See Moore, ‘Pope
Innocent III and Usury’, p.67.
104 Innocent III, ‘Ut contra crudelissimos’ (9 October 1208), PL 215, cols 1469–70.
152 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

as possible to induce lenders to extend the payment of the principal until the
debtors had returned from the crusade.105 In return he promised them a share
in the eternal reward of the crusaders whose cause they were promoting by their
financial aid.106 Of course, such spiritual privileges would not have applied to
Jews—which suggests that Innocent had in mind not Jewish but Christian
moneylenders.
Although nothing is said specifically about Jewish lending in these two letters
to the clergy of 1208, in a further letter of October of the same year to Philip
Augustus, Innocent repeated that Jews must remit the interest of those departing
for the Albigensian Crusade.107 Thus Jews were forbidden to exact usury from all
those who took the Cross, not merely those bound for the Near East. The pope
added that if possible the time set for the payment of the principal should be
postponed:
. . . we beseech your Royal Clemency in the name of God, to induce the Jews subject
to you, and to compel them by your royal power, completely to remit all usury to such
debtors as are departing for the service of their God, and also, if it can be done, to
make suitable postponement of the time originally set for the payment of the principal
. . . 108
He repeated this in a letter of 1209 to the archbishop of Arles and his suffragans.109
These letters suggest an equal disapproval by popes of both Christian and Jewish
lending at interest. Innocent’s definitive statement, however, as summarized in the
legislation of Lateran IV, was more complex.110 As already noted, Quanto amplius,
Constitution 67, had stated:
The more the Christian religion is restrained from usurious practices, so much the
more does the perfidy of the Jews grow in these matters, so that within a short time
they are exhausting the resources of Christians. Wishing therefore to see that Christians
are not savagely oppressed by Jews in this matter, we ordain by this synodal decree that
if Jews in future, on any pretext, extort oppressive and excessive interest from
Christians, then they are to be removed from contact with Christians until they have
made adequate satisfaction for the immoderate burden . . . 111

105  Moore, ‘Pope Innocent III and Usury’, p.67.

106  Moore, ‘Pope Innocent III and Usury’, pp.67–8.
107 Innocent III, ‘Ut contra crudelissimos’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.132; Simonsohn, pp.94–5. See Moore,
‘Pope Innocent III and Usury’, pp.67–8.
108 Innocent III, ‘Ut contra crudelissimos’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.132; Simonsohn, p.95: ‘ . . . tuam
regalem mansuetudinem in Domino deprecamur, quatinus Judeos sub tuo dominio constitutos indu-
cas, regiaque potestate compellas, ut debitoribus suis in hujusmodi Dei obsequium profecturis omnino
relaxent usuras, et terminos ad exsolvendum sortem prefixos, si fieri potest, prorogent competenter
 . . . ’
109 Innocent III, ‘Gloriantes hactenus in’ (11 November 1209), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.134; Simonsohn,
p.96.
110 Stow, ‘Papal and Royal Attitudes toward Jewish Lending in the Thirteenth Century’, 161–84.
111  Tanner, Vol. 1, p.265: ‘Quanto amplius christiana religio ab exactione compescitur usurarum,
tanto gravius super his Iudaeorum perfidia inolescit ita, quod brevi tempore christianorum exhauriunt
facultates. Volentes igitur in hac parte prospicere christianis, ne a Iudaeis immaniter aggraventur, syno-
dali decreto statuimus ut si de caetero quocumque praetextu Iudaei a christianis graves et immodera-
tas usuras extorserint, christianorum eis participium subtrahatur, donec de immoderato gravamine
 Jews and Money 153

Thus first of all, although Christian lenders were absolutely forbidden to lend at
interest, no such rule was made for Jews.112 Jews were not to exact ‘oppressive and
excessive interest’—which implied that they were permitted to demand from
Christians a reasonable rate.113 Secondly, just as in Innocent’s correspondence, Ad
liberandam, concerned with the recovery of the Holy Land, decreed that crusaders
were to be released from their oath to pay interest:
If any of those setting out are bound by oath to pay interest, we ordain that their cred-
itors shall be compelled by the same punishment to release them from their oath and
to desist from exacting the interest.114
Thus Jews were to remit to crusaders not just interest accrued once they had taken
the Cross, but all interest for past debts.
Furthermore, Christians who made business deals with Jews who exacted usury
from crusaders were to be excommunicated:
We order that Jews be compelled by the secular power to remit interest, and that until
they do so all intercourse shall be denied them by all Christ’s faithful under pain of
excommunication.115
Significantly, however, crusaders’ debts to Jews were not to be cancelled but merely
postponed, along with the interest, until their return home:116
Secular princes shall provide a suitable deferral for those who cannot now pay their
debts to Jews, so that after they have undertaken the journey, and until there is certain
knowledge of their death or of their return, they shall not incur the inconvenience of
paying interest.117

Finally, referring to vifgages, if Jews held crusaders’ property as security for repay-
ment of a debt, the revenues they received from such property must be included,
after deduction of necessary expenses, in the principal to be paid back: ‘The Jews
shall be compelled to add to the capital, after they have deducted their necessary

s­atisfecerint competenter.’ See also Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.306. Stow, ‘Papal and Royal Attitudes toward
Jewish Lending in the Thirteenth Century’, 163.
112  There is an ongoing debate as to whether Christian lenders were forbidden to lend at interest or
forbidden only to lend at unreasonable interest. Usury did not necessarily mean all interest and the
terminology may also have shifted during the High Middle Ages.
113  Tanner, Vol. 1, p.265; Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.306: ‘graves et immoderatas usuras’. So it was potentially
unclear whether Christian lenders were forbidden to lend at interest, or only to lend at unreasonable
interest. It seems that usury did not necessarily mean all interest and that the terminology did eventu-
ally shift.
114  Tanner, Vol. 1, p.269: ‘Si qui vero proficiscentium, illuc ad praestandas usuras iuramento tenen-
tur adstricti, creditores eorum, ut remittant eis praestitum iuramentum et ab usurarum exactione
desistant, eadem praecipimus districtione compelli.’ See also Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.312.
115  Tanner, Vol. 1, p.269: ‘Iudaeos vero ad remittendas usuras per saecularem compelli praecipimus
potestatem et, donec illas remiserint, ab universis Christ fidelibus per excommunicationis sententiam
eis omnino communio denegetur.’ See also Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.312.
116 Stow, ‘Papal and Royal Attitudes toward Jewish Lending in the Thirteenth Century’, 162.
117  Tanner, Vol. 1, p.269: ‘His autem, qui Iudaeis debita solvere nequeunt in praesenti, si principes
saeculares utili dilatione provideant, quod post iter arreptum, usquequo de ipsorum obitu vel reditu
certissime cognoscatur, usurarum incommoda non incurrant . . . ’ See also Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.312.
154 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

expenses, the revenues which they are meanwhile receiving from property held by
them on security’.118 That the whole of this decree of Lateran IV was repeated in
1245 at the First Council of Lyons shows that the papacy regarded it as the defini-
tive statement on the subject.119

I n n oc e n t III ’ s Succ e s s or s a n d U s ury

During the thirteenth century papal pronouncements are set against a background
of intolerance of Jews by the French Crown. Following the death of Philip
Augustus, the position of French Jews worsened under Louis VIII. Hence a royal
ordinance of 1223 stipulated that the Crown should no longer support Jewish
usury, with the result that Jews could no longer rely on the king or his nobles to
come to their aid.120 Arrangements were put in place for ending obligations ­already
made by Christians to Jews: debts contracted within the last five years and still to
be paid were to be repaid over a period of three years in nine payments to those
nobles holding lands on which Jews lived.121 Legislation against Jewish usury was
also particularly harsh during the regency of Blanche of Castile. Thus there is evi-
dence for an ordinance of 1227 decreeing a prolongation for nine payments
through three years of outstanding debts contracted between the ordinance of
1223 and June 1227.122 A further ordinance of May 1228 insisted that both the
provision of the 1223 ordinance for debts prior to 8 November 1223 and the
­ordinance of 1227 were to be observed.123
Louis IX’s legislation went further and his court broke all ties with Jewish busi-
ness.124 By an edict of 1235 Jews were to cease all lending, and in 1246 the king
ordered the seneschal of Champagne to take money from captive Jews and forbid
Jews from extorting further usury.125 A further edict of 1253 again prohibited
usury and stipulated that Jews unwilling to abide by its terms must leave France.
In 1254 the Council of Albi forbade ecclesiastical or secular judges from compelling
Christians to pay usury to either Christians or Jews.126 Louis sought to eliminate
usury as part of a comprehensive programme for the moral reconstruction of his
kingdom, reportedly saying of the Jews that they should abandon usury or leave

118  Tanner, Vol. 1, p.269: ‘compulsis Iudaeis proventus pignorum, quos interim ipsi perceperint, in
sortem expensis deductis necesariis, computare’. See also Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.312.
119  Tanner, Vol. 1, p.299; Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.330.
120  For an excellent discussion of royal ordinances and legislation concerning the Jews during the
first half of the thirteenth century, see Robert Chazan, Medieval Jewry in Northern France: A Political
and Social History (Baltimore, London, 1973), pp.104–24.
121  Church, State and Jew in the Middle Ages, ed. Chazan, pp.211–12; Langmuir, Toward a Definition
of Anti-Semitism, pp.146–7.
122 Langmuir, Toward a Definition of Anti-Semitism, p.153.
123 Langmuir, Toward a Definition of Anti-Semitism, p.153.
124  Church, State and Jew in the Middle Ages, ed. Chazan, pp.213–15.
125  Church, State and Jew in the Middle Ages, ed. Chazan, pp.215–16; Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.232–4,
footnote 2.
126  Church, State and Jew in the Middle Ages, ed. Chazan, pp.216–17; Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.335–6,
especially p.335.
 Jews and Money 155

his land completely in order that it no longer be polluted by their filth.127 In 1235

he banned the practice of usury by Jews altogether. Then, on the eve of his ­departure
to crusade in 1248 he ordered a general confiscation of all Jewish funds and all
debts owed to Jews, stating that he was determined to restore all goods to those
from whom the Jews had extorted them through usurious viciousness. Finally, as
part of his general reform of the kingdom, he ordered in 1254 that Jews desist from
usury, blasphemy, magic, and necromancy, threatened to expel those who dis-
obeyed, and ordered them to live only by light commerce and manual labour.
Nevertheless, despite these stipulations and regulations, Jews continued to be
deeply involved in money-lending at interest. Meanwhile increasingly in the thir-
teenth century Franciscan and Dominican theologians began to develop theo-
logical justifications for usury and profit-taking more generally in order to allow
Christians to participate with an easier conscience. This ensured that Jewish dom-
inance in loan finance faded, although it did not end a legacy of economic resent-
ment and stereotyping.128
Against this backdrop Innocent III’s successors continued to issue letters con-
cerned with both usury in general and usury in the specific context of the author-
ization of crusades. Following their predecessor, they also continued to issue
instructions with regard to Jewish usury in particular. Thus, Honorius III made no
change in the stance of his predecessor with regard to money-lending by Jews to
crusaders. In 1217 he requested an investigation into allegations made by Blanche
of Champagne,129 who claimed that the archbishop of Sens and his suffragans
had refused to allow the same privileges to crusaders and Jews in her territory with
regard to money-lending as were permitted in Philip Augustus’s lands after 1206.130
Referring to his edict of 1206, the pope complained that the clergy of Sens were
indeed preventing Blanche from acting as she wanted. He was also concerned that
the countess’s Jews were being harassed beyond the decrees of the Fourth Lateran
Council.131 It seems that both Philip Augustus’s decree of 1206 and Constitution
67 of Lateran IV were much more favourable to Jews than many French clergy
wished. The countess of Champagne was appealing to the pope to ensure not only
that crusaders’ rights with regard to usurious contracts were maintained but also
that there was some degree of protection for Jews living in her territory and making
loans at interest.
Two years later, in 1219, Honorius again complained that certain archbishops
and other prelates were harassing the countess’s Jews and abusing the legislation of
Lateran IV which decreed that Jews be compelled by secular lords to return usury
to crusaders.132 French clerics, unhappy with the stipulations on Jewish money-
lending of Quanto amplius, Constitution 67 of Lateran IV, and Ad liberandam,
127 Richards, Sex, Dissidence and Damnation, p.113.
128 Richards, Sex, Dissidence and Damnation, p.113.
129  Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.55; p.144, footnote 3.
130  Honorius III, ‘Cum olim nobilis’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.144; Simonsohn, p.102. See Church, State
and Jew in the Middle Ages, ed. Chazan, pp.205–7.
131  Honorius III, ‘Cum olim nobilis’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.144; Simonsohn, p.102.
132 Honorius III, ‘Dilecta in Christo’ (21 June 1219), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.150–2; Simonsohn,
pp.106–7.
156 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

Constitution 71 of the same council, were trying to force Jews to return the interest
they had received from all borrowers.133 In response, Honorius endorsed Innocent’s
legislation that Jews be allowed to charge a ceiling rate of interest for the general
populace, and also continued his predecessor’s stance of allowing special privileges
for those who took the Cross. So both in 1217 and 1219, Honorius complained
that, according to reports that he had received from Blanche of Champagne, Jews
in her territory were not allowed the same privileges with regard to money-lending
to crusaders as those living under Philip Augustus.134 Clearly Honorius was div-
ided as to how he should respond: he was deeply concerned that European Jews
might suffer at the hands of crusaders, but at the same time he wished to send a
clear signal that he was endorsing the policies of his predecessor.
The correspondence of Gregory IX, Honorius’ successor, shows that papal
preoccupation with usury continued. Gregory issued a number of statements in
response to appeals about usury and Jews in Spain, England, and France. In 1231
he complained to the bishop of Burgos and the deans of Burgos and Calahorra that
in the Kingdom of Castile Jews were exacting high amounts of usury to the detri-
ment of parish churches, which as a result had been forced to sacrifice properties
from the revenues of which they had traditionally paid the tithe.135 In 1233 he
complained to the archbishop of Compostella that Jews in Spain were demanding
huge amounts of usury in spite of the decrees of Lateran IV which forbade extor-
tion.136 In a further letter of 1238 to the archbishop of Sens and the bishop of
Senlis he freed Louis IX of France from any obligation to repay money which he
had acquired from Jews but which bore the ‘sin’ of usury.137 Rather, it should
be used to support the Latin states in the Near East:
Wherefore, we command that, by our authority, you shall take care of this King with
regard to this affair in a manner that may, please God, redound to the salvation of his
soul. That money, moreover, which he must give to make up for his inability to find
(the rightful owners), and which you shall have caused to be set aside, we want con-
verted into a subsidy for the Roman Empire.138
Nevertheless, Gregory continued to uphold the papacy’s commitment to pro-
tecting the Jews. So in a letter of 1233 to the archbishops and bishops of France he
complained bitterly about the treatment of Jews who in desperation had appealed
to him. He recounted how they had been imprisoned and tortured by certain lords
who hoped to seize their property and had even driven them from their territories,

133 Stow, ‘Papal and Royal Attitudes toward Jewish Lending in the Thirteenth Century’, 164–5.
134  Honorius III, ‘Cum olim nobilis’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.144; Simonsohn, p.102; ‘Dilecta in Christo’,
Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.150–2; Simonsohn, pp.106–7.
135  Gregory IX, ‘Miramur si vera’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.188–90; Simonsohn, pp.132–4.
136  Gregory IX, ‘Judei quos propria’ (18 May/17 June 1233), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.204–6; Simonsohn,
pp.145–7.
137 Gregory IX, ‘Ex parte karissimi’ (22 March 1238), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.234–6; Simonsohn,
pp.168–9.
138  Gregory IX, ‘Ex parte karissimi’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.236; Simonsohn, pp.168–9: ‘Quocirca man-
damus quatenus dicto regi super hiis, prout, secundum Deum, anime sue saluti expedit, auctoritate
nostra providere curetis. Quod autem dandum ab ipso pro satisfactione illorum qui commode inveniri
non possunt, duxeritis ordinandum, converti volumus in subsidium imperii Romanie.’
 Jews and Money 157

and emphasized that since these Jews were willing to cease exacting usury they
must be set free and injured neither in person nor in property.139
Gregory was also concerned with usury in the context of the papacy’s continuing
calls for crusades. So in 1228 he called on the clergy of France to renew the
Albigensian Crusade against heresy in the south of France, repeating almost word
for word the decree Ad liberandam of Lateran IV originally promulgated to organize
the Fifth Crusade but which had by now become the model for all crusade plan-
ning.140 Christian creditors must discount oaths sworn by crusaders to pay usury
and cease charging interest; those in debt to crusaders were to pay what they owed
without interest while creditors of crusaders were to extend the time allowed for
repayment. As for the Jews, they were ordered to cease exacting usury altogether.
If crusaders could not at present repay their debts to Jews, secular judges should
grant a moratorium so that, from the time of their departure until their confirmed
death or return, they should not be burdened by the payment of interest.
Furthermore, Jews were to reckon into the principal the income from pledges held
as security. Such stipulations seem to have been an interpretation and renewal
of  older decrees which had protected the lands of crusaders absent on the First
Crusade.141 Gregory repeated them in 1234 to the Christian faithful of France and
in letters of 1235 to the clergy, to the king of France, to Thibaut of Champagne, to
the French nobility more widely, to the countess of Flanders, and to Philip and
Amalric de Montfort.142 These letters were related to his plan to resume hostilities
when the treaty between Frederick II and the Muslims in the Near East expired in
1239. Yet like his predecessors, he too emphasized that Jews, unlike Christians,
had the eventual right to collect the interest accrued from crusaders.143
In the following year, 1236, Gregory IX intervened yet again, urging Louis IX
to force French crusaders, about to embark on the ‘Barons’ Crusade’ led by Thibaut
of Champagne and Richard of Cornwall, to restore property stolen from Jews.144
As we saw in Chapter Three, orders from the king in 1235 that Jews should refrain
from all money-lending had encouraged killing and looting by crusaders. Yet at the
same time as continuing to despatch letters of protection, Gregory was determined
that nothing should impede the new crusade. Thus in 1237 he gave instructions
that all money which Louis had seized from Jews living in his kingdom and from
their Christian debtors, and which was tainted by the stain of usury, should be sent
as a subsidy to the struggling Latin Empire.145 In the same year he also complained

139  Gregory IX, ‘Etsi Judeorum sit’ (6 April 1233), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.200–2; Simonsohn, pp.143–5.
140  Gregory IX, ‘Ardenti desiderio aspirantes’ (21 October 1228), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.180; Simonsohn,
pp.126–8.
141  For a recent discussion of crusader finances, see Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, pp.125–9.
142  Gregory IX, ‘Rachel suum videns’ (17 November 1234), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.216; Simonsohn,
pp.152–3; ‘Pravorum molestiis eum’ (13 April 1235), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.218; Simonsohn, pp.153–4;
‘Eis qui signo’ (x5), (13 April 1235), Les Registres de Grégoire IX, ed. L. Auvray, 4 vols, Bibliothèque
des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome (2nd series) (Paris, 1890–1955), Vol. 2, p.34.
143 Stow, ‘Papal and Royal Attitudes toward Jewish Lending in the Thirteenth Century’, 164.
144  Gregory IX, ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum in’ (5 September 1236), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.228–30;
Simonsohn, p.165.
145  Gregory IX, ‘Ex parte tua’ (6 October 1237), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.232–4; Simonsohn, pp.167–8;
‘Cum karissimo in’ (10 December 1238), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.238; Simonsohn, p.170.
158 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

to the bishop of Chichester, the bishop-elect of Valence, and the abbot of

St Augustine at Canterbury about the ‘burdensome and immoderate usury’ that Jews
in England were exacting more generally from Christians.146 The next year he again
urged Louis—as well as the archbishop of Sens and the bishop of Senlis—to use
money seized from the Jews, and believed to be usurious, to assist the crusading
cause,147 while he complained to the bishop of Chichester, the bishop-elect of Valence,
and the abbot of the monastery of St Augustine of Canterbury, that letters he had sent
previously about Jewish exaction of ‘burdensome and immoderate usury’ from cru-
saders had been dismissed by the archbishop of Canterbury without proper considera-
tion.148 Once again we see Gregory upholding the commitment of the papacy to
protect the Jews, while at the same time attempting to encourage crusading.
In contrast to the harsh legislation of Louis IX but very much in line with the
wishes of his predecessor, in 1247 Innocent IV ordered Thibaut IV of Champagne,
King of Navarre, to ensure that his subjects repay debts which they owed to Jews,
while another letter of the same year again ordered him to insist that any money
borrowed from Jews be returned to them and to restrain any of his subjects who
dared molest them.149 Thus Innocent showed himself determined to ensure that
Thibaut did not allow Jewish property to be seized under the pretext that it had
been gained through usurious transactions. Yet that same year he also bestowed on
the titular bishop of Morocco the same privileges for those who campaigned in
Africa as granted by Lateran IV for those departing for the Holy Land—which
implied that the same regulations were to be followed concerning money-lending
to crusaders by Jews.150 In further correspondence of 1248 to his legate, Odo
of  Châteauroux, cardinal bishop of Tusculum, who was about to join the First
Crusade of Louis IX, in a general letter to the Christian faithful in 1252, and in a
letter to the prior of the Dominicans at Paris in 1253, he repeated the concessions
his predecessor Gregory IX had granted to crusaders.151 Thus again he maintained
treading the same fine line between protecting Jews from crusader excesses while
insisting on the importance of crusading and hence the particular rights of cru-
saders with regard to money-lending.
The papacy continued to be preoccupied with usury and to issue similar state-
ments about Jews during the second half of the century. In 1257 Alexander IV
ordered Thibaut II of Navarre, V of Champagne, son of Thibaut IV, to seize the

146  Gregory IX, ‘Dilectus filius magister’ (5 January 1237), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.230–2; Simonsohn,
pp.165–7; for the phrase ‘immoderato gravamine usurarum’, see Gregory IX, ‘Dilectus filius magister’,
Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.232; Simonsohn, p.166.
147  Gregory IX, ‘Ex parte tua’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.232–4; Simonsohn, pp.167–8; ‘Cum karissimo
in’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.238; Simonsohn, p.170.
148 See Gregory IX, ‘Dilectus filius magister’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.230–2; Simonsohn, pp.165–7. See
Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.232; Simonsohn, p.166: ‘immoderato gravamine usurarum’.
149 Innocent IV, ‘Ex parte Judeorum’ (12 June 1247), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.268; Simonsohn, pp.193–4;
‘Ex parte Judeorum’ (6 July 1247), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.272; Simonsohn, pp.195–6.
150 Innocent IV, ‘Cum laicorum obsequiis’ (3 April 1247), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.262; Simonsohn,
p.189.
151 Innocent IV, ‘Pravorum molestiis eum’ (21 July 1248), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.280; Simonsohn,
pp.199–200; ‘Afflicti corde pro’ (1252), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.290; Simonsohn, p.206; ‘Planxit hactenus
non’ (2 April 1253), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.290; Simonsohn, p.206.
 Jews and Money 159

property of any Jew who continued to practise usury.152 In 1258 he instructed the
archbishops and bishops of France never to pledge vestments, ornaments, and ves-
sels as security with Jews who must be warned that if they received them they
would not only lose the gain accruing from the debt but would also incur loss of
the principal.153 In letters of 1263 Alexander’s successor Urban IV issued the usual
regulations about Jewish usury and crusading as stipulated at Lateran IV.154 On a
more personal level he also wrote in 1263 to the Cistercian abbot of Aulne in the
Diocese of Liège, assuring him that a certain Girard of Marbais who had received
money from Jews gained by usury while a counsellor of the duke of Brabant, should
not be unduly exercised about the sum. Rather the abbot should impose a penance
on Girard for the good of his soul; and a hundred pounds of the money should be
given to charity.155 Urban also requested the help of the prior and canon of Troyes
in collecting debts which the archbishop of Sens owed Jewish merchants in Rome.156
We also possess letters concerned with Jewish usury from the correspondence of
Gregory X. In 1274 the Second Council of Lyons made provision for a new cru-
sade to the Holy Land. Although Jews were not mentioned specifically in the
legislation, since Canons 26 and 27 called generally for the severe control and
punishment of all usurers, this must have included Jewish usurers.157 In the same
context Gregory declared that crusaders were to be offered the traditional crusade
privileges, including the remission of interest on all debts.158 As usual Jews were to
be compelled by the secular authorities to remit any interest to crusaders that they had
already collected. From then on we have no further record of letters concerned spe-
cifically with Jewish usury until the pontificate of Nicholas III. In 1279 he requested
the bishop of Rieti to investigate reports that the king of Castile and León was
permitting the practice of usury. Although again Jews were not specifically men-
tioned, traditionally many moneylenders in those parts were Jewish. Indeed
Nicholas’s enquiry as to whether the king allowed Jews to be appointed to public
office strongly suggests that he was concerned about Jewish usury in particular.159
One further letter of Nicholas IV was concerned specifically with usury and the
fall of the crusader stronghold of Acre in 1290. Writing to Queen Marguerite of
France in 1291, he reassured her that she should not concern herself that money
she had acquired from Jews might be usurious, even allowing her to keep the sum
in question as long as a third was sent to finance the proposed new crusade to

152  Alexander IV ‘Ex parte tua’ (13 October 1257), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.58–60; Simonsohn,
pp.213–14.
153  Alexander IV, ‘Si olim in’ (23 August 1258), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.62–4; Simonsohn, pp.214–15.
154 Urban IV, ‘Cum praedicationem crucis’ (20 February 1263), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.77–8;
Simonsohn, pp.220–1; ‘Cum negotium crucis’ (23 October 1263), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.79–80;
Simonsohn, pp.222–3.
155  Urban IV, ‘Oblata nobis’ (8 February 1263), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.75–7; Simonsohn, pp.219–20.
156  Urban IV, ‘Dilecti(s) filii(s)’ (27 March–2 April 1264), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.81–2; Simonsohn,
pp.223–4.
157  Tanner, Vol. 1, pp.328–30; Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.131–2.
158  Gregory X, ‘Si mentes fidelium’ (17 September 1274), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.126–7; Simonsohn,
pp.246–7.
159 Nicholas III, ‘Istud est memoriale secretum’ (23 March 1279), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.145–6;
Simonsohn, p.253.
160 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

rescue the Holy Land after this fresh disaster.160 Since the crusade never got off the
ground, the money was probably never required. After 1291, although popes con-
tinued to call for crusades, they were less of a priority; by contrast, papal preoccu-
pation with Jews and usury continued.161

J e w s a n d th e D e v e lopm e n t of th e T h e ory
of U s ury i n C a n o n L aw

From the beginning of the twelfth century, as we have seen, popes had increasingly
expressed their concerns about money-lending at interest.162 The Third Lateran

160 Nicholas III, ‘Benigno sunt tibi’ (13 December 1291), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.189–91; Simonsohn,
pp.281–2.
161  Hence in 1297 Boniface VIII granted Marguerite, widow of King Charles of Sicily, permission
to choose a confessor who would absolve her from the sin of having extorted money from her subjects
including from Jews suspected of having practised usury. See Boniface VIII, ‘Pium arbitramur’
(3 September 1297), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.201–2; Simonsohn, p.285. In 1300 Boniface also ordered the
rector of the Comtat Venaissin to expel recently arrived usurers including Jews and to prohibit their
admission in the future. See Boniface VIII, ‘Cum sicut’ (5 June 1300), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.207–8;
Simonsohn, p.288. In 1306 Clement V ruled that a landowner might retain money and property taken
from Jews, even though it was possibly derived from usury, as long as he set the money aside for the
poor, and in the same year he allowed Queen Mary of France to retain the money taken from the Jews
of her territory, again possibly usurious, provided she assigned some of it to support the Holy Land.
See Clement V, ‘Grata devotionis obsequia’ (2 January 1306), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.212; Simonsohn,
p.290; ‘Devotionis tuae’ (1306), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.212–13; Simonsohn, pp.290–1. Clement also
issued letters in 1306, 1307, and 1308 instructing the dean of Toledo to enforce canons prohibiting
usury. See Clement V (1306–1307), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.213–14. The actual bull is not extant. In 1308
Clement wrote to the Knights Hospitaller to appeal for a new crusade and to declare that crusaders
should be granted the privileges of freedom from the payment of interest owed to Jews who should be
boycotted if they did not remit any usury they had already collected. See Clement V, ‘Exurgat Deus’
(11 August 1308), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.214–16; Simonsohn, p.291. In 1309 he allowed Blanche of
Brittany to establish four chapels or a hospital in the diocese of Paris and to use half of the money she
had acquired from the Jews, possibly from usury, for this purpose provided that the other half was
given to the Hospitallers for the Holy Land. See Clement V, ‘Devotionis tue’ (27 May 1309), Grayzel,
Vol. 2, p.216. In 1311 he decreed that if Jews had charged the monks of the Benedictine monastery of
Paulinzelle high rates of interest they must restore everything above the principal—if necessary under
threat of boycott. See Clement V, ‘Conquesti sunt’ (11 October 1311), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.220–1;
Simonsohn, p.293. During 1311–1312 he condemned all usury outright. See Clement V, ‘Ex gravi’
(1311–12), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.227–9. In 1312 he again allowed Queen Mary of France to keep half
the money she had taken from Jews who had acquired it usuriously as long as she sent the other half
to the Holy Land. See Clement V, ‘Consuevit interdum’ (29 December 1312), Grayzel, Vol. 2,
pp.229–30; Simonsohn, pp.296–7. He urged the bishop of Lucca to use his ecclesiastical powers
against the civic authorities of the town who were encouraging Jews in their usurious undertakings.
See Clement V, ‘Quamvis reprobanda’ (no date), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.231–2. His successor John XXII
also made a number of pronouncements condemning Jewish usury. See John XXII, ‘Exigit tuorum’
(5 June 1318), Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.306; Simonsohn, pp.307–8; ‘Sua nobis’ (7 April 1320), Grayzel, Vol.
2, pp.308–9; Simonsohn, pp.312–13; ‘Significarunt nobis’ (24 December 1320), Grayzel, Vol. 2,
p.320; Simonsohn, p.324; ‘Ad audientiam nostram’ (7 March 1321), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.323–4;
Simonsohn, pp.330; ‘Ad audientiam nostram’ (6 October 1321), Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.324; Simonsohn,
pp.333–4; ‘Inter ecclesiasticos ordines’ (23 August 1322), Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.327; Simonsohn, pp.335–7;
‘Cum sicut accepimus’ (5 March 1325), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.329–30; Simonsohn, pp.342–3; ‘Cum sicut
accepimus’ (1 August 1326), Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.332; Simonsohn, pp.347–8; ‘Significarunt nobis’ (19/18
February 1328), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.335–6; Simonsohn, pp.354–5.
162 Earlier collectors of legal texts had already for many years been eloquent on the subject of usury.
Popes seem to have become increasingly sophisticated in their statements, as much as more resolutely
 Jews and Money 161

Council emphasized the papacy’s commitment to combating usury, a growing

practice in Europe as trade and mercantile activity intensified.163 Yet by the thir-
teenth century popes had come to believe that a growing number of Christians
were indebted to Jews and that in particular this threatened to undermine their
calls for crusades. As we have seen, in 1198 Innocent III addressed the issue of
money-lending by Jews at the end of his general crusading letter ‘Post miserabile’
in the context of a general prohibition on money-lending but with a specific refer-
ence to Jews who, as well as Christians, were to remit usury to crusaders. This was
reiterated in the pope’s general letters ‘Graves orientalis terrae’, ‘Nisi nobis dictum’,
and ‘Quia maior’, as well as in Ad liberandam, Constitution 71 of the Fourth
Lateran Council and in Constitution 5 of the First Council of Lyons.
So, as already noted, although Innocent III’s letters suggest an equal disapproval
by popes of both Christian and Jewish lending at interest, his definitive pronounce-
ment on the problem of usury, as expressed in the legislation of Lateran IV, was more
complex. Although Constitution 67 of Lateran IV decreed that Christian lenders
were completely forbidden to lend at interest, no such statement was made about
Jews. Rather, Jews were not to exact heavy and immoderate usury, that is, they were
allowed to expect a reasonable rate of interest from Christians. Furthermore, as we
have seen, Ad liberandam, concerned with the recovery of the Holy Land, decreed
that crusaders in particular were to be released from their oath to pay interest.
Hence Jews were to remit to crusaders not just any interest accrued once they had
taken the Cross, but all interest for all past debts.
So Christians were to be excommunicated if they made business deals with any
Jews who continued to exact usury from crusaders. Significantly, crusaders’ debts
to Jews were not to be cancelled but rather postponed along with the interest until
their return home. The same decree also referred to vifgages, by which property
was held by the lender as security for repayment by the borrower. This decree
stated that if Jews held crusaders’ property as security for repayment of a debt, the
revenues which they were receiving from such property must be included, after
deduction of any necessary expenditure, in the principal which the crusaders were
to pay back. As already noted, this whole statement concerning crusading and
usury in Constitution 71 of Lateran IV was repeated in Constitution 5 of Lyons I.
There seems, therefore, to be a contradiction between Innocent’s realization that
crusaders needed to raise cash to go on crusade and his statements both to Christian
and Jewish moneylenders calling for the remission of interest on specifically past
debts. Although it is possible that Innocent counted on Christians being willing to
lend without interest because this would gain them a partial indulgence for as-
sisting a crusade, it is unlikely that he was so naive. And why should Jews have

hostile. See, for example, John Gilchrist, ‘The Perception of the Jews in the Canon Law of the Period
of the First Two Crusades’, Jewish History 3, Part 1 (1988), 9–24.
163 Parkes, The Jew in the Medieval Community, pp.282–3. For economic growth, see Cohen,
Under Crescent and Cross, pp.77–82; pp.87–8; Robert Chazan, Medieval Stereotypes and Modern Anti-
Semitism (Berkeley, 1997), p.305; Stow, Alienated Minority, p.222. For the growth of usury as wit-
nessed by the number of sermons by, for example, James of Vitry and Thomas of Chobham, see
Jacques le Goff, Your Money or Your Life: Economy and Religion in the Middle Ages (New York, London,
1998), p.17 and passim.
162 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

agreed to lend to crusaders on such unfavourable terms, particularly when lending

money for crusades was already such an uncertain business? Possibly Innocent cal-
culated that his statements would mean that, with the freeing up of interest on past
debts, it would be easier for a crusader to fund his crusade expenses without
needing to take out new loans. It seems more likely, however, that his words were
not necessarily intended to be read literally. Rather they were meant to act as the
start of and catalyst for negotiations between moneylenders and crusaders, with
the pope expecting both parties to negotiate and thrash out a final agreement
among themselves.
In summary, the legislation of the Fourth Lateran Council shows that the Church
regarded those who borrowed from Jews as falling into two groups. The first group,
those who took the Cross, were granted a moratorium on the principal of their
loans and the remission of interest paid before their departure. The crusader was
therefore granted a very special status. The second group included all other Christians
who were merely protected against immoderate usury. It seems that, realizing that
Jews played an invaluable role as moneylenders in Christian society, Lateran IV
was careful not to ban Jewish usury completely.
After Innocent III, papal preoccupation with Jewish usury and its effects on cru-
sading continued during subsequent pontificates. Constitution 1 of Lyons I and
Constitution 26 of Lyons II were concerned with the problem of usury in general.
So Innocent III’s thirteenth-century successors followed closely the legislation of
their predecessor with respect to Jewish lending to crusaders who were to be given
special protection from Jewish money-lending. Nevertheless, Jews were also
granted the eventual right to collect the interest on debts which those crusaders
had accrued. In this the popes followed a less harsh line towards the Jews and
money-lending than many of their clergy wished.
Yet although the importance of crusades meant that popes were prepared to
grant special privileges to crusaders, thirteenth-century canonists became increas-
ingly unhappy over the distinction which popes made between crusaders and other
Christians with regard to money-lending by Jews.164 Hence the wording of
Innocent III’s general crusading letter ‘Post miserabile’ was significantly changed
when, under the slightly altered incipit ‘Per miserabilem’ it was added to the offi-
cial decretal compilation, Compilatio tertia, put together by the canonist Pietro
Collevaccino in 1209.165 Whereas the original letter was concerned only that Jews
should remit interest to crusaders, the edited version, generated outside the con-
text of crusading and given universal application, enjoined Jews to remit interest to
all their debtors. Under the further revised incipit ‘Post miserabilem’, this revised
version was included in the definitive decretal collection, the Liber extra of
Raymond of Peñafort, commissioned by Gregory IX in 1230 and formally pub-
lished in 1232.166 And Raymond of Peñafort and Hostiensis made a further attempt

164 Stow, ‘Papal and Royal Attitudes toward Jewish Lending in the Thirteenth Century’, 166–7.
165  3 Comp. 5.10.2, p.131. See James Brundage, Medieval Canon Law and the Crusader (Madison,
London, 1969), p.76; Dahan, Les Intelléctuels chrétiens et les juifs au moyen âge, p.116.
166  X.5.19.12, cols 814–15. See Brundage, Medieval Canon Law, p.215; p.222; Dahan, Les intel-
lectuels chrétiens et les juifs au moyen âge, p.116; Pietro Collevaccino is also Petrus Benaventus and
 Jews and Money 163

to harmonize the various canon law texts concerned with Jewish usury. They
­argued that, in order not to seem to contradict the papal decretal ‘Post miserabilem’
irreconcilably, the statement in Quanto amplius that Jews should not charge Christians
‘immoderate interest’ must be read as a prohibition against Jews charging Christians
any interest at all.167
So the thirteenth-century papacy used its power as the ultimate spiritual
­authority in Christian society both to defend the interests of crusaders and to
­afford some measure of protection to Jewish moneylenders. Such a compromise
displeased and disconcerted canon lawyers who, like many other clergymen, would
have preferred that Jews not be allowed to charge interest at all. Thus popes,
­increasingly keen to assert their authority over Jews and Judaism, in fact held a
more positive and certainly more complex view of Jewish money-lending than
many of their contemporaries, and allowed Jewish moneylenders an albeit limited
freedom in this area.168 Nevertheless, seeing it as part of their duty and their
­authority, they also encouraged the seizure of Jewish property and/or money gained
through usury, and exhorted Christians to convert it to pious purposes.169 It is the
issue of authority to which we now turn.

Powell suggests that he may have been the author of the Gesta Innocentii III. See The Deeds of Pope
Innocent III by an Anonymous Author, trans. J. M. Powell (Washington D.C., 2004), p.xiii.
167  For details, see Stow, ‘Papal and Royal Attitudes toward Jewish Lending in the Thirteenth
Century’, 167.
168 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, pp.188–95; pp.202–3; p.223; p.226.
169 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, pp.199–202.
 5
Papal Claims to Authority over Judaism

Through conciliar legislation and canon law and eventually the establishment of
the Inquisition, during the High Middle Ages the papacy attempted to assert its
authority over Jews in a number of important ways. Since the Church’s legislation
tended to be reactive rather than proactive—councils often responding to social
and political changes in society many years after their inception—the appearance
of ‘anti-Jewish’ legislation in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries which was then
codified in law and enforced by thirteenth-century inquisitors, suggests not only a
growth in the prominence of Jewish communities in medieval Europe but also that
popes felt an increasing need to monitor, supervise, and assert authority over their
activities. Popes wished to prevent Jews from holding public offices—acting as bai-
liffs, tax collectors, treasurers, minters, or diplomats—and hence holding positions
of authority over Christians, because they believed this undermined their vision of
the correct subservient role Jews were supposed to play in Christian society, and
increased the possibility of effective Jewish proselytizing.1 For the same reasons
they were concerned about intermarriage and even sexual intercourse between
Christians and Jews.2

E c u me n ica l C o u n ci l s : T he Papa l P e r specti v e

In the sixth century Gregory I had prohibited Jews from owning Christian slaves.
Influenced by Gregory’s pronouncement and in recognition that it was not theo-
logically suitable for Jews to lord it over Christians, during the pontificate of
Alexander III, the Third Lateran Council banned any employment of Christians as
servants in Jewish homes.3 Hence Canon 26 decreed:
Jews and Saracens are not to be allowed to have Christian servants in their houses,
either under pretence of nourishing their children or for service or any other reason.
Let those be excommunicated who presume to live with them. We declare that the
evidence of Christians is to be accepted against Jews in every case, since Jews employ
their own witnesses against Christians, and that those who prefer Jews to Christians in
this matter are to lie under anathema, since Jews ought to be subject to Christians and

1  Shlomo Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History (Toronto, 1991), pp.147–54.
2 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, pp.154–6.
3  X.5.6.19, col. 778; Tanner, Vol. 1, pp.223–4; X.5.6.5, col. 773. See Gilbert Dahan, Les Intellectuels
chrétiens et les Juifs au moyen âge (Paris, 1990), p.116; James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the
Synagogue: A Study in the Origins of Antisemitism (London, 1934), pp.214–15.
 Papal Claims to Authority over Judaism 165
to be supported by them on grounds of humanity alone. If any by the inspiration of
God are converted to the Christian faith, they are in no way to be excluded from their
possessions, since the condition of converts ought to be better than before their con-
version. If this is not done, we enjoin on the princes and rulers of these places, under
penalty of excommunication, the duty to restore fully to these converts the share of
their inheritance and goods.4
This decree emphasized the Church’s theological claim that Jews, the people of the
Old Covenant, should not be seen in any way to exercise authority over Christians,
the people of the New, but should rather, at all times and in all places be prepared to
serve Christian society. The very promulgation of such a decree shows the papacy’s
concern to emphasize this fundamental theology, while its appearance implies that by
the second half of the thirteenth century there were Jews in parts of medieval Europe
who had the wealth, status, and confidence to employ their Christian neighbours as
servants and wet nurses and that this was causing social as well as religious tension.
Since popes took great pains to ensure that decrees of Lateran councils were en-
forced, it is not surprising that this piece of fundamental ‘theology’ was subsequently
repeated in a number of papal letters, not only by Alexander III, who affirmed that
Jews must not employ Christians in their homes,5 but later by Innocent III who
frequently complained about the unsuitableness of Christians serving Jews,6 on two
occasions specifically concerning himself with the employment of Christian wet
nurses.7 Such complaints were part of his wider unease about the role Jews played
in Christian society.
Hence after the expulsion of the Jews and their subsequent return to France in
1197, Innocent III drew on Canon 26 of Lateran III when he declared in a letter
to the archbishop of Sens and the bishop of Paris that he had heard reports that
Jews in France were variously and deliberately insulting the Christian faith by for-
cing Christian nurses to express their milk into the latrine for three days after re-
ceiving Christ’s body and blood at Easter before being allowed to nurse Jewish
children, and more generally about the behaviour of these Jewish communities
which he deemed inappropriate to their theologically designated servile status:8
4  Tanner, Vol. 1, pp.223–4: ‘Iudaei sive Sarraceni nec sub alendorum puerorum obtentu nec pro
servitio nec alia qualibet causa, christiana mancipia in domibus suis permittantur habere. Excommu­
nicentur autem qui cum eis praesumpserint habitare. Testimonium quoque christianorum adversus
Iudaeos in omnibus causis, cum illi adversus christianos testibus suis utantur, recipiendum esse cense-
mus, et anathemate decernimus feriendos, quicumque Iudaeos christianis voluerint in hac parte prae-
ferre, cum eos subiacere christianis oporteat et ab eis pro sola humanitate foveri. Si qui praeterea Deo
inspirante ad fidem se converterint christianam, a possessionibus suis nullatenus excludantur, cum
melioris conditionis conversos ad fidem esse opporteat quam, antequam fidem acceperunt, habebantur.
Si autem secus factum fuerit, principibus vel potestatibus eorumdem locorum sub poena excommuni-
cationis iniungimus, ut portionem hereditatis et bonorum suorum ex integro eis faciant exhiberi.’
5  Alexander III, ‘Quia super his’ (1159–1179), Simonsohn, p.50.
6  Innocent III, ‘Etsi necesse sit’ (20/25 May 1199), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.90; Simonsohn, p.74; ‘Non
decet eos’ (20 January 1205), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.110; Simonsohn, p.84; ‘Non minus pro’ (5 May 1205),
Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.112; Simonsohn, pp.85–6; ‘Etsi Judeos quos’ (15 July 1205), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.114–
16; Simonsohn, pp.86–8; ‘Ut esset Cain’ (17 January 1208), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.126–30; Simonsohn,
pp.92–4.
7  Innocent III, ‘Etsi Judeos quos’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.114–16; Simonsohn, pp.86–8; ‘Ut esset Cain’,
Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.126–30; Simonsohn, pp.92–4.
8  Innocent III, ‘Etsi Judeos quos’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.114–16; Simonsohn, pp.86–8.
166 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291
For we have heard that the Jews, whom the kindness of princes has admitted into their
territories, have become so insolent that they hurl unbridled insults at the Christian
Faith, insults which it is an abomination not only to utter but even to keep in mind.
Thus, whenever it happens that on the day of the Lord’s Resurrection (Easter) the
Christian women who are nurses for the children of Jews, take in the body and blood
of Jesus Christ, the Jews make these women pour their milk into the latrine for three
days before they again give suck to their children. Besides, they perform other detest-
able and unheard of things against the Catholic faith, as a result of which the faithful
should fear that they are incurring divine wrath when they permit the Jews to perpet-
rate unpunished such deeds as bring confusion upon our Faith.9
Lack of other corroborating primary sources means it is impossible to substantiate
whether this allegation was true, but if Jews in France were acting in this way it was
presumably because they considered, in accordance with Talmudic precepts, that the
Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ was idolatrous and therefore unclean.10
Hence it is difficult to know what to make of these allegations—particularly
whether Jews in parts of France were openly insulting their Christian neighbours
at times of Christian festivals. If true—and some may have been—it would suggest
great foolhardiness on the part of certain Jewish communities: they were a tiny
minority and such actions were likely to arouse extreme Christian ire.
Yet Innocent was not the only pope to express acute concern at the idea of Jews
mocking Christians. His predecessor Alexander III had already insisted that Jews
must be compelled to keep their doors and windows shut on Good Friday in case
they disturb this Christian solemnity,11 and curfews during Holy Week became
enshrined in canon law.12 Innocent’s obvious horror at the idea of Jews mocking
Christians is also apparent in his letter ‘Etsi non displiceat’ of 1205 to Philip
Augustus in which he complained:
What is even worse, blaspheming against God’s name, they [the Jews] publicly insult
Christians by saying that they (Christians) believe in a peasant who had been hung by
the Jewish people. . . . Also on Good Friday the Jews, contrary to old custom, publicly
run to and fro over the towns and streets, and everywhere laugh, as is their wont, at
the Christians because they adore the Crucified One on the Cross, and, through their
improprieties, attempt to dissuade them from their worship.13

9  Innocent III, ‘Etsi Judeos quos’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.114; Simonsohn, p.87: ‘Accepimus autem,
quod Judei, quos gratia principum in suis terris admisit, adeo facti sunt insolentes, ut illos committant
excessus in contumeliam fidei Christiane, quos non tantum dicere, sed etiam nefandum cogitare.
Faciunt enim Christianas filiorum suorum nutrices, cum in die Ressurectionis Dominice illas recipere
corpus et sanguinem Jesu Christi contingit, per triduum; antequam eos lactent, lac effundere in latri-
nam. Alia insuper contra fidem catholicam detestabilia et inaudita committunt, propter que fidelibus
est verendum, ne divinam indigationem incurrant, cum eos perpetrare patiuntur impune que fidei
nostre confusionem inducunt.’
10  Hanan Yuval, ‘“They Tell Lies: You Ate the Man”: Jewish Reactions to Ritual Murder Charges’,
in Religious Violence between Christians and Jews: Medieval Roots, Modern Perspectives, ed. A. S. Abulafia
(Basingstoke, 2002), pp.96–7.
11  Alexander III, ‘Quia super his’, Simonsohn, p.50.
12 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, pp.130–3.
13  Innocent III, ‘Etsi non displiceat’ (16 January 1205), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.104–8; Simonsohn,
pp.82–4; See Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.106–8; Simonsohn, p.83: ‘Quinimmo, nomen Domini blaspheman-
tes, publice Christianis insultant, quod credant in rusticum quemdam suspensum a populo
 Papal Claims to Authority over Judaism 167

It is possible that such allegations were largely false, invented by Christians wishing
to stir up hatred, perhaps through jealousy at the wealth or influence of their
Jewish neighbours. If they were true and Jews were indeed blaspheming against
Christianity and mocking Christians, then despite the threat of persecution and
even expulsion, certain Jewish communities in France—or certain members of
such communities—felt large enough and strong enough not to fear reprisals.
In the same letter Innocent also complained that Jews in France were extorting
massive amounts of usury, appropriating Christian possessions, employing
Christian wet nurses and servants in their homes, and obtaining preferential treat-
ment in the law courts.14 He added that he had heard in Sens they had built a new
synagogue higher than the town’s church (insulting because it again made
Christianity look inferior to and less powerful than Judaism), were hindering the
celebration of the Mass, and were blaspheming against Christ and ridiculing
Christianity.15 He also echoed a widespread belief in claiming that Jews deliber-
ately left their doors open at night to thieves so that if stolen goods were found in
their houses it was impossible to prosecute them. He even stated that he had
received reports that a scholar had been found murdered in a Jewish latrine.16
Such correspondence reflected an increasing number of anti-Jewish allega-
tions—to be explained at least in part by the huge interest which Jews were char-
ging Christians and which caused envy and anger.17 These accusations were not
new to the thirteenth century. In the twelfth century Peter the Venerable had
levelled a similar charge at Jews when he complained to Louis VII that goods
stolen from churches were secreted away in Jewish houses to be sold in
synagogues,18 and, as we saw in Chapter Two, charges of Jews killing Christians
increased in England after the murder, supposedly, by Jews, of William of Norwich
in 1144, following the execution at Blois in 1171 of more than thirty Jews
accused of the murder of a Christian child.19 Innocent’s reference to the story of
the murdered scholar suggests that he himself might have believed allegations of
Judeorum . . . In die quoque parasceves, Judei contra veterem consuetudinem per vicos, et plateas
publice discurrentes, concurrentes, juxta morem, undique Christianos ut adorent crucifixum in
cruce, derident, et eos per improperia sua student ab adorationis officio revocare.’
14 Lateran III had decreed that Christians were allowed to testify against Jews; Tanner, Vol. 1,
pp.223–4; X.2.20.21, col. 322. See Dahan, Les intellectuels chrétiens et les juifs au moyen âge,
p.115.
15  Innocent III, ‘Etsi non displiceat’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.104–8; Simonsohn, pp.82–4. See Robert
Chazan, ‘Pope Innocent III and the Jews’, in Pope Innocent III and his World, ed. J. C. Moore
(Aldershot, 1999), pp.193–4.
16  Innocent III, ‘Etsi non displiceat’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.104–8; Simonsohn, pp.82–4.
17  Some historians have argued that, among the learned, a growing awareness of the role played by
intention in human action and behaviour encouraged the idea of Jewish culpability for Christ’s cruci-
fixion, and so horror and anger at the Jews. See Christendom and its Discontents, ed. P. Diehl, S. Waugh
(Cambridge, 1996), pp.227–8.
18  Innocent III, ‘Etsi non displiceat’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.104–8; Simonsohn, pp.82–4.
19 Richard Barrie Dobson, The Jews of Medieval York and the Massacre of March 1190 (York, 1974),
p.19; Gavin Langmuir, Toward a Definition of AntiSemitism (Berkeley, London, 1990), p.307; Robert
Stacey, ‘Crusades, Martyrdom and the Jews of Norman England 1096–1190’ in Juden und Christen
zur Zeit der Kreuzzüge, Vorträge und Forschungen 47, Konstanzer Arbeitskreis für mittelalterliche
Geschichte, ed. A. Haverkamp (Sigmaringen, 1999), p.236; Kenneth Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and
Papal Sovereignty: Jewish Perceptions of the Papacy and Papal Policy in the High Middle Ages (Cincinnati,
168 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

ritual murder even though the scholar in question does not seem to have been a
child and ritual murder accusations typically involved children.20
Of course, concern about the influence of Jews in towns and cities was not con-
fined to France. In 1219 the bishop of Worcester issued decrees forbidding them
to take church books, vestments, or ornaments as pledges, vetoed the safekeeping
of Jewish valuables in churches, forbade Christian servants from sleeping in the
homes of their Jewish employers, and repeated the stipulation of Canon 26 of
Lateran III prohibiting Jews employing Christian wet nurses, which, as we shall
see, was of particular concern to popes.21
Just as Innocent complained about Jews employing Christian wet nurses, so his
successor Honorius III complained about Muslims who kept Christian slaves:22
For it is a crime that those who were reborn in the baptismal font should associate in
the rites and conversion of infidels, or that the Christian religion should be polluted
by being subject to infidels, or that a blasphemer should retain in servitude one
­redeemed by the blood of the Lord Christ.23
Popes were particularly concerned to inhibit sociable relations between Christians
and Jews.24 They were worried that through close contact between Jews, Christians,
and also Muslims, there would be an increased chance of sexual relations, even of
inter-religious marriage. Apart from the fact that such relationships were deemed
theologically unacceptable in a correctly ordered Christian society, there was the
further fear that Christians might be tempted to convert to Judaism. Hence Honorius
III’s successors, Gregory IX and Innocent IV, pronounced similar complaints
about Jews—and Muslims—employing Christian nurses, servants, and even slaves
in Hungary, Germany, Spain, and France.25
This concern continued throughout the thirteenth century. Honorius IV was
alarmed that Jews in England were reportedly being allowed to employ Christians
as domestics, governesses, and nurses, and that this—it was said—was encouraging
inappropriate sexual contact between the two faiths.26 As we shall explore further
1984), p.23; Christendom and its Discontents, ed. Waugh, Diehl, p.221; Robert Chazan, God,
Humanity and History: the Hebrew First Crusade Narratives (Berkeley, 2000), p.2.
20  Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.108, footnote 8.
21  Antisemitism Through the Ages, ed. S. Almog, trans. N. H. Reisner (Oxford, New York, 1988),
p.112.
22  Honorius III, ‘Intellectum jamdudum’ (23 August 1225), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.170–2; Simonsohn,
pp.120–1.
23  Honorius III, ‘Intellectum jamdudum’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.172; Simonsohn, pp.120–1: ‘Nephas
est enim, ut sacri baptismatis unda renatus, infidelium ritu vel conversatione foedetur, aut religio
Christiana subjecta infidelibus polluatur, seu blasphemus ipsius redemptum sanguine Christi Domini,
obnoxium detineat servituti.’
24 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, pp.133–4.
25  Gregory IX, ‘Cum illius vices’ (3 March 1231), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.184–6; Simonsohn, pp.130–2;
‘Sufficere debuerat perfidie’ (5/4 March 1233), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.198–200; Simonsohn, pp.141–3;
‘Judei quos propria’ (18 March 1233), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.204–6; Simonsohn, pp.145–7; ‘Quanto
personam tuam’ (12 August 1233), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.206–10; Simonsohn, pp.147–9; ‘Nulli Judeo
baptizatum’ (1227–1234), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.216; Simonsohn, p.125; Innocent IV, ‘Impia Judeorum
perfidia’ (9 May 1244), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.250–2; Simonsohn, pp.180–2.
26  Honorius IV, ‘Nimis in partibus’ (30/18 November 1286), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.157–62; Simonsohn,
pp.262–4.
 Papal Claims to Authority over Judaism 169

in Chapter Six, Innocent III and Clement IV both defended the principle that
Jews must remain servile to Christians by envoking the biblical notion of the ‘mark
of Cain’: a reference to Genesis 4, and the savage murder of Abel by Cain which
was traditionally compared with Christ’s crucifixion by Jews.27 Following St Ambrose
(c.340–397), many medieval commentators regarded Cain as representing the
Jews.28 According to Ambrose:
These two brothers, Cain and Abel, have furnished us with the prototype of the
Synagogue and the Church. In Cain we perceived the paricidal people of the Jews,
who were stained with the blood of their Lord, their Creator, as a result of the child-
bearing of the Virgin Mary, their Brother, also. By Abel we understand the Christian
who cleaves to God . . . 29
According to such exegesis, just as Cain was forced to serve Abel, so Jews must
serve Christians: Jews were to be spared in Christian society in order that they
might serve. Hence when Clement IV complained that Jews in Poland were not
only employing Christian nurses in their homes, but forcing them to cohabit, he
used similar language,30 arguing that the Jewish people, like the fratricide Cain,
had become a fugitive upon the earth because the Jews had killed Christ, who, as
the seed of David, was their brother. Though Jews were not to be killed, in case the
law of God be forgotten—for a remnant of them must be saved—they were to be
subjected to deserved servitude until, their faces covered with shame, they were
compelled to seek the Lord.31 Such high flown rhetoric, unusual among popes
but  particularly favoured by Innocent III and Clement IV, was also frequently
employed by contemporary preachers and polemicists.
Papal concern to demarcate the correct theological position of Jews in Christian
society was strikingly visible in the decrees of the Fourth Lateran Council. As we
noted in Chapter Three, arising again out of concern that Jews and Christians
might be tempted to form sexual relationships, sometimes marriage, and that this
might lead to conversions—something which ironically enough Jewish rabbis also
feared—Constitution 68 decreed that Jews must wear different clothing from
Christians:
A difference of dress distinguishes Jews or Saracens from Christians in some provinces,
but in others a certain confusion has developed so that they are indistinguishable.
Whence it sometimes happens that by mistake Christians join with Jewish or Saracen
women, and Jews or Saracens with Christian women. In order that the offence of such

27 Irven Resnick, Marks of Distinction. Christian Perceptions of Jews in the High Middle Ages
(Washington D.C., 2012), pp.206–7; Ruth Mellinkoff, Outcasts: Signs of Otherness in Northern
European Art of the Late Middle Ages (Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford, 1993), p.48.
28 Resnick, Marks of Distinction, pp.206–7.
29  Ambrose, ‘Liber Primus’, De Cain et Abel, Libri Duo, PL 14, col. 336: ‘Haec figura Synagogae et
Ecclesiae in his duobus fratribus ante praecessit Cain et Abel. Per Cain parricidialis populus intelligitur
Judaeorum, qui Domini et auctoris sui et secundum Mariae virginis partum fratris, ut ita dicam,
sanguinem persecutus est. Per Abel autem intelligitur Christianus adhaerens Deo . . . ’. See Mellinkoff,
Outcasts, p.63.
30  Clement IV, ‘Peccatum peccavit’ (no date/1265–1268), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.110–12; Simonsohn,
pp.225–6.
31  Clement IV, ‘Peccatum peccavit’, Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.110–11; Simonsohn, pp.225–6.
170 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291
a damnable mixing may not spread further, under the excuse of a mistake of this kind,
we decree that such persons of either sex, in every christian province and at all times,
are to be distinguished in public from other people by the character of their dress—
seeing moreover that this was enjoined upon them by Moses himself, as we read.32
It also repeated Innocent III’s concern about Jews ridiculing Christianity in public:
They shall not appear in public at all on the days of lamentation and on passion
Sunday; because some of them on such days, as we have heard, do not blush to parade
in very ornate dress and are not afraid to mock Christians who are presenting a
­memorial of the most sacred passion and are displaying signs of grief. What we most
strictly forbid, however, is that they dare in any way to break out in derision of the
Redeemer. We order secular princes to restrain with condign punishment those who
do so presume, lest they dare to blaspheme in any way him who was crucified for us,
since we ought not to ignore insults against him who blotted out our wrongdoings.33
As usual with conciliar legislation, this decree laid down ‘universal rules’ for the
Church and left details to be decided at local level. Hence it specified no particular
type of clothing, nor made it clear of what the ‘distinguishing garb’ which Jews
must wear, should consist. That would come to vary in different countries—from
yellow badges, coloured clothing, round capes, or pointed hats—depending on the
wishes of the secular ruler or local government.34
Nevertheless, whether it was an attachment to a vestment or an article of
clothing, the important point was that the ‘distinguishing garb’ must be clearly
visible.35 In France, Spain, and Italy it became a badge—a round of cloth known
as the rouelle which was sewn onto clothes, was normally worn by both sexes on
the chest, and varied in material (felt, linen, or silk) and colour, the most common
being saffron, which seems to have been favoured by both Gregory IX and
Louis IX—perhaps because yellow crosses were also worn by heretics.36 In Rome it
­became a red coat; hence ‘The Jewish Badge’ was not necessarily an actual badge.37
Northern European art of the period usually portrayed Jews wearing hats, whether

32  Tanner, Vol. 1, p.266: ‘In nonnullis provinciis a christianis Iudaeos seu Saracenos habitus distin-
guit diversitas, sed in quibusdam sic quaedam inolevit confusio, ut nulla differentia discernantur.
Unde contingit interdum, quod per errorem christiani Iudaeorum seu Saracenorum et Iudaei seu
Saraceni christianorum mulieribus commisceantur. Ne igitur tam damnatae commixtionis excessus
per velamentum erroris huiusmodi excusationis ulterius possint habere diffugium, statuimus ut tales
utriusque sexus in omni christianorum provincia et omni tempore, qualitate habitus publice ab aliis
populis distinguantur, cum etiam per Moysen hoc ipsum legatur eis iniunctum.’
33  Tanner, Vol. 1, p.266: ‘In diebus autem lamentationis et dominiciae passionis, in publicum
minime prodeant, eo quod nonnulli ex ipsis talibus diebus, sicut accepimus, ornatius non erubescunt
incedere ac christianis, qui sacratissimae passionis memoriam exhibentes lamentationis signa
praetendunt, illudere non formidant. Illud autem districtissime inhibemus, ne in contumeliam
Redemptoris prosilire aliquatenus praesumant. Et quoniam illius dissimulare non debemus oppro-
brium, qui probra nostra delevit, praecipimus praesumptores huiusmodi per principles saeculares con-
dignae animadversionis adiectione compesci, ne crucifixum pro nobis praesumant aliquatenus
blasphemare.’
34 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, pp.135–8.
35 Mellinkoff, Outcasts, p.47.
36  Jeffrey Richards, Sex, Dissidence and Damnation: Minority Groups in the Middle Ages (London,
1991), p.109; Mellinkoff, Outcasts, pp.45–66.
37 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.409.
 Papal Claims to Authority over Judaism 171

pointed, conical, dome-shaped, funnel-shaped, terminating in a knob or spike, or

with a peak bent into Phrygian form.38 Yet although Jews in Germany, Austria,
and Poland already traditionally wore a conical hat ( Judenhut), in 1223 Gregory
IX complained to the German bishops that Jews were not also wearing the
rouelle.39
There is evidence that in the diocese of Paris such badges were used to distinguish
Jews from Christians even before the legislation of Lateran IV. If so, this again
points to the reactive, as much as proactive, nature of the statutes of ecumenical
councils. It is also possible that the idea of distinguishing garb was inspired by the
statutes of eighth- and ninth-century Caliphs who used badges to demarcate Jews
and Christians from Muslims; as late as the fourteenth century Muslims still re-
quired that Christians and Jews wear distinguishing headgear in territories under
their control.40 From the Council of Narbonne (1227) onwards, however, the badge
became the usual sign required by the Church to demarcate Jews from Christians: a
requirement regularly reiterated throughout the thirteenth and fourteenth cen-
turies, including at nine Church councils between 1215 and 1370, by nine royal
decrees following Louis IX’s order that Jews adopt it in 1269, and increasingly in the
municipal statutes of French towns such as Nice, Marseilles, and Avignon.
In Spain the badge was introduced by King James I of Aragon in 1228 and by
Thibaut IV of Champagne (King of Navarre 1234–1253) in 1234, while Alfonso X
of Castile decreed that Jews must wear the rouelle or face a fine, although his
decree seems to have been widely ignored. From 1218 onwards Jews often wore a
badge in the form of diptych-shaped Tablets of the Law.41 The Synod of Oxford
of 1222 not only echoed the legislation of both Lateran III and Lateran IV that
Christians must not live with Jews, that Jews must not employ female Christian
servants, forbidding also the building of new synagogues and decreeing that Jews
must pay tithes due from the lands they had obtained, but also declared that they
must wear on their outer garment a special badge of a different colour from the
garment itself, two fingers wide by four fingers long.42 That ruling was subse-
quently given official confirmation by Henry III (1216–1272) in legislation of
1253 and similar provisions were enacted at other local church councils and
synods throughout England.43 Similarly in 1221 Frederick II ordered all Jews in
the Kingdom of Sicily to wear distinctive clothing, while more generally the men-
dicant friars exerted pressure on secular powers in Italy to enforce the legislation
of Lateran IV.
Just as Canon 26 of Lateran III emphasizing the impropriety of Jews serving
Christians was repeated in subsequent papal correspondence, so too was the issue
of distinguishing garb. In a letter of 1215–1216, Innocent III ordered the arch-
bishops and bishops of France to ensure that Jews wore clothes that set them apart

38 Mellinkoff, Outcasts, p.59.

39 Richards, Sex, Dissidence and Damnation, pp.108–9.
40 Mellinkoff, Outcasts, p.45.   
41 Mellinkoff, Outcasts, p.60.
42  Antisemitism through the Ages, ed. Almog, p.113.
43  Antisemitism through the Ages, ed. Almog, p.114.
172 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

from Christians, although—ironically—he also emphasized that they must not be

forced to dress in any way that would increase the chance of discrimination against
them.44 In 1221 Honorius III complained that it had come to his attention that
a number of Jews in the archdiocese of Bordeaux were refusing to wear the pre-
scribed signs by which they were to be distinguishable from Christians through a
difference in clothing, so that:
aside from other enormities that arise out of this situation, it also happens that
Christians mingle with Jewish women, and Jews wickedly mingle with Christian
women.45
In response to such perceived enormities Honorius ordered the archbishop of
Bordeaux and his suffragans to ensure that the statutes of Lateran IV were strictly
observed and in particular that Jews differentiate themselves from Christians by
difference in dress. He also seems to have been concerned about the implementa-
tion of Canon 68 in Spain. In 1217, following an appeal by the bishop of Burgos,
he deprecated the fact that Jews living there took insufficient care to distinguish
themselves from Christians by their garments.46 In the same year he complained to
the archbishop of Toledo that Toledan Jews were not following the regulations
of the Fourth Lateran Council,47 and in 1221 he again wrote to the archbishop
ordering him to ensure that the Jews of his diocese be compelled by the penalties
laid down at Lateran IV to wear clothes by which they might be distinguishable
from Christians.48
Honorius, however, was aware of the abuses which might follow from this legis-
lation. In 1219 he observed that Jews in the Kingdom of Castile chose to flee the
kingdom and take up residence in the Muslim south rather than conform to the
legislation of Lateran IV. He acknowledged that since the king of Castile derived
much of his income from Jews, this meant that he had great difficulty raising rev-
enues.49 In response he ruled that in this particular instance Constitution 68 was
to be suspended for as long as necessary. Similarly, the following year, he chided the
archbishop of Tarragona because:50
. . . nevertheless, under the pretext of the General Council, certain ones among you try
to force them (the Jews) to wear a new sign not so much in order that such crimes
should be avoided, as because they thus have the chance to extort money. For this

44  Innocent III, ‘Mandatur ut permittant’ (1215–1216), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.140; Simonsohn, p.99.
45  Honorius III, ‘Ad nostram noveritis’ (29 April 1221), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.166; Simonsohn, p.117:
‘Quare preter alia enormia que inde contingunt Christiani Judeis mulieribus, et Judei Christianis
nefarie commiscentur.’
46  Honorius III, ‘Cum in generali concilio’ (27 January 1217), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.142.
47  Honorius III, ‘In generali concilio’ (26 January 1218), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.144–6; Simonsohn,
p.103.
48  Honorius III, ‘Cum in generali concilio’ (24 November 1221), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.168; Simonsohn,
pp.118–19.
49 Honorius III, ‘Ex parte karrissimi’ (20 March 1219), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.150; Simonsohn,
pp.105–6.
50  Honorius III, ‘Ad audientiam nostram’ (3 September 1220), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.156–8; Simonsohn,
p.111.
 Papal Claims to Authority over Judaism 173
reason many Jews withdraw from his [the king’s] land, much to his loss and that of his
Kingdom, and he fears that still others have by this time departed.51
And he added that:
. . . we command you by Apostolic Writings to the effect that you no longer trouble
them about the wearing of a new sign, if indeed their clothes distinguish them from
Christians to such an extent that they cannot, by error, have forbidden intercourse.
Otherwise you shall compel them to be set apart by the nature of their clothes in
­accordance with the decree of the General Council. (This you shall do) not in order to
derive material benefit from it, but rather to prevent danger to many souls.52
So both Innocent III and Honorius III showed a degree of flexibility in their
­implementation of Constitution 68. By contrast Gregory IX’s correspondence to
Germany and Spain mandated that the decree of Lateran IV be followed to the
letter.53 In tune with his endorsement of the Inquisition and his legislation on her-
etics, Jews must be clearly demarcated and separated from the rest of society.
Concern over distinguishing garb continued throughout the second half of the
thirteenth century, as can be seen in Innocent IV’s correspondence to France,
Germany, and Spain.54 Oddly, in one such letter he complained to the bishop of
Maguelonne that the implementation of this decree had led to confusion between
Jews and clergy:
Your Fraternity has told us that certain Jews of your diocese and of the surrounding
places presume, not without injury to the Clerical Orders, to wear round and wide
capes after the manner of clerics and of members of the holy orders. As a result it often
happens that sacerdotal honor and undeserved reverence is paid them by travellers and
strangers. Since we do not want them to presume to do anything of this sort, we order
that the said Jews, having discarded any such capes, shall wear a habit befitting them,
one by which they may be distinguished not only from clergy, but even from laity.55

51  Honorius III, ‘Ad audientiam nostram’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.156; Simonsohn, p.111: ‘quidam tamen
vestrum pretextu generalis concilii, non propter excessus hujusmodi evitandos, sed ut tali potius occa-
sione possint pecuniam extorquere, ad portandum eosdem nituntur compellere nova signa; propter
quod multi Judeorum a terra sua in ipsius et Regni sui detrimentum non modicum recesserint, et
adhuc alios metuit recessidos’.
52  Honorius III, ‘Ad audientiam nostram’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.156–8; Simonsohn, p.111: ‘fraterni-
tati vestre per apostolica scripta mandamus quatinus si eos a Christianis habitus sic distinguit ut hinc
in dampnabiliter commisceri nequeant per errorem, ipsos super novis signis portandis nullatenus
mollestetis. Alioquin cogatis eosdem iuxta statuta concilii a Christianis publice per habitus qualitates
distingui, non ut ex hoc proprium commodum procuretis, sed obvietis potius periculis animarum.’
53  Gregory IX, ‘Sufficere debuerat perfidie’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.198–200; Simonsohn, pp.141–3;
‘Judei quos propria’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.204–6; Simonsohn, pp.145–7; ‘Cum in sacro generali’ (7 June
1233), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.206; Simonsohn, p.145; ‘Significantibus dilectis filiis’ (29 August/10
September 1239), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.244; Simonsohn, pp.174–5.
54  For example, Innocent IV, ‘Cum in sacro generali’ (23 October 1245), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.258;
Simonsohn, pp.185–6; ‘Licet in sacro generali’ (13 April 1250), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.282; Simonsohn,
pp.200–1; ‘Licet in sacro generali’ (14 March 1254), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.294; Simonsohn, p.209.
55  Innocent IV, ‘Tua nobis fraternitas’ (7 July 1248), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.280; Simonsohn, p.199: ‘Tua
nobis fraternitas intimavit quod Judei tue diocesis et circumpositorum locorum non sine ordinis cleri-
calis injuria capas rotundas et largas more clericorum et sacerdotum deferre presumant. Propter quod
sepe contigit ut a peregrinis et advenis eis tamquam sacerdotibus honor et reverentia indebita prebea-
tur. Nolentes igitur ut ab ispsis de cetero talia presumantur, mandamus quatenus prefatos Judeos ut
174 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

In 1258 Alexander IV complained to the duke of Burgundy that laws forbidding

Jews from holding public office and insisting they wear distinguishing garb were not
being followed.56 Similarly Clement IV requested that his chaplain investigate com-
plaints against Alfonso III of Portugal (1248–1279) that he did not compel Jews
to  wear distinguishing clothes in his kingdom,57 and in 1267 he complained to
southern French archbishops that Jews continued to flout canonical regulations
about dress.58 Then Nicholas III instructed his chancellor at the curia to prepare an
order that all diocesan bishops force Jews to wear garments separating them from
Christians,59 while in 1284 Martin IV ordered bishops in the Kingdom of Portugal
to ensure that King Dionysius of Portugal acted correctly in the future in insisting
that Jews wear clothes indicating their separation.60 In 1289 Nicholas IV confirmed
a joint document drawn up between the king and the Portuguese clergy which in-
cluded a decree that Jews must wear a distinguishing badge.61
A further decree—Constitution 69—of Lateran IV, referring specifically to
Canon 14 of the Visigothic Council of Toledo of 589 decreed that Jews must not
hold public office:
It would be too absurd for a blasphemer of Christ to exercise power over Christians. We
therefore renew in this canon, on account of the boldness of the offenders, what the
council of Toledo providently decreed in this matter: we forbid Jews to be appointed to
public offices, since under cover of them they are very hostile to Christians. If, however,
anyone does commit such an office to them let him, after an admonition, be curbed by
the provincial council, which we order to be held annually, by means of an appropriate
sanction. Any official so appointed shall be denied commerce with Christians in busi-
ness and in other matters until he has converted to the use of poor Christians, in
accordance with the directions of the diocesan bishop, whatever he has obtained from
Christians by reason of his office so acquired, and he shall surrender with shame the
office which he irreverently assumed. We extend the same thing to pagans.62

capis hujusmodi omnino dimissis, habitum eis congruentem deferant, quo non solum a clericis,
verum etiam a laicis distinguantur, etiam per subtractionem communionis fidelium.’
56 Alexander IV, ‘In sacro generali’ (3 September 1258), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.64–6; Simonsohn,
pp.215–16.
57 Clement IV, ‘Isti sunt articuli’ (no date/1265–1268), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.90–1; Simonsohn,
pp.227–9.
58  Clement IV, ‘Dampnabili perfidia Judaeorum’ (23 December 1267), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.106–10;
Simonsohn, pp.239–40.
59 Nicholas III, Chancery formulae (1277–1278), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.137–9.
60  Martin IV, ‘Isti sunt articuli’ (1 April 1284), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.152–4; Simonsohn, pp.257–9.
61 Nicholas IV, ‘Cum olim inter’ (7 March 1289), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.172–4; Simonsohn,
pp.268–70.
62  Tanner, Vol. 1, pp.266–7: ‘Cum sit nimis absurdum, ut Christi blasphemus in christianos vim
potestatis exerceat, quod super hoc Toletanum concilium provide statuit, nos propter transgressorum
audaciam in hoc capitulo innovamus, prohibentes ne Iudaei officiis publicis praeferantur, quoniam
sub tali praetextu christianis plurimum sunt infesti. Si quis autem officium eis tale commiserit, per
provinciale concilium, quod singulis praecipimus annis celebrari, monitione praemissa, districtione
qua convenit compescatur. Officiali vero huiusmodi tamdiu christianorum communio in commerciis
et aliis denegetur, donec in usus pauperum christianorum, secundum providentiam dioecesani epis-
copi, convertatur quicquid fuerit adeptus a christianis, occasione officii sic suscepti, et officium cum
pudore dimittat, quod irreverenter assumpsit. Hoc idem extendimus ad paganos.’
 Papal Claims to Authority over Judaism 175

Following the Council’s lead, subsequent Councils such as that of Montélimar

of 1195 similarly emphasized that Jews must be banned from holding positions
of authority.63 In doing so they drew on ancient ideas about the status of Jews
in  Christian society, particularly St Augustine’s theory of Jewish witness and
the  idea that, as we have seen, since theologically Jews were deemed to serve
Christians, it would be wrong if Christians were seen to serve Jews and unseemly
for Christians to be under the power of Jews in a Christian society.64 Yet increas-
ingly in the late twelfth and thirteenth centuries that idea seems to have been
combined with a growing fear that Jews, the people of the Old Covenant, were
a potential threat to Christians, the people of the New, and sought to undermine
Christian society itself—an idea which, as we saw in Chapter Two, was first for-
mally expressed by popes in Innocent III’s re-issue of the ‘Constitutio pro Iudaeis’
in 1199.65 Indeed, some historians have a­ rgued that the theme was strikingly
and particularly prevalent in the correspondence of Innocent III, a point to which
we shall return in Chapter Six.
Once again their correspondence reveals that popes were keen to enforce the
legislation of Lateran IV. So in 1221 Honorius III complained that nobles in
Bordeaux were flouting Constitution 69 and allowing Jews to exercise public
office.66 In 1225 he again complained to the archbishop of Colosza (Hungary) and
his suffragans that he was allowing Jews to be given preferential treatment:
In another matter we marvel at your conduct, and we have cause to be surprised at it
and to threaten you for it. For although it was decided in the Council of Toledo, and
afterwards re-affirmed in the General Council, that a blasphemer of Christ should
not  be given preferment in public office, since it is quite absurd that any such
should  exercise power over Christians, you, so we understand, have permitted this
statute to be violated under your very eyes by Jews and pagans, although publicly in
your synods you hurled the sentence of excommunication against all who give prefer-
ment to infidels in these offices, and although this same King long ago directed his
letters to you in which he announced that he had decreed in an immutable law that in
the Kingdom of Hungary during his own lifetime or that of his heirs no such persons
shall be given preferment in the said offices.67

63  Tanner, Vol. 1, pp.266–7; X.5.6.16, col. 777. See Robert Chazan, Medieval Stereotypes and
Modern Antisemitism (Berkeley, London, 1997), p.100; Robert Chazan, Daggers of Faith: Thirteenth-
Century Christian Missionizing and Jewish Response (Berkeley, 1989), p.31; Dahan, Les intellectuels
chrétiens et les juifs au moyen âge, p.116; Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.302; John O’ Brien, ‘Jews and Cathari in
Medieval France’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 10 (1967), 218.
64  Jeremy Cohen, Living Letters of the Law: Ideas of the Jew in Medieval Christianity (Berkeley,
London, 1999), pp.35–41.
65 Innocent III, ‘Licet perfidia Judeorum’ (15 September 1199), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.92–4;
Simonsohn, pp.74–5.
66  Honorius III, ‘Ad nostram noveritis’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.166; Simonsohn, p.117.
67  Honorius III, ‘Intellecto jamdudum’ (23 August 1225), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.170–2; Simonsohn,
pp.120–1; ‘Intellecto jamdudum’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.172; Simonsohn, p.120: ‘Ad hoc de discretione
vestra miramur, causam contra vos admirationis et comminationis habentes, ex eo, quod cum in
Toletano concilio statutum fuerit, et in generali postmodum innovatum, ne Christi blasphemus pub-
licis officiis preferatur, cum nimium sit absurdum, ut talis in Christianos vim exerceat potestatis, vos,
ut intelleximus, conniventibus oculis sustenetis, per Judeos atque paganos statutum hujusmodi violari
quamquam publice in sinodis vestris protuleritis excommunicationis sentemtiam in omnes, qui
176 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

In similar manner Gregory IX stated several times throughout the 1230s that Jews
must not hold public office. Thus in 1231 he complained to the archbishop of
Gran (Hungary) that:68
Furthermore, although it was clearly decreed in the Council of Toledo that the
Jews should not be given preferment in public office, since it seems thoroughly out of
harmony that blasphemers of Christ should exercise authority over Christians: yet
everywhere in the Kingdom, Jews and Saracens without distinction are placed in
­office. Under this pretext, they bring outrageous burdens upon the churches, and are
very injurious to the Christian name.
The same year he also counselled the bishops of Astorga and Lugo and the dean
of Lugo (Portugal) that since the bishop of Lisbon had complained that in his dio-
cese Jews were being given preferment in public office they should approach the
king personally and ensure that he give preferential treatment to Christians.69 He
confirmed the same point in 1233, this time for Germany:70
And although it was decided at the Council of Toledo and likewise renewed at the
General Council, that a blasphemer of Christ should not be given preferment in public
office, since it is absurd that such should exercise power over Christians, nevertheless
secular dignities and public offices are committed to their care, and as a result they vent
their rage against the Christians and force some of them to adopt their rites.71
In the same year he urged the archbishop of Compostella and his suffragans to
­ensure Jews held no public office,72 and complained to Andrew II of Hungary
(1205–1235), that the archbishop of Gran had noted certain grave wrongs and
serious abuses in the Kingdom including that:73
Moreover, contrary to the Council of Tours, Jews and Saracens used to be placed in
authority by being given public office, and under this pretext they would bring serious
injury upon the churches, and would in many ways offend the Christians.74

e­ isdem officiis preficerent infideles, et idem Rex vobis jamdudum direxerit scripta sua, in quibus lege
perpetuo duratura se statuisse dicebat, ne in Regno Ungarie ullo unquam suo vel heredum suorum
tempore tales preficiantur officiis supradictis.’
68  Gregory IX, ‘Cum illius vices’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.184–6; Simonsohn, pp.130–2; ‘Cum illius
vices’, Grayzel Vol. 1, p.186; Simonsohn, p.131: ‘Et licet in Toletano Concilio provide sit statutum ne
Judei publicis officiis preferantur, cum nimis obsonum videatur, ut Christi blasphemus in Christianos
vim exerceat potestatis, in Regno tamen eodem passim Judei ac Sarraceni publicis officiis preponuntur,
qui sub tali pretextu et dampna gravia ecclesiis inferunt, et christiano nomini plurimum sunt infesti.’
69 Gregory IX, ‘Ex speciali quem’ (20 October 1231), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.190–2; Simonsohn,
pp.136–9.
70  Gregory IX, ‘Sufficere debuerat perfidie’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.198–200; Simonsohn, pp.141–3.
71  Gregory IX, ‘Sufficere debuerat perfidie’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.198; Simonsohn, p.142: ‘Et cum in
Toletano concilio sit statutum, et in generali nihilominus innovatum ne Christi blasphemus publicis
preferatur officiis cum nimium sit absurdum ut talis in Christianos vim exerceat potestatis, nihilomi-
nus eis dignitates seculares et publica officia committuntur, quorum occasione in Christianos seviunt,
et nonnullos servare faciunt ritum suum.’
72  Gregory IX, ‘Judei quos propria’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.204–6; Simonsohn, pp.145–7.
73  Gregory IX, ‘Quanto personam tuam’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.206–10; Simonsohn, pp.147–9.
74  Gregory IX, ‘Quanto personam tuam’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.208; Simonsohn, p.148: ‘Judei insuper
ac Sarraceni publicis proponebantur officiis contra Concilium Turonense, qui sub tali pretextu et
dampna gravia inferebant ecclesiis et Christianos plurimum infestabant.’
 Papal Claims to Authority over Judaism 177

Three years later, in 1239, however, he conceded to Andrew’s successor Bela IV

(1235–1270) the same dispensation he had granted to Sancho II of Portugal
(1223–1247), namely that he might if necessary sell his revenues to Jews or ‘­pagans’
(here Muslims) provided that a Christian was appointed to oversee the collection
of royal dues and taxes—though he also reminded him of the wording of the
­decree which stipulated that neither Jews nor Muslims should be given preferment
in office.75
During the second half of the thirteenth century popes continued to issue
similar directives in response to petitions. In 1258 Alexander IV told the duke of
Burgundy to ensure that Jews be barred from all positions of authority in the
duchy.76 As in the case of distinguishing garb, Clement IV asked his chaplain to
investigate complaints that the king of Portugal was appointing Jews in preference
to Christians;77 while writing to prelates of the Counties of Poitiers, Toulouse, and
Provence in 1267, he reiterated that Jews should not hold public office.78 Similarly
in 1279 Nicholas III listed a number of complaints against the king of Castile and
León, including the appointment of Jews to positions of power.79 When in 1284
Martin IV wrote to the bishop of León and to the dean and archdeacon of Ledesma
in Salamanca, he listed among the issues disputed between the prelates of  the
Kingdom of Portugal and Dionysius that the king was said to grant Jews positions
of power over Christians.80 Finally, in 1289 Nicholas IV confirmed the joint docu-
ment drawn up between the king and the clergy of Portugal which enumerated
forty points on which Dionysius and the Church had reached an understanding; it
included a stipulation that Jews not be given preferential treatment in the matter
of public office.81 So throughout the thirteenth century popes remained com-
mitted to implementing the legislation of Lateran IV.

E c u me n ica l C o u n ci l s : T he J ewish P e r specti v e

The spiritual authority of the papacy was particularly evident in a pope’s power to
call ecumenical councils—a fact which did not go unnoticed by medieval Jewish
writers who often feared that the outcome of such councils would be detrimental
to their communities.82 According to the Jewish writer Shem-Tob Sonzolo, Jews
anticipated violence when Innocent II called the Second Lateran Council in

75  Gregory IX, ‘Quia inter ceteros’ (10 December 1239), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.244–6; Simonsohn,
pp.175–6.
76  Alexander IV, ‘In sacro generali’, Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.64–6; Simonsohn, pp.215–16.
77  Clement IV, ‘Isti sunt articuli’, Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.90–1; Simonsohn, pp.227–9.
78 Clement IV, ‘Dampnabili perfidia Judaeorum’, Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.106–10; Simonsohn,
pp.239–40.
79 Nicholas III, ‘Istud est memoriale secretum’ (23 March 1279), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.145–6;
Simonsohn, p.253.
80  Martin IV, ‘Isti sunt articuli’, Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.152–4; Simonsohn, pp.257–9.
81 Nicholas IV, ‘Cum olim inter’, Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.172–4; Simonsohn, pp.268–70.
82  Solomon Grayzel, ‘Jews and the Ecumenical Councils’, in The Seventy-Fifth Anniversary Volume
of the Jewish Quarterly Review, ed. A. A. Neuman, S. Zeitlin (1967), 287–311.
178 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

1139.83 Papal control over Jewish communities in this context is strikingly por-
trayed in the Shebet Yehudah of Shelomo ibn Verga,84 who seems to have been
one of the many Spanish exiles of 1492 who crossed the border into Portugal, was
embroiled five years later in the forced baptisms of all Portuguese Jews, and subse-
quently managed to escape.85 Given his wanderings and the circumstances in which
he struggled for safety, his assertion that he was an authority on Christian doctrine
and more knowledgeable even than the clergy is not particularly surprising.
Although the Shebet Yehudah is not a medieval text and was written long after the
events it describes, it provides insight into how later writers perceived Jewish–papal
relations in the High Middle Ages and with an idea of historiography not evident
in medieval chronicles, sees a special significance in the events of its own time.86
The Shebet Yehudah recorded the ecumenical councils of Lateran III and Lateran
IV and described the fear felt by Jews on the eve of these councils.87 Referring to
the Third Lateran Council, it records how Alexander III summoned the council:88
In the year 139 [1179] the pope collected together all his bishops and priests from
France and Spain; and all the communities were extremely anxious and they fasted for
three consecutive days.89
Yet, as the Shebet Yehudah then reassuringly affirmed, despite their sins, God
proved good and provided for them. It is surprising, however, that the text makes
no reference to Canon 26 which decreed that Christians must not live in Jewish
homes, that Christians who served Jews or Muslims should be excommunicated,
that Christian testimony was to be admitted against Jews just as Jewish testimony
against Christians, and that secular authorities must ensure that those who con-
verted to Christianity were financially no worse off than before conversion.90
Possibly the author felt that there was no need to examine this particular piece
of legislation in detail because, unlike papal authorization of crusades, it had no

83 R. Salamo aben Verga, Shevet Jehudah, trans. M. Weiner (Neudruck, 1924), p.112. See Salo
Baron, ‘“Plenitude of Apostolic Powers” and Medieval “Jewish Serfdom’”, in Ancient and Medieval
Jewish History, ed. L. A. Feldman (New Brunswick, 1972), p.288.
84  For discussion of Shelomo ibn Verga, see, for example, Salo Baron, A Social and Religious History
of the Jews: Late Middle Ages and Era of European Expansion, 1200–1650, Vol. 9: Under Church and
Empire, 2nd edn (New York, London, 1965), p.104; and much more recently, for example, Yosef
Yerushalmi, The Lisbon Massacre of 1506 and the Royal Image in the Shebet Yehudah (Cincinatti, 1976),
pp.3–4; Jeremy Cohen, The Friars and the Jews. The Evolution of Medieval Anti-Judaism (Ithaca,
London, 1982), p.88.
85 Yerushalmi, The Lisbon Massacre of 1506 and the Royal Image in the Shebet Yehudah, p.3.
86  For discussion of the Shebet Yehudah and its place in sixteenth century Jewish literature, see Yosef
Yerushalmi, Zakhor. Jewish History and Jewish Memory (Seattle, London, 1982), pp.60–9. For discussion
of the popularization of this work and the Yiddish version, see Michael Stanislawski, ‘The Yiddish Shevet
Yehudah: A Study in the “Ashkenization” of a Spanish-Jewish Classic’, in Jewish History and Jewish Memory:
Essays in Honour of Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, ed. E. Carlebach, J. M. Efron, D. N. Myers (Hanover, London,
1998), pp.134–49; Amos Funkenstein, Perceptions of Jewish History (Berkeley, Oxford, 1993), p.15.
87  For discussion of Shelomo ibn Verga see, for example, Baron, A Social and Religious History of the
Jews, p.104; and much more recently, for example, Yerushalmi, The Lisbon Massacre of 1506 and the
Royal Image in the Shebet Yehudah, pp.3–4; Cohen, The Friars and the Jews, p.88.
88  The Shebet Yehudah of Shelomo ibn Verga, ed. A. Shohat (Jerusalem, 1947), p.146.
89  The Shebet Yehudah of Shelomo ibn Verga, ed. Shohat, p.146.
90  Tanner, Vol. 1, pp.223–4; X.5.6.5, col. 773.
 Papal Claims to Authority over Judaism 179

immediately catastrophic effect on Jewish life: probably also because the effect of
this council on Jews was much better than that of its successor, Lateran IV.
The Shebet Yehudah gives much more detailed information about Jewish prepar-
ation for Lateran IV presided over by Innocent III in 1215.91 It claims that in that
same year there had been Jewish representation at the Council of Montpellier and
that the Jews there, threatened by Louis VIII, had been saved by the intervention
of Simon de Montfort, leader of the Albigensian Crusade. Referring to this, it
­describes how Louis threatened to demolish the walls of Montpellier, putting the
Jewish community in great danger, but that Simon and his brother promised to
preserve it. In this respect the account is inaccurate since Louis did not become
king until 1223 and was involved in crusading briefly in 1219 and after 1223. Yet
what is particularly informative is the detailing of how, on the eve of Lateran IV,
Jews from many communities assembled in the south of France at Bourg de Saint
Gilles on the orders of their spiritual leaders Rabbi Isaac Benveniste and Rabbi
Levi.92 The purpose of the meeting was to decide who would go to Rome to per-
suade Innocent III to ensure no harm came to the Jews as a result of legislation
enacted by the council and by the bishops assembled ‘in their abomination of
sacks’—possibly a derisory reference to the clerical garb of the mendicant friars.93
The Shebet Yehudah reports that in that year (1215) a decree was proclaimed in
France that Jews should henceforth wear the badge,94 and that they must pay a
sum of money to the local parish priest each year—a reference to the obligation of
Jews to pay the tithe, which, as we have seen, had first been decreed by Alexander
III sometime between 1174 and 1179.95 The Shebet Yehudah also recorded the
death in 1216 of Innocent III:96
In the year 176 [1215] the evil kingdom ruled that our people were to walk around
marked with a foreign badge from the age of twelve and onwards—the men on their
hats and the women on their scarves. And another decree was enacted that each house-
hold would give to the priest of the town six denarii every year at the time of the
Festival. And in that year the pope, who spoke evil about our people, suddenly died.97
This is a clear reference to the anti-Jewish legislation at Lateran IV and in par-
ticular the decree that Jews must wear clothing to distinguish them from
Christians.98 Surprisingly, however, nothing is said of the other statutes of the
Council concerning the Jews: that they must not practice usury nor hold public
office, and that converts to Christianity from Judaism must be compelled to stay
within the Christian fold.99 Nor is there any mention of the decree Ad liberan-
dam which ­referred to Jewish usury in the specific context of plans for the Fifth
Crusade.100

91  Grayzel, ‘Jews and the Ecumenical Councils’, 296.

92  The Shebet Yehudah of Shelomo ibn Verga, ed. Shohat, p.147.
93  The Shebet Yehudah of Shelomo ibn Verga, ed. Shohat, p.147.
94  The Shebet Yehudah of Shelomo ibn Verga, ed. Shohat, p.148.
95  Alexander III, ‘Non sine multa’ (1174–1179), Simonsohn, p.57.
96  The Shebet Yehudah of Shelomo ibn Verga, ed. Shohat, p.148.
97  The Shebet Yehudah of Shelomo ibn Verga, ed. Shohat, p.148.
98  Tanner, Vol. 1, p.266.   99  Tanner, Vol. 1, pp.265–7.   100  Tanner, Vol. 1, p.269.
180 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

Yet the Shebet Yehudah does record forced baptisms of Jews in Toulouse,101 and
that although French legislation that Jews must wear a distinguishing mark on
their coats was originally cancelled, subsequently Jews were ordered to wear red or
yellow badges. In response to this, Rabbis Mordechai Man Yosef Oynin, and
Shlomo de Shalom petitioned Charles I of Anjou (1226–1285), King of Naples
and Sicily and Count of Provence, and the decree was cancelled. Again, it seems
that in this popular history conciliar legislation was only of interest when it had the
immediate potential of impacting catastrophically on Jewish communities.

T he Papacy a n d C a n o n Law

As part of their attempt to assert the authority of the papacy over all aspects of
Christian society, we have seen how in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries popes
were much concerned with the development of canon law. In turn, twelfth- and
thirteenth-century canon law collections profoundly influenced papal pronounce-
ments, in particular discussions concerning just wars and the treatment of minor-
ities, including Jews, in Christian society. During this period popes used the
promise of spiritual rewards to encourage Christians to take part in military cam-
paigns against those whom they considered enemies of the Church. At the same
time collections of legal texts and commentaries were multiplying across Europe,
including material concerned with the authorization of military campaigns against
Muslims in the Near East and heretics and political opponents of the papacy in
Christian Europe. Many of these were widely read by popes, some of whom had
themselves been trained in canon law.
Particularly important—as we have seen—was Gratian’s Concordia discordan-
tium canonum, compiled perhaps at Bologna between 1139 and at the latest, 1158:
a massive collection of documents concerned with Church discipline.102 The
Decretum cited important texts from the Church fathers and other authorities
dealing, inter alia, with the justification of violence in a good cause and the status
of heretics, Muslims, and Jews in Christian society.103
Causa 23 and Causa 24 of the Decretum contained a large number of texts con-
cerned with heretics and schismatics. By comparison, the small number of papal
decretals and Church rulings concerning Jews pre-Gratian and the qualitative
changes in rulings about the Jews post-Gratian suggest that before the twelfth cen-
tury there was much less concern about Jews than about heretics. Admittedly, the
Decretum of Ivo of Chartres, on which Gratian’s Decretum drew, included texts

101  The Shebet Yehudah of Shelomo ibn Verga, ed. Shohat, p.148.
102  Anders Winroth argues for a ‘two stage’ theory of composition and that there were two separate
recensions of the Decretum. See Anders Winroth, The Making of Gratian’s Decretum (Cambridge,
2000), pp.122–45.
103 The literature on Gratian is now enormous. See, for example, Peter Landau, ‘Gratian’,
Theologische Realenzyklopedia 14 (Berlin, 1985), 124–30; Winroth, The Making of Gratian’s Decretum;
James Clarence-Smith, Medieval Law Teachers and Writers, Civilian and Canonist (Otttawa, 1975),
p.19.
 Papal Claims to Authority over Judaism 181

concerned with the status of Jews,104 but there was no special section given over to
them.105 Nevertheless, despite a lack of systematic treatment, throughout Gratian’s
work there were scattered references to Jews.106 One of the most striking is
Capitulum 11 of Quaestio 8 of Causa 23, ‘Placuit nobis’, the letter of Pope
Alexander II to Spanish bishops of 1063, which, as we saw in Chapter Two, com-
pared warlike Muslims in Spain with Jews living peacefully in Christian territories
and instructed Christians to wage war against the former but not the latter:
Different surely is the case of Jews and Saracens. For one fights justly against those [the
Saracens] who persecute Christians and force them from their cities and their own
territories; but these [the Jews] are everywhere prepared to serve.107
Alexander did not regard the Jews of Spain as enemies because, unlike Muslims,
they were prepared to fulfil a subservient role in Christian society. This important
and clear distinction was in marked contrast to the twelfth-century authority Peter
the Venerable, whose correspondence betrayed a much harsher stance towards Jews
than towards Muslims.108
As we have noticed, in the thirteenth century popes became increasingly involved
in the construction of canon law. In particular the twelfth- and thirteenth-century
canon law compilations known collectively as the Quinque antiquae compilationes,
composed by Bernard of Parma, John of Wales, Pietro Collevaccino, Johannes
Teutonicus, and Tancred became highly influential and reflected papal thinking.
Two of them were especially commissioned by the papacy. During the High
Middle Ages, Muslims were the main ‘external’ enemies of Christian Europe, at
least until the Mongol invasions of 1241–1242, but like Jews, there were also
Muslims living in Christian Europe, particularly in Spain, Italy, Sicily, and
Hungary.109 The Quinque antiquae compilationes bracketed both groups together
and classed them as infidels. Although such a grouping is not self-explanatory, it
seems that the treatment of Muslims in Christian lands was modelled on similar
policies towards Jews.
So the Quinque antiquae compilationes contained a large number of decretals
concerned with infidels. Titulus 5 of Book 5 of Compilatio prima, entitled De

104  Ivo of Chartres, Decretum beati Iuonis (Louvain, 1561), 13. 94–110, pp.385–7. See Clarence-
Smith, Medieval Law Teachers and Writers, pp.4–5; p.19.
105  Frederick Russell, The Just War in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, New York, 1975), p.75; James
Muldoon, Popes, Lawyers and Infidels; the Church and the Non-Christian World 1250–1550
(Philadelphia, 1979), p.4.
106  For example, Capitulum 2 of Quaestio 7 of Causa 23 was a letter of St Augustine declaring that
the Jews had lost their kingdom in accordance with God’s will and that if Catholics complained that
donatist heretics held ecclesiastical possessions, Jews might also legitimately accuse Christians, who
had now taken possession of their land. See Gratian, C.23.q.7.c.2, col. 951. Or, for example,
Capitulum 2 of Quaestio 8 of Causa 23, a letter attributed to a Pope Innocent, but probably a spurious
and later addition to Gratian’s text, referred to the Gospel account of Christ’s arrest by the Jews. See
Gratian, C.23.q.8.c.2, col. 953.
107  Gratian, C.23.q.8.c.11, col. 955: ‘Dispar nimirum est Iudeorum et Sarracenorum causa. In
illos enim, qui Christianos persecuntur, et ex urbibus et propriis sedibus pellunt, iuste pugnatur; hii
ubique servire parati sunt.’
108  The Letters of Peter the Venerable, 1, ed. G. Constable (Harvard, Oxford, 1967), pp.327–30.
109 Muldoon, Popes, Lawyers and Infidels, p.30.
182 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

Iudaeis et Saracenis et eorum servis,110 consisted of seven capitula, or chapters, con-

cerning Jews, Muslims, and their servants, three of which date from the twelfth
century.111 Among these, Capitulum 5 was Canon 26 of the Third Lateran Council
of 1179, which, as we examined in Chapter Five, decreed that neither Jews nor
Muslims be allowed to keep Christian servants. Titulus 20 of Book 3 of Compilatio
secunda, De conversione infidelium, comprised decretals of Clement III and
Celestine III concerned with marriage between Christians and infidels who had
converted to Christianity.112 In particular, those of Clement discussed the problem
of whether converted Jews and Muslims might be allowed to abandon their infidel
spouse in favour of a new Christian marriage. Titulus 4 of Book 5 of the Compilatio
secunda entitled De Iudaeis et Saracenis included six texts, two of Alexander III and
four of Clement III, three of which were concerned with Jews.113 Capitulum 1, a
letter of Alexander III, allowed for the restoration of old, dilapidated synagogues
but forbade the embellishment or aggrandisement of those currently in use,114 a
stipulation which Innocent III likely had in mind when in his letter ‘Etsi non
displiceat’ of 1205 he complained of the height of the local synagogue in Sens
compared to the neighbouring church.115 Capitulum 2, another letter of Alexander
III, ruled that Christians might not serve Jews nor employ Jewish doctors or their
wives lest they be seen to be nurturing Jewish children in their homes, and that
Christians should reject any form of usury. In contrast to these decretals curtailing
Jewish freedom, Capitulum 3, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, Clement III’s re-issue of the
‘Constitutio pro Iudaeis’ of 1188, ironically placed Jews under papal protection.
By contrast to Compilationes prima and secunda, Compilationes tertia, quarta and
quinta included decretals of popes from the first half of the thirteenth century
onwards. Book 5 of Tertia contained Titulus 3 De Iudaeis which cited the letter
‘Etsi Iudaeos’ of 1205 in which Innocent III echoed his predecessor Alexander III
in reminding the archbishops of Sens and Paris that Jews should be forbidden to
employ Christians as wet nurses or servants in their homes and that any who dis-
obeyed this ruling should be denied all commerce with Christians.116 Titulus 10 of
Book 5, De usuris, presented five decretals on usury, one of which was entitled ‘Per
miserabilem’, Innocent III’s letter of 1198, originally entitled ‘Post miserabile’, which
authorized the Fourth Crusade and forbade Jews from exacting usury from crusaders.117
Book 5 of the Compilatio quarta contained Titulus 4, De Iudaeis et Saracenis, which
cited three constitutions of the Fourth Lateran Council concerned with Jews:
Constitution 68 which decreed that Jews and Muslims must wear distinguishing
110  1 Comp. 5.5, p.55.
111  Capitula 5 and 6 were decrees of the Third Lateran Council and Capitulum 7 was a decretal of
Alexander III. Surprisingly, although Titulus 15 of Book 5 of Compilatio prima, (De usuris) comprised
twelve texts on usury, none of them referred to the Jews. See 1 Comp. 5.15, p.59.
112  2 Comp. 3.20, pp.86–7. The decretal of Celestine III included a discussion of whether Saracens
(Muslims) converted to Christianity should be allowed to marry widows of men they had killed in
battle.
113  2 Comp. 5.4, p.98.
114  X.5.6.3, col. 772; X.5.6.7, col. 773.
115  Innocent III, ‘Etsi non displiceat’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.104–8; Simonsohn, pp.82–4.
116  3 Comp. 5.3, p.130.
117  3 Comp. 5.10, p.131.
 Papal Claims to Authority over Judaism 183

garb; Constitution 69 which forbade Jews from holding public office; and
Constitution 70 which instructed the clergy to restrain Jews who had received bap-
tism from returning to their former religion.118 Titulus 7 of the same book, De usuris,
contained Constitution 67 of the same Lateran IV forbidding Jewish usury.119
Titulus 3 of Book 5 of the Compilatio quinta, De Iudaeis et Saracenis, included a
letter of Honorius III to the archbishops and bishops of Hungary warning against
pollution of the Christian faith by contact with both Muslims and Jews.120
Even more influential than the Quinque antiquae compilationes was the Liber
extra, a collection of Raymond of Peñafort commissioned by Gregory IX, which
superseded the material in the earlier work. It too reflected the ambivalent position
of Jews in Christian society, since the majority of its texts were derived from its
predecessor. Thus, Titulus 6 of Book 5, De Iudaeis, Saracenis et eorum servis, con-
tained nineteen capitula, six of which also appear under the titulus of the same
name in Compilatio prima.121 Fourteen of the nineteen were concerned specifically
with Jews.122 Titulus 33 of Book 3, De conversione infidelium, contained two capitula
dealing with the problem of intermarriage between Christians and Muslims or
Jews.123 Capitulum 2, a letter of Gregory IX, decreed that if one partner of an
­infidel couple converted to Christianity but the other remained an infidel, their
offspring should come under the authority of the converted partner.124 Capitulum
4 of Titulus 14 of Book 4, De consanguinitate et affinitate, was a letter of Innocent
III to the archbishop and chapter of Tyre in which he declared that baptism should
not separate spouses married before their conversion to Christianity.125 Capitulum
13 of Titulus 6 of Book 5 was the aforementioned letter ‘Etsi Iudaeos’ of Innocent
III as cited in Compilatio tertia.126 Capitulum 15 of Titulus 6 of Book 5 was
Constitution 68 of Lateran IV which, as we have seen, declared that Jews and
Muslims of either sex must wear distinguishing dress in order to be easily recogniz-
able by Christians. Furthermore, on Good Friday Jews must not go out in public
and in particular must not in any way mock the Christian faith.127 Capitulum 5 of
Titulus 6 of Book 5 was Constitution 26 of the Third Lateran Council, which, as
we have seen, decreed that Christians must not serve Jews or Muslims and that
Christian secular leaders were to be excommunicated if they dared deprive bap-
tized Muslims and Jews of their possessions.128 Capitulum 21 of Titulus 20 of
118  4 Comp. 5.4, p.147.    119  4 Comp. 5.7, p.148.
120  5 Comp. 5.3, p.182.    121  X.5.6, cols 771–8.
122  X.5.6.1, col. 771; X.5.6.2, cols 771–2; X.5.6.3, col. 773; X.5.6.4, col. 773; X.5.6.5, col. 773;
X.5.6.7, col. 773; X.5.6.8, cols 773–4; X.5.6.9, col. 774; X.5.6.13, cols 775–6; X.5.6.14, col. 776;
X.5.6.15, cols 776–7; X.5.6.16, col. 777; X.5.6.18, col. 777; X.5.6.19, col. 778.
123  X.3.32, cols 579–87, passim; X.3.33, cols 587–96, passim. Capitulum 1, the letter of Celestine
III of Titulus 20 of Book 3 of Compilatio secunda, decreed that a Saracen could not marry the former
wife of a Christian man whom he had killed if the wife had been implicit in his death, but otherwise
it was good that he should.
124  X.3.32, cols 579–87, passim; X.3.33, cols 587–96, passim.
125  X.4.14.4, col. 702. See Dahan, Les Intéllectuels chrétiens et les juifs au moyen âge, p.116. For this
very ancient doctrine derived from the writings of St Paul see Gratian, C.28.q.1, cols 1078–9.
126  X.5.6.13, cols 775–6.
127  X.5.6.15, cols 776–7. See Dahan, Les Intéllectuals chrétiens et les juifs au moyen âge, p.116.
128  Tanner, Vol. 1, pp.223–4; X.5.6.5, col. 773. See Dahan, Les Intéllectuels chrétiens et les juifs au
moyen âge, p.116.
184 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

Book 2, also part of Canon 26 of Lateran III, ruled that Christians might act as
witnesses against Jews and Muslims in legal cases.129
Two capitula of De usuris, Titulus 19 of Book 5 of the Liber extra, were con-
cerned with the particular problem of Jewish usury. Capitulum 12, an extract
from Innocent III’s decretal ‘Post miserabile’, now here with the slightly different
title, ‘Post miserabilem’, declared that secular authorities must compel Jews to
remit usury and threatened excommunication of Christians who consorted with
usurious Jews:130
(Indeed) we order that the Jews shall be forced by you, my sons the princes, and by the
secular powers, to remit the usury to Christians. And until they have remitted them,
we order by sentence of excommunication that every kind of association with them by
all faithful Christians, whether in commerce or in other business, be denied.
Capitulum 18 of Titulus 19 of Book 5, Quanto amplius, Constitution 67 of Lateran
IV, affirmed that Jews were to be forced to restore usurious loans extorted from
Christians and pay tithes or offerings on their possessions.131
Throughout the thirteenth century these decretals were a source of continual dis-
cussion among canon lawyers. Glossae—commentaries on the Liber extra which
gave marginal cross-references to related texts and expositions of their difficulties—
and a number of Summae, which dealt with issues of canon law more systematically
and were published independently of the texts they examined, discussed, inter alia,
the treatment of both heretics and Jews.132 Of especial note was Innocent IV’s com-
mentary on the Liber extra known as the Apparatus super quinque libris decretalium
which was never superseded.133 This commentary did not change the original
meaning of the decretals, nor make substantial additions, but explained and elabor-
ated on crucial points in the texts. Books 3 and 5 included a commentary on those
decretals of the Liber extra concerning Jews. In particular, Rubric 32 of Book 3, De
conversione coniugatorum, commented on the twenty capitula of Titulus 32 of Book
3 of the Liber extra concerning marriage and the religious life,134 and included dis-
cussion of Capitulum 20 which concerned an infidel woman who had converted to

129  X.2.20.21, col. 322. See Dahan, Les Intéllectuels chrétiens et les juifs au moyen âge, p.115.
130  X.5.19.12, cols 814–15: ‘Iudaeos (vero) ad remittendas Chritianis usuras per vos, filii principes
et potestates compelli precipimus saeculares. Et, donec eis remiserint, ab universis Christi fidelibus
tam in mercemoniis quam in aliis per excommnicationis sententiam eis iubemus communionem
omnimodam denegari.’ See also with very minor word differences Innocent III, ‘Post miserablile(m)
Hierusolymitanae’ (17/15 August 1198), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.86; Simonsohn, p.71.
131  X.5.19.18, col. 816.
132 Clarence-Smith, Medieval Law Teachers and Writers, pp.15–16.
133  James Brundage, Medieval Canon Law (London, New York, 1995), p. 225; Clarence-Smith,
Medieval Law Teachers and Writers, pp.45–6; James Brundage, Medieval Canon Law and the Crusader
(Madison, London, 1969), p.98. For example, Rubric 34 of Book 3 entitled De voto et voti redemptione
was a commentary on Titulus 34 of Book 3 of the Liber extra. See Innocent IV, Apparatus, Bk 3,
Rubrica 34, pp. 176v–177v. In particular, Capitulum 8, Titulus 34 of Book 3 of the Liber extra was
concerned with the delaying and the redemption of crusade vows. See X.3.34.8–9, cols 593–4;
Innocent IV’s commentary on this capitulum ranged far beyond this subject matter and included
much important material. See Innocent IV, Apparatus, Bk 3, Rubrica 34, cap. 8, pp.176r–177v. See
Brundage, Medieval Canon Law, p.163.
134  Innocent IV, Apparatus, Bk 3, Rubrica 32, caps 1–21, pp.174r–176v.
 Papal Claims to Authority over Judaism 185

Christianity and separated from her husband.135 De conversione infidelium, Rubric

33 of Book 3, commented on two capitula of Titulus 33 of Book 3 of the Liber extra
on intermarriage between Christians and infidels.136 The commentary on Capitulum
2 was particularly relevant to Jews because it discussed the legal status of the chil-
dren of infidel spouses who had separated.137
Rubric 6 of Book 5, De Iudaeis et Saracenis et eorum servis, also commented on
twelve of the nineteen capitula of Titulus 6 of Book 5 of the Liber extra on the des-
ignated status of Jews, Muslims, and their servants.138 It consisted of twenty-eight
decretals and several summaries of Innocent IV concerned with infidels and the
buying, selling, and freeing of slaves, and hence a number of decretals specifically
concerned with Jews. So, for example, Capitulum One contained the following
statement:
when a Jew buys a pagan [Muslim] through trade and within three months puts him
up for sale, and on account of illness he [the pagan] becomes a Christian, then the
Jew’s convenience must not prevent this.139
It summarized Capitulum One with the comment that ‘original slaves, or those
who are enrolled (as slaves) are (to be) free, but they are not permitted to (enter) the
ecclesiastical ranks’.140 Capitulum Seven, which again cited the decretal ‘Iudaei’,
was concerned with Jews and inheritance. It stated that where Jews have recon-
verted—in other words when they had been converted to Christianity but then
reconverted to Judaism—because of personal financial distress, the Church must
intervene in any matters concerned with inheritance and possessions.141 Chapter
Ten, the decretal ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, was Innocent IV’s re-issue of the ‘Constitutio pro
Iudaeis’.142 In his summary of Chapter Ten Innocent IV stated that Christians were
now not permitted to use foods of ‘pagans’ (Muslims) or Jews.143
By contrast, Rubric 19 of Book 5 (De usuris) of the same work was concerned
with usury in general. It contained eighteen Capitula and a number of summaries
treating seventeen of the nineteen capitula of Titulus 19 of Book 5 of the Liber
extra.144 Among these was Capitula 11, on Capitulum 12, the extract of ‘Post
miserabilem’ which, as we have seen, referred to the particular problem of Jewish
money-lending.145

135  It is Capitulum 20 in the Liber extra. Innocent IV, Apparatus, Bk 3, Rubrica 32, cap. 21, p.176v.
136  Innocent IV, Apparatus, Bk 3, Rubrica 33, caps 1–2, p.176v.
137  Innocent IV, Apparatus, Bk 3, Rubrica 33, cap. 2, p.176v.
138  Innocent IV, Apparatus, Bk 5, Rubrica 6, caps 1–18, pp.208v–208r.
139  Innocent IV, Apparatus, Bk 5, Rubrica 6, cap 1, p.208v: ‘cum Iudaeus paganum emit causa
mercimonii et intra tres menses venialis exponitur, et propter infirmitatem Christianus factus est: tunc
enim non debet Iudaei utilistas impediri’.
140  Innocent IV, Apparatus, Bk 5, Rubrica 6, cap 1, p.208v (Summarium): ‘Originarri, sive ascriptitii
liberi sunt, ad ordines tamen non promoventur.’ Capitulum Three, the decretal ‘Iudaei’, addressed to
papal legates, was also concerned specifically with Jews.
141  Innocent IV, Apparatus, Bk 5, Rubrica 6, cap. 7, p.208r.
142  Innocent IV, Apparatus, Bk 5, Rubrica 6, cap. 10, p.208r.
143  Innocent IV, Apparatus, Bk 5, Rubrica 6, cap. 10, p.208r (Summarium).
144  Innocent IV, Apparatus, Bk 5, Rubrica 19, pp.213v–14v, passim.
145  Innocent IV, Apparatus, Bk 5, Rubrica 19, cap. 11, p.213r.
186 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

So like his predecessor Gregory IX, Innocent IV had an extensive knowledge of

papal decretals concerning Jews. According to the Apparatus super quinque libris
decretalium, although infidels were not part of Christ’s Church, they were never-
theless part of Christ’s flock and so subject to the pope, Christ’s vicar.146 The pope
therefore had the power to judge the Jews if they appealled to the Old Testament
as a source for moral teachings.147 As we shall see, both Gregory IX and Innocent
IV used this idea to justify ordering the burning of copies of the Talmud and their
decrees that those who taught or followed its heretical teachings should be
punished.148

H o stie n sis , Papa l D ec r eta l s , a n d J ews

One further legal commentary especially important for confirming the papacy’s
insistence on the servile but protected status of Jews in Christian Europe was the
Summa aurea, the work of Henry of Segusio, cardinal bishop of Ostia, otherwise
known as Hostiensis (c.1200–1271), which survives in two versions of which the
earlier was completed in 1250–1251 after the First Council of Lyons.149 Comprising
one and a quarter million words it was published in 1253 and became a definitive
text, commenting on the Liber extra but also interpolating new titles where existing
ones were inappropriate.150 Although no simple rubric of the Summa aurea was
concerned solely with Jews, while by contrast certain rubrics concentrated solely
on Muslims and heretics, the work nevertheless contained material pertinent to
their status. Thus one rubric of Book 3, De conversione coniugatorum, commented
on the status of marriage and religious life,151 and included discussion of how
spouses could be converted and reconverted to Christianity.152 Another, De conver-
sione infidelium, considered who should be deemed an infidel, and how infidels
and their offspring might be converted to Christianity.153
Book 5 contained the rubric De Iudaeis, Saracenis et eorum servis, a detailed
discussion of the correct status of Jews which Hostiensis summarized under the
following headings:
1: Who are called Jews and why they are so called; 2: And in what things they are to
be tolerated; 3: And in what things they are to be penalized; 4: Whether the Church
sins when she allows the Jews to perform their rites; 6: Whether a blasphemer of
Christ can exercise power over Christians; 7: Whether Jews should be compelled to

146  Innocent IV, Apparatus, Bk 3, Rubrica 34, cap. 8, p.176r.

147  Also if their own rabbis did not punish them when necessary and if these rabbis found heresies
in their interpretation of Jewish law; Innocent IV, Apparatus, Bk 3, Rubrica 34, cap. 8, p.176r.
148  Innocent IV, Apparatus, Bk 3, Rubrica 34, cap. 8, p.176r.
149 Brundage, Medieval Canon Law, p.214; Brundage, Medieval Canon Law and the Crusader,
pp.99–105.
150 Clarence-Smith, Medieval Law Teachers and Writers, pp.46–7.
151  Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 3, cols 1115–23.
152  Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 3, cols 1116–17.
153  Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 3, cols 1123–5.
 Papal Claims to Authority over Judaism 187
pay tithes from their lands and oblations; 8: Penalties imposed on those who do not
observe the privileges of Jews.154
According to Hostiensis, Jews were:
those who hold to the letter of the Mosaic Law, in circumcising and acting literally
with regard to other legal matters; therefore people who adhere too much to the letter
[of the Law] are said to judaize.155
Here he drew attention both to the Jewish practice of circumcision and to the trad-
ition of Jewish learning. The rubric discussed the extent to which Jews should be
both tolerated and condemned by Christian society, whether the Church sinned in
allowing Jews to observe their religious rites, whether infidels might ever use force
against Christians, whether Jews should be forced to pay tithes, and whether those
who served Jews deserved punishment.156 It argued forcefully that Jews should not
be coerced into baptism.157
In detailing the extent to which Jews should be tolerated in Christian society,
Hostiensis emphasized and elaborated on the traditional stance of the Church
­towards the building of synagogues:
they may have ancient synagogues and may restore them to their previous form, if
they shall have deteriorated, or make them higher, but not wider and not more costly:
according to their size, they must not be allowed to have what in the old synagogues
and in their observances are tolerated.158
Presumably the restriction on width was because the Church feared that large syn-
agogues would allow more space for worship which might encourage congregation
numbers to increase; in any case large buildings would be unseemly for a religion
which was to be tolerated only as long as it remembered its servile status. As we
have seen, Innocent III was worried about the synagogue at Sens, although in this
case he complained about height rather than width, presumably thinking it might
rival the neighbouring church in stature and beauty.159
Hostiensis discussed the circumstances under which business dealings between
Christians and Jews could be conducted. Thus he confirmed:
Likewise they [Jews] are permitted to do business and appear before our communal
magistrates, but not before their elders, but they can also choose a Jewish arbiter,

154  Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, col. 1517, (Summarium): ‘1. Iudaei qui dicantur. Et unde
dicantur. 2. Et in quibus tolerentur. 3. Et in quibus graventur. 4. Ecclesia an peccet, dum sinit Iudaeos
ritus suos observare. 6. Blasphemus Christi an possit exercere vim potestatis in hominess Christianos.
7. Iudaei an cogantur solvere decimas de terris suis et oblationibus. 8. Poena, quae imponatur non
servantibus privilegia Iudaeorum.’
155  Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, col. 1517: ‘Hi qui ad literam Mosaicam legem tenent in cir-
cuncidendo et ad alia legalia ad literam faciendo, ideo hi qui nimis adhaerent literae, iudaizare
dicuntur.’
156  Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, cols 1517–22.
157  Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, col. 1519.
158  Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, cols 1517–18: ‘ut habeant veteres synagogas, et eos reficiant
in pristinam formam, si corruerint, vel altius, non latius reficiant, non praeciosius: pro magno non
debent habere, quae in veteribus synagogis, et suis observantiis tolerantur’.
159  Innocent III, ‘Etsi non displiceat’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.104–8; Simonsohn, pp.82–4.
188 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291
whose judgement the common magistrate may follow . . . But they must not be
brought into court on their Sabbaths, nor may they bring others since we permit them
to celebrate their festivals and those matters they hold praiseworthy, so that the more
carefully their customs may be preserved; nor must they be attacked, nor beaten, nor
killed nor disturbed in their festivals, nor may money nor other matters be brought to
bear without the judgement of the local governor, nor on receipt of any money may
their graves be dug up.160
He also repeated the papacy’s concern about Christian wet nurses:
for there are some who—unutterable though it is to say—have Christian nurses whom
they don’t permit to give milk to their children when they have eaten the Body of Christ,
unless for three days beforehand they express their milk into the latrine, as if they believe
that the body of Christ is received bodily and descends through bodily processes.161
Nevertheless, he also emphasized that Jews must not be baptized by force,
stating categorically that:
therefore they [Jews] are to be led to take up the faith rather by authoritative and
reasoned inducements than harshness, because a compelled service does not please
God …162
He also discussed how if Jews refuse to accept the Christian faith they were to be
penalized in nine major ways. In accordance with the correspondence of Alexander
III and Innocent III the sixth penalty was:
that in the days of mourning and of the Lord’s Passion they appear as little as possible
in public . . . as on the day of preparation [Good Friday] they keep doors and windows
closed . . . and let them not say anything in disparagement of our faith . . .163
The seventh penalty recalled Constitution 67 of Lateran IV that:
how males, as well as females bear some open sign in every Christian province and in
every type so that thus they may be discerned by Christian peoples by the style of their
dress.164

160  Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, col. 1518: ‘Item permittitur eis agere, et conveniri apud
iudices nostros ordinarios, non apud seniores eorum, sed arbitrium possunt eligere et Iudaeum, cuius
sententiam ordinarius exequatur . . . Sed nec in sabbatis suis trahi debent ad iudicium, nec ipsi alios
trahent, quia festivitates suas ab eis permittimus celebrari. Et sibi laudabiles quas habuerint, attentius
consuetudines conservantur, nec debent caedi, nec percuti, vel occidi, seu in suis festivitatibus pertur-
bari, nec pecunia, vel aliae res auferri sine iudicio potestatis terrae, nec sepulchra eorum effodi, obtentu
alicuius pecuniae.’
161  Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, col. 1518: ‘nam sunt quidam, qui quod nephandum est dic-
ere, nutrices Christianas habentes non permittunt lactare filios, cum corpus Christi sumpserunt, nisi
primo triduum lac effuderint in latrinam quasi intelligunt, quod corpus Christi incorporetur, et ad
successum descendat’.
162  Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, col. 1519: ‘Sunt igitur inducendi ad fidem suscipiendam
authoritatibus et rationibus blandimentis potius, quam asperitatibus quia coacta servitia non placet Deo.’
163  Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, col. 1521: ‘ut in diebus lamentationum, et Dominicae pas-
sionis in publicum minime prodeant . . . ut in die parasceues hostia et fenestras clausas teneant . . . et ne
in contumeliam fidei nostrae aliquid dicant . . .’.
164  Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, col. 1521: ‘ut tam masculi, quam feminae aliquod signum
apertum deferant in omni Christianorum provincia, et omni type, ut sic Christianis populis qualitate
habitus descernantur’.
 Papal Claims to Authority over Judaism 189

The distinction in dress was necessary since:

. . . in certain places so much confusion has long pertained and through ignorance it
happens that they sometimes mutually carnally co-mingle. This mixing or conjoining
is rightly condemned and lest under this pretext anyone should wish to excuse his
fault, therefore the style of dress is to be distinguished . . .165
In this rubric he compared the distinguishing garb to be worn by Jews with the
dress to be worn by prostitutes. Recalling ecclesiastical legislation on Jewish phys-
icians, his eighth penalty was:
that however good their doctors may be, they are not to make money out of Christians,
because these [Christians] ought not to call them in cases of disease nor receive medi-
cine from them nor bathe in the same baths with them . . .166
He also stated in the same rubric that if Jews disobeyed ecclesiastical legislation the
same penalties should be meted out to them as to heretics.167 Furthermore, he
echoed papal decretals of Alexander III and Innocent III in insisting that like
Christians Jews should be compelled to pay the tithe,168 and make amends for us-
urious money transactions.169
Another rubric of Book 5, De servis Iudaeorum et Saracenorum, discussed among
other matters whether Jews and Muslims might keep servants in their households.
In his summary at the beginning of this rubric, through a series of questions,
Hostiensis set out the perameters of his discussion:
1. Whether Jews and Saracens could hold freedmen? 2. Slaves of heretics can leave
their master with impunity and flee to a church. 3. No-one can hold a Christian as a
slave. 4. Christian women must not serve in Jewish households nor nurse their chil-
dren. 5. Whether a slave who is baptized remains a slave as before.170
He concluded that the law prohibited heretics, pagans, or Jews from keeping
Christian slaves or circumcising them,171 and that the slaves of heretics might with
impunity leave their masters and take refuge in churches.172 He stated categorically
that since all Christians were members of the Church, no-one could lord it over a
Christian’,173 and particularly that no Christian slave should serve a Jew:174
165  Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, col. 1521: ‘Haec differentia est inter Iudaeos et Christianos,
ideo facienda, quia in quibusdam partibus tanta confusio inolevit, et per ignorantiam contingit ipsos
aliquando carnaliter adinuicem commisceri, quae commixtio, seu coniunctio, merito condemnatur, et
ne sub hoc velamine velint aliqui errorem suum palliare, ideo est qualitas habitus discernenda . . . ’.
166  Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, col. 1521: ‘ . . . ut quantumcunque boni medici sunt nihil
lucrentur cum Christianis, quia nec ipsos vocare debent in suis infirmitatibus, nec ab eis recipere
medicinam, nec cum eis in eisdem balneis balneare . . .’.
167  Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, col. 1522.
168  Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, col. 1522.
169  Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, col. 1522.
170  Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, col. 1525: ‘1. Iudei et Saraceni an possint habere mancipia.
2. Servi haereticorum impune possunt dominos suos relinquere, et ad ecclessiam confugere.
3. Christianum nullus potest habere in servum. 4. Christianae non debent Iudaeis intrare domum
servire, nec filios eorum nutrire. 5. Servus baptizatus an remaneat servuus, sicut prius.’
171  Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, col. 1525.
172  Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, col. 1526.
173  Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, col. 1526.
174  Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, col. 1527.
190 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291
therefore it is not permitted a Jew to keep Christian men or women in his house for
continuous service, nor as nurses nor as midwives; otherwise the Christians themselves
who dwell with them are excommunicated if they refuse to depart; and you may under-
stand that the same pertains to Saracens as they are under the same heading as Jews.175
In reply to the question of what should happen if a slave, after being purchased
wished to be baptized,176 he answered that he must not be prevented.177 He then asked:
What if the master does not allow it, saying that the slave is not doing this out of
divine love but so that he may not be beaten or ill treated as formally?178
before concluding that even so the master must be compelled to set him free.179
On the question of whether a baptized slave still remained a slave as before his
baptism,180 he argued that he must, since servitude was itself allowed under divine
law,181 although he qualified this conclusion:
However, I think that harshness is not to be used against him [the slave], as before,
indeed he is to be treated gently and kindly from among other non-Christian slaves.182
Again he concluded that if Jews or Muslims served heretics they might with
­impunity leave their masters and seek refuge in churches, that Christians ought not
to serve in Jewish households nor act as wet nurses to their children, and that even
if an infidel servant was baptized he nevertheless remained a servant of his Christian
master.183
Another rubric was devoted to a wide ranging and general discussion of the
problem of usury. In discussing the origins of usury Hostiensis noted that Jews
themselves cited Deuterononomy 23–28 to justify making usurious loans to
Christians, but that this led to great social evil.184 As we discussed in Chapter Four,
in summarizing what punishments should be meeted out to such usurers he argued
that in order not to seem to contradict the papal decretal ‘Post miserabilem’ irre-
concilably, the statement in Quanto amplius that Jews should not charge Christians
‘immoderate interest’ ought to be read as a prohibition against Jews charging
Christians any interest at all.185

175  Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, col. 1527: ‘ideo Christianos vel Christianas non licet Iudaeo
habere intra domum assidue serviendi causa, neque tanquam nutrices, neque tanquam obstetrices:
alias Christiani ipsi cum eis habitantes excommunicantur, si discedere nolint. Et idem intelligas de
Saracenis, ut intra eodem Iudaei’.
176  Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, col. 1527.
177  Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, cols 1527–8.
178  Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, col. 1528: ‘Quid si dominus non permittat, dicens quod hoc
non facit servus ex charitate, sed ne sic, sicut prius verberetur, vel male tractetur?’.
179  Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, col. 1528.
180  Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, col. 1528.
181  Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, col. 1528.
182  Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, col. 1528: ‘puto tamen, quod non est ita desaeviendum in
eum, sicut prius, immo est inter alios servos non Christianos, tractandus leniter et benigne’.
183  Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, cols 1525–8. Note that although a further rubric De usuris
discussed the Church’s complex rulings on money-lending at interest, it did not specifically focus on
Jewish lending. See Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, cols 1612–36.
184  Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, col. 1622.
185  Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, col. 1630.
 Papal Claims to Authority over Judaism 191

Such collections and commentaries contained, summarized, and discussed a

number of important decretals and decrees of conciliar legislation which demar-
cated the legal and theological status of Jews.186 Indeed the number of papal pro-
nouncements cited in these works reveals the seriousness with which canon lawyers
treated the problem of Jewish–Christian interaction and suggests that in the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries there was not only a growing interest in, but also
a growing unease about, the presence of Jews in Christian society.187

Papa l C o n t ro l Ov e r J ewish C o mm u n ities

We have seen that the papacy sought in a number of different ways to maintain
some measure of control over the activities of Jewish communities throughout
Europe. As we observed in Chapter Two, one of these was by promulgating the
‘Constitutio pro Iudaeis’, issued five times in the twelfth century and ten times in
the thirteenth century, in response to pleas from Jewish communities for protection.
These re-issues show that, although popes might come and go, papal protection
continued. As we saw in Chapter Three, some popes, well aware of a history of
crusader violence against Jews and that many crusaders held Jews responsible for
the death of Christ, thought it necessary to signal especial protection on the eve of
fresh crusades.188 Popes also despatched other letters of protection—such as those
of Gregory IX who expressed with particular vehemence his horror at the killing of
Jews by crusaders during the ‘Barons’ Crusade’ of 1236, emphasized that the cru-
saders’ evil desires aroused divine displeasure, and affirmed that, since the papacy
had granted privileges to the Jews, crimes against them injured the Apostolic
throne itself.189

186  For some general works on the influence of canon law on papal ‘policy’ towards infidels, see
Benjamin Kedar, ‘Canon Law and the Burning of the Talmud’, Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law
9  (1979), 79–83; Benjamin Kedar, Crusade and Mission: European Approaches towards the Muslims
(Princeton, 1984); Walter Pakter, Medieval Canon Law and the Jews (Ebelsbach am Main, 1988);
Bernard Blumenkranz, Juifs et Chrétiens dans le monde occidental 430–1096 (Paris, 1960); Heinz
Schreckenberg, Die christlichen Adversus-Judaios-Texte (11th-13th Jahrhundert) mit einer Ikonographie
des Judenthemas bis zum 4 Lateranskonzil (Frankfurt am Main, 1988). Each decretal had a specific
context which needs be taken into account—in particular who initiated the papal intervention, why,
and what the specific case was.
187 Kedar, ‘Canon Law and the Burning of the Talmud’, 79–82; Kedar, Crusade and Mission,
pp.72–4; Pakter, Medieval Canon Law and the Jews, pp.332–6; Blumenkranz, Juifs et Chrétiens dans le
monde occidental 430–1096, pp.373–91; Schreckenberg, Die christlichen Adversus-Judaios-Texte (11th-
13th Jahrhundert) mit einer Ikonographie des Judenthemas bis zum 4 Lateranskonzil, pp.637–46; David
Nirenberg, Communities of Violence: Persecution of Minorities in the Middle Ages (Princeton, 1996),
pp.200–30.
188  Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.9; p.76; Stacey, ‘Crusades, Martyrdom and the Jews of Norman England
1096–1190’, pp.234–5; p.238.
189  Gregory IX, ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum in’ (5 September 1236), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.226–8;
Simonsohn, pp.163–4; ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum in’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.228–30; Simonsohn, p.165.
For the ‘Barons’ Crusade’ of 1239, see Michael Lower, ‘The Burning at Mont-Aimé: Thibaut of
Champagne’s Preparations for the ‘Barons’ Crusade’ of 1239’, Journal of Medieval History 29/2 (2003),
95–108; Michael Lower, The Barons’ Crusade: A Call to Arms and its Consequences (Philadelphia,
2005), passim.
192 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

Thus popes exerted their authority to try to protect Jews from physical mistreat-
ment. Yet they also increasingly claimed authority to punish not just offending
Christians for misdeeds against Jews, but Jews themselves if they disobeyed eccle-
siastical legislation demarcating their special role. According to Gratian’s Decretum,
the Church tolerated ‘infidels’, because, external to Christian society, they were not
subject to Christian law:
As for those who are not of our Law, the Apostle says in the First Epistle to the
Corinthians [I Cor. 5:12–13]: For what does it concern me to judge those who are
outside? God will judge them.190
Yet, since Jews were both ‘internal’ and ‘external’ to Christian society, they were a
more problematic group. Canon lawyers, who claimed that the Church had the
power to discipline Christians, were unsure whether Jews, ‘internal’ to Christian
society yet a potential ‘external’ threat because outside the Faith, should also be
subject to ecclesiastical authority.191 The twelfh-century canonist Huguccio decided
in the affirmative, claiming ecclesiastical competence over Jews who violated the
law, and the inclusion of the decretal ‘Per miserabilem’ in the Compilatio tertia
confirmed this judgement. Apparently by the time the Liber extra was published
Jews were appearing before Church courts if they violated ecclesiastical legislation
concerning their social status; if, for example, they held public office and so defied
the decrees of the Fourth Lateran Council, they were clearly regarded as subject to
ecclesiastical authority.192
Popes also tried to control money transactions between Chriatians and Jews. We
have seen how they were aware that many responding to calls for crusades turned
to Jews to borrow money. So, already realizing that many crusaders found it diffi-
cult to secure funds for the First Crusade, Urban II had encouraged monasteries to
lend money as a pious contribution to the cause.193 Yet, as we observed in Chapter
Four, if crusaders could not attach themselves to a lord with connections to
monastic lands, they often had to borrow by pledging whatever land they held—
and many did not have adequate lands to pledge.194 In 1156, indeed, Alexander III
forbade the taking of mortgages as usurious and this may have encouraged cru-
saders to borrow money from Jews, particularly as the Church had condemned
Christian moneylenders, especially clerics.195 Papal prohibitions on the extortion

190  Gratian, C.23.q.4.c.16, col. 904: ‘De his, qui non sunt nostri iuris, ait Apostolus, in epistola
prima ad Chorinthios: “Quid enim mihi attinet de his, qui foris sunt, iudicare? De his enim Dominus
iudicabit.”’ See Pakter, Medieval Canon Law and the Jews, pp.46–7.
191 Pakter, Medieval Canon Law and the Jews, pp.51–4.
192 Pakter, Medieval Canon Law and the Jews, pp.60–3.
193  Jonathan Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, 1095–1131 (Cambridge, 1997), pp.125–9.
194  Marcus Bull, Knightly Piety and Lay-Response to the First Crusade: the Limousin and Gascony
(c.970–c.1130) (Oxford, 1993), pp.212–15; pp.268–71; pp.276–81; Stacey, ‘Crusades, Martyrdom
and the Jews of Norman England 1096-1190’, p.238.
195 Eugenius III, ‘Quantum praedecessores’ (1 December 1145) in Ottonis et Rahewina Gesta
Friderici I Imperatoris 1, 3rd edn, ed. B. von Simson (Hanover, Leipzig, 1912), pp.55–7; ‘Quantum
praedecessores’ (1 March 1146), in Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere Deutsche Geschichtskunde 45,
ed. P. Rassow (Berlin, 1924), pp.302–5. See Stacey, ‘Crusades, Martyrdom and the Jews of Norman
England 1096–1190’, p.240.
 Papal Claims to Authority over Judaism 193

of ‘heavy and immoderate usury’ of Christians by Jews, rather than an outright

ban, were an attempt to prevent the exploitation of crusaders while at the same
time to permit a controlled money-lending both essential to economic prosperity
and necessary for popes if they were to ensure crusading success. Hence they
­declined the option of simply forbidding money-lending or regulating the rate of
mortgage as they did for money-lending.
We have also noted particular papal concern with Jews allegedly blaspheming
and mocking Christianity. In the twelfth century Alexander III ordered Jews to
keep their windows and doors shut on Good Friday in order not to disturb the
Christian festival.196 We have seen how in ‘Etsi non displiceat’ of 1205 Innocent
III complained to Philip Augustus about the activities of Jews in France, in par-
ticular recalling how Jews publicly insulted belief in the Crucifixion by saying that
the Christians believed ‘in a peasant who had been hung by the Jewish people’.197
He claimed that on Good Friday French Jews ran amock in the towns, laughing at
Christian veneration of Jesus on the Cross in an attempt to put them off their cele-
brations, and he insisted that they be punished for such blasphemies.198 In a fur-
ther letter of the same year to the archbishop of Sens and the bishop of Paris he
lamented that French Jews were insolent enough as to insult Christianity public-
ly.199 In 1208 he complained yet again about their activities to the count of Nevers,
referring specifically to Jews as ‘blasphemers of the Christian name’,200 while
writing to the archbishop of Sens in 1213 he related a miracle which had sup-
posedly occurred following Jewish mockery of the Eucharist.201
From Innocent III onwards such recorded suspicions and fears of Jewish
mockery and blasphemy increase in papal correspondence. So, in 1220 Honorius
III ordered the archbishop of Tarragona to ensure protection for a certain Isaac, a
Jew of Barcelona and physician to James I of Aragon, but with the proviso that
he and his family refrain from blaspheming against Christ and his Faith and from
injuring Christians.202 In 1225 he complained that the archbishop of Colosza and
his suffragans had violated the statutes of the Council of Toledo and of Lateran IV,
which stated that a blasphemer of Christ should be given no preferment in public
office, by allowing Jews to be so preferred.203 In the same vein in 1233 Gregory IX
ordered the archbishop of Compostella to remind the king of Castile and León
that the ‘perfidious’ Jews should never in the future grow insolent, but ‘in servile
fear they should ever suffer publicly the shame of their sin’204 In a letter of 1239 to

196  Alexander III, ‘Quia super his’, Simonsohn, p.50.

197  Innocent III, ‘Etsi non displiceat’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.106; Simonsohn, p.83: ‘in rusticum quem-
dam suspensum a populo Judeorum’.
198  Innocent III, ‘Etsi non displiceat’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.104–8; Simonsohn, pp.82–4.
199  Innocent III, ‘Etsi Judeos quos’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.114–16; Simonsohn, pp.86–8.
200  Innocent III, ‘Ut esset Cain’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.126; Simonsohn, p.93: ‘Blasphematores enim
nominis Christiani’.
201 Innocent III,’ Operante illo qui’ (10/8 June 1213), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.136–8; Simonsohn,
pp.98–9.
202  Honorius III, ‘Illum te gerere’ (3 September 1220), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.156; Simonsohn, p.110.
203  Honorius III, ‘Intellecto jamdudum’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.170–2; Simonsohn, pp.120–1.
204  Gregory IX, ‘Judei quos propria’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.206; Simonsohn, p.146: ‘Judei perfidi’; ‘sed
sub timore servili pretendant semper verecundiam culpe sue’.
194 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

the bishop of Cordova he expressed grave concern that in the provinces of Cordova
and Baeza, Jews frequently not only wore no visible sign to distinguish them from
Christians but even pretended to be Christians in order to deceive people.205
Hence refusal to wear distinguishing grab might be taken as a sign of mockery.
Yet if controlling Christian treatment of Jews was part of a much wider attempt by
popes to regulate and supervise Jewish communities without directly intervening
in their religious observances, the most obvious example of the papacy attempting
to exert authority over Jewish communities in Europe concerned the alleged blas-
phemy and heresy to be found in the Talmud.

T he Papacy a n d the Ta l m u d

The history of papal involvement in the burning of the Talmud is long and com-
plex.206 The Talmud was a Jewish work made up of two components, the Mishnah,
a written compendium of rabbinic Judaism’s ‘Oral Torah’ and the Gemara, an
­exposition of the Mishnah and related writings. Peter Alfonsi, originally a Spanish
Jew named Moses of Huesca, who converted in 1106 and took his new name fol-
lowing the town’s conquest by Peter I of Aragon in 1097, accurately observed that
the sayings of the Sages—otherwise known as the ‘Oral Torah’—as distinct from
the writings of the Prophets or ‘Written Torah’, was the foundation of medieval
Judaism.207 Yet how much did Christians really know about the Talmud in the
High Middle Ages?
Peter Alfonsi—like Peter the Venerable—assumed that reason was the criterion
against which Christian and Jewish religious views were ultimately to be assessed.208
Hence for Peter the Venerable the Jews and their Talmud were alike in their utter
lack of reason: a reflection of the Jews’ inhumanity.209 We have seen in Chapter
Four how, in a letter to Louis VII of France about the Second Crusade, Peter, like
Bernard of Clairvaux, insisted that Jews should in no way be harmed since this was
prohibited by Scripture. Yet at the same time he identified them as enemies, both
historically and contemporaneously, of Christ and Christianity. So although he
believed that they should be spared physical violence, he also thought that they
must contribute resources to the crusading venture.210 Indeed he regarded Jews as
worse than Muslims because, whereas Muslims accepted a degree of Christian the-
ology, Jews rejected it totally. Furthermore, he believed that Jews expressed their
disagreement actively by continually deriding and blaspheming Christianity, even
claiming that they frequently bought stolen goods to give themselves the oppor-
tunity to abuse Christian sacred objects 211
205  Gregory IX, ‘Significantibus dilectis filiis’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.244; Simonsohn, pp.174–5.
206 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, pp.300–7.
207  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris, 1240. Hebrew Texts translated by John Friedman, Latin Texts trans-
lated by Jean Connell Hoff; Historical Essay by Robert Chazan (Toronto, 2012), p.8; pp.9–10.
208  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.12.
209  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.13.
210  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, pp.14–15.
211  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.15.
 Papal Claims to Authority over Judaism 195

Nevertheless, despite such sentiments, Peter the Venerable did not connect his
views of Jewish blasphemy with the Talmud. Only in the thirteenth century with
the convert from Judaism, the southern French Jew Nicholas Donin, do we see a
new Christian awareness of the Talmud and of its implications for both Christian
and Jewish society, which led to its trial in 1240.212 Long before Donin, Peter the
Venerable had already made clear his unease at what he saw as Judaism’s blas-
phemous denigration of Chrisitianity.213 But it was only during the thirteenth
century that Christians became increasingly aware that Judaism had moved on
from the first century and that the Talmud had replaced the Old Testament as the
primary focus of traditional Jewish study and the basic source of Jewish law. The
role of converts from Judaism to Christianity was absolutely crucial to this growing
awareness.
It was Gregory IX who ordered all Jewish books in France to be handed over to
the Dominicans or Franciscans in Paris to be inspected for alleged heresies and
blasphemies and called for the debate on the Talmud between Christians and Jews
which became known as the Paris Disputation.214 It is likely that Rabbi Joseph ben
Nathan Official, from the famous Official family, who, as we noted in Chapter
One, composed the Sefer Joseph Hamekane, a well-known and vigorous anti-­
Christian polemic, was also the author of The Disputation of Rabbi Yeh’iel of Paris,
a detailed account recorded in two separate versions of this trial of the Talmud in
Paris in 1240.215 Some have argued that claiming an activist role for Rabbi Yehi’el
is unlikely to be accurate, reflecting rather the author’s desire to spell out for Jewish
readers a useful line of argumentation.216 In the standard version of the account it
is unclear whether it is Yehi’el himself speaking or its ‘anonymous’ author.217 What
is clear, however, is that the author had the same aim as Nachmanides when he
recorded the Disputation of Barcelona: both to purvey detailed information and to
address critical underlying issues.218 Hence he deliberately portrayed the rabbi as
turning recurrently to Blanche of Castile, the key secular figure at the encounter,
and appealing to her for assistance.219
Rabbi Yehi’el’s Disputation is not our only source for the Talmud’s trial.220 We
know of it from the correspondence of Gregory IX, Innocent IV, and the papal legate

212  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.16.
213 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.301.
214  Judaism on Trial: Jewish-Christian Disputations in the Middle Ages, ed. and trans. H. Maccoby
(Rutherford, London, 1982), pp.19–20; Dahan, Les Intelléctuels chrétiens et les juifs au moyen âge, p.96;
Cohen, Living Letters of the Law, pp.319–25.
215  Piero Capelli, ‘Rashi nella controversia parigina sul Talmud del 1240’, in Ricercare la Sapienza
di Tutti gli Antichi, Series 3, Vol. 1. Miscellanea in Onore de Gian Luigi Prato, ed. M. Milani, M.
Zapella (Bologna, 2013), pp.441–2; The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.21; Judah
Galinsky, ‘The Different Versions of the “Talmud Trial” of 1240 in Paris’, in New Perspectives on Jewish-
Christian Relations in Honour of David Berger, ed. E. Carlebach, J. Schachter (Leiden, Boston, 2012),
p.136; pp.109–40.
216  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.49.
217  Galinsky, ‘The Different Versions of the “Talmud Trial” of 1240 in Paris’, p.130.
218 Robert Chazan, ‘The Hebrew Report of the Trial of the Talmud: Information and Consolation’,
in Le Brulement du Talmud a Paris, 1242–1244, ed. G. Dahan (Paris, 1999), p.83.
219  Chazan, ‘The Hebrew Report on the Trial of the Talmud’, p.90.
220  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, pp.126–68.
196 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

Odo of Châteauroux, and from thirty-five accusations levelled against the Talmud,
probably repeated by Nicholas Donin, from the purported ‘confessions’ of two
major northern French rabbis—which seem rather to be the notes of Christian
observers who interpreted their claims—and from two sets of Talmudic material
translated into Latin by another learned convert, Theobold of Sézanne.221 We also
have Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg’s dirge on the burning of copies of the Talmud by
Louis IX.222
Hence the original assault was launched by a southern French Jew, namely Nicholas
Donin, just as a later missionizing campaign was initiated by another southern French
convert, the Dominican friar Paul Christian (Pablo Christiani).223 As we would ex-
pect, Jewish sources for the trial and condemnation of the Talmud are highly critical
of Donin.224 The Christian sources do not tell us what Donin’s credentials were nor
how he was able to insinuate himself into the papal court and gain the ear of the pope
himself—but possibly he had a connection with mendicants in Paris.225 Be that as it
may, it is clear that the assault on the Talmud from the 1230s onwards was launched
by a former Jew who had defected from Judaism, just as the innovative missionizing
campaign that began in the 1260s was the initiative of yet another defector. Donin
initiated thirty-five accusations.226 In particular, by claiming that Jews were neglecting
the ‘Written Torah’ in favour of a human/Jewish connivance—the Talmud—he argued
that they were deliberately disrespectful toward God.227
From then on the Talmud is mentioned frequently in Gregory IX’s correspond-
ence. In 1239 he ordered the bishop of Paris to receive his letters, forwarded by
Donin, detailing information he had received about certain books of the Jews,
­including the Talmud, and to transmit them to the archbishops and kings of France,
England, Aragon, Navarre, Castile, León, and Portugal.228 That same year he sent
letters to all the archbishops of France and England, Castile, and León explaining
how he had heard that the Jews had a book called the Talmud whose volume far
exceeded that of the Bible and which contained abusive and unspeakable material.229
He ordered that all these books be seized on the coming first Saturday of Lent
while the Jews were at synagogue and that they were to be kept and guarded by the
friars; he emphasized that there must be no hesitation about promulgating a

221  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, pp.16–17; pp.102–21; pp.122–5.
222  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, pp.169–72.
223  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.91.
224  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.40.
225  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, pp.39–40
226  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, pp.46–7.
227  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.47.
228  Gregory IX, ‘Fraternitati tue presentium’ (9 June 1239), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.238–40; Simonsohn,
pp.171–2; see also ‘Si vera sunt’ (9 June 1239), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.240–2; Simonsohn, pp.172–3. There
is a vast amount of secondary literature on popes and the Talmud which cannot be discussed here; for
example, Cohen, The Friars and the Jews, pp.60–76; Cohen, Living Letters of the Law, pp.319–30;
Pakter, Medieval Canon Law and the Jews, pp.70–3.
229  For very recent secondary literature on the details of the trial of the Talmud, see Chazan, ‘The
Hebrew Report of the Trial of the Talmud’, pp.89–93; Galinsky, ‘The Different Hebrew Versions of
the “Talmud Trial” of 1240 in Paris’, pp.109–40; Piero Capelli, ‘Rashi nella controversia parigina sul
Talmud del 1240’, in Ricercare la Sapienza di Tutti gli Antichi, Series 3, Vol. 1, Miscellanea in onore di
Gian Luigi Prato, ed. M. Milani and M. Zappella (Bologna, 2013), pp.441–8.
 Papal Claims to Authority over Judaism 197

sentence of excommunication against those who refused to give them up.230 In

another letter of the same year he similarly ordered the king of Portugal to seize ‘all
the books belonging to the Jews’ when they congregated in their synagogues on the
first Saturday of Lent, and cited the Talmud as the most important reason why the
Jews ‘remain obstinate in their perfidy’.231 Employing the same language of ‘per-
fidy’ he commanded the bishop of Paris, the prior of the Dominicans, and the
Minister of the Franciscan friars in Paris to ensure that the Jews of France, England,
Aragon, Navarre, Castile, León, and Portugal be forced by the secular arm to con-
sign their books to the flames.232
Although, like his eleventh- and twelfth-century predecessors and his thirteenth-
century successors, Gregory IX could not read Hebrew and relied on converts such
as Donin to inform him of its content, he regarded the Talmud as especially perni-
cious because he believed it encouraged Jews to remain hard of heart, contained
blasphemies, sought to rival the unique authority of Scripture, and even encour-
aged Jews to ignore the Old Testament itself.233 The last point is particularly
­important since, as we have discussed, according to the traditional teaching of
the Church, Jews, because they upheld the Old Testament, were allowed to live
unharmed in Christian society as witnesses to the truth of the New. Gregory firmly
believed that the force of this role would be diminished by Jewish compliance with
Talmudic regulations.234 He therefore ruled that Jews who followed the teachings
of the Talmud were heretics who offended against Jewish law and that he had
­authority to call for the book to be burnt as heretical.
Hence, confronted by disturbing allegations, Gregory reacted vigorously by ini-
tiating an innovative campaign.235 We have seen how it began with a series of papal
letters despatched in 1239, all of which began by levelling charges: the addressees
of the first set were the archbishops of the major European kingdoms; the addressees
of the second were influential European monarchs.236 In these letters Gregory
alerted the ecclesiastical and secular leadership of Europe to hitherto unsuspected
problems.237 Yet his letters do not spell out the nature of these false and offensive
teachings.238 He was perturbed—as he saw it—that Jews were not content with,
but rather neglected, the Old Law and that they falsely claimed that it was passed
on orally to Moses and had then been written down by later sages and scribes. He
was also disturbed to find that the Talmud exceeded the Bible (both the Old
Testament and New Testament) in length.239

230  Gregory IX, ‘Si vera sunt’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.240–2; Simonsohn, pp.172–3.
231  Gregory IX, ‘Si vera sunt’ (20 June 1239), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.242; Simonsohn, p.173: ‘universos
libros Judeorum’; ‘in sua perfidia retinet obstinatos’.
232  Gregory IX, ‘Si vera sunt’ (20 June 1239), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.242; Simonsohn, p.174.
233 Pakter, Medieval Canon Law and the Jews, p.72; Judaism on Trial, ed. and trans. Maccoby, p.19.
234  For a discussion of the condemnation of the Talmud, see Cohen, The Friars and the Jews,
pp.60–76; Cohen, Living Letters of the Law, pp.319–25.
235  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.32.
236  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.18.
237  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.43.
238  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.4.
239  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, pp.44–5.
198 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

Gregory’s purpose was to show that the Talmud’s teachings were absurd. In par-
ticular he wanted this ‘Oral Torah’ to be investigated since Jews claimed it was not
a human creation, but of divine origin—in which case he could justify his steps
against it as reasonable and appropriate.240 So he projected the possibility—even
the likelihood—of dire consequences in letters he despatched via Nicholas Donin.
He also showed his awareness of possible Christian objections to the unprece-
dented and harsh step of burning the Talmud which would in effect abrogate the
rights of Jews and their protected status in Christian society. He wanted to forestall
such objections by drawing attention to the specifically papal impetus for such
harsh action—up to and including burning the Talmud—and by demanding eccle-
siastical censure against objectors.241
So the trial took place in Paris in 1240. The charges were substantiated at least to
the satisfaction of the ecclesiastical jury. Rabbi Yehi’el tried to convince the com-
mittee of high-ranking churchmen to delay the proceedings, saying that the rightful
place to clarify an issue so central to all Jews was not locally but at the papal court.242
There followed a delay between the condemnation in 1240 and the burnings in
1241 or 1242, which may reflect the opposition that Gregory IX had ­envisaged.
Such burnings of Jewish books were indeed remarkable since the Talmud had been
known to, and permitted by, the Church for centuries.
Although to us burning books appears barbaric, this was common practice in
the medieval world. Competing prayer books of the Roman and Mozabaric rite
were burned at Toledo in 1085, the philosopher Abelard (1079–1142) was forced
to burn his own book at the Council of Soissons (1121), the writings of Arnold of
Brescia, whose work had been condemned at the Council of Sens in 1241, were
burned on papal orders, Cathar texts were routinely destroyed both in France and
in Rome, and the pamphlets which Nachmanides wrote after the Disputation of
Barcelona were burnt on the order of the Dominicans. Indeed Jewish groups them-
selves appealed to the Dominicans to burn as heretical Maimonides’ Guide for the
Perplexed at Montpellier in 1223.243
According to the Bonum universale de apibus of Thomas of Cantimpré, a student
in Paris in the 1230s, after their books had been confiscated, Jewish leaders subse-
quently asked for them to be returned. Although they were supported in this by
the archbishop of Sens, the highest ranking clergyman involved in the proceedings,
when he died in 1241 the weight of his intercession diminished and the burnings
commenced.244 Of all the rulers of Christian Europe, only Louis IX heeded
Gregory IX’s injunction to seize copies of the Talmud and other Jewish writings
and submit them to ecclesiastical authorities for inspection.245 Hence a number of
books were confiscated in France; although even here it is difficult to know how

240  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.45.
241  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, pp.19–20.
242  Galinsky, ‘The Different Versions of the “Talmud Trial” of 1240 in Paris’, p.121; p.123; p.127.
243 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.344.
244  Thomas of Cantimpré, Bonum universal de apibus (Douai, 1627), pp.17–18. See The Trial of the
Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.22.
245  Galinsky, ‘The Different Versions of the “Talmud Trial” of 1240 in Paris’, p.109.
 Papal Claims to Authority over Judaism 199

many. Yet there is no evidence of any mass seizure of books by the other major
monarchs of western Europe.246 As the only European monarch to respond to the
papal call to confiscate Jewish books and put the Talmud on trial, we have seen
how Louis IX also embraced the most radical option of outlawing Jewish usury
completely.247
Gregory IX’s ideas were clarified and formalized by his successor Innocent IV. In
1244 Innocent wrote to the king of France to register dismay that Jews reared and
nurtured their children on the Talmud, which not only exceeded the Bible in size
but contained blasphemies, fables, abusive errors, and unheard of follies. He had
learnt that the Jews deliberately kept their sons ignorant of the laws and beliefs of
the Prophets because:
They fear that if the forbidden truth, which is found in the Law and the Prophets,
be understood, and the testimony concerning the only-begotten son of God that He
appeared in the flesh, be furnished, these (children) would be converted to the Faith
and humbly return to their Redeemer.248
Like his predecessor, Innocent ordered that throughout the French kingdom all
Jewish books condemned by the doctors of the Church, as well as commentaries
on them, should be burnt.249 Yet in 1244 he wrote to Louis IX, claiming that des-
pite the king’s support for burnings, the issue of the Talmud had not been fully
resolved; he had now learnt of its ongoing Jewish use. This suggests that the inves-
tigation and burning had been confined to the Paris area, and that Innocent was
urging the king to maintain the provision originally envisioned by Gregory to burn
such books wherever they were to be found in his kingdom.250
Innocent IV held that the Church should condemn the Talmud not only because
it blasphemed Christ and the Virgin, but because it contained absurd statements
about God offensive to Jewish law itself:
And moved by this reason Popes Gregory and Innocent ordered the books of the
Talmud to be burnt, in which many heresies were contained, and they ordered those
to be punished who followed or taught the aforementioned heresies.251
Innocent’s position was clearly explained by the thirteenth-century canon lawyer
Guy Terre:
The Jews are outside [the Church] only as much as pertains to the New Testament, nor
with respect to these matters are they judged by the Church, but, if the Jews should

246  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.20.
247  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.36.
248  Innocent IV, ‘Impia Judeorum perfidia’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.250; Simonsohn, p.181: ‘Verentes ne
veritate, que in eisdem lege ac prophetis est, intellecta, aperte de unigenito Dei Fiio venturo in carnem
testimonium perhibente, convertantur ad fidem, et ad Redemptorem suum humiliter revertantur.’
249  Innocent IV, ‘Impia Judeorum perfidia’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.250–2; Simonsohn, pp.180–2.
250  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.23.
251  Innocent IV, Apparatus, Bk. 3, Rubrica 34, cap. 8, p176r: ‘Et hac ratione motus Papa Gregorius
et Innocentius mandaverant comburi libros Talmud, in quo multae continebantur haereses et mandav-
erunt puniri illos qui praedictus haereses sequerentur uel docerent.’ See Dahan, Les Intéllectuels chrétiens
et les juifs au moyen âge, p.106; Muldoon, Popes, Lawyers and Infidels, pp.9–10; pp.30–1; pp.45–6.
200 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291
err in those things which pertain to the truth of the Old Law, the Church judges
­concerning those men and punishes [them], because in so far as in this they are not
outside [the Church].252
Hence Innocent became the first pope to state directly that as Christ’s vicar he had
authority over Jews,253 declaring in the Apparatus super quinque libris decretalium that
if they acted immorally against their law, then the pope had the right to judge them:
Again, the pope can judge the Jews, if they act against the Law (of the Gospel) in
morals, if their rabbis should not punish them, and in the same way if they should
discover heresies in respect of their own Law.254
Rabbis could impose a ban on their communities as a way of exerting internal
discipline.255 As vicar of Christ, Innocent had power not only over Christians but
over all unbelievers, whether ‘internal’ or ‘external’:
we believe that the pope, who is the vicar of Jesus Christ, has power not only over
Christians but even over all infidels. From whence . . . a gentile who does not have any law
except Natural Law, can licitly be punished by the pope if he acts against Natural Law.256
The thirteenth-century canonist Oldradus Pontanus upheld the same view:
The Pagans and Jews should be counted among the sheep of Christ by the creation,
guiding and redemption of Christ . . . Whence also the pope has power over them just
as Christ has set him over his sheep . . .257
Innocent was claiming much greater jurisdiction for the papacy over Jews than had
Gratian in the Decretum.
Nevertheless, in 1247 he modified his stance on the Talmud somewhat in a
letter to Louis IX in which he stated that it was his duty as pope to look into all
matters and to act justly.258 In response to Jewish rabbis in the kingdom of France,
who had recently asserted that without the Talmud they could not make sense of
their Bible nor their other statutes and laws, he confirmed that:

252  Guy Terre, Summa de heresibus (Cologne, 1631), p.5: ‘Iudaei foris sunt solum quantum ad
pertinentia ad Novum Testimonium, nec quoad haec ab ecclesia iudicantur; quod ea vero quae ad veri-
tatem veteris Legis pertinent, si errent Iudaei, ecclesia de illis iudicat et punit, quia quantum ad hoc
non sunt foris.’
253 Pakter, Medieval Canon Law and the Jews, p.72.
254  Innocent IV, Apparatus, Bk 3, Rubrica 34, cap. 8, p.176r: ‘Item Iudaeos potest iudicare Papa, si
contra legem (evangelii) faciunt in moralibus, si eorum prelati eos non puniant, et eodem modo si
haereses circa suam legem inveniant.’ See Dahan, Les Intelléctuels chrétiens et les juifs au moyen âge,
pp.105–6.
255 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.115; p.444.
256  Innocent IV, Apparatus, Bk 3, Rubrica 34, cap. 8, p.176r: ‘credimus quod Papa, qui est vicarius
Ihesu Christi, potestatem habet non tantum super Christianos sed etiam super omnes infideles
 . . . unde . . . credo, quod si gentilis qui non habet legem nisi naturae, si contra legem naturae facit, post
licite puniri per Papam.’
257 Oldradus Pontanus Laudensis, Concilia aurea (Lyon, 1550), Consilium 264, fol.115va: ‘Pagani
et Iudaei oves Christi computanter creatione, gubernatione et redemptione ex parte Christi . . . Unde
et papa super eos potestatem habet sicut super oues suas quas inter alias commisit Christus.’ See
Dahan, Les Intéllectuels chrétiens et les juifs au moyen âge, p.106.
258  Innocent IV, ‘Ad instar animalium’ (12 August 1247), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.274–80; Simonnsohn,
pp.196–7.
 Papal Claims to Authority over Judaism 201
. . . we then, bound as we are by the Divine command to tolerate them in their Law,
thought fit to have the answer given them that we do not want to deprive them of
their books if as a result we should be depriving them of their Law.259
He also reported that he had advised his legate, the bishop of Tusculum, to make
sure the Talmud was shown to him and carefully inspected, but that he should
­tolerate anything contained in it that could be tolerated without causing injury to
Christianity. In fact the legate was to restore their books to the Jews, quieting their
opponents by ecclesiastical censure without appeal.
The letter to Louis in 1247 reveals that Innocent changed his mind.260 He
understood full well that the Jewish leadership in France had been active in defence
of the condemned Talmud, arguing that it lay at the core of Jewish religious life:
themes which his predecessor’s letters and indeed his own letter of 1244 had
­acknowledged. Yet Innocent now saw Jewish arguments as grounds for recon-
sidering the condemnation.261 He pointed to the age-old Christian doctrine of
toleration of Jews qua Jews in Christian society: despite intense criticism of the
Talmud by Peter the Venerable, there had never been a hint that it should be
banned. So although Innocent originally supported Gregory’s understanding of
the Talmud and had taken steps against it, he now backtracked, abandoning the
idea that it was inherently offensive to God, while retaining a concern that it con-
tained intolerable anti-Christian material.262
Innocent IV’s correspondence shows both that he knew that the Church had
always permitted Jews to live by their traditional law, but also that they were not to
malign or demean the Christian faith or harm its adherents. He therefore proposed
a new solution: intolerable material contained in the Talmud should be dealt with
by the bishop of Tusculum who should organize its inspection, but that whatever
material ought to be tolerated should be, and this should be subsequently returned
to the Jews.263 Innocent knew that the Talmud had already been carefully examined
by the University of Paris and had been found guilty of containing anti-­Christian
matter.
His predecessor Gregory IX had stipulated that if the allegations were true it
must be burnt and prohibited— notwithstanding Jewish rights. In 1247 Innocent
did not challenge Gregory’s concerns or his call to investigate the Talmud. Rather
he challenged a major finding of the Paris jury that it was inherently disrespectful
towards God. Hence he believed that the remaining anti-Christian material could
be dealt with through censorship—thereby both maintaining the Jews’ traditional
right of freedom of worship in Christian society while simultaneously protecting
that society against corrosive Jewish influence.264 Just as Gregory had anticipated

259  Innocent IV, ‘Ad instar animalium’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.278–80; Simonsohn, p.197: ‘nos qui juxta
mandatum divinum in eadem lege ipsos tolerare tenemur, dignum eis duximus respondendum quod
sicut eos ipsa lege sic perconsequens suis libris nolumus injuste privare’.
260  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.24.
261  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.24.
262  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.25.
263  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.25.
264  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.26.
202 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

Christian objections to the burning of the Talmud, Innocent also anticipated

­objections to his compromise, and while giving orders to allow the return of Jewish
books, threatened ecclesiastical censure without appeal against any opponents. He
wrote to Louis, who had strongly supported the anti-Talmudic effort, to ensure he
would agree to his more moderate stance.265
Odo of Châteauroux, the papal legate, formerly chancellor of the University of
Paris, objected to Innocent IV’s change of heart. Odo had served as chancellor of
the university from 1238 to 1244, the period of the trial and condemnation of the
Talmud, but in 1244 was made a cardinal-bishop and papal legate, and in 1248 left
France to join Louis on crusade. Since he was involved in the Talmud’s trial and
condemnation, it was natural that Innocent IV should write to him explaining his
softened position. Yet Odo was close enough to both the papal and the royal courts
to feel able to stand firm against this papal initiative.266 Indeed he set out his counter
arguments carefully, arguing that it would be presumptious for anyone—including
Gregory IX’s successor—to alter Gregory’s prescribed course, that the steps Gregory
had ordered had been carefully followed, that the Talmud had been found guilty
and the punishment of burning imposed—and that no alteration of stance was
therefore appropriate: indeed that Innocent’s request for re-examination and return
of parts of the Talmud was wrong and unfitting. Odo even claimed that Innocent
had been duped by Jews who—according to the pope—had insisted that, without
the Talmud, they could not practice their faith. Odo rejected this claim, citing the
previous Paris investigation which had found that, on the contrary, the Talmud
­actually hindered the Jews in the practice of their faith.267
Odo argued that the Talmud obfuscated the Bible and Jewish law. He knew
that Christians had long claimed that Jews did not understand the Hebrew Bible
because they were focused on its literal and material meaning. He now argued that
the Talmud impeded even a literal grasp of the Bible and of the genuine obligations
of even literalist Jewish practice. He urged not that Jewish leaders were deliberately
lying when they made their claims to the pope, but that their (sincere) position was
incorrect. They had misled Innocent in claiming that they needed the Talmud to
understand the Bible and biblically-grounded religious observances, because the
Paris investigation had shown the Talmud to be a distortion, not an interpretation,
of literal biblical truth.268
Odo pointed to the history of a campaign intended from the outset to end in
the burning of the Talmud and proceeded to explain the fallacious nature of the
Jewish response. Indeed he even suggested that Innocent’s mistake constituted no
less than a doctrinal error: if the Talmud was returned to the Jews, this would
imply approval of it—and that the Talmud was tolerable, which would fly in the
face of traditional Christian teaching. Although there were a number of good
teachings in the Talmud, this did not justify its return to the Jews—whom he
compared to lepers and heretics, perhaps deliberately, in order to augment popular
265  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.26.
266  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.35.
267  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, pp.26–8.
268  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.28.
 Papal Claims to Authority over Judaism 203

fears by making them seem part of a larger threatening coalition.269 Finally, he

­argued that although erroneous doctrines might have redeeming features, they
were still dangerous and intolerable. Just as in the case of heresy, the errors of her-
etics required the destruction and prohibition of heretical literature, so the Paris
tribunal in condemning the Talmud had concluded the same was true for the ‘Oral
Torah’ of the Jews.270
Odo thus set out a very full case against Innocent IV’s softer approach. We do
not know what, if anything, Innocent replied, but we do know that Odo enacted
a formal condemnation of the Talmud in mid-1248 after a new enquiry by four
scholars which he convened in response to Innocent’s letter of 1247. So although
Odo scrupulously obeyed the order to have the Talmud re-examined, the new
commission did not permit its return to the Jews—the second part of Innocent
IV’s revised approach. Rather, invoking the language of Gregory’s initial corres-
pondence of 1239, the refusal to return their books to the Jews was based on the
simple grounds that the Talmud had been re-examined and found once again to
contain errors, insults, and offensive material: it was therefore so harmful that it
could not, as Innocent had suggested, be returned.271 Whereas Gregory and the
Paris jury had decreed destruction and prohibition of the Talmud, Innocent had
suggested both that the traditional Church permission for Jews to live by the
Talmud should continue and that the prohibition of Jewish blasphemy could be
retained by censorship of the Talmud: a clever compromise which Odo’s corres-
pondence reveals found little favour with the Paris ecclesiastical hierarchy.272
Hence Odo rejected the papal change of heart.273
To recap: Innocent IV continued to exercise himself over the Talmud, initially
re-affirming in1244 the findings of the Paris jury, initiated by Gregory IX, that
supported Nicholas Donin, but three years later rejected some of its findings, thus
altering the stance initiated by his predecessor and executed in Paris. His change of
heart in 1247 led to Innocent’s ordering his legate in Paris to organize a new com-
mission to re-examine the Talmud and to return non-offensive materials to the
Jews.274 This revised position is extremely important because it re-established the
rights of Jews to practice rabbinic Judaism in western Christendom. Although
Innocent continued to accept the Paris findings that there was intolerable content
in the Talmud, and established procedures for getting rid of it, he rejected the
charge that the Talmud was in and of itself unacceptable to Christian society as a
deviation from divine revelation.275
Jews, of course, argued that the Talmud was divinely mandated; Innocent could
not accept that because he continued to believe it was an error-ridden human com-
position. Yet in response to Jewish pleas he did acknowledge that the Church had

269  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, pp.28–9.
270  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.29.
271  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.30.
272  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.35.
273  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.31.
274  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.53.
275  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.54.
204 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

long ago made its peace with it. For Innocent, although Donin had introduced
new and damning evidence on the content of the Talmud, this evidence was to be
judged insufficient to overturn the Church’s prior position which criticized but
tolerated Jewish ‘Oral Torah’.276 That change in thinking elicited objections from
Odo of Châteauroux.277 Odo replied negatively to Innocent. He found the new
papal position unacceptable since, according to him, the Talmud had already
been found guilty of all charges levelled at it: it was a human contrivance that con-
stituted blasphemy toward God and genuine revelation, and had been rightly
burnt.278
Nevertheless, Odo’s condemnation in 1248 is itself puzzling. Although, as
we have seen, he rejected Innocent’s dismissal of the charge that the Talmud was
inherently blasphemous, in his new condemnation, he neglected that but focused
instead on its intolerable contents. He seems to have capitulated to Innocent’s view
of the Talmud as not inherently blasphemous, while at the same time remaining
opposed to Innocent’s conclusion that an excised version could be returned to the
Jews. Apparently the charge that the Talmud was in and of itself blasphemous and
thus intolerable was dropped not only by Innocent, but even by his more hard-line
legate.279

P o pes a n d the Legacy o f the T r ia l

o f the Ta l m u d

The charges levelled by Donin and supported by Gregory IX had the potential to
radically alter the stance of the Catholic Church towards Jews and Judaism: if the
Talmud was proved to be a marked deviation from the Hebrew Bible and thus an
offensive dismissal of biblical truth, then rabbinical Judaism might have been out-
lawed. That would have reversed the Church’s long-held position of respecting the
legitimacy of Jewish doctrine and practice. Yet, as we have seen, this did not happen:
Innocent IV retreated from Gregory’s extreme stance and restated the rights of Jews
to live according to the dictates of their Torah as expressed in the Talmud. Indeed,
even Odo and his Paris colleagues, who rejected the papal call to return the censored
Talmud to the Jews, ceased to denounce it as a rejection of genuinely divine
revelation.280
Naturally, Jewish reaction to the Talmud’s burning was strong.281 Yet it appears
that the condemnations at Paris impinged little on the actual practice of Jewish
‘Oral Torah’ by French Jews during the two decades between Nicholas Donin in
the 1240s and Friar Paul Christian in the 1260s. Elsewhere in Europe, secular
­authorities tended to follow the milder view articulated by Innocent IV in 1247.

276  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.54.
277  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.52.
278  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.54, p.54.
279  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.55.
280  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.81.
281 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.342.
 Papal Claims to Authority over Judaism 205

Indeed at ‘official’ levels—both ecclesiastical and secular—the impact of the

Talmud’s trial appears limited, affecting only minimally the Jews of medieval
western Christendom in their relations with Church and State.282 Never­theless, it
probably reinforced negative popular perceptions of Jews.283 Although the trial of
the Talmud was largely an ecclesiastical initiative, when faced with the allegations
that it contained offensive material, the papal court could do nothing significant
on its own, but rather invoked the help of secular authorities—citing the problem
and enlisting aid to execute a solution.284 By 1247 there was a rift between the
papacy and the ecclesiastical leadership in Paris, the former softening its position,
the latter insisting on harshness.285
Fortunately for the continuing welfare of Jewish communities, their leaders had
stepped in and urged on Innocent that outlawing the Talmud—entailing in effect
the prohibition of Judaism altogether—contravened fundamental Church ‘policy’.
Innocent was convinced, altered the findings of the jury in Paris, and ordered cen-
sorship instead of outright prohibition.286 Prohibition would have meant a break
with a Church stance, which had existed since antiquity. Hence the impact of the
trial and condemnation of the Talmud was significantly mitigated and by the late
1240s the worst of the immediate danger to Jewish communities in Europe had
passed.287
Nevertheless, Innocent’s correspondence as a whole clearly shows his claim to
authority over Jewish communities. As we saw in Chapter Two, he utterly refuted
charges of blood libel, declaring that allegations that Jews had eaten the heart of
a murdered child were false because Jews kept the precepts of the Old Testament
and observed that Scripture prohibited Jews, while solemnizing the Passover, to
have any contact with the dead.288 That was a reference to Numbers 9: 6–14 and
Psalms 63: 7, and Innocent urged Louis IX of France to treat the Jews humanely as
befitting a just king.289 His successors upheld the same position. Yet, in 1258
Alexander IV reminded the duke of Burgundy that he must confiscate books gen-
erally known as Talmud which contained errors against the Catholic faith as well
as horrible and intolerable blasphemies against our Lord, Jesus Christ, and the
Blessed Virgin, his mother, and that by obeying this command the duke would
earn God’s mercy for his sins.290
We have seen how in 1244 Innocent IV complained to the king of France that
the Talmud contained blasphemies against God and Christ, murky stories about
the Virgin Mary, abusive errors, and unheard of follies.291 Later in the century, in

282  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.84.
283  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.86.
284  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.88.
285  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, pp.88–9.
286  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.vii.
287  The Trial of the Talmud: Paris 1240, ed. Chazan, p.2.
288  Innocent IV, ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum Alemannie’ (5 July 1247), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.268–70;
Simonsohn, pp.194–5.
289  Innocent IV, ‘Ex parte Judeorum’ (6 July 1247), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.272; Simonsohn, pp.195–6.
290  Alexander IV, ‘In sacro generali’ (3 September 1258), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.64–6; Simonsohn,
pp.215–16.
291  Innocent IV ‘Impia Judeorum perfidia’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.250–2; Simonsohn, pp.180–2.
206 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

1267, Clement IV similarly complained to the archbishop of Tarragona about

­innumerable abuses and blasphemies against Jesus and Mary in the Talmud and
claimed that it taught the Jews to utter daily imprecations against Christians.292
He also told James I of Aragon that he was grieved to hear that the Jews had
adopted the Talmud in place of the Old Law which they had received from Moses,
that it exceeded the Old and New Testaments in length, contained innumerable
blasphemies and abuses against Jesus and Mary, and taught Jews to utter daily
­imprecations against Christians.293
Clement IV therefore ordered the king to ensure that the Jews give up the Talmud
and that all Jewish books be exhibited for inspection except for those which con-
formed to the text of the Bible and in which there was no question of blasphemies
or errors. All investigations were to be undertaken by the friars and in particular by
the Dominican friar Paul Christian, who as a former Jew and zealous convert was
conversant with Hebrew and was familiar with the content of the Jewish books as
well as Christian theology. As we saw in Chapter Two, even later in the century, in
1286, Honorius IV complained to John Peckham, archbishop of Canterbury, about
reports that he had received that Jews in England committed outrageous acts—­
including cursing Christians in their daily prayers—which insulted God, injured
Christians, and were detrimental to the Catholic faith.294 In particular he singled
out stories he had heard about Jews who were said to possess a certain pernicious
book—again a reference to the Talmud—which contained all sorts of abomin-
ations and falsifications and which they not only studied themselves but forced
their sons to study.295 As the following chapter will show, in the thirteenth century
friars such as Paul Christian were increasingly to become a scourge for Jews.

292  Clement IV, ‘Dampnabili perfidia Iudeorum’ (15 July 1267), Simonsohn, pp.233–5. See discus-
sion in Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.101, footnote 4.
293 Clement IV, ‘Damnabili perfidia Judaeorum’ (15 July 1267), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.97–102;
Simonsohn, pp.235–6.
294  Honorius IV, ‘Nimis in partibus’, Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.157–62; Simonsohn, pp.262–4.
295  Honorius IV, ‘Nimis in partibus’, Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.157–62; Simonsohn, pp.262–4.
 6
The Papacy and the Place of Jews in
Christian Society

Three Hebrew narratives have survived from the intensified campaigns of the Church
of the mid-thirteenth century: one—The Disputation of Rabbi Yehi’el of Paris—which,
as we have seen, was from the assault on the Talmud of the 1240s, and two from the
new-style missionizing of the 1260s.1 Of the latter, the Hebrew account of the
Dominican friar Paul Christian’s missionizing endeavours in Paris is straightforward,
while by contrast the great Jewish rabbi Nachmanides’ famous narrative of the
Disputation of Barcelona in 1263 between himself and the same Paul Christian is
more complex.2 As we saw in the previous chapter, for Jews, the assault on the Talmud
and related rabbinic literature during the 1230s and 1240s was potentially extremely
dangerous, indeed arguably as much as the later missionizing attempts of the 1260s.3
Be that as it may, increasingly in the second half of the thirteenth century the
mendicant friars encouraged popes to demand that Jews listen to their conversion-
ary sermons, and to re-enforce these with written and verbal assaults on Judaism.
Such activity further undermined the Pauline–Augustinian idea of protection
while simultaneously fostering the idea of Jews as enemies of Christian society. In
particular mendicant theologians, especially Franciscans—perhaps because they
felt a particular affinity with the poor—were exercised over Jewish usury.4 We have
also seen how, even though medieval Judaism was not generally a proselytizing
­religion, popes increasingly saw the Jewish faith as a danger to Christians. At times
this led them to concur with the friars, yet they never endorsed excesses.
In this chapter we shall examine this theme of conversion. Furthermore, we
shall see how the papacy’s aim to direct Christian treatment of Jews through
­ecclesiastical courts and in particular through an inquisition headed by friars,
­inevitably led to clashes with secular authorities who also claimed authority over
‘our Jews’ (‘Judaei nostri’). Jews were legally citizens, certainly not slaves or serfs;
canon lawyers and theologians advocated Jewish servitude, not actual serfdom;
Jews were subject to certain restrictions not binding on other groups in medieval
society.5 Usually they were subject to secular, not canon law, and problems arose

1  Robert Chazan, ‘The Hebrew Report on the Trial of the Talmud: Information and Consolation’,
in Le Brulement du Talmud a Paris, 1242-124, ed. G. Dahan (Paris, 1999), p.81.
2  Chazan, ‘The Hebrew Report on the Trial of the Talmud’, p.81; p.82.
3  Chazan, ‘The Hebrew Report on the Trial of the Talmud’, p.83.
4  Shlomo Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History (Toronto, 1991), pp.219–20.
5 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, pp.95–6; p.101; pp.157–68.
208 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

when the Church sought to claim jurisdiction.6 That claim was often opposed by
the civil authorities, even though the Church wished to exercise it indirectly
through such authorities.7 Canon law barred Jews from acting as witnesses for the
prosecution of Christians in court, while increasingly as the thirteenth century
progressed popes felt the need to protect them against false evidence brought by
Christians.8 Not least of the papacy’s concerns was the issue of conversion.

T h e Papac y and C on v e rsion

In general, as we would expect, popes did everything they could to ensure that
Jewish converts not return to Judaism.9 Yet, as we saw in Chapter Two, throughout
the twelfth and thirteenth centuries they regularly re-issued the ‘Constitutio pro
Iudaeis’ which declared that Jews must not be coerced into baptism.
Indeed as early as the sixth century Gregory I had ordered the bishop of Arles, and
the bishop of Marseilles to desist from baptizing by force.10 But he had also declared
that inducements should be offered to Jews in Sicily to convert in terms of a reduc-
tion of their land taxes if they were willing to accept baptism,11 and he had ordered
the bishop of Naples to ensure that pagan slaves of Jews who declared a willingness
to be baptized be set free.12 He therefore trod a middle ground, wielding both carrot
and stick, and subsequent popes followed his lead. So in ordering his newly appointed
archbishop of Mainz as papal vicar in Germany to preach the Christian faith to the
Jews, Leo VII (936–939) had stated that if they refused to be baptized he should
expel them but not resort to force.13 Alexander II (1061–1073) also insisted that the
conversion of the Jews was not to be obtained by violence,14 while Clement III
(1097–1100) took pains to prevent Jewish converts reverting to Judaism.15
As we have observed, from the late eleventh century onwards, as a result of
the  First Crusade, the baptism of Jews, including Jewish children, became an
­important issue for theologians and canon lawyers.16 For Jews, a convert remained
legally Jewish even if he converted, but rabbis in general liked apostates who
­returned to Judaism to confess and repent before returning to the community; if
they had been forcibly converted the rabbis were more lenient.17
In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries popes issued further letters to individuals
in response to particular queries about the protection of Jews from forced baptism.
This was a difficult issue for a pope as qua pope it was his duty to encourage
6 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.102; p.106.
7 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, pp.114–16.
8 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, pp.116–21.
9 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, pp.345–8.
10  Gregory I, ‘Scribendi ad fraternitatem’ (June 591), Simonsohn, pp.4–5.
11  Gregory I, ‘De Manichaeis qui’ (October 594), Simonsohn, pp.11–12.
12  Gregory I, ‘Fraternitati vestrae ante’ (April 596), Simonsohn, pp.12–13.
13  Leo VII, ‘Fraternitiatis amore’ (937–9), Simonsohn, pp.32–3.
14  Alexander II, ‘Licet ex devotionis’ (1065), Simonsohn, p.37.
15  Clement III, ‘Quod contra Ecclesiae’ (1097–1098), Simonsohn, p.42.
16 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, pp.253–7.
17 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.349.
 The Papacy and the Place of Jews in Christian Society 209

voluntary baptism as much as possible and to give converts every incentive to con-
vert. As we would expect from a well-trained legal mind, in response to petitioning,
Alexander III issued a number of letters on the subject in which he attempted to
tread this fine line. Few Jews voluntarily converted to Christianity, just as few
Christians converted to Judaism.18 Hence, attempting to encourage voluntary
Jewish conversion, in 1169 he wrote to the archbishop of Rheims to ensure that a
pledge made to a certain Petrus, a Jewish convert who had been promised a prebend
in the archbishop’s office, should be kept.19 Then between 1173 and 1174 he
­ordered the bishop of Tournai to install a certain Milo, another Jewish convert, in
the chapter and grant him a prebend once it became vacant,20 rebuking the chapter
and dean of Tournai who had refused to install him.21 As a further incentive to con-
version he ordered the archbishop of Spain to correct a situation whereby the move-
able property of converts was confiscated and their real estate allowed to pass to
Jewish relatives.22 During his pontificate the Third Lateran Council decreed that:
If any by the inspiration of God are converted to the Christian faith, they are in no
way to be excluded from their possessions, since the condition of converts ought to be
better than before their conversion. If this is not done, we enjoin on the princes and
rulers of these places, under penalty of excommunication, the duty to restore fully to
these converts the share of their inheritance and goods.23
The issue of conversion, converts, and baptism became a subject of papal interest
once more at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. Constitution 70 expressly
stipulated that Jewish converts to the Faith should not continue their old rites:
Certain people who have come voluntarily to the waters of sacred baptism, as we learnt,
do not wholly cast off the old person in order to put on the new more perfectly. For, in
keeping remnants of their former rite, they upset the decorum of the Christian religion
by such a mixing. Since it is written, cursed is he who enters the land by two paths, and
a garment that is woven from linen and wool together should not be put on, we there-
fore decree that such people shall be wholly prevented by the prelates of churches from
observing their old rite, so that those who freely offer themselves to the Christian reli-
gion may be kept to its observance by a salutary and necessary coercion. For it is a lesser
evil not to know the Lord’s way than to go back on it having known it.24

18 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.286.

19  Alexander III, ‘Veniens ad nos Petrus’ (7 March 1169), Simonsohn, p.52.
20  Alexander III, ‘Eam te’ (1173–1174), Simonsohn, pp.54–5.
21  Alexander III, ‘Si qua in’ (1173–1174), Simonsohn, pp.55–7.
22  Alexander III, ‘Ad audientiam apostolatus’ (25 January before 1179), Simonsohn, pp.57–8.
23  Tanner, Vol. 1, p.224: ‘Si qui praeterea Deo inspirante ad fidem se converterint christianam, a
possessionibus suis nullatenus excludantur, cum melioris conditionis conversos ad fidem esse oporteat
quam, antequam fidem acceperunt, habebantur. Si autem secus factum fuerit, principibus vel potesta-
tibus eorumdem locorum sub poena excommunicationis iniungimus, ut portionem hereditatis et
bonorum suorum ex integro eis faciant exhiberi.’ See The Church in the Medieval Town, ed. T. R. Slater,
G. Rosser (Aldershot, Brookfield, 1998), p.50.
24  Tanner, Vol. 1, p.267: ‘Quidam, sicut accepimus, qui ad sacri undam baptismatis voluntarii acces-
serunt, veterem hominem omnino non exuunt, ut novum perfectius induant, cum proris ritus reliquias
retinentes, christianae religionis decorem tali commixtione confundant. Cum autem scriptum sit: mal-
edictus homo qui terram duabus viis ingreditur, et indui vestis non debeat lino lanaque contexta, statu-
imus, ut tales per praelatos ecclesiarum ab observantia veteris ritus omnimodo compescantur, ut quos
210 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

In response to this decree and often with the support of monarchs, the friars began
to set up ‘Houses of Converts’ throughout Europe; thus Henry III established the
first ‘Domus conversorum’ in England in 1232 where converts from Judaism could
be instructed in the Christian faith and shielded from attempts by other Jews to
bring them back to Judaism.25 Their inclusion in such ‘Houses of Converts’ or in
other religious houses, seems to have been an extension of the traditional practice
of admitting lay brothers, or conversi, into monasteries.26
Unsurprisingly, Innocent III was particularly interested in encouraging conver-
sions and issued a number of detailed letters on the subject, in response to peti-
tions, to different parts of Europe. In 1199 he instructed the bishop of Autun to
take care to allay the poverty of a Jewish convert so that he and his daughter should
have enough food and clothes.27 That same year he insisted that Jews in Leicester
who had been converted to Christianity—he had one particularly in mind—
should be provided with life’s necessities.28 In 1201 he instructed the bishop of
Livonia that until his people were more firmly rooted in the Christian faith they
might continue to contract marriages limited by a prohibition of only four degrees
of relationship, instead of the eight traditionally decreed by the Church.29 In a
letter to the clergy of Barcelona in 1206 he ordered them to baptize any Jew
or Muslim who requested it and to impede any Christian who tried to hinder or
demand a price from the Church in return for the convert.30 In 1213 he ruled in
a letter to the archbishop of Sens that a Jew, along with his family who had been
converted after a miraculous experience, should be provided with the necessities of
life so that he did not regret his conversion.31 As we observed in Chapter Two,
‘Maiores ecclesie’ of Innocent III advocated making it much more difficult to be
released from forced baptism, which was to be allowed only if actual physical re-
sistance had been shown.32 A ruling of the English Crown in 1236 stated that the
offspring of mixed-religion couples should be allowed to choose which religion
they wished to follow, but English legislation of the thirteenth century shows that
there was more preoccupation with potential ‘impurities’ derived from contact
with those who remained Jews than with what happened to those baptized.33

christianae religioni liberae voluntatis arbitrium obtulit, salutiferae coactionis necessitas in eius obser-
vatione conservet; cum minus malum existat, viam Domini non agnoscere, quam post agnitam
retroire.’
25  The Church in the Medieval Town, ed. Slater, Rosser, pp.50–1; Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and
the Jews. History, p.275.
26  The Church in the Medieval Town, ed. Slater, Rosser, p.51.
27  Innocent III, ‘Ad provisionem P.’ (5 November 1199), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.94–6; Simonsohn,
p.76.
28  Innocent III, ‘Quanto populus Judaice’ (5 December 1199), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.96–8; Simonsohn,
p.77.
29  Innocent III, ‘Deus qui Ecclesiam’ (19 April 1201), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.100; Simonsohn, p.79.
30 Innocent III, ‘Orta tempestate in’ (26 August 1206), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.118; Simonsohn,
pp.88–9.
31 Innocent III, ‘Operante illo qui’ (10/8 June 1213), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.136–8; Simonsohn,
pp.98–9.
32  Innocent III, ‘Maiores ecclesie causas’ (September–October 1201), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.100–2;
Simonsohn, pp.80–1. See The Church in the Medieval Town, ed. Slater, Rosser, p.51.
33  The Church in the Medieval Town, ed. Slater, Rosser, p.51.
 The Papacy and the Place of Jews in Christian Society 211

Innocent’s successors continued to issue letters about conversion. Honorius III

ruled that a certain family of Jewish converts in the diocese of Bonn be supported
by papal authority and not be disturbed over the income of the prebend they had
received until the archbishop and chapter could provide for the family in the
manner fixed by Innocent III.34 Gregory IX also issued letters on the subject.
Writing to prelates in Mainz in 1234, he ordered them to ensure that a Jewish con-
vert who had subsequently become a canon be provided with an annual income
until he could be given a benefice of equal or greater value,35 and he confirmed
that the convert and his household must be allowed to enjoy the income from this
prebend during their lifetime.36 Eventually he granted the convert the living of a
vicarage,37 and insisted he be granted his legal rights.38 He affirmed that no Jew
might buy or retain in his service a baptized slave, or one who desired to be
baptized,39 and took steps to ensure that Jewish converts never regretted adopting
Christianity.40 He even wrote to converts personally, assuring them that even
though they were now Christians, they might retain whatever possessions they had
legally acquired while still Jews.41
Innocent IV continued his predecessor’s ‘traditional’ line. In 1244 he informed
the abbot of St Denis that he had received a complaint that certain prelates, con-
trary to the Apostolic See, had dared to place the abbot and convent of Cluny
under excommunication and interdict along with their monks and churches and
to seize their property.42 They had even gone so far as to compel them—by citing
apostolic letters—to provide not only for clergy and laymen, but for certain con-
verts from Judaism and he expressed his disapproval in no uncertain terms.
Nevertheless, writing to the archbishop of Tarragona in 1245, Innocent confirmed
the decrees of James I of Aragon which ruled that any Jew or Muslim wishing to
be baptized should be able to do so freely and would lose no property or goods as
a result.43 Hence the children and relatives of the said convert could not claim his
property while he was alive and after his death only what they would have been
able to claim reasonably if he had died a Jew or pagan. In 1250 he confirmed to the
children of a French convert that Philip II Augustus had freed their father from all

34  Honorius III, ‘Cum olim venerabilis’ (15 April 1221), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.164–6; Simonsohn,
pp.115–16.
35 Gregory IX, ‘Apostolice Sedis benignitas’ (3 July 1234), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.212; Simonsohn,
p.150.
36 Gregory IX, ‘Constitutis apud Sedem’ (20 October 1234), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.212–14;
Simonsohn, pp.150–2.
37  Gregory IX, ‘Apostolice Sedis benignitas’ (27 July 1235), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.220; Simonsohn,
p.156; ‘Cum sicut asseris’ (18 May 1239), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.238; Simonsohn, pp.170–1.
38 Gregory IX, ‘Dilectus filius W.’ (13 December 1235), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.222; Simonsohn,
pp.157–8.
39  Gregory IX, ‘Nulli Judeo baptizatum’ (1227–1234), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.216; Simonsohn, p.125.
40 Gregory IX, ‘Sua nobis Newronius’ (9 May 1235), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.220; Simonsohn,
pp.155–6.
41 Gregory IX, ‘Etsi universis qui’ (5 May 1236), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.222–4; Simonsohn,
pp.159–60.
42  Innocent IV, ‘Ad audientiam nostram’ (29 January 1244), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.248; Simonsohn,
pp.179–80.
43  Innocent IV, ‘Ea que ad’ (20 August 1245), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.254–6; Simonsohn, pp.183–5.
212 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

tolls, taxes, and exactions as a result of his conversion,44 and ordered the adminis-
trator of the diocese of Paris to ensure the children’s protection.45 In the same year
he insisted that maintenance be provided for a woman from Rheims who had
converted,46 and decreed that a cleric, also a convert, be provided with an ecclesi-
astical benefice.47
Papal concern for the practical as well as spiritual well-being of converts from
Judaism continued during the second half of the thirteenth century. In 1255
Alexander IV wrote to all converts in Paris in answer to their complaints that cer-
tain clergy who were supposed to provide them with necessities had acted in a hos-
tile manner towards them, compelling them to attend courts in distant lands.
Alexander granted them relief and indicated that, if summoned, they should appear
before the court of the bishop of Paris.48 He also granted Louis IX the right to apply
to pious uses—one of which may have been the maintenance of converts—property
received from various sources where the owners could not be identified.49
In 1264 Urban IV ordered the archbishop of Tournai to ensure that the stipend of
a convert be doubled,50 and that, at least during a brief period of religious instruc-
tion, Muslim and Jewish converts should be supported in monasteries.51
In 1267 Clement IV urged the count of Burgundy to act strongly against those
who, following baptism, reverted to Judaism.52 Yet, like Innocent III, despite the
often harsh rhetoric of his letters, he continued to insist on the Church’s traditional
teaching that Jews not be forcibly baptized. Rather, they must be shown Christian
humanity and, just as they were forbidden to dare to seduce the unthinking from
the truth of the Christian faith into the errors of Judaism, so they must not be
compelled to accept Christianity against their will.53 In 1278 Nicholas III called
on the Dominicans to preach to Jews that they might be reborn through baptism
and insisted that they approach secular rulers and prelates of the territories where
they preached to insure that converts, like prodigal sons, be treated generously.
Indeed he emphasized that they must be granted favours and that neither their
persons nor their property should suffer harm at either Jewish or Christian hands.54
Martin IV and Nicholas IV similarly addressed the issue of conversion. In 1284
Martin intervened in a dispute between the prelates of the kingdom of Portugal
and their king. He registered concern that when Jews or Muslims accepted baptism

44  Innocent IV, ‘Cum a nobis’ (21 April 1250), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.284; Simonsohn, pp.201–2.
45  Innocent IV, ‘Cum sicut petitio’ (21 April 1250), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.284; Simonsohn, p.202.
46  Innocent IV, ‘Sicut dilecta in’ (15 July 1250), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.286–8; Simonsohn, pp.203–4.
47  Innocent IV, ‘Pro dilecto filio’ (13 November 1250), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.288–90; Simonsohn,
pp.204–5.
48  Alexander IV, ‘Ex parte vestra’ (9 December 1255), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.57–8; Simonsohn, p.212.
49  Alexander IV, ‘Sic ille Lucifer’ (11 April 1258), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.60–2.
50  Urban IV, ‘Lecta nobis’ (7 July 1264), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.82–3.
51 Urban IV, ‘Nonnulli sicut accepimus’ (26 July 1264), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.83–4; Simonsohn,
p.224.
52  Clement IV, ‘Professionis Christianae’ (17 August 1267), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.104–6; Simonsohn,
pp.237–8.
53  Clement IV, ‘Cum de tam’ (no date), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.113–15.
54 Nicholas III, ‘Vineam sorec velut’ (4 August 1278), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.142–5; Simonsohn,
pp.249–52.
 The Papacy and the Place of Jews in Christian Society 213

the king confiscated their property, and when Muslim slaves of Jews agreed to
­baptism they were forced back into their former state of servitude.55 In 1288, fol-
lowing a riot in the County of La Marche (France) in which a number of Jews had
been baptized in fear of their lives, Nicholas IV issued a stern letter to these inquisi-
tors who had seized and imprisoned converts who had reverted to Judaism and
persisted in their refusal to return to Christianity. He argued that, despite the cir-
cumstances of their baptism, these Jews could not be considered ‘strictly forced’
(‘precise coacti’) because, driven by fear, they had consented to the baptism of their
infant children. He concluded in no uncertain terms that the apostates must be
treated like heretics.56 Yet in 1291 he instructed the bishop of Beauvais to make
proper provision for Jewish converts.57

T h e Papac y, I nquisition , and J e ws

As we saw in Chapter Five, following the lead of Innocent IV, subsequent thir-
teenth-century popes went out of their way to show that they classified Jews as
‘internal’ rather than ‘external’ to Christian society and therefore subject to papal
authority, not least in relation to the Talmud. Such ideas became particularly
­apparent during a second disputation, the Barcelona Disputation of 1263.58 Held
during the pontificate of Urban IV between the Dominican Paul Christian and
Nachmanides, the debate was organized by Raymond of Peñafort in the presence
of James I of Aragon and his court, after Paul Christian claimed he could prove the
truth of Christianity from the Talmud and other rabbinical writings.59 Like Donin,
Paul Christian was one of a number of Jewish converts who sought to dispute their
former religious beliefs and convert their once fellow-Jews.60 Unlike the Paris
55  Martin IV, ‘Isti sunt articuli’ (1 April 1284), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.152–4; Simonsohn, pp.257–9.
56  Nicholas IV, ‘Sicut nobis significare’ (7 May 1288), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.165–7; Simonsohn, p.266.
For the Latin phrase ‘precise coacti’, see Nicholas IV, ‘Sicut nobis significare’, Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.165;
Simonsohn, p.266.
57  Nicholas IV (1291), Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.191. See Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.191, footnote 1: A short description
of the letter is all that survives. Such letters continued into the fourteenth century. Thus, for example,
in 1320 John XXII ordered every rector and official of the Comtat Venaissin and of the other counties
and territories belonging to the Apostolic See to ensure that no converts were harmed in their property
and goods which they had at the time of their conversion or might obtain in the future, nor permit
such harm to be caused them by others, but that they must be well disposed towards them and protect
them so that they should not be impoverished, which would make them return to their former faith;
John XXII, ‘Dignum arbitrantes’ (22 and 31 July 1320), Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.315; Simonsohn, p.320. He
also wrote in 1320 to the rectors and officials of the Comtat Venaissin and of other countries and ter-
ritories dependent upon the bishopric of Avignon spiritually or temporally, with the same message but
with particular reference to a certain Peter Arnaldi of Sarrians who was a recent convert to Catholicism;
John XXII, ‘Dignum arbitrantes / arbitramur’ (31 July 1320), Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.316; Simonsohn,
pp.320–1. And in 1322 in a letter to the bishop of Viterbo he empowered him to grant a forty-day
indulgence to Christians who supported through charitable donations certain Jews who had been
converted by a citizen of the town called Fardus Hugolini as well as repentant women; John XXII,
‘Inter opera laudanda’ (4 July 1322), Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.326; Simonsohn, pp.334–5.
58 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, pp.307–13.
59  Jeremy Cohen, The Friars and the Jews. The Evolution of Medieval Anti-Judaism (Ithaca, London,
1982), pp.108–23.
60 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.279.
214 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

Disputation of 1240, however, the debate appears to have been much less a genuine
enquiry into what was said in the Talmud and much more a public relations stunt
by James I.
Nevertheless, the pope was concerned to ensure the ‘correct’ outcome—that is
to endorse the Christian position. In 1266, three years after the debate, Clement
IV wrote to James I. The letter was ostensibly a plea to the king to forego whatever
economic advantages he derived from Muslims who lived in his kingdom and
pointed out the incongruity of waging war on Muslims outside his realm, while
tolerating and even favouring them within. It was in this context that he discussed
the presence of Jewish communities in Aragon. In particular, he urged James to
punish Nachmanides who had debated with Paul Christian and who subsequently
to the Disputation had published a book which the pope believed to contain lies
about Christianity.61
By the second half of the thirteenth century inquisition against heresy was fully
established. In his encyclical ‘Turbato corde’ of 1267, Clement IV granted inquisi-
tors the power to intervene in the affairs of Jewish communities in an official
­capacity as protectors of the Jewish faith.62 The inquisitors were friars licensed to
enquire into matters of heresy and empowered to seek out the guilty by discovering
both Christian and Jewish witnesses. Jews found to have induced Christians of
­either sex to adopt their rites were to be punished; indeed anyone who stood in the
inquisitors’ way should be subject to ecclesiastical sanction.63
Clement’s successors continued to urge the friars to enquire into the affairs of
Jewish communities. In 1274 Gregory X re-issued ‘Turbato corde’, again ordering
the friars in their capacity as inquisitors to proceed against suspect Jews and
Christians as they did against heretics and their supporters. He said that he was
deeply concerned to discover both that certain Jewish converts had reverted to
their former faith and that a number of Christians had converted to Judaism,
and he emphasized that any Jew found responsible for converting Christians must
be punished.64 Later, in 1281, Martin IV informed French prelates how certain
­inquisitors had reported that those accused of heresy, including baptized Jews who
had subsequently apostatized, had sought refuge in churches to escape punishment
and that he had been consulted as to the correct course of action. He said that in
response he had empowered the friars to execute their authority freely against both

61  Clement IV, ‘Agit nec immerito’ (c.1266), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.92–7; Simonsohn, pp.230–2.
62  Clement IV, ‘Turbato corde audivimus’ (27 July 1267), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.102–4; Simonsohn,
pp.236–7. See Harvey Hames, The Art of Conversion, Christianity and Kabballa in the Thirteenth
Century (Leiden, 2000), pp.2–9; Maurice Kriegel, ‘Prémarrianisme et Inquisition dans la Provence des
XIIIe et XIVe siècles’, Provence historique 29 (1977), 314; Joseph Shatzmiller, ‘L’Inquisition et les juifs
de Provence au XIIIe siècle’, Provence historique 23 (1973), 327. Contemporaneous were the works of
Raymond Lull and Raymond Martin which sought to convert Jews as well as Muslims to Christianity.
See Raymond Martin, Pugio Fidei adversus Mauros et Iudeos, ed. F. Lanckisi (Leipzig, 1687), (repr.
Farnborough, 1967), passim; Raymond Lull, El ‘Liber praedicationis contra Iudaeos’ de Raymond Lull,
ed. J. M. M. Vallicrosa (Madrid, 1957), passim. See Robert Chazan, Daggers of Faith: Thirteenth-
Century Christian Missionizing and Jewish Response (Berkeley, 1989), pp.25–37.
63  Clement IV, ‘Turbato corde audivimus’, Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.102–4; Simonsohn, pp.236–7.
64  Gregory X, ‘Turbato corde audivimus’ (1 March 1274), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.122–3; Simonsohn,
pp.244–5.
 The Papacy and the Place of Jews in Christian Society 215

those suspected of heresy and converted Jews who had apostatized.65 He also in-
formed the inquisitors that he had enjoined the prelates of France to assist them.66
Nicholas IV’s correspondence also contained a number of letters concerned
with inquisition. In 1288 and again in 1290 he reissued ‘Turbato corde’.67 In 1290
he complained to prelates of the provinces of Aix, Arles, and Embrun and the
nobles of the Comtat Venaissin that Jews were encouraging apostasy, not only
among other Jews who had been baptized but among baptized Christians, and he
urged them to help the inquisitors.68 He also wrote to the Franciscans of these
provinces urging them to enquire into reports he had received that certain baptized
men and women still kept up Jewish rites, including lighting lamps and candles in
their synagogues, making offerings, holding vigils, especially on the Sabbath, and
showing reverence to the Torah Scroll. If they should discover such Christians, or
indeed those who had misled them, they were to proceed against them as they
would against idolators and heretics.69
Yet, despite such draconian measures, Nicholas showed a softer side, writing in
the same year to the inhabitants of the Comtat Venaissin and to the bishop of
Carpentras granting them the special privilege that, as long as they were prepared
to appear before local courts, they should not have to answer to any other jurisdiction,
unless the accusers could produce proof that this privilege had been specifically
abrogated—and he included Jews in this privilege.70 On the other hand, he also
informed the clergy and nobles of the Comtat Venaissin that the bishop must not
be impeded in his work unless someone could produce a papal document specific-
ally authorizing such interference; this edict was to apply to all inhabitants of the
Comtat including Jews.71
Certainly popes were concerned to ensure that Jewish communities complied with
inquisitorial procedures. Sometime before 1298, Boniface VIII ordered that the same
procedures be set in motion against Christians who adopted or reverted to the rites of
the Jews as were deployed against heretics who had confessed or been convicted on
Christian or Jewish testimony.72 Nevertheless, in a letter of 1299 to the Jews of Rome,
65  Martin IV, ‘Ex parte dilectorum’ (21 October 1281), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.150–1; Simonsohn,
pp.255–6.
66  Martin IV, ‘Ex parte vestra’ (21 October 1281), Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.152; Simonsohn, p.256.
67 Nicholas IV, ‘Turbato corde audivimus’ (5 September 1288), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.171–2;
Simonsohn, pp.267–8; ‘Turbato corde audivimus’ (9 September 1290), Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.181;
Simonsohn, pp.275–6.
68  Nicholas IV, ‘Attendite fratres et’ (28 January 1290), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.174–8; Simonsohn,
pp.271–2; ‘Inter innumerabiles sollicitudines’ (28 January 1290), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.178–9. See René
Moulinas, Les Juifs du Pape: Avignon et le Comtat Venaissin (Paris, 1992), pp.13–31; René Moulinas,
Les Juifs du Pape en France. Les Communautés d’Avignon et du Comtat Venaissin aux 17e et 18e siècles
(Paris, 1981), pp.17–30.
69 Nicholas IV, ‘Ad augmentum Catholice’ (20 February 1290), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.179–80;
Simonsohn, pp.273–4.
70  Nicholas IV, ‘Sicut ad nostrum’ (5 November 1290), Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.182; Simonsohn, p.276;
‘Intellecto dudum’ (6 November 1290), Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.183; Simonsohn, p.277.
71 Nicholas IV, ‘Ut ex gratia’ (9 November 1290), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.183–4; Simonsohn,
pp.277–8.
72  Boniface VIII, ‘Contra Christianos’ (before/c.1298), Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.209; Simonsohn, pp.285–6.
We also have letters of John XXII concerned with the Talmud and the Inquisition. In 1320 he wrote
to the archbishop of Bourges and his suffragans ordering him to ensure that the Jews in their provinces
216 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

Boniface also noted their complaints about the activities of inquisitors and supported
them.73 He observed that he had recently ordered that in cases involving heresy, the
names of the accusers and the witnesses should be made known, as in a normal trial,
unless the investigation involved particularly powerful people. He knew that when
inquisitors were authorized to proceed against Jews they regularly denominated Jewish
defendants as such ‘powerful people’ and refused to make public the names of wit-
nesses against them. The consequence was that they stripped these Jews of their rights
to protection. By contrast Boniface emphasized that the position of Jews in Christian
society was such that in legal terms they must be regarded as ‘powerless’. So even if
they were sometimes personally very wealthy, inquisitors must consider them as ‘weak’
(‘tanquam impotentibus’) when making legal judgements.74 Hence Boniface’s stance
was ambivalent: on the one hand his correspondence reveals that he wished inquisitors
to proceed against relapsed Jewish converts as against heretics, but on the other hand
he personally intervened to declare Jews ‘powerless’ and so protected.75
Nevertheless, despite such interventions to ensure justice for Jews, the papacy’s
employment of the mendicant orders as inquisitors to enquire into the activities of
Jewish communities was a highly significant step which would in the long term
prove detrimental to their well-being.76 Clement IV’s ‘Turbato corde’ was an im-
mensely important decretal because the powers thereby given to inquisitors often
led to the papacy’s continuously stated aim of protection being undermined.
‘Turbato corde’ introduced no radical change in papal attitudes, since after Clement
IV, thirteenth-century popes maintained their commitment to the theology of pro-
tection expressed in ‘Sicut Iudaeis’.77 Yet their commitment to the idea of overseeing

and dioceses consign to them the Talmud and all other books with additions and commentaries on
pain of canonical punishments. Once examined by the friars and other men of learning, books con-
taining blasphemies, errors, falsehoods, and cursus should be burnt by the secular authorities, and
the business conducted quickly before the Jews had time to hide the books. He referred explicitly
to the pronouncements of Clement IV and Honorius IV on the subject of Jewish blasphemies, and to
similar pronouncements by Odo (Eudes), bishop of Tusculum. See John XXII, ‘Dudum felicis recor-
dationis’ (4 September 1320), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.316–19; Simonsohn, pp.321–3. Yet a milder ap-
proach can be seen in 1328 when John XXII commanded the inquisitors of heresy in Apulia that for
a period of two years they should not proceed against Jews and converts except at the request of the
bishop or his vicar in their presence. This followed reports that the pope had received from the bishop-
elect of Trani that the Jews of Trani, from whom in the past when there were more of them the
Church’s economy used to draw considerable income, were so oppressed by the Inquisition that the
few who remained were threatened by want and the Church economy could expect little from them.
Similar oppressions were being practised by the Inquisition from the converts from Judaism, more
attention being paid to the gain which might be derived from them to the spiritual edification which
should be provided for them, and the bishop-elect had therefore petitioned that, since he was ready to
administer punishment to Jews and converts when they deserved it, and since they were his subjects,
the pope should come to his aid against the inquisitors. See John XXII, ‘Petitio dilecti filii’ (26 January
1328), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.334–5; Simonsohn, pp.352–3.
73  Boniface VIII, ‘Exhibita (nobis) pro parte’ (13 June 1299), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.204–6; Simonsohn,
pp.286–7.
74  Boniface VIII, ‘Exhibita (nobis) pro parte’, Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.205; Simonsohn, p.286: ‘tanquam
impotentibus’.
75 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.348; p.355; p.363; p.404; p.407.
76 Cohen, The Friars and the Jews, passim.
77  Grayzel emphasizes a significant change of attitude with the issue of ‘Turbato corde’ (and its re-issue
by Nicholas IV in 1288 and 1290): ‘But that was the spirit of Sicut. Unfortunately for both sides the
 The Papacy and the Place of Jews in Christian Society 217

a truly Christian society remained paramount and the friars’ investigation of the
affairs of Jewish communities was but a natural corollary of that vision. Even so,
Martin IV’s second re-issue of the ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ contained an additional clause
which limited the freedom of action of the Inquisition with regard to Jews, pre-
venting inquisitors or indeed anyone else from employing force against them in
their investigations.78 So from ‘Turbato corde’ onwards the old idea of protection
and the new idea of enquiry into the activities of Jewish communities theoretically
operated side by side. However, as we shall see, the influence of the friars would
have an overall negative affect on papal–Jewish relations.

T h e Papac y, F riars , and C on v e rsionary

S e rmons

Although only a tiny proportion of Gregory IX’s correspondence directly con-

cerned the Jews, historians have argued that his support of the mendicant orders,
first recognized by his predecessors Innocent III and Honorius III, his establish-
ment of the Inquisition in the 1230s, and his condemnation of the Talmud, all had
a profound effect on the well-being of Jewish communities.79
We have seen the important role that the friars played in the implementation of
the Inquisition. The friars, particularly the Dominicans, were also highly successful
in preaching missionary and conversionary sermons, especially in France and parts
of Spain, and we know that Jews were increasingly ordered to attend these sermons
by kings and princes eager to support such initiatives.80 Laws were enacted to force
Jews to attend such sermons by James I of Aragon in 1242, Louis IX of France in
1263, and Edward I of England in 1280. So, for example, following Paul Christian’s
arrival in France, in 1269 Louis IX commanded his officials to ensure that Jews
listen to Paul’s missionary sermons and show him whatever of their books he
wished to examine. Friar Paul, as he became known, stirred up further missionary
controversy in Provence and problems soon arose.81 At times the friars carried out
their mission fervently, burning Jewish books and forcibly entering synagogues.82
Hence Philip IV of France (1285–1314) warned his officials on a number of occa-
sions not to co-operate with mendicant inquisitors, while later in the fourteenth
century Peter IV of Aragon (1336–1387) would deem it necessary to censure friars
for delivering such virulent sermons against Jews that they resulted in murder and
the destruction of Jewish property.

spirit of Turbato had replaced it.’ See Solomon Grayzel, ‘Popes, Jews and Inquisition from “Sicut” to
“Turbato”’, in Essays on the Occasion of the Seventieth Anniversary of the Dropsie University, ed. A.I.
Katsh, L. Nemoy (Philadelphia, 1979), p.188.
78  Martin IV ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (2 August 1281), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.147–50; Simonsohn, pp.254–5.
79  Only approximately thirty out of almost 2,000 of Gregory IX’s decretals directly concerned the
Jews. See The Church in the Medieval Town, ed. Slater, Rosser, p.50.
80  Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.145, footnote 2.
81  Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.96, footnote 5.
82  Jeffrey Richards, Sex, Dissidence and Damnation: Minority Groups in the Middle Ages (London,
1991), p.96.
218 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

By the end of the thirteenth century rabble-rousing sermons of the friars were
encouraging hysterical anti-Jewish feeling in many parts of Europe. The Franciscan
Berthold of Regensburg (d. 1272) travelled throughout Europe during the 1240s,
1250s, and 1260s and attracted huge audiences through simple, accessible sermons.
These included some which attacked Jews as heathens and heretics who under-
mined Christian doctrine, hence Christianity and even the ‘societas Christiana’
itself. In fiery language he not only rejected medieval rabbinic teaching as departing
from the Judaism of the Old Testament, but denounced the Talmud as heretical
and complained about both Jewish usury which undermined Christian morality
and the immodest dress of Jewish women which encouraged the unseemly interest
of Christian men.83 In 1292 the inflammatory preaching of the Dominican
Inquisitor-General, Fra Bartholomeo de Aquila, led to massacres and forcible con-
versions of Jews in Apulia.84
Some historians have seen the influence of the mendicants as directly deleterious
to Jewish communities. They have argued that the Church’s age-old Augustinian
tradition of protection of Jews was increasingly replaced by a new conversionary
zeal on the part of the mendicant orders.85 Yet there is a danger of over-simplification
here if we consider, for example, that in the case of the ritual murder charge at
Lincoln in England in 1255, it was the friars who intervened to protect Jews.86
Furthermore, even if the predominant attitude of the friars was of aggressive and
violent missionary zeal, the papacy remained committed to the idea of protec-
tion.87 From Clement IV’s issue of ‘Turbato corde’ onwards the old idea of protec-
tion and the new idea of enquiry operated side by side.88
The prominence of the friars during the second half of the thirteenth century
meant that popes were from time to time asked to pronounce on conversionary
sermons. Yet their correspondence reveals that they had surprisingly little to say
about forcing Jews to listen to such sermons. We possess very few letters where the
issue is prominent. In 1245 Innocent IV wrote to the archbishop of Tarragona
to confirm the legislation of James I of Aragon concerning Jews in his kingdom,
emphasizing the king’s edict that if archbishops, bishops, or friars visited any place
inhabited by Jews or Muslims and wished to preach to them, the said Jews and
Muslims must gather at their call and listen patiently.89
Over twenty years later, in 1278, Nicholas III formally mandated both Dominicans
and Franciscans to preach and missionize among Jews as part of their apostolate. His
letter ‘Vineam sorec’, addressed to the prior of the Dominican Order in Lombardy,
referred to Jews as deserving of punishment for their stubborness and hard hearted-
ness, and proclaimed that it was his duty as pope to undertake the great labour of
encouraging them to see the light of Truth. He therefore requested the prior to find
men of his Order who could preach to the Jews. In particular the prior was to
83 Richards, Sex, Dissidence and Damnation, p.97.
84 Richards, Sex, Dissidence and Damnation, p.110.
85 Cohen, The Friars and the Jews, pp.242–64.
86  Antisemitism through the Ages, ed. S. Almog, trans. N. H. Reisner (Oxford, New York, 1988),
p.110; p.116.
87  Antisemitism through the Ages, ed. Amog, p.116.
88  Antisemitism through the Ages, ed. Amog, p.116.
89  Innocent IV, ‘Ea que ad’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.254–6; Simonsohn, pp.183–5.
 The Papacy and the Place of Jews in Christian Society 219

approach secular rulers and prelates of the territories where they preached and ensure
that converts be treated generously and their property protected. Nicholas empha-
sized that if the Jews, ‘like deaf adders’, rejected such preachers, he must be informed
so that as pope he could deal with the matter; indeed he ordered that he be kept
frequently informed of the friars’ progress.90 Hence, like Innocent IV, Nicholas III
showed a sense of moral responsibility, qua pope, for what he saw as the spiritual
well-being of Jews—but with a difference—spiritual well-being now included their
immediate conversion to Christianity.91 Yet such active papal endorsement of the
friars’ missionary sermons was rare in our period.

T h e Papac y and J e ws as S e rvants

During the High Middle Ages Jews in many countries literally belonged to kings
and emperors, and in exchange were protected by them.92 The idea of ‘chamber
serfdom’ implied that they were granted a special social and economic position of
dependence by Christian kings and emperors and at the same time recognized
the theological importance of their subservience to Christian authority.93 So, for
example, Frederick II’s ‘privilege’ to Vienna in 1237 decreed that Jews should hold
no governmental office, since imperial authority had imposed perpetual servitude
on the Jews as a punishment for crucifying Christ.94 In practice the quality and
quantity of Jewish royal or imperial service varied with the protection kings or
­emperors wished and were able to provide and with the amount of taxation they
exacted as a price for protection.95
Popes, on the other hand, promised Jews protection without price. As we have
seen, following the teaching of St Augustine, they believed that Christian theology
demanded a certain toleration of Jews and they therefore encouraged Christians to
allow them to live unharmed in their midst.96 Yet they also believed servitude to be

90  Nicholas III, ‘Vineam sorec velut’, Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.142–5; Simonsohn, pp.249–52. The Latin
is ‘veluti aspis surda’, see Nicholas III, ‘Vineam sorec velut’, Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.144; Simonsohn, p.251.
91  Popes continued to issue such letters in the fourteenth century. See footnote 72 for John XXII,
‘Dudum felicis recordationis’, Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.316–19; Simonsohn, pp.321–3. John XXII urged the
archbishop of Bourges and his suffragans to warn all Christian men and women in their provinces and
dioceses, by preaching sermons or causing them to be preached. This should be done frequently in the
cathedrals and other churches by the bishops themselves or by whoever might be appointed for
this purpose, care being taken to warn them and restrain them most strictly to try wholeheartedly to
abstain from every activity mentioned in the writings of Jews which he regarded as blasphemous. The
people were to be held in check and kept away from these activities by such spiritual punishments as
it seemed right to impose, with appeal denied, in accordance with canonical statutes: Christian men
and women, that is, as well as Jews, so that they might abstain from blasphemies, errors, curses, false-
hoods, and other evils mentioned in the letters of his predecessors.
92  Robert Mundill, England’s Jewish Solution. Experiment and Expulsion, 1262–1290 (Cambridge,
1998), p.260.
93  David Abulafia, Mediterranean Encounters, Economic, Religious, Political, 1100–1500 (Aldershot,
2000), XII, p.219.
94 Abulafia, Medieval Encounters, XII, p.219.
95  Anna Abulafia, Christian-Jewish Relations 1000–1300: Jews in the Service of Medieval Christendom
(Harlow, 2011), p.54.
96  St Augustine, Adversos Iudaeos, pp.319–414, passim. See Cohen, The Friars and the Jews, p.14;
Alexander II, ‘Placuit nobis’ (1063), Simonsohn, pp.35–6. For example, Innocent III, ‘Etsi Judeos
220 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

part of that toleration.97 Innocent III declared that it is acceptable to God that
the Jews who had been dispersed should live and serve under Catholic kings and
emphasized that they had been ‘mercifully admitted into our intimacy’ because
they were prepared to serve:98
We, therefore, asked our dearest son of Christ, Philip the illustrious King of France,
we also ordered the noble Duke of Burgundy, and the Countess of Troyes, so to retrain
the excesses of the Jews that they shall not dare to raise their neck, bowed under the
yoke of perpetual slavery, against the reverence of the Christian Faith; more rigidly to
forbid them to have any nurses nor other kinds of Christian servants in the future, lest
the children of a free woman should be servants to the children of a slave; but, that
rather as slaves rejected by God, in whose death they wickedly conspired, they shall,
by the effect of this very action, recognize themselves as the slaves of those whom
Christ’s death set free at the same time that it enslaved them . . . 99
He described Jews as the slaves of those whom Christ had freed and argued that
they were socially inferior to Christians because their refusal to accept Christ
consigned them to perpetual servitude.100 Gregory IX similarly emphasized that
Christians accepted Jews in their midst only out of mercy and pity.101
This emphasis on Jews as the natural servants of Christians remained dominant
throughout the thirteenth century. In the late twelfth century the eminent theolo-
gian Peter the Chanter (d.1197) had urged:
Slay them not . . . For (the Jews) are our book carriers and the bearers of our texts and
the witnesses to Christ’s Passion; they must clean the streets of Christendom rather
than be rich and they must perform public service to Christian society . . . 102
Peter’s pupil Thomas of Chobham (c.1160–1233/36) thought Jews should be
‘preserved’ and given ‘work of a base sort’ so they ‘cannot exult themselves over
Christians’.103

quos’ (15 July 1205), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.114–16; Simonsohn, pp.86–8; Gregory IX, ‘Ad similitudinem
Dei’ (23 January 1234), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.210.
97  There is a large historiography on the language of Jewish service in medieval society which
cannot be discussed in detail here. See Abulafia, Christian-Jewish Relations 1000–1300, pp.51–5.
98  Innocent III, ‘Etsi Judeos quos’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.114; Simonsohn, p.87: ‘qui, tanquam in nos-
tram misericorditer familiaritatem admissi . . .’.
99  Innocent III, ‘Etsi Judeos quos’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.114; Simonsohn, p.87: ‘Rogavimus igitur
charissimum filium nostrum in Christo, Philippum, regerm Francorum illustrem, mandavimus etiam
nobilibus viris . . . duci Burgundie, et . . . comitisse Trecensi, ut taliter reprimant Judeorum excessus, ne
cervicem perpetue servitutis jugo submissam presumant erigere contra reverentiam fidei Christiane,
inhibentes districtius, ne de cetero nutrices, vel servientes habeant Christianos, ne filii libere filiis
famulentur ancille, sed, tamquam servi a Domino reprobati, in cujus mortem nequiter conjurarunt,
se saltem per effectum operis recognoscant servos illorum, quos Christi mors liberos et illos servos
effecit . . .’.
100  Innocent III, ‘Etsi Judeos quos’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.114–16; Simonsohn, pp.86–8; ‘Etsi non
displiceat’ (16 January 1205), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.104–8; Simonsohn, pp.82–4.
101  Gregory IX, ‘Ad similitudinem Dei’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.210.
102  Peter the Chanter in Gilbert Dahan, ‘L’Article Iudei de la Summa Abel de Pierre le Chantre’,
Revue des Études Augustiniennes 27 (1981), 126: ‘Ne occidas eos . . . Ipsi enim sunt capsarii nostri et
baiuli codicum nostrorum et testes dominice passionis, mundatores platearum. Debent esse non div-
ites et publici servi Ecclesie . . . ’. See Abulafia, Christian-Jewish Relations 1000–1300, p.198.
103  Thomas of Chobham, Summa Confessorum, Art. 7.4.6.11, in Analecta Medieaevalia Namercensia,
25, ed. F. Broomfield (Louvain, 1968), pp.433–5, especially p.434: ‘sustinendi sunt inter nos et
 The Papacy and the Place of Jews in Christian Society 221

Then, at the express directive of Gregory X, the Dominican Humbert of Romans

(1190/1200–1277) wrote the Opusculum Tripartitum, a conspectus of the items to
be discussed at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274. In Chapters 5 and 15 he
reiterated the principle that Jews were to be tolerated provided they were passive
and posed no threat to Christianity. By contrast Muslims were to be feared because
they actively threatened Christians.104 Humbert’s views were endorsed by the pope:105
Gregory IX had already stated categorically in the Liber extra in a gloss on ‘Sicut
Iudaeis’ that the Jews were not to be considered hostile, even though they were
enemies of the Faith;106 Hostiensis summed this up by stating that, although Jews
were enemies of the Faith, nevertheless they served Christian society which toler-
ated and defended them.107

T h e Papac y and J e ws as P ot e ntial En e mi e s

Yet some historians have argued that, because of the increasing influence of the
mendicant friars in the thirteenth century, the old Augustinian idea of Jewish ser-
vitude was replaced by a more hostile attitude based on the perception of a more
aggressive and proselytizing anti-Christian Judaism.108 Certainly it seems that
from the pontificate of Innocent III onwards, together with the continuing idea of
servitude, popes began to emphasize more frequently that Jews were potential en-
emies of Christian society.109 Indeed such an idea was not new: as early as the
eleventh century Peter Damian (1007–1072) had attacked heretics and heresy as
worse than ‘the Jewish perfidy itself ’.110 Furthermore, in the twelfth century the
election in 1130 of the anti-pope Anacletus II, a member of the Jewish Pierleoni
family, may have encouraged subsequent popes to view Jews as an ‘internal’ threat,
not least because the Pierleoni remained an important Roman dynasty, producing
a number of cardinals.111 Although this particular case arose in a very specific
­context and by no means signalled a general condemnation of Jews as ‘internal’
enemies, it was nevertheless significant in the development of anti-Jewish feeling.

deputandi ad aliqua sordida officia, ne possint se extollere super christianos.’ See Abulafia, Christian-
Jewish Relations 1000–1300, p.195.
104  Lyons II (1274), Cap 5, Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.129: ‘Primum quidem Judaei scientia convicti, potentia
subacti, nihil ultra sciunt aut possunt contra populum Christianum . . . Septimo autem, Saraceni
simper in malitia perseverant’; Lyons II (1274), Cap. 15, Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.130: ‘Quibus responden-
dum est, primo de Judaeis, qui tolerantur, quia reliquiae Israel salvae fient. Item, quia crudele esset
mactare subjectos. Item propter prohibitionem prophetae dicentis; Ne occidas eos, ne quando oblivis-
cantur populi mei . . . Saraceni, et ideo primitus expugnandi.’
105 See Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.130, footnote 2.
106  X.5.6.9, col. 774. See Abulafia, Christian-Jewish Relations 1000–1300, p.198.
107  Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, cols 1517–22, cols 1525–8, passim. See Abulafia, Christian-
Jewish Relations 1000–1300, p.198.
108 Cohen, The Friars and the Jews, pp.242–64.
109  For further discussion see Robert Chazan, God, Humanity and History: the Hebrew First Crusade
Narratives (Berkeley, 2000), p.3.
110  Peter Damian, ‘Liber qui dicitur gratissimus’, Opera omnia, PL 145, col. 153; ‘De Sacramentis
per improbos administratis’, PL 145, cols 529–30.
111 Louis Newman, Jewish Influence on Christian Reform Movements (New York, 1925),
pp.248–52.
222 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

Polemical attacks on Anacletus were not only political but also anti-Jewish, with
Innocent II calling his usurpation ‘an insane Jewish perfidy’ (‘Iudaicae perfidiae
furorem’). Peter the Venerable in his Tractatus contra Judaeorum inveteratam duri-
tiem declared:
I don’t know whether a Jew can be a human being for he will neither accede to human
reasoning nor yield to authoritative statements that are divine and from his own
tradition.112
And despite his zealous defence of Jews during the Second Crusade, Bernard of
Clairvaux claimed in a number of letters that a Jewish offspring on the throne of
St  Peter was an injury to Christ himself;113 indeed he used Jews as a standard
of comparison for different types of heresy and sin.114 Thus, as we noted earlier, his
attitude to Jews was ambivalent; in his actions on the eve of the Second Crusade
he showed great kindness to Jewish communities, yet his political rhetoric followed
traditional anti-Jewish lines.
So the evidence suggests that the idea that Jews were not just servants but
also  potential enemies increased in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. This
was due not least to the fact that the period saw a growing number of anti-Jewish
polemics—missionary, apologetic, faith-strengthening, or a combination of these—
in circulation:115 Walter of Châtillon’s Dialogus contra Iudaeos (1170); Alain of
Lille’s De fide catholica contra hereticos (Book 3 of which was entitled Contra
Iudaeos) (1180–1190); Peter of Blois’s Contra perfidiam Iudaeorum (end of the
twelfth century); and William of Bourges’s Bellum Domini contra Iudaeos et contra
Iudaeorum hereticos (1230).116 All these works evinced serious concern about the
danger to Christian souls from any type of social intercourse with Jews. Indeed

112  Peter the Venerable, ‘Tractatus contra Judaeorum inveteratam duritiem’, PL 189, col. 551:
‘Nescio plane utrum Judaeus homo sit, qui nec rationi humanae cedit, nec auctoritatibus divinis et
propriis acquiescit.’ See Richards, Sex, Dissidence and Damnation, p.95.
113  Innocent II, ‘Apostolicae sedis consueta’ (6 October 1131), PL 179, cols 102–4; Bernard of
Clairvaux, Opera Sancti Bernardi, ed. J. Leclercq, C. H. Talbot, H. M. Rochais (Rome, 1957–1971),
Vol. 7 (Rome, 1974), pp.309–19; pp.320–1; pp.335–6; Vol. 8 (Rome, 1977), pp.134–6. See David
Berger, ‘The Attitude of St. Bernard of Clairvaux toward the Jews’, Proceedings of the American Academy
for Jewish Research 40 (1972), 104–8; Anna Abulafia, ‘The Intellectual and Spiritual Quest for Christ
and Central Medieval Persecution of Jews’, in Religious Violence between Christians and Jews: Medieval
Roots, Modern Perspectives, ed. A. S. Abulafia (Basingstoke, 2002), pp.72–5.
114  Bernard of Clairvaux, ‘Sermo mihi ad vos’ (1146), ed. in Jean Leclercq ‘L’Encyclique de Saint
Bernard en faveur de la croisade’, Revue Bénédictine 81 (1971), 298–9. See Berger, ‘The Attitude of St
Bernard of Clairvaux toward the Jews’, 104–5; David Berger, ‘Christian Heresy and Jewish Polemic in
the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries’, Harvard Theological Review 68/3–4 (1975), 288.
115 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.287.
116  Walter of Châtillon, ‘Dialogus contra Iudaeos’, PL 209, cols 423–58; Alain of Lille, ‘Liber ter-
tius contra Iudaeos’, in ‘De fide catholica contra hereticos’, PL 210, cols 399–422; Peter of Blois,
‘Contra perfidiam Iudaeorum’, PL 207, cols 825–70; William of Bourges, Bellum Domini contra
Iudaeos et contra Iudaeorum hereticos, Sources Chétiennes, ed. G. Dahan (Paris, 1981), pp.66–273.
There is, of course, a large amount of secondary material on all these people. See, for example, Peter
Browe, Die Judenmisson in Mittelalter und die Päpste, Miscellanea Historiae Pontificiae 6 (Rome,
1942), pp.102–3; Gilbert Dahan, La Polemique chrétienne contre le judaisme au moyen âge (Paris,
1991), p.232; Richard Dobson, The Jews of Medieval York and the Massacre of March 1190 (York,
1974), p.19.
 The Papacy and the Place of Jews in Christian Society 223

Alain of Lille again grouped heretics and Jews together as enemies of Christians,117
while in his Pugio Fidei (The Dagger of the Faith, c.1280), Raymond Martin claimed
that Jews living in Christian Europe were both a physical and spiritual threat.118
The term ‘Platonist’ is often applied to the period 1100–1150 when Plato was
the most important philosopher read in the Schools.119 Then in the thirteenth
century most of the major works of Aristotle became known in the West through
Arabic learning and Latin translations of Arabic and Greek texts. Increasingly
steeped in Plato and Aristotle, both twelfth- and thirteenth-century scholars were
profoundly interested in the tension they saw as existing between the dictates of
reason—an innate, God-given faculty human beings used to understand truths
about the world and which separated man from animals—and the requirements of
Faith. Indeed as early as the eleventh century St Anselm had emphasized in the Cur
Deus Homo the necessity of converting the Jews by Reason:
. . . For, in proving that God became man by necessity, leaving out what was taken
from the Bible, viz., the remarks on the persons of the Trinity, and on Adam, you con-
vince both Jews and Pagans by the mere force of reason . . .120
Similarly, as we saw in the previous chapter, for many twelfth- and thirteenth- century
polemicists, the refusal by Jews to accept the truth of Christianity implied that
they were without reason: hence irrational and even animal-like.121 At the same
time Jewish anti-Christian polemic became more prevalent as at an intellectual
level meetings and confrontations between the two sides increased. Yet there is
little evidence that popes were involved in their production, nor that they were
even aware of such growing polemic on both sides.122
The Christian idea that Jews and heretics wished to undermine the teachings of
the Church and Christian society as constituted had a certain basis in fact. Little con-
temporary heretical polemic survives, but Jewish polemic indicates knowledge of
heretical doctrines and the tactics employed by both Jews and heretics against
Christianity.123 Or perhaps anti-Christian rhetoric was used to safeguard a threatened

117  Alain of Lille, ‘Liber tertius contra Iudaeos’, cols 399–422; William of Bourges, Bellum Domini
contra Iudaeos et contra Iudaeorum hereticos, pp.66–273. See Peter Browe, Die Judenmission in
Mittelalter und die Päpste (Rome, 1942), pp.102–3. Such polemics reflected canon law collections
which occasionally grouped Jews and heretics together since both were non-Christians; for example:
Chapter 5, Quaestio 7 of Causa 2 of Gratian’s Decretum stated that as non-Christians pagans, heretics
and Jews could not bring accusations against Christians in a court of law. See Gratian, C.2.q.7.c.25,
col. 489. See Gilbert Dahan, Les Intéllectuels chrétiens et les juifs au moyen âge (Paris, 1990), p.114;
Heinz Schreckenberg, Die Christlichen Adversus-Judaios-Texte (11th-13th Jahrhundert) mit einer
Ikonographie des Judenthemas bis zum 4 Lateranskonzil (Frankfurt am Main, 1988), p.147.
118 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.314.
119  Brian Stock, Myth and Science in the Twelfth Century (Princeton, 1972), p.279.
120  St. Anselm, ‘Cur Deus Homo’, Book 2, xxii., in S. Anselmi Cantuariensis archiepiscopi opera
omnia/ad fidem codicum recensuit Franciscus Salesius Schmitt, ed. F. S. Schmitt, 6 vols (Edinburgh,
1946–1961), Vol. 2 (1946), p.133: ‘Cum enim sic probes deum fieri hominem ex necessitate, ut etiam
si removeantur pauca quae de nostris libris posuisti, ut quod de tribus dei personis et de ADAM teti-
gisti, non solum Iudaeis sed etiam paganis sola ratione satisfacias, . . .  ’.
121 Abulafia, Christian-Jewish Relations 1000–1300, pp.205–6; pp.209–10.
122 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, pp.296–7.
123  Berger, ‘Christian Heresy and Jewish Polemic in the Thirteenth Century’, 302–3; 288.
224 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

and minority Jewish identity. Yet there was no reason for popes to suppose any
combined effort by Jews and heretics to undermine Christianity. Although miti-
gated and unmitigated Cathars had different views on the Old Testament—the
latter seem to have accepted the books of the Prophets—both forms of heresy
were unsympathetic to Judaism.124 Furthermore, although Jews held positions of
importance at the courts of supposedly heretical as well as orthodox nobles in the
south of France, there is no evidence that they were more favoured by heretics than
by orthodox Christians.125
Nevertheless, it is possible that, as part of their attempt to assert control over the
Church, some popes, in particular Innocent III, encouraged concern over ‘internal’
dangers from minority groups, including Jews, thereby both contributing to a
feeling of insecurity and a perceived need for papal control.126 In 1270 the death
of two Christian converts to Judaism at Weissenberg in Alsace, one of them the
prior of a mendicant order, sparked fears of the conversion of a newly Christianized
population; a fear already expressed by the papal legate at the Council of Breslau
in 1266:
Since the Poles are a new plantation on the soil of Christendom, we must continually
be on our guard lest the Christian population here, where the Christian religion has
not yet taken deep root in the hearts of believers, succumb to the influence of the
counterfeit faith and the evil habits of the Jews living in their midst.127
Certainly, although—unlike papal dealings with heretics—there was never a drive
by popes to eliminate Jews through crusade and inquisition, awareness of the
­external Muslim threat in the Near East and Spain may have increased their anx-
iety more generally about non-Christians in Christendom itself, while the very
idea of Holy War may have helped engender a drive for a uniformly Christian
society.128 This insistence on society’s uniformity would in the long term prove
catastrophic for Jewish communities.
Such ideas were certainly encouraged by the friars. Mendicants such as Raymond
of Peñafort, Spanish Dominican Master General and adviser to Gregory IX, and the
Catalan Dominican Raymond Martin, who wrote the influential polemic Pugio
Fidei,129 as well as the Dominican Paul Christian, the Jewish convert who not only
took part in the Disputation of Barcelona but embarked on extensive preaching
missions in Aragon, all argued that Jewish ­adherence to the Talmud was heretical

124  John O’Brien, ‘Jews and Cathari in Medieval France’, Comparative Studies in Society and History
10/2 (1967), 216.
125  O’Brien, ‘Jews and Cathari in Medieval France’, 220.
126  Robert Moore, The Formation of a Persecuting Society: Power and Deviance in Western Europe,
950–1250 (Oxford, 1987), pp.1–5, passim.
127  Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.245: ‘Item cum adhuc terra Polonica sit in corpore Christianitatis nova plan-
tatio, ne forte eo facilius populus Christianus a cohabitantium Judeorum superstitionibus et pravis
moribus inficiatur quo levius atque citius Christiana religio in fidelium cordibus in his partibus est
plantata,’ see translated in Richards, Sex, Dissidence and Damnation, p.97.
128  Christendom and Its Discontents, ed. S. L. Waugh, P. D. Diehl (Cambridge, 1996), pp.229–30;
Jonathan Riley-Smith, ‘Christian Violence and the Crusades’, in Religious Violence between Christians
and Jews: Medieval Roots, Modern Perspectives, ed. A. S. Abulafia (Basingstoke, 2002), pp.9–11.
129 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, pp.313–15.
 The Papacy and the Place of Jews in Christian Society 225

and that Jews misunderstood the Mosaic commandments of the Old Testament.
For these reasons, by the beginning of the fourteenth century the Franciscan ter-
tiary Raymond Lull was arguing in The Book of Preaching Against the Jews (1305)—
written for missionaries—that Jews should either convert or be expelled from a
Christian society in which they had no place.130 This was in direct opposition to
the papacy’s Pauline–Augustinian stance that they were witnesses to the truth of
Christianity and must be protected. As we shall see in the following chapter, one
place where Jews were particularly protected was in the seat of papal power and
authority itself: Rome.

130 Richards, Sex, Dissidence and Damnation, p.96.

 7
The City of Rome

This chapter explores the relationship between the papacy and Jews in Rome, the
seat of the pope’s power not as Europe’s spiritual leader but as the city’s bishop.
During the High Middle Ages Jewish communities in Europe were of limited rele-
vance to popes whose primary aims were to provide leadership to the episcopacy,
to develop pastoral care, to formulate doctrine and canon law, to engage in polit-
ical life, and to control the papal states. We must not exaggerate papal interest
in the Jewish communities of medieval Europe, and in particular the importance
of such communities to popes. Yet in the papal states and in particular in Rome
itself there was a flourishing Jewish community which enjoyed the most favourable
conditions, by contemporary standards, of anywhere in Europe.

T he J ew i s h C o mm u n i ty o f Ro me

Many Jews had lived voluntarily in Rome’s Jewish quarter in Trastevere, the home
of Roman Jews since at least the first century bc.1 The community often interceded
unofficially on behalf of similar communities in other parts of Europe.2 In Rome
it came to participate not only in the Church’s annual carnival games but also, as
we shall see, in papal adventus ceremonies.3 Although there was no Jewish Charter
in the city to offer immunity and exemption for Jews from possible reprisals, there
was also no carnival tax on the community until the fourteenth century, while the
vicesima tax—a tax of a twentieth of all possessions, revenues, income, earnings,
and money imposed on Jews in Rome and the papal states—did not come into
effect until the fifteenth century.4
We know of many Jewish translators, exegetes, religious poets, and doctors of
the Law who lived in the city.5 In the Liber Pontificalis (c.1154–1178), Cardinal

1 Shlomo Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History (Toronto, 1991), p. 409; Marie Therese
Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome: Papal Attitudes
toward Biblical Judaism and Contemporary European Jewry (Ph.D. Dissertation, Louisiana State University,
2005), p.111. The Jewish ghetto in Rome was not established until the sixteenth century and the
pontificate of Paul IV (1476–1559) with his issue of ‘Cum nimis absurdum’ (1555).
2 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews, History, p.39; p.403.
3 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.403.
4 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, pp.416–17; pp.418–21.
5  Abraham Berliner, Storia degli Ebrei di Roma, dall’antichità allo smantallamento del ghetto (Milan,
2000), pp.104–16.
 The City of Rome 227

Boso described its synagogues, some of which dated back to the Classical world.6 We
also know of Jewish families in Rome, members of which became famous schol-
ars.7 The Jewish writer Benjamin of Tudela alludes to Nathan ben Yehiel, composer
of the Arukh (c.1100), a compendium of Talmudic study and one of the most
prominent members of the community.8 We also find that Solomon ben Isaac of
Troyes, known as Rashi (1040–1105), one of the most distinguished Jewish exe-
getes in western Europe, influenced many Jewish scholars in the city and that there
were frequent communications between rabbinic scholars in Rome and those in
Baghdad and Paris. In the late eleventh and twelfth centuries both Christian and
Jewish exegetes were familiar with Rashi’s work.9
Hence although the Roman curia was far away from most Jewish communi-
ties—which meant that any communication, never easy in the medieval world,
was often delayed—Rome was the exception. There, popes encountered the Jewish
community on a regular basis and, as temporal lords, imposed restrictions on Jews
in the city—as they did in the papal states more widely—ensuring that they lived
in certain prescribed areas of the city and, from the Fourth Lateran Council on-
wards, that they wore distinctive garb.
Nevertheless, in general, legislation in the papal states was relatively tolerant
­towards Jews. Christians and Jews living in Rome were organized into distinct
communities which regularly performed on ceremonial occasions. These commu-
nities were bound together by a highly localized discourse about their past.10
Works such as the Historia Imaginis Salvatoris (c.1145) of Nicholas Maniacutius,
the anonymous Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae (c.1073–1085) and its first revi-
sion by John the Deacon (c.1159-1181), Cardinal Boso’s entries in the Liber
Pontificalis, the Liber Censuum, or Book of Taxes (c.1192) of Cencius Camerarius—
Cardinal Boso’s successor and papal chamberlain to both Clement III and Celestine
III, later to become Honorius III—as well as the Mirabilia Urbis Romae (c.1143)
of a certain Canon Benedict, all inform us of Jewish–Christian interaction in cere-
monies and in daily life. 11
6  Cardinal Boso, ‘Les Vies des Papes rédigées par le Cardinal Boson et inserées dans le Liber Censuum’,
in Le Liber Pontificalis: Texte, introduction et commentaire, ed. L. Duchesne, 3 vols, 2nd Series (Paris,
1955–1957), Vol. 2 (Paris, 1892), pp.353–446. See Berliner, Storia degli Ebrei di Roma, dall’antichità
allo smantallamento del ghetto, pp.80–1.
7 Berliner, Storia degli Ebrei di Roma, dall’antichità allo smantallamento del ghetto, pp.89–95.
8  Marie Therese Champagne, ‘Walking in the Shadows of the Past: The Jewish Experience of Rome
in the Twelfth Century’, in Rome Re-Imagined: Twelfth-Century Jews, Christians and Muslims Encounter
the Eternal City, ed. L. Hamilton, S. Riccioni, Medieval Encounters 17/4–5 (2011), 471.
9 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome, p.87.
10  Champagne, ‘Walking in the Shadows of the Past’, pp.493–4.
11 Nicholaus Maniacutius, ‘Historia Imaginis Salvatoris’, in Salus Populi Romani: Die Geschichte
rőmischer Kultbilder im Mittelalter, ed. G. Wolf (Weinham, 1990), pp.321–5; ‘Descriptio Lateranensis
Ecclesiae’, in Codice topografico della città di Roma, ed. R. Valentini, G. Zucchetti, 4 vols (Rome,
1940–1953), Vol. 3 (Rome, 1946), pp.326–73; Cardinal Boso, ‘Les Vies des Papes rédigées par le
Cardinal Boson et inserées dans le Liber Censuum’, in Le Liber Pontificalis: Texte, introduction et com-
mentaire, Vol. 2, ed. Duchesne, pp.353–446; Cencius Camerarius, ‘Liber Censuum’, in Le liber cen-
suum de l’église romaine, ed. P. Fabre, L. Duchesne, 3 vols (Paris, 1889–1952), Vol. 1 (Paris, 1905),
pp.296–9; Benedictus Canonicus, ‘Mirabilia Urbis Romae’, in Codice topografico della città di Roma,
ed. R. Valentini, G. Zucchetti, 4 vols (Rome, 1940–1953), Vol. 3 (Rome, 1946), pp.17–65. See
Champagne, ‘Walking in the Shadows of the Past’, pp.467–8.
228 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

So apart from the anti-Jewish propaganda published during the reign of the
anti-pope Anacletus II, Jews and Christians co-existed peacefully in the city and
the Jewish inhabitants of Rome suffered little of the discrimination from their gen-
tile neighbours that Jews so often suffered elsewhere.12 As we saw in Chapter One,
in the story of Rabbi Simeon and the Jewish pope recorded in the Ma’asah Book,
Jewish communities would at times approach a pope with a petition for
protection.
Indeed on a number of occasions those in Germany, France, and Spain turned
to the leaders of the Jewish community in Rome for guidance and assistance.13
As we noted in Chapter Two, however, in about 1010 rumours began to circulate
in the West that Jews had encouraged Muslims to destroy the Holy Sepulchre;
that led to pogroms not only in Orleans, Rouen, Limoges, and throughout the
Rhineland but also in Rome itself. Sometimes secular leaders weighed in and gave
succour to Jewish communities, as in August 1178 when Frederick II placed the
Jews of Avignon under the protection of the bishop of the town of Pons.14 Yet, as
we have observed, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries protection of Jewish
interests often rested with ecclesiastical rather than secular powers and the ability
of Jews in Rome to petition the pope had lasting implications for Jewish commu-
nities in Europe more widely.15
So the distinctive nature of the Jewish community in Rome, the capital of
Christendom, set it apart from other communities.16 It had always enjoyed a direct
line of communication with the papacy and already in the sixth century was suffi-
ciently influential to seek papal intervention when needed. Thus, although Gregory
the Great’s correspondence showed a commitment to the traditional teachings of
the Church which closely monitored Christian interaction with Jews, when, for
example, Jews in Sicily complained of unfair treatment, the Roman community
petitioned Gregory and he told the bishop of Palermo to rectify the situation.17 We
have already noted a number of occasions when popes intervened on behalf of Jews
in Rome: in 1264 Urban IV requested the help of the prior and canon of Troyes in
collecting debts which the archbishop of Sens owed Jewish merchants in the city;18
in 1255 Alexander IV wrote to the civil authorities of the Apostolic See and
the Kingdom of Sicily decreeing that Jews not be taxed as they journeyed to and

12  Marie Therese Champagne, ‘Celestine III and the Jews’, in Pope Celestine III (1191–98): Diplomat
and Pastor, ed. J. Doran, D. Smith (Farnham, Burlington, 2008), p.275.
13  Champagne, ‘Walking in the Shadows of the Past’, pp.471–2.
14  René Moulinas, Les Juifs du pape en France. Les communautés d’Avignon et du Comtat Venaissin
aux 17e et 18e siècles (Paris, 1981), p.22.
15  Champagne, ‘Walking in the Shadows of the Past’, p.473.
16  Champagne, ‘Walking in the Shadows of the Past’, p.493.
17 For example, Gregory exhorted the citizens of Rome never to celebrate Saturday as a Sabbath.
See Gregory I, ‘Pervenit ad me quosdam’ (September 602), Simonsohn, pp.22–3; Gregorii Magni registrum
epistularum libri VIII–XIV, Appendix, ed. D. Norberg (Turnhout, 1982), pp.991–3. See Champagne,
‘Walking in the Shadows of the Past’, p.472.
18 Urban IV, ‘Dilecti(s) filii(s)’ (27 March–2 April 1264), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.81–2; Simonsohn,
pp.223–4.
 The City of Rome 229

from the papal curia;19 in a letter of 1299 to the Jews of Rome Boniface VIII
supported their complaints about the activities of inquisitors.20

T he I n f lu e n ce o f the P i erle o n i Fam i ly

Particularly important for Jews in Europe from the eleventh century onwards was
the patronage of the powerful Pierleoni family who at times interceded with the
papacy on behalf of Jewish communities, particularly in Spain.21 This wealthy
banking family, themselves descended from a convert to Christianity and strong
supporters of the papacy, continued to live in close proximity to the Jewish quarter
in Rome on the east bank of the River Tiber, often protected Roman Jews and
attempted to foster harmonious Jewish–papal relations.22
The long association between the Pierleoni and popes brought both financial
support and physical protection. Between 1059 and 1124 Pierleoni strongholds
gave shelter, safe passage, and assistance to a number of medieval popes.23 After
1095 its members aided the election of reformers such as Gregory VII and Urban II,
and in 1063 the family may have intervened to promote the election of Alexander
II. Leo, son of the Jewish convert Baruch, supported Alexander II in his dispute
with the anti-pope Honorius II. Paschal II, who had already made Petrus Pierleoni,
the future anti-pope Anacletus II, a cardinal, showed his gratitude to the Pierleoni
in 1116 further when on the death of the prefect of Rome he appointed a member
of the family to the post.24
The Pierleoni may also have intervened in favour of the election of Calixtus II
in 1119. According to Uodalscalcus of Augsburg, Roman Jews supported Calixtus

19  Alexander IV ‘Nolentes ut’ (1 February 1255), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.54–5; Simonsohn, p.211.
20  Boniface VIII, ‘Exhibita (nobis) pro parte’ (13 June 1299), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.204–6; Simonsohn,
pp.286–7. Boniface also stipulated that it was important to proceed against Christians who adopted
or reverted to Jewish rites as against heretics who had confessed or been convicted. See Boniface VIII,
‘Contra Christianos’ (before/c.1298), Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.209; Simonsohn, pp.285–6. Yet on one par-
ticular occasion Boniface showed himself favourable to Jews. In 1299 he ordered that in cases ­involving
heresy the names of the accusers and the witnesses should be made known, as in a normal trial, unless
the investigation involved powerful personages. However, he knew that this system was open to abuse,
since when inquisitors were authorized to proceed against Jews it seems they regularly denominated
Jewish defendants as powerful and refused to make public the names of witnesses against them,
thereby stripping these Jews of their right to protection. So, in response to a complaint by the Jewish
community of Rome about their plight, in 1299 Boniface reassured them, stating categorically that
since Jews were weak they were to be numbered among the weak and powerless (‘tanquam impotenti-
bus’), and therefore afforded special protection, even if they were sometimes very wealthy. See Boniface
VIII, ‘Exhibita (nobis) pro parte’, Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.204–6; Simonsohn, pp.286–7.
21  Champagne, ‘Walking in the Shadows of the Past’, p.472. For his letters, see Alexander II,
‘Omnes leges’ (1063), Simonsohn, p.35; ‘Placuit nobis’ (1063), Simonsohn, pp.35–6; ‘Noverit pruden-
tia’ (1063), Simonsohn, p.36.
22 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome,
pp.111–12.
23 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome,
pp.100–1.
24  Pietro Fedele, ‘Le Famiglie di Anacleto II e di Gelasio II’, Archivio della Regia Società Romana di
Storia Patria 27 (1904), 412.
230 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

when they participated in his official entrance into the city in 1120.25 If, as is pos-
sible, Alexander II’s ‘Placuit nobis’ inspired Calixtus II’s first issue of ‘Sicut Iudaeis’,
then, indirectly, the Pierleoni may have played a major role in ensuring the papacy’s
continuing protection of Roman Jews, thereby ensuring that they never endured the
violent pogroms suffered by other European Jewish communities.26
Yet, as we saw in Chapter Two, there was a long tradition that the anti-pope,
Anacletus II (1130–1138), elected together with the rightful pope Innocent II in
1130, was a member of this powerful Pierleoni family.27 When he attained the
papacy in 1130, Bernard of Clairvaux, along with other churchmen, were quick to
remind Christians of his supposed Jewish ancestry. Indeed, part of Bernard’s vig-
orous defence of Innocent II consisted of denigrating Anacletus as a member of the
Pierleoni.28 As we noted in Chapter Six, Innocent II himself described the usurp-
ation of the papal throne by Anacletus as ‘an insane Jewish perfidy’.29
Nevertheless, Anacletus’ ancestry did not secure the support of the Jewish com-
munity in Rome. Furthermore, the Jews of Paris also displayed their loyalty to
Innocent II while in exile in France when on Easter day 1131 they presented him
with their scrolls of the law as he approached the monastery of St Denis—perhaps
in hope of protection. This first recorded offering of the scrolls was highly signifi-
cant since it involved presenting the Word of God, demonstrating not only Jewish
temporal and spiritual subservience to the papacy but their unquestioned loyalty
to Innocent himself. Such Jewish support added weight to Innocent’s claim of
legitimacy in light of public derision of his opponent’s Jewish ancestry. The act of
presenting the Torah showed that no Jewish descendant—in this case Anacletus
II—could necessarily command Jewish loyalty.30
The struggle of 1130–1138 between Innocent and Anacletus caused a division
among the cardinals, and provoked continuing anti-Jewish sentiments against
Anacletus as a member of the Pierleoni family. Although on the death of Anacletus
in 1138 Peter Leone and his brothers made peace with Innocent, instability in
Rome continued to grow with Innocent’s return to the city.31 Indeed the widening
rift between Innocent and the Roman people during his final years in office (1139–
1143) led to the formation of the Roman Commune in 1143.32 By 1145 when

25  Uodalscalcus de Eginone et Herimanno, ed. P. Jaffé, Monumenta Germania Historiae Scriptores,
Vol. 12 (Hanover, 1856), p.446. See Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in
Twelfth-Century Rome, pp.123–4.
26 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome, p.122;
p.123.
27  Alberto Somekh, ‘Gli Ebrei a Roma durante l’alto medievo’, in Roma fra Oriente e Occidente.
Settimane di studio del centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo 49, 2 vols (Spoleto, 2002), Vol. 1, p.216.
28  Ex Historia Mauriniacensis monasterii, MGHS 26, p.39. See Fedele, ‘Le Famiglie di Anacleto II
e di Gelasio II’, 401.
29 Innocent II, ‘Apostolicae sedis consueta’ (6 October 1131), PL 179, cols 102–4. See Innocent II,
‘Apostolicae sedis consueta’, col: 103: ‘Judaicae perfidiae furorem’. See Louis Israel Newman, Jewish
Influence on Christian Reform Movements (New York, 1925), pp.251–2; Mary Stroll, The Jewish Pope:
Ideology and Politics in the Papal Schism of 1130 (Leiden, 1987), p.163.
30 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome, p.128.
31 Fedele, ‘Le Famiglie di Anacleto II e di Gelasio’, 421.
32 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome, p.101.
 The City of Rome 231

Eugenius III had become pope, the Commune controlled the city and he was
forced to leave immediately after his election. Arnold of Brescia (c.1090–1155),
who had originally incited the Commune against the papacy, was a friend of Peter
Abelard. Bernard of Clairvaux, who summoned the bishops to the Council of
Sens (1140) to condemn Abelard’s works, referred to Arnold as Abelard’s ‘armour
bearer’—and compared Innocent II’s former rival Anacletus II, Cardinal Petrus
Leonis—‘Peter the Lion’—with Abelard himself—thereby increasing the serious-
ness of the charges against him.33 When after ten months in exile, Eugenius even-
tually re-entered Rome in December 1145, he was eager to show his authority. His
subsequent interaction with the Roman Jews was intended to demonstrate that—
as well as perhaps to repay the loyalty of the Roman Jews to him during the Commune
and to foster continued financial backing from the Jewish community.34

‘ S i c u t I u dae i s ’ a n d Ro ma n J ew s

For Jews, God’s promises of a Messiah and his unfailing protection were proclaimed
in the Torah; for Christians, the Old Testament was the repository of prophecies
fulfilled by Christ since his coming proved Christianity had inherited the Old
Covenant.35 From the twelfth century there was among Christians a new era of
particular identification with biblical Judaism. It has been suggested this should be
viewed alongside the protection extended to Jews by popes in their re-issues of
‘Sicut Iudaeis’.36 Alexander II’s ‘Placuit nobis’—which, as we have noted, granted
protection to Spanish Jews, and praised bishops in southern France who protected
local Jews from soldiers passing through their territories to fight Muslims in
Spain—was included in Ivo of Chartres’ Decretum of c.1095, in the Panormia of
c.1096, and in Gratian’s Decretum. It may also have influenced Calixtus’s first issue
of ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ in the early 1120s.37
As we saw in Chapters Two and Three, although Jews may have appealed to
Urban II to take protective action—perhaps through the Jewish community in
Rome—it was not until almost twenty years after Emperor Henry IV’s proclam-
ation of protection that Urban’s successor, Calixtus II issued ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ some-
time between 1119 and 1124—probably in 1122 or 1123—and following Jewish
pleading.38 ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ referred to such pleading—which suggests that it was
issued in response to Jewish requests, possibly because Jews still remembered the

33 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome,
pp.129–30.
34 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome, p.101.
35 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome,
pp.87–8.
36  Marie Therese Champagne, ‘“Treasures of the Temple” and Claims to Authority in Twelfth-
Century Rome’, in Aspects of Power and Authority in the Middle Ages, ed. B. Bolton, C. Meek (Turnhout,
2007), p.107.
37  Champagne, ‘Celestine III and the Jews’, pp.279–80.
38  Champagne, ‘“Treasures of the Temple” and Claims to Authority in Twelfth-Century Rome’,
pp.117–18.
232 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

massacres of 1096 associated with the First Crusade, and probably also because
they feared the outcome of Calixtus’s calling of the First Lateran Council in 1123.39
As we saw in Chapter Five, Jews often feared the outcome of such councils.
Calixtus’s original ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, issued in 1123, no longer exists, but Alexander
III referred to it in his re-issue between 1159 and 1181, the earliest re-issue to
survive.40
Although Calixtus’s ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ had no connection with his entrance into the
city of Rome, by 1145 its re-issue had become a traditional act of a new pope to estab-
lish a relationship with the Roman Jewish community. As we noted in the Introduction
and Chapter Two, during the twelfth century five successors of Calixtus II—
Eugenius III, Alexander III, Clement III, Celestine III, and Innocent III—re-issued
‘Sicut Iudaeis’ on five further occasions between 1145 and 1198. So in the twelfth
century no fewer than six popes issued ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ in an attempt to protect
Jewish communities. For Eugenius and Alexander their re-issues were probably an
integral part of the papal adventus. Each took possession of the city after periods in
exile and the decree gained significance as part of their expression of temporal and
spiritual power over the city.41
So Roman Jews increasingly aligned themselves with the protective power of the
papacy.42 We have no evidence of violence towards or persecution of the Jewish
community in Rome during the twelfth century nor indeed throughout the entire
period 1095–1291, which suggests that ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ offered some degree of pro-
tection.43 As we shall see, although there is no direct evidence for a relationship
between the promulgation of ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ and the Jewish community’s involve-
ment in papal adventus ceremonies, it is noticeable that twelfth-century popes who
conducted such rituals also issued the ‘Constitutio pro Iudaeis’.44

Papal E mpha s i s o n B i bl i cal J u da i s m

As well as interacting with Jews in the city, in order to increase their power and
authority, popes both publicly identified Rome’s Jewish heritage and endorsed a
particular focus on the Christian supersession of Judaism.45 We know from works
such as the De sacra imagine SS Salvatoris in Palatio Lateranensi—sometimes referred
to as the Historia Imaginis Salvatoris—written about 1145 by the Lateran cleric
Nicolaus Maniacutius, the Mirabilia Urbis Romae, a popular pilgrim guide of the
mid-twelfth century, and the Itinerarium of Benjamin of Tudela, a well-known
travel narrative of the same period composed by a Jew from the Kingdom of
Navarre between 1169–1171, that popes focused attention on the Church’s

39 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome, pp.121–2.
40 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome, p.119.
41 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome, p.124.
42  Champagne, ‘Walking in the Shadows of the Past’, p.475.
43  Champagne, ‘Walking in the Shadows of the Past’, p.474.
44  Champagne, ‘Walking in the Shadows of the Past’, p.492.
45  Champagne, ‘ “Treasures of the Temple” and Claims to Authority in Twelfth-Century Rome’, p.118.
 The City of Rome 233

i­nheritance of biblical Judaism, not just theologically but also physically.46 Papal
emphasis on the physical remains of the spoils of the Jewish Temple in Rome,
otherwise known as the ‘Temple Treasures’, increased during the pontificate of
Eugenius III and continued during that of Alexander III.47 The idea that the
papacy possessed these treasures drew on a long history—from their creation by
the ancient Israelites to their loss in the destruction of the Temple—and reflected
the reverence and awe still accorded their memory by both Christians and Jews.48
What exactly were these ‘Temple Treasures’? Since the time of Constantine I the
Lateran basilica and palace had been the cathedra, or seat, of the bishop of Rome—
the centre of papal authority and of the curia.49 Benjamin of Tudela’s Itinerarium,
which described Rome during his visit there around the year 1161, revealed that
not only Christians but also Jews believed that the Lateran held holy Jewish
relics.50 The belief that the ‘Temple Treasures’ had remained in Rome persisted
well into the twelfth century.51 Many Christians held that these were kept in the
Lateran, and popes emphasized this heritage of the Jews as an intrinsic component
of the Catholic Church and as part of its claim to fulfil both the Old and New
Covenants.
In two twelfth-century texts we find direct references to these ‘Temple Treasures’.52
The first, De sacra imagine SS Salvatoris in Palatio Lateranensi, was, as we have
noted, composed about 1145 by the Cistercian monk Nicolaus Maniacutius, a
protégé of Abbot Bernard, the future Eugenius III, himself also a protégé of
Bernard of Clairvaux. Following his election in 1145 Eugenius probably brought
Nicolaus with him to the Lateran.53 Like other Christian Hebraists, Nicolaus took
a great interest in the treasures.54 The second text is the Descriptio Lateranensis
Ecclesiae, which under the direction of Alexander III was revised by John the
Deacon, a canon of the Lateran.55
So popes encouraged the association of the Lateran basilica, which dated back
to the building programme of Constantine I, with biblical Judaism.56 Through
the construction, probably in the late 1180s, of narrative mosaics on the

46 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome, p.18. For
Nicolaus Maniacutius’ Suffraganea, see Nicolai Maniacoria Suffraganeus bibliothece, ed. C. Linde
(Turnhout, 2013).
47 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome, p.42.
48 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome, pp.56–7.
49  Champagne, ‘“Treasures of the Temple” and Claims to Authority in Twelfth-Century Rome’,
p.109.
50  Champagne, ‘“Treasures of the Temple” and Claims to Authority in Twelfth-Century Rome’,
p.109; Champagne, ‘Walking in the Shadows of the Past’, p.468.
51  Champagne, ‘Walking in the Shadows of the Past’, p.470.
52  Champagne, ‘“Treasures of the Temple” and Claims to Authority in Twelfth-Century Rome’,
pp.109–10.
53  Champagne, ‘“Treasures of the Temple” and Claims to Authority in Twelfth-Century Rome’,
p.111.
54  Champagne, ‘“Treasures of the Temple” and Claims to Authority in Twelfth-Century Rome’,
p.112.
55  Champagne, ‘“Treasures of the Temple” and Claims to Authority in Twelfth-Century Rome’,
p.113.
56  Champagne, ‘Walking in the Shadows of the Past’, p.478.
234 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

portico of the Lateran’s western entrance, which began with two scenes referring
to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in ad 70, the papacy emphasized its
ancient Jewish roots.57 In Christian tradition the Lateran Basilica had long been
associated with Jewish history, and this belief was encouraged by the competition
with St Peter’s Basilica for the coveted appellation of mater et caput.58 As early as
the tenth century, Sergius IV (904–911) had ordered the erection of an inscription
comparing the Church’s rituals to the law given to Moses on Mount Sinai in order
to emphasize the Lateran’s ancient reputation and to reflect the Christian belief
that its altar contained Jewish relics, including the Tablets of the Law.59 We also
know that Petrus Mallius (c.1145–1181), a canon of the rival St Peter’s, addressed
the Lateran as a ‘Synagogue’ in his Descriptio basilicae Vaticanae—implying that he
was aware of, and wished to denigrate, the Lateran’s Jewish associations.60 During
the pontificate of Nicholas IV, a mosaic created in the Lateran apse around 1291
catalogued Jewish relics, including the Ark of the Covenant, supposedly deposited
underneath the high altar, as well as four bronze columns which had been brought
back from Jerusalem to Rome by Titus and Vespasian, and which reminded viewers
of the special relationship of the basilica to biblical Judaism.61
So both Christian and Jewish writers—John the Deacon, Nicolaus Maniacutius,
Canon Benedict, and Benjamin of Tudela—asserted that these ‘Temple Treasures’
were in Rome and even were to be found in the Lateran’s high altar. Hence the
palace maintained Jewish associations through its promotion as the ‘New Temple’.
Indeed the claim that the ‘Temple Treasures’ resided in the Lateran paved the way
for Nicolaus’ re-naming of the papal chapel as the Sancta Sanctorum (The Holy of
Holies)—an obvious reference to the ‘Holy of Holies’ of the old Jewish temple in
Jerusalem. It is significant that these ‘Temple Treasures’ were supposedly situated
in or under the main altar of the Lateran basilica, while the Sancta Sanctorum in
the palace retained the sacred image of Christ, physical relics from the Holy Land,
and other relics of Christ and the Saints: all this deliberately emphasized the Sancta
Sanctorum as the new and Christianized ‘Holy of Holies’.62
Thus the medieval papacy claimed both to have inherited the Old Covenant of
biblical Judaism and to maintain a special relationship with current Roman Jews.63
The two Lateran texts, the mosaics on the Lateran portico, the renaming of the
private papal chapel as the Sancta Sanctorum in the late twelfth century, and the
papal adventus ceremony which, as we shall see, was expanded in the twelfth cen-
tury to include the display of the Torah to the pope by representatives of the Jewish
community, all showed the papacy increasingly wished to identify itself with
­biblical Judaism.

57  Champagne, ‘“Treasures of the Temple” and Claims to Authority in Twelfth-Century Rome’,
pp.115–16.
58  Champagne, ‘Walking in the Shadows of the Past’, p.493. The Vatican was (and is) an area on
the west bank of the River Tiber across from the city of Rome.
59  Champagne, ‘Walking in the Shadows of the Past’, pp.478–9.
60  Champagne, ‘Walking in the Shadows of the Past’, pp.479–80.
61  Champagne, ‘Walking in the Shadows of the Past’, p.480.
62 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome, p.149.
63 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome, p.60.
 The City of Rome 235

T he Papal A dventus C erem o n y

During the twelfth and thirteenth centuries popes often promoted ‘adventus’,
which the Church celebrated on a number of occasions: the election of a new
pope, the entrance of a pope into Rome after a period of exile, and various ‘intra-
mural’ occasions, like the annual papal procession on Easter Monday and the
procession to one of the stational churches for a particular liturgy, such as on
Assumption Eve.64 We know of such ceremonies for the emperor Henry V
(1111–1125) organized by Paschal II in 1111, for Gelasius II in 1118, for
Eugenius III in 1145, for Alexander III in 1165, and for Clement III in 1187.65
In the twelfth century Jewish participation became a regular part of entry cere-
monials into Rome organized by the curia and performed for both popes and
emperors as a preliminary stage to coronation. The Jewish community acclaimed
Henry V when he entered Rome in 1111,66 Calixtus II in 1119, Celestine II in
1143, Alexander III in 1165, and Clement III in 1187.67 We also know of Jewish
participation in entry ceremonials elsewhere, such as for Alphonse VII of Castile
in Toledo in 1139, for the papal General-Vicar for Sicily and Calabria in Messina
at some point between 1154 and 1264, for Peter of Aragon in Messina in 1282,
for Hugh III of Jerusalem and Cyprus in Tyre in 1283, and later for Louis II of
Anjou in Arles in 1385.68
In the early eleventh century curial liturgists designed the papal procession cere-
monial along the lines of Imperial usage as it had evolved since the ninth century
and had been formulated in the mid-eleventh century Salian Ordo. On the second
day of the ceremony, the emperor, who had been consecrated and blessed the pre-
vious day, was crowned by the pope with the ‘Roman crown’ at St Peter’s altar in
the Vatican basilica.69 We know of the coronations of Ludwig II (872), Henry II
(1014), and Conrad II (1027).70 The eleventh-century Libellus de cerimoniis Aule
Imperatoris in the Graphia Aureae Urbis Romae also describe how the emperor
was acclaimed with laudes in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.71 Details of such coron-
ations can be also found in records such as the Salian Ordo, Censius II, and Ordines
XXV/XXVI.72

64 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome, p.100.
For an in-depth study of the changing nature of the papal adventus and its manifestations both ‘extra-
mural’ and ‘intra-mural’, see Susan Twyman, Papal Ceremonial at Rome in the Twelfth Century (London,
2002), pp.88–144; pp.145–74; pp.175–217.
65  Amnon Linder, ‘“The Jews too were not Absent . . . Carrying Moses’ Law on their Shoulders”:
The Ritual Encounter of Pope and the Jews from the Middle Ages to Modern Times’, The Jewish
Quarterly Review 99/3 (2009), 331.
66 Berliner, Storia degli Ebrei di Roma, dall’antichità allo smantallamento del ghetto, p.77.
67 Berliner, Storia degli Ebrei di Roma, dall’antichità allo smantallamento del ghetto, p.77.
68  Linder, ‘The Jews too were not Absent . . . Carrying Moses’ Law on their Shoulders’, 331–2.
69  Linder, ‘The Jews too were not Absent . . . Carrying Moses’ Law on their Shoulders’, 352.
70  Linder, ‘The Jews too were not Absent . . . Carrying Moses’ Law on their Shoulders’, 354–5.
71  ‘De processione imperatoris’ in the ‘Graphia Aureae Urbis Romae’ in Kaiser, Kőnige und Päpste,
Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Geschichte des Mittelalters, ed. P. E. Schramm, Vol. 3 (Stuttgart, 1969), p.351.
See Linder, ‘The Jews too were not Absent . . . Carrying Moses’ Law on their Shoulders’, 354.
72  Linder, ‘The Jews too were not Absent . . . Carrying Moses’ Law on their Shoulders’, 355.
236 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

In the twelfth century we have records of at least ten papal accessions.73 The
papal coronation adventus was an integral part of the procession ceremonial which
took place between the consecration/benediction of the new pope in St Peter’s
Vatican basilica and his taking possession of the Lateran (the palace and the
basilica).74 The imperial crown was placed on the pope’s head and the pope himself
then replaced it with the pontifical mitre. By the early twelfth century such a cere-
mony had become the norm and was celebrated on the occasion of the pope’s
­inauguration as well as on sixteen stational liturgical occasions, deliberately imitating
the royal/imperial model which consisted of an initial constituitive coronation
followed by confirmative ‘re-coronations’ and by the wearing of the crown on
subsequent specific occasions.75
The earliest record of an adventus ceremony at Easter dates from 1131, which
establishes a terminus ante quem for an origin of the adventus sometime around the
turn of the twelfth century, subsequent to the restoration of the stational liturgy in
the second half of the eleventh century; such Easter ceremonial only came to an
end with the Avignon exile of the papacy after the election of Clement V in 1305.76
Suger, abbot of Saint Denis, co-organized as well as chronicled the rituals performed
when Innocent II visited his abbey that Easter.77 Innocent celebrated Eastertide
in St Denis exactly as he was accustomed to do in Rome.78 Indeed three major
twelfth-century manuals, the Liber Politicus of Canon Benedict written 1140–1143,
the Gesta pauperis scolaris of Cardinal Albindus (of 1189), and the Liber Censuum
of Cencius Camerarius (of 1192) all refer to the ceremony in their instructions for
the Easter Monday procession from the Vatican—the stational church of that
day—to the Lateran.79 We find a further description in the poetry of the curial
liturgist Cardinal Jacopo Gaetani Stefaneschi, who narrated the coronation proces-
sion of Boniface VIII in 1294.80
Hence, although the Pontifical of the Roman Curia—our primary evidence for
change—dates from the thirteenth century, it was probably at the end of the twelfth
century that the coronation-type adventus evolved in form and in content into an
Easter-type encounter. Scholars have argued that the central rite common to both
ceremonies, the Torah presentation, morphed from a coronation ceremony indi-
cating political subjection in a Roman context to a specifically Easter theme of

73  Linder, ‘The Jews too were not Absent . . . Carrying Moses’ Law on their Shoulders’, 356.
74  Linder, ‘The Jews too were not Absent . . . Carrying Moses’ Law on their Shoulders’, 350.
75  Linder, ‘The Jews too were not Absent . . . Carrying Moses’ Law on their Shoulders’, 351.
76  Linder, ‘The Jews too were not Absent . . . Carrying Moses’ Law on their Shoulders’, 336.
77  Linder, ‘The Jews too were not Absent . . . Carrying Moses’ Law on their Shoulders’, 337.
78  Linder, ‘The Jews too were not Absent . . . Carrying Moses’ Law on their Shoulders’, 338.
79  Benedictus Canonicus, ‘Liber politicus’, in Le Liber censuum de l’église romaine, ed. P. Fabre,
L. Duchesne, Vol. 2 (Paris, 1910), p.154; Cardinal Albinus, ‘Gesta pauperis scolaris’, in Le Liber cen-
suum de l’église romaine, ed. Fabre, Duchesne, Vol. 2, p.132; Cencius Camerarius, ‘Liber censuum’, in
Le Liber censuum de l’église romaine, ed. Fabre, Duchesne, Vol. 1, p.299. See Linder, ‘The Jews too were
not Absent . . . Carrying Moses’ Law on their Shoulders’, 338.
80  Cardinal Jacopo Gaetani, in Storia de’ solenni possessi de’ Sommi Pontefici, ed. F. Cancellieri (Rome,
1802), pp.25–6. See Linder, ‘The Jews too were not Absent . . . Carrying Moses’ Law on their
Shoulders’, 349–50.
 The City of Rome 237

Scriptural confrontation between Judaism and Christianity.81 When the Pontifical

of the Roman Curia attributed to that rite the explicit intention that the pope wor-
ship the Torah it pointed to this Eastertide perspective. The Pontifical was followed,
in this matter, by the Ordo Romanus XIII of Gregory X (c.1272–1276), and by a
considerable number of prescriptive and descriptive sources from the next three
centuries.82 As papal power grew, this change of emphasis in the late twelfth and
thirteenth centuries can be observed in the altered order and relative weights of
the ceremonies attached to the Lateran and Vatican basilicas, in the ritual-cycle
of accession, and in the modified composition of the coronation procession. Hence
the Roman secular and clerical officers of the palace were relegated to second place
in the pope’s immediate cortège and replaced by representatives of the Church uni-
versal such as cardinals, patriarchs, and archbishops.83
Popes used what was originally an imperial adventus ceremony as a way of
­asserting their authority, whether by a newly-elected pope or by an exiled pope
returning to Rome. So whether or not the evidence suggests that the papal adven-
tus had been celebrated in the city since at least the eighth century, in the twelfth
century it gained new meaning as politics brought frequent chaos and instability
to the city.84 Boniface VIII was the last pope to be presented with the Torah scrolls
by the Jews of Rome before the papal exile to Avignon in the early fourteenth
century.85

T he Papacy a n d the J ew i s h S chola

Rome was divided into scholae, or societies, of which the Jewish schola was one.86
These scholae were associations of craftsmen whose duty it was to supply goods
and services to the papacy.87 Like the other scholae, the Jewish community was an
essential participant in adventus ceremonies, using them as occasions to reaffirm
its place as a particular religious minority in civic life.88 Not only did the popes
encounter the seventeen Roman scholae at various places along the processional
route, but representatives of the Jewish schola played a vital part in the broader cere-
monial structure, performing carefully scripted acclamations and actions to indicate
the unique social, political, and doctrinal relationship between Jews and pope.89
Some historians have suggested that from the mid-twelfth century the Jewish
schola would have participated in papal adventus not only on the day of election,

81  Linder, ‘The Jews too were not Absent . . . Carrying Moses’ Law on their Shoulders’, 359.
82  Linder, ‘The Jews too were not Absent . . . Carrying Moses’ Law on their Shoulders’, 359–60.
83  Linder, ‘The Jews too were not Absent . . . Carrying Moses’ Law on their Shoulders’, 360–1.
84  Champagne, ‘“Treasures of the Temple” and Claims to Authority in Twelfth-Century Rome’,
p.116.
85 Berliner, Storia degli Ebrei di Roma, dall’antichità allo smantallamento del ghetto, p.117.
86 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome, p.142,
p.145, p.151.
87  Champagne, ‘Walking in the Shadows of the Past’, p.465.
88  Champagne, ‘Walking in the Shadows of the Past’, pp.487–8.
89  Champagne, ‘Walking in the Shadows of the Past’, pp.488–9.
238 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

but also on coronation day, as well as on occasions when the pope had already been
elected and consecrated outside of Rome. Certainly we know that the various scholae
greeted the pope as he passed through the city, but the Liber Pontificalis of Cardinal
Boso does not say at which point the Jewish schola greeted him. However, the Liber
Censuum of Cencius Camerarius, composed about 1192, indicated that the Jews
offered their acclamations and presented their laws during the Easter Monday
procession and noted a location among the twelfth-century monuments of the
city. The Liber Politicus (c.1140) of Canon Benedict—perhaps most relevant to
Eugenius III’s pontificate—even described the route that the procession followed
on Easter Monday.90 As the pope proceeded towards the Lateran, the repository of
the great treasures of the ancient Hebrews and the ‘original covenant’, he stopped
to receive the law of the present-day Jews, and to reinforce Christian expectations
of their conversion at the end of time.91
The Liber Censuum also recorded the customary contribution which the Jewish
schola offered to the pope and which was presented either at his consecration or on
the Monday following Easter: three and a half pounds of pepper and two and a half
pounds of cinnamon.92 The ritual reveals the importance of the Jews of Rome as
merchants supplying rare and expensive spices.93 Roman Jews gained much from
participating in such civic and liturgical rituals which both acknowledged their
acceptance of the ruling authority and maintained their roles as ‘bona fide’ mem-
bers of the city.94 Yet according to the Liber Censuum they had no part to play
on Easter Sunday itself, either because they were under curfew or because normal
restrictions of their movement meant it was unadvisable or even forbidden for
them to appear during Holy Week.95
Furthermore, according to the Liber Censuum, when a pope arrived at Rome
after consecration elsewhere, all the Roman clergy left the city and went in pro-
cession to meet him, together with representatives of the Jewish community and
their scholae.96 The role of the Jews in the festivities consisted of reciting the
laudes, presenting the Torah, and contributing the gifts of pepper and cinna-
mon.97 The presbyterium paid to the Jews as their due reward was similar to the
payments made to both the clergy and laity of Rome. Cencius budgeted the
Jewish presbyterium with the sixteen scholae, who were paid for their role in run-
ning the papal palace and for participation in papal coronations. It is likely these
were the same scholae which, according to the Salian Ordo, were also intended
for remuneration at imperial coronation ceremonies.98 So as a reward for their
acclamations, the Jewish schola received a lavish twice-yearly payment both at

90 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome, p.145.
91 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome, p.147.
92  Champagne, ‘Walking in the Shadows of the Past’, p.491.
93  Champagne, ‘Walking in the Shadows of the Past’, p.492.
94  Champagne, ‘Walking in the Shadows of the Past’, p.492.
95  Champagne, ‘Celestine III and the Jews’, p.274.
96 Twyman, Papal Ceremonial at Rome in the Twelfth Century, p.105.
97  Linder, ‘The Jews too were not Absent . . . Carrying Moses’ Law on their Shoulders’, 359.
98  Linder, ‘The Jews too were not Absent . . . Carrying Moses’ Law on their Shoulders’, 358.
 The City of Rome 239

Christmas and Easter Monday of twenty solidi from the papal chamberlain as the
customary presbyterium.99
We also know from the Liber Censuum that although most of the scholae ­received
remuneration for their participation, only half the amount was distributed when
the consecration took place outside Rome. Nevertheless, it seems that two scholae,
the ‘adextratores’ (a ceremonial mounted guard who accompanied the pope) and
the Jews, plus the clergy, received the full presbyterium because their duties were
not diminished when consecration took place outside the city:
But let it be known that the presbyterium of the scholae is not granted in the same way
as if he [the pope] had been consecrated in the city. For concerning their presbyterium
then [when outside the city] let it be cut back by half, with the exception of the Jews,
the clergy of the city and the adextratores.100
These duties involved offering praises to the pope in Hebrew and presenting their
laws in the form of scrolls of the Torah.101 As we shall see, whereas in earlier cere-
monies popes were acclaimed by the threefold languages of Latin, Hebrew, and
Greek, later, when this trilingual acclamation was dropped, the Jews continued to
sing their own songs in Hebrew as they presented their Torah.102

Papal – J ew i s h E n c o u n ter s

The papal adventus was a very particular way in which popes encountered the
Jewish community of Rome. The ceremony held by Calixtus II when he entered
the city in 1120 was the first of the century. A German monk Uodalscalcus
­recorded at this event not just the applauding of the Greeks and Latins but the
confused cheering of the Jews; it seems that the ceremony included a Jewish acclam-
ation in Hebrew. Such trilingual acclamations had long been performed for secular
rulers. Indeed less than a decade earlier the Jews of Rome offered Hebrew praises
or laudes when Henry V entered the city. So in 1120, acclamations in Hebrew
which had been used to demonstrate loyalty to a gentile ruler were now used for
a pope.103 The traditional trilingual acclamation in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew,
offered in 1049 at the Roman adventus of Leo IX, involved the ‘sweet Hebrew
tongue’ of the Jews, though Uodalscalcus was much less enthusiastic about such

99  Champagne, ‘Celestine III and the Jews’, p.275.

100  Cencius Camerarius, ‘Liber Censuum’, in Le liber censuum de l’église romaine, ed. Fabre,
Duchesne, Vol. 1, p.313: ‘Sciendum vero quod presbyterium scolarum non ita datur sicut fuisset
consecratus in urbe. De presbyterio enim eorum tunc mediatas resecatur, exceptis Judeis et clericis
urbis et adextratoribus.’
101 Twyman, Papal Ceremonial at Rome in the Twelfth Century, pp.105–6. Susan Twyman notes
on p.105 that ‘Censius points out that most of these societies were to receive remuneration for their
participation, but only half the amount distributed when the consecration took place in the city’
(my italics). This should read ‘outside the city’.
102 Twyman, Papal Ceremonial at Rome in the Twelfth Century, p.200; p.204.
103  Champagne, ‘Walking in the Shadows of the Past’, p.489.
240 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

praises sung in Latin and Greek when they were mingled with the ‘inarticulate
choruses’ of the Jews at the ceremony for Calixtus.104
The next adventus ceremony was recorded by Cardinal Boso in the Liber
Pontificalis; when Eugenius III entered Rome in December 1145 for the first time
the Roman scholae, including the schola of the Jews, came to greet him.105 At this
papal adventus the traditional laudes were replaced by a different ritual: the presen-
tation of the Torah Scroll to the pope. So the Torah presentation for Eugenius
­occurred along with changes in the trilingual acclamations. We have noted how
Calixtus II’s adventus into Rome in 1120 included acclamations in Hebrew, Greek,
and Latin—acclamations previously presented to different rulers and to Leo IX.
We have also seen how Innocent II’s Easter procession in Paris in 1131 included
the Jews’ presentation of the Torah to the pope for the first time, but that this hap-
pened outside Rome.
However, with the adventus of Eugenius III, the acclamations in Latin and
Greek were deleted from the ritual, though Jewish acclamations in Hebrew may—
we cannot be certain—have accompanied the presentation of the Torah.106 So the
Jewish schola presented him with a number of luxury items, as well as the Torah,
and possibly also acclaimed him in Hebrew.107 Since after his election Eugenius
was hurriedly enthroned at the Lateran and the Commune was anti-papal, it is
unlikely that he received the traditional acclaim of Rome’s citizens at the Lateran.108
The Liber Censuum described the traditional rites that would be conducted for a
newly-elected pope at the Lateran and included a tale of Jewish desecration of an
image of Christ—a type of anti-Jewish story that began to circulate, as we have
seen, through Europe in the twelfth century along with claims of ritual murder and
host desecration.109 Yet in its description of Eugenius’s adventus of 1145 the Liber
Pontificalis recorded how the Roman Jews presented the Torah to the pope and that
presentation, the first ever in the city, added a new component to papal adventus.110
The loyalty of the Roman Jews to Eugenius at the time of the Commune may
have led to his decision to issue the letter of protection ‘Sicut Iudaeis’.111 We know
that he presented the Jews of Rome with ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ during his adventus in
1145 to thank them for supporting him as their papal lord and to reiterate his

104  Anonymus in Vita s. Leonis, Pontificum Romanorum qui fuerunt inde ab exeunte saeculo IX usque
ad finem saeculi XIII. Vitae ab aequalibus conscriptae, ed. I. M. Watterich, Vol. 1 (Leipzig, 1862), p.vc:
‘In cuius denique laude hinc dulcedo hebraica’; Uodalscalcus de Egino et Herimanno, ed. P. Jaffé,
MGHS 12 (Hanover, 1856), p.446: ‘Nec defuere Graecorum et Latinorum concentibus confusi
Iudaeorum plausus’. See Champagne, ‘Celestine III and the Jews’, p.274.
105  Champagne, ‘Walking in the Shadows of the Past’, pp.490–1.
106 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome, p.143;
Twyman, Papal Ceremonial at Rome in the Twelfth Century, p.200; p.204.
107 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome, p.142.
108 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome, p.139.
109 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome,
pp.139–40.
110 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome,
pp.141–2.
111 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome, p.144.
 The City of Rome 241

protection for them as their temporal lord.112 A further reason for the papal pres-
entation of ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ may have been Eugenius’ need for financial assistance
from Roman Jews, since, as we have seen, Jewish moneylenders were allowed to
conduct their business by charging a regulated amount of interest—unlike Christians
who were prohibited from usury.113
The attitude of Bernard of Clairvaux to the Jews provides an important clue
to his protégé Eugenius III’s perspective towards both the Jewish community in
Rome and to biblical Judaism.114 In his De Consideratione, Bernard went so far as
to compare the duties of the papal office to Jewish servitude.115 Yet as we have seen,
he also called for their safety during the Second Crusade. Although he wrote of
their ‘crime’ of killing Jesus, he noted that Jesus was Jewish and his correspondence
shows that he accepted the commonly-held eschatological view of the Jews’ expected
soteriological role at the end of the world.116
Eugenius’ relationship with Jews was similarly complex. He decreed ‘Sicut
Iudaeis’ to protect them, but he also released crusaders on the Second Crusade
from their debts—which resulted in financial ruin for many. That might seem to
contradict a possible contractual relationship with Roman Jews intended to obtain
their financial backing. The Roman Jews’ apparent support for Eugenius during
the uprising of the Commune suggests respect, but perhaps merely reflects the
terms of a deal.117
Two decades later, the Liber Pontificalis recorded how in November 1165 the
same adventus ceremonial was re-enacted for Alexander III as he entered the city
after a lengthy period of exile.118 It seems that Jewish ceremonial involvement in
papal adventus processions did not include the display of the Torah to the pope
until about 1145 for Eugenius III, and again in 1165 for Alexander III. Indeed
historians have pointed to the similarities between the circumstances of Eugenius’
and Alexander’s early reigns and their adventus celebration: both had been forced
to leave Rome hurriedly after their elections; both became popes when the Roman
Commune ruled the city; both marked their re-entry into the city with a papal
adventus ceremony after time in exile; both exchanged ritual honours with the
Jewish community in Rome during this adventus.119 Although the ceremony of
displaying the Torah had already been performed in Paris in 1131 for Innocent II,
the recorded displays of the Torah in Rome for Eugenius III and Alexander III
confirm that the Scroll of the Law was borne aloft in procession through the city,
just as Christians bore their cross or relics at this event.120
When Celestine III was consecrated in 1191 the Roman Jews were again absent
from the ceremonial on Easter Sunday, yet they were prominent on Easter Monday

112 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome, p.144.
113 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome, pp.144–5.
114 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome, p.152.
115 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome, p.154.
116 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome, pp.154–8.
117 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome, p.158.
118  Champagne, ‘Walking in the Shadows of the Past’, p.491.
119 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome, p.178.
120  Champagne, ‘Celestine III and the Jews’, p.273.
242 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

when he performed the long and anticipated ceremony of coronation and imperial
unction for the emperor Henry VI (1191–1197).121 Again, this distinctive contri-
bution of Roman Jewry to the Monday ceremonial, recorded by Cencius, cham-
berlain to Celestine in the Liber Censuum, was derived from the obligation of its
members to render specific and very public rituals to acclaim the pope, including
the display of the Torah and the offerings of the acclamations and pepper tributes.122
So all the evidence suggests that whereas in earlier adventus ceremonies popes
were acclaimed in Latin, Hebrew, and Greek, later on only the Jews sang their own
songs in Hebrew.123 After Calixtus II, no further papal receptions featured trilin-
gual acclamations. The role of the Jews was therefore either to bear the scrolls of
the Torah—as in Eugenius III’s and Alexander III’s adventus—or to perform with
great joy the Hebrew laudes—as in 1188 for Clement III. Or they might do both,
as at Celestine III’s adventus when we know for certain that the Jews not only
carried the Torah but praised the pope himself.124
Hence according to the accounts of papal adventus ceremonies celebrated in
1145 for Eugenius III, 1165 for Alexander III, 1191 for Celestine III, and 1198 for
Innocent III, when the Jews of Rome presented the Torah they sometimes, but not
always accompanied this with the singing of the laudes. The description of Clement
III’s entry-type adventus in 1188 noted that the Jews participated ‘according to
custom’ but did not specifically indicate whether the Torah was presented.125
Nevertheless, there is no doubt that presentation of the Torah became a prominent
feature of the ritual.126 Furthermore, neither in 1145 when such a presentation
was first embedded in the ceremony, nor throughout the twelfth century, is there
any evidence that Jews perceived in their action of presenting the Torah scrolls any
hidden or subversive meaning, even if in later centuries they may have sought to
subvert the ritual.127
So just like the other city’s inhabitants, Jews were expected to take part in the
Roman festivities. They performed their particular rites: exhibiting the Torah scrolls,
by 1165 described as a ‘customary’ presentation, and chanting in Hebrew—and so
particular to them alone—the laudes and Benedictus invocations.128 Historians have
suggested that the Jews’ dependence on the pope for protection, demonstrated in
the text of ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, generated the continuation of such praises in Hebrew,
accompanied by an even more significant act: the presentation of the Torah.129 It
is likely that the significance of the Torah scrolls, comparable to Christian relics of the
cross or other relics, had a much deeper significance than their mere a­ cclamations
121  Champagne, ‘Celestine III and the Jews’, pp.271–2.
122  Cencius Camerarius, ‘Liber Censuum’, in Le liber censuum de l’église romaine, ed. Fabre, Duchesne,
Vol. 1, p.306. See Champagne, ‘Celestine III and the Jews’, p.272.
123 Twyman, Papal Ceremonial at Rome in the Twelfth Century, p.200; p.204.
124  Champagne, ‘Celestine III and the Jews’, pp.274–5; Twyman, Papal Ceremonial at Rome in the
Twelfth Century, pp.203–4.
125  Champagne, ‘Walking in the Shadows of the Past’, p.489.
126  Champagne, ‘Walking in the Shadows of the Past’, pp.489–90.
127  Champagne, ‘Walking in the Shadows of the Past’, p.490.
128  Linder, ‘The Jews too were not Absent . . . Carrying Moses’ Law on their Shoulders’, 334.
129 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome, p.143;
Twyman, Papal Ceremonial at Rome in the Twelfth Century, p.204.
 The City of Rome 243

in Hebrew. The Torah was written in the language of the ancient Hebrews, was the
word of God itself and so had a unique and exalted position. Added to that,
Yahweh was himself only present in the written word.130 The exhibition of the
Torah, the Jews’ most holy text, therefore solemnized Jewish loyalty to the papacy.
It also focused Christian attention on the Church’s claim to have fulfilled—through
Christ—God’s original Covenant to the Jewish people, at a time when popes
were also promulgating ‘Sicut Iudaeis’—which both extended papal protection
to  Jews  and ensured the Church’s ongoing authority and control over Jewish
communities.131

A lexa n der III a n d the J ew i s h

C o mm u n i ty o f Ro me

We have seen how the Jewish community of Rome came to prominence during
the pontificate of Alexander III and his adventus.132 When Alexander returned to
Rome triumphantly in 1165 after a six-year exile, he renewed his relationship with
the Roman Jews in his adventus just as he did in his re-issue of ‘Sicut Iudaeis’. He
had returned briefly to the city in 1161 but his reception by the Romans at that
time was a subdued affair, and not the adventus traditionally given to a pope
­returning from exile. By contrast we know from Cardinal Boso that his adventus
in 1165 included the participation of a huge Roman crowd, including Jews who
arrived ‘in accordance with custom, bringing down their law on their arms’.133
That participation was an important component of the adventus and occupied a
prominent position in the ritual procession. The Liber Pontificalis includes no
mention of any Hebrew acclamation of Alexander, but the Hebrew laudes con-
tinued to be included in the ceremonial welcome of the pope at least until 1188; it
is therefore likely they were performed for Alexander.134
Further information on Alexander’s relationship with the Jewish community of
Rome comes from Benjamin of Tudela’s Itinerarium, which gives a wonderful
description of Rome in the twelfth century.135 Benjamin tells us about a certain
Rabbi Jechiel,136 a cultivated and intelligent man, and a prominent servant in
Alexander’s house.137 Benjamin described how:

130 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome, pp.143–4.
131  Champagne, ‘“Treasures of the Temple” and Claims to Authority in Twelfth-Century Rome’,
p.117.
132 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome,
pp.173–88.
133  Cardinal Boso, ‘Les Vies des Papes rédigées par le Cardinal Boson et inserées dans le Liber
Censuum’, in Le Liber Pontificalis: Texte, introduction et commentaire, ed. Duchesne, Vol. 2, p.413: ‘ex
more legem suam deferentes in brachiis’. See Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and Jews
in Twelfth-Century Rome, pp.176–7.
134 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome, p.178.
135  Anna Esposito, Un’ altra Roma: Minoranze nazionali e comunità ebraiche tra Medioevo e Rinascimento
(Rome, 1995), p.121.
136 Berliner, Storia degli Ebrei di Roma, dall’antichità allo smantallamento del ghetto, pp.96–7.
137 Somekh, ‘Gli Ebrei e Roma durante l’alto medioevo’, p.213.
244 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291
Rome is the head of the kingdoms of Christendom, and contains about 200 Jews who
occupy an honourable position and pay no tribute, and amongst them are officials of
the Pope Alexander, the spiritual head of all Christendom. Great scholars reside here,
at the head of them being R. Daniel, the Chief Rabbi, and R. Jechiel, an official of the
pope. He is a handsome young man of intelligence and wisdom, and he has the entry
of the pope’s palace; for he is the steward of his house and of all that he has.138
Alexander enjoyed a trusting relationship with Jechiel, himself a grandson of Rabbi
Nathan, a renowned scholar.139 Some historians have suggested that this Jechiel
was a financial officer, others a papal attendant. We know that the office of steward
or ‘dapifer’ involved food preparation and that during Alexander’s reign this
position became known as ‘senescalcus’. Jechiel’s origins from a widely respected
family of scholars may have helped him acquire such an important post.140
How should we interpret Jehiel’s employment by Alexander? Perhaps it is not so
surprising given that his Christian employer and the other Christians in the papal
household far outnumbered a single Jewish servant whom they might even have
hoped to convert.141 Nevertheless, the fact that Jechiel lived in Alexander’s resi-
dence and held a position of power and honour in his household at a time when
popes were deliberately emphasizing Rome’s connection with its Jewish heritage,
reveals how close papal–Jewish relations in the city had become by the second half
of the twelfth century.
Yet this was the very period when in general Jewish communities were increas-
ingly suffering from the onset of the crusades, from increasing civil and ecclesias-
tical restrictions on their occupations, and from charges of ritual murder and blood
libel.142 In c.1179 Alexander himself had to issue an injunction forbidding the
pelting of Jews with missiles during religious processions and the desecrating of
their cemeteries, though that may point to increased exposure to casual hostility
specifically in Germany.143 As we explored in Chapter One, we also know from a
letter of the Jewish community in Paris that Louis VII refused to believe accusa-
tions of ritual murder and in response drew up a charter of protection for Jews
which circulated throughout his realm. Despite the decrees of the Third Lateran
Council, he requested in 1180 that Alexander allow Jews to employ Christian ser-
vants and be permitted to build new synagogues—which reveals how different his
attitude to the Jews was from that of his successor Philip II Augustus. Yet despite
his closeness to Jechiel the pope refused this latter request.144
Certainly Alexander’s convening of the Third Lateran Council in 1179 had a
profound effect on Jewish life since, as we have seen, Canon 27 decreed that to
prevent any danger of conversions to Judaism, Christians should not be allowed to

138  The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela; Text, Translation and Commentary, ed. M. N. Adler (New
York, 1907), pp.5–6, translated from the Hebrew on p.63.
139 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome, p.95.
140 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome, pp.96–7.
141 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome, pp.186–7.
142  Champagne, ‘“Treasures of the Temple” and Claims to Authority in Twelfth-Century Rome’,
pp.114–15.
143  Champagne, ‘Celestine III and the Jews’, p.277.
144  Champagne, ‘Celestine III and the Jews’, p.276.
 The City of Rome 245

work for Jews and stipulated harsh penalties if they did. The language of Lateran
III hardly suggests the closer relationship between Alexander and the Roman Jews
that the evidence from his 1165 adventus and the employment of Jechiel might
imply. Historians have wondered whether during his period of exile, from 1167 to
1177, Alexander’s contact with Roman Jews may have diminished, or whether his
relationship with the Jews of Rome was altered in 1179 with the decrees of Lateran
III.145 Yet there is no reason to suppose that the legislation of the council affected
the pope’s personal relationship with the Roman Jewish community which he would
have viewed as an entirely separate matter from his theological convictions.
Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the Third Lateran Council was Alexander’s
lasting legacy with regard to restrictive legislation on Jewish society.146 We have
seen how during his pontificate and more generally in the twelfth century, contact
between the pope and the Roman Jewish community included a ceremonial trad-
ition in which the Jews acknowledged their allegiance to the pope as their temporal
lord, while the pope in response urged their protection. The employment of Jechiel
on the one hand and the legislation of Lateran III on the other reveals that papal–
Jewish contacts in the twelfth century took different forms—ranging from toler-
ation and respect to increased restriction.147 Jews were officially protected by the
papacy and some like Jechiel even served in positions of authority at the curia,
but later on at the beginning of the thirteenth century, following the legislation
of Lateran IV, its decrees officially and definitively barred Jews from holding public
office.148 It is the papal rhetoric of both protection and restriction to which we
now turn.

145 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome, p.187.
146 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome, p.187.
147 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome, p.97.
148  Champagne, ‘“Treasures of the Temple” and Claims to Authority in Twelfth-Century Rome’, p.118.
 8
Papal Rhetoric
Heretics, Muslims, and Jews

This chapter examines the relationship of popes with Jewish communities through­
out Europe through the medium of their correspondence. From papal rhetoric we
learn much about the Church’s traditional teaching regarding the Jews. From
Gregory the Great onwards popes made it clear that, although their refusal to rec­
ognize Christ estranged them from Christian society, Jews were to be protected
by  Christians and allowed to practice their religion unharmed. This stance of
comparative toleration and its accompanying rhetoric stemmed from St Paul and
St Augustine. Yet, as we emphasized in the Introduction, papal pronouncements
about Jews were primarily responsive—when Christians complained to popes about
Jewish activities, popes responded to these concerns. Following the reforms of the
eleventh century, the influence of papal rhetoric must be understood in the context
of the increase in the papacy’s temporal power in the twelfth and thirteenth cen­
turies and the expansion of the papal states which increased its confidence in its
role as the ultimate spiritual authority in Europe.

T h e T r a d iti o n a l R h eto r ic o f t h e C h u rc h

In Romans 11 Paul had argued that the Jews would be reconciled to the Christian
faith at the end of days:1
Let me put another question then: have the Jews fallen forever, or have they just stum­
bled? Obviously they have not fallen forever: their fall, though, has saved the pagans
in a way the Jews may now well emulate. Think of the extent to which the world, the
pagan world, has benefited from their fall and defection—then think how much more
it will benefit from the conversion of them all.2
He had also stated that at the end a remnant of Israel would be saved:

1  For biblical references, see Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, 2 vols, 2nd edn, ed. R. Weber
(Stuttgart, 1975).
2 Romans 11: 11–12, Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, Vol. 2, ed. Weber: ‘ . . . dico ergo
numquid sic offenderunt ut caderent absit sed illorum delicto salus gentibus ut illos aemulentur quod
si delictum illorum divitiae sunt mundi et deminutio eorum divitiae gentium quanto magis plenitude
eorum . . . ’.
 Papal Rhetoric: Heretics, Muslims, and Jews 247
One section of Israel has become blind, but this will only last until the whole pagan
world has entered, and then after this the rest of Israel will be saved as well.3
And he had argued that the Jews’ conversion en masse at this end of days would
signal the dawn of the new era predicted by the prophets of the Old Testament:4
As Scripture says: The Liberator will come from Zion, he will banish godlessness
from Jacob. And this is the covenant I will make with them when I take their sins
away.5
As we have seen, St Augustine had drawn on these words in the De civitate Dei and
elsewhere.6
In the sixth century the letters of Gregory the Great reveal him as heavily influ­
enced by the traditional rhetoric of the Church on the subject of Jews. He was
also aware of the fifth-century Theodosian Code, which, as we have seen, despite
harsh rhetoric nevertheless protected basic rights for Jews and granted them due
legal process. In accordance with its stipulations, in his letter ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ of
598 Gregory taught that, although Jews should not be accorded any liberties
­beyond what civil law allowed, in what was rightfully theirs they should not suffer
discrimination:7
Just as there ought not to be licence for the Jews in their synagogues to presume any­
thing other than is permitted by law, so in those matters which have been conceded to
them they ought not to endure any prejudice.
Over twenty of Gregory’s letters expressed approval of these decrees demanding
‘just’ treatment for Jews while also limiting their rights.8

3 Romans 11: 25, Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, Vol.  2, ed. Weber: ‘ . . . quia caecitas
ex parte contigit in Israhel donec plenitude gentium intraret et sic omnis Israhel salvus fieret’.
4 Gilbert Dahan, La Polémique chrétienne avec le Judaisme (Paris, 1991), p.28; David Berger,
‘Mission to the Jews and Jewish-Christian Contacts in the Polemical Literature of the High Middle
Ages’, American Historical Review 91/3 (1986), 576–9; Robert Chazan, Daggers of Faith: Thirteenth-
Century Christian Missionizing and Jewish Response (Berkeley, 1989), p.11; Jeremy Cohen, The Friars
and the Jews: the Evolution of Medieval Anti-Judaism (Ithaca, 1982), p.20.
5 Romans 11: 26–7, Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, Vol. 2, ed. Weber: ‘. . . sicut scriptum est
veniet ex Sion qui eripiat avertet impietates ab Iacob et hoc illis a me testamentum cum abstulero pec­
cata eorum . . . .’
6  St Augustine, De civitate Dei 2, ed. B. Dombart, A. Kalb (Stuttgart, 1981), Bk 18, Ch. 46,
pp.  328–9. See Kenneth Stow, Alienated Minority: the Jews of Medieval Latin Europe (Cambridge,
Mass., London, 1992), p.19.
7  Gregory I, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (June 598), Simonsohn, p.15: ‘Sicut Iudaeis non debet esse licentia
quicquam in synagogis suis ultra quam permissum et lege praesumere, ita in his quae eis concessa sunt
nullum debent praeiudicium sustinere.’ See Dahan, La Polémique chrétienne contre le Judaisme, p.27.
8  Codex Theodosianus 16,8,1–29, trans. Lang, pp.84–159, passim. See James Parkes, The Conflict of
the Church and the Synagogue (London, 1934), pp.214–15. For example, Gregory I, ‘Fraternitati ves­
trae ante’ (April 596), Simonsohn, pp.12–13; ‘Pervenit ad me quosdam’ (September 602), Simonsohn,
pp.22–3; Gregorii Magni registrum epistularum libri VIII–XIV, Appendix, ed. D. Norberg (Turnhout,
1982), pp.991–3; Adrian I, ‘Audientes orthodoxam’ (772–c.785), Simonsohn, p.27; ‘Institutio univer­
salis’ (785–91), Simonsohn, p.28; Nicholas I, ‘Ad consulta vestra’ (866), Simonsohn, pp.29–30; ‘Ad
consulta vestra’ (866), Simonsohn, pp.30–1.
248 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

C o mm o n T h emes a n d I n d ivi d u a l Attit u d es

As we have seen, following Gregory the Great’s example, in the eleventh, twelfth, and
thirteenth centuries popes based their directions for the treatment of Jews in Christian
society on Pauline-Augustinian principles, the stipulations of the Theodosian Code
and the Justinian Code, and in accordance with the idea of Christian clemency
­towards a people who, in the words of Alexander II, were ‘everywhere prepared to
serve’, deliberately emphasizing that Jews were to be granted protection in response
to their petitioning.9 Yet although all popes espoused commitment to protection of
Jews, nevertheless papal correspondence reveals nuanced differences in the attitudes
of individual popes as to the degree of that protection.10
One reason for the continuing protection was the idea of Jews as witnesses. As
we noted in his additional paragraph at the beginning of his re-issue of the
‘Constitutio pro Iudaeis’, Innocent III reiterated the idea of unwitting Jewish tes­
timony to the truth of Christianity:11
. . . Thus the Prophet says, ‘Thou shalt not kill them, lest at any time they forget thy law’,
or more clearly stated, thou shalt not destroy the Jews completely, so that the Christians
should never by any chance be able to forget Thy Law, which, though they themselves
fail to understand it, they display in their book to those who do understand.12
Gregory IX insisted on the same theme:
. . . yet (despite all this) these very ones, along with others who have taken the Cross,
plot impious designs against the Jews, and pay no heed to the fact that the proof for
the Christian faith comes, as it were, from their archives …13
Hence he emphasized his displeasure that crusaders involved in the ‘Barons’ Crusade’
ignored the fact that the Old Testament itself was a proof of Christianity.14

9 Innocent III, ‘Licet perfidia Judeorum’ (15 September 1199), Grayzel, Vol.  1, pp.92–4;
Simonsohn, pp.74–5; Honorius III, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (7 November 1217), Grayzel, Vol.  1, p.144;
Simonsohn, p.102; Gregory IX, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (3 May 1235), Grayzel, Vol.  1, p.218; Simonsohn,
pp.154–5; Innocent IV, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (22 October 1246), Grayzel, Vol.  1, pp.260–2; Simonsohn,
p.189; ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (9 July/June 1247), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.274; Simonsohn, pp.192–3.
10 For example, Honorius III, ‘Cum olim nobilis’ (28 January 1217), Grayzel, Vol.  1, p.144;
Simonsohn, p.102; Honorius III, ‘Dilecta in Christo’ (21 June 1219), Grayzel, Vol.  1, pp.150–2;
Simonsohn, pp.106–7; Gregory IX, ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum in’ (5 September 1236), Grayzel,
Vol. 1, pp.226–8; Simonsohn, pp.163–4; ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum in’ (5 September 1236), Grayzel,
Vol.  1, pp.228–30; Simonsohn, p.165; Innocent IV, ‘Ex parte Judeorum’ (12 June 1247), Grayzel,
Vol.  1, p.268; Simonsohn, pp.193–4; Innocent IV, ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum Alemannie’ (5 July
1247), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.268–70; Simonsohn, pp.194–5; ‘Ex parte Judeorum’ (6 July 1247), Grayzel,
Vol. 1, p.272; Simonsohn, pp.195–6.
11  Innocent III, ‘Licet perfidia Judeorum’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.92; Simonsohn, pp.74–5.
12 Innocent III, ‘Licet perfidia Judeorum’, Grayzel, Vol.  1, p.92; Simonsohn, p.74: ‘ . . . dicente
propheta; “Ne occideris eos ne quando obliviscantur legis tue,” ac si diceretur appertius; ne deleveris
omnino Judeos, ne forte Christiani legis tue valeant oblivisci, quam ipsi non intelligentes, in libris suis
intelligentibus representant.’
13  Gregory IX, ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum in’, Grayzel, Vol.  1, p.226; Simonsohn, p.163: ‘iidem
cum aliis crucesignatis adversus Judeos eosdem impia consilia cogitantes nec attendentes, quod quasi
ex archivis ipsorum Christiane fidei testimonia prodierunt . . .’
14  Gregory IX, ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum in’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.226–8; Simonsohn, pp.163–4.
 Papal Rhetoric: Heretics, Muslims, and Jews 249

A second Pauline–Augustinian theme that popes wanted to emphasize was the

eventual salvation of the Jews. So, in a letter expressing joy over the outcome of the
Fourth Crusade and the election of a patriarch of Constantinople who recognized
papal supremacy and the establishment of Latin Christianity in the Near East,
Innocent III recalled St Paul’s teaching:
But when after all Christians shall have returned completely in obedience to the
Apostolic Throne, then will the multitude of Gentiles also be drawn to the Faith, and
so ‘will Israel dwell in safety’.15
Letters of Gregory IX rebuking crusaders for hostile activity against Jews repeated
the same theme.16 Drawing on Romans 9: 27–8 and Psalms 94: 14, Gregory
­emphasized that both Old and New Testament prophets had testified that at the
end of the world a remnant of the Jews would be saved and that the Lord would
not reject the Jews forever:
and that, as the prophets testified, although they should be as the sands of the sea, yet
in the end of days a remnant of them shall be saved, because the Lord will not forever
spurn His people.17
Gregory’s successor Innocent IV placed similar emphasis on the eventual salvation
of the Jews:18
We have received the tearful plaint of the Jews of Germany that same princes, both
ecclesiastical and lay, and other nobles and rulers of your districts and dioceses are
plotting evil plans against them and are devising numerous and various pretexts so as
to rob them unjustly and seize their property, without stopping to consider that it is
from the archives of the Jews, as it were, that the testimony for the Christian faith
has come forth.19
Throughout his pontificate Innocent IV repeated the same theme. Hence he
reminded the former crusader, Thibaut I king of Navarre and count of Champagne,
that however great the perfidy of the Jews, God would not forsake his people but
awaited their conversion:

15  Innocent III, ‘Evangelica docente scriptura’ (21 January 1205), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.110: ‘Sed post­
quam ad obedientiam apostolice sedis omnes omnino reversi fuerint Christiani, tunc multitudo gen­
tium intrabit ad fidem, et sic omnis Israel salvus fiet.’ For the eschatological side to Innocent III’s
teaching, see Alfred Andrea, ‘Innocent III, the Fourth Crusade and the Coming Apocalypse’, in The
Medieval Crusade, ed. S. J. Ridyard (Woodbridge, 2004), pp.97–106.
16  Gregory IX, ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum in’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.226–8; Simonsohn, pp.163–4;
‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum in’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.228–30; Simonsohn, p.165.
17  Gregory IX, ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum in’, Grayzel, Vol.  1, p.226; Simonsohn, p.163: ‘ . . . et
propheta testante, si fuerint velut arena maris, ipsorum tandem reliquie salve fient, quoniam non
repellet in sempiternum Dominus plebem suam . . . ’
18  Innocent IV, ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum Alemannie’, Grayzel, Vol.  1, pp.268–70; Simonsohn,
pp.194–5.
19  Innocent IV, ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum Alemannie’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.268; Simonsohn, p.194:
‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum Alemannie recepimus questionem, quod nonnulli tam ecclesiastici quam
seculares principes, ac alii nobiles et potentes vestrarum civitatum et dioecesum, et eorum bona
iniuste diripiant et usurpent, adversus ipsos impia consilia cogitantes, et fingentes occasiones varias
et diversas; non considerato prudenter quod quasi ex archivio eorum Christiane fidei testimonia
prodierunt . . .’.
250 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291
since He Who wants none to perish, mercifully still awaits their conversion, for God
will not forever forsake His people . . .’20
Or in a letter to the archbishops and bishops of Germany he emphasized the same
point:
. . . since we do not want the said Jews to be unjustly harassed, whose conversion our
Lord in His Mercy ­expects, for, in accordance with prophetic testimony, we should
believe that a remnant of them will be saved. . . 21
Or to the king of Navarre he emphasized eventual conversion as part of his refuta­
tion of the blood libel charge:
. . . the merciful God, who wants no-one to perish, still expects their [the Jews’] con­
version no matter how great their hardheartedness. For God will not forever repel His
people, since even the prophets testified that their remnant would be saved. . . . 22
These moving and powerful statements, remarkable for their time, reveal Innocent’s
sense of the papacy’s responsibility for the protection, not just the restriction, of
Jewish communities.
We saw in Chapter Two that another frequently recurring theme in papal cor­
respondence was that Jews must not be baptized by force; in the sixth century
Gregory I had already gone out of his way to emphasize this important theological
position. Yet Christian theology expounded that Christ had died for all men—­
including infidels, and popes regarded it as part of their duty and an important
part of the Church’s mission to convert non-Christians to the truth, and compel
them to receive the Faith—‘compelle intrare’ (‘to compel them to come in’).23 We
have seen how the Fourth Toledan Council of 633 decreed that those already bap­
tized by coercion should be compelled to remain in the Faith and that this seemed
to undermine Gregory’s teaching.24 Yet popes such as Alexander III and Innocent III
continued to repeat that Jews were not to be forced to accept baptism.25
Nevertheless, Innocent’s statements were more complex than they might at
first appear, since, as we have seen, in 1201 he attempted to reconcile Gregory’s
position with the harsher decree of the Council of Toledo. Writing ‘Maiores

20  Innocent IV, ‘Ex parte Judeorum’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.268; Simonsohn, p.193: ‘Quantumcumque
igitur fuerit eorum perfidia, quia tamen ille qui neminem vult perire, conversionem misericorditer
expectat ipsorum, quoniam non repellet in eternum Dominus plebem suam. . . ’
21  Innocent IV, ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum Alemannie’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.270; Simonsohn, p.194:
‘Nolentes igitur prefatos Judeos injuste vexari, quorum conversionem Dominus miseratus expectat,
cum testante propheta credantur reliquie salve fieri eorumdem . . . ’
22  Innocent IV, ‘Ex parte Judeorum’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.272; Simonsohn, p.195: ‘. . . quod misericors
Deus qui neminem vult perire, quantumcumque sit eorum duritia, ipsorum tamen conversionem
expectat, quoniam non repellet in eternum Dominus plebem suam, cum testante propheta illorum
reliequie salve fient . . .’
23  Aron Gurevich, Categories of Medieval Culture, trans. G. L. Campbell (London, Boston, Melbourne,
Henley, 1985), p.75.
24 Mark Cohen, Under Crescent and Cross: the Jews in the Middle Ages (Princeton, Oxford,
1994), p.36.
25  Alexander III, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (1159–1181), Simonsohn, pp.51–2. See Stow, Alienated Minority,
p.119; Innocent III, ‘Licet perfidia Judeorum’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.92–4; Simonsohn, pp.74–5.
 Papal Rhetoric: Heretics, Muslims, and Jews 251

ecclesie’ to the archbishop of Arles, he noted that the Fourth Council of Toledo
of 633 had stated:26
There it is said that those who had previously been forced into Christianity, . . . since
their association with the divine sacrament had already been established, and the grace
of Baptism had been received, and they had been anointed with the sacred oil, and had
participated in the body of the Lord, they might properly be forced to hold to the faith
which they had accepted perforce, lest the name of the Lord be blasphemed, and lest
they hold in contempt and consider vile the faith they had joined.27
He then argued that although he confirmed that it was contrary to the Christian
faith for anyone completely opposed to be compelled to adopt and observe
Christianity, there were important distinctions between different kinds of unwill­
ingness. Those who had received baptism because they feared violence and wanted
to avoid loss of property should be forced to observe the Christian faith since they
had expressed a conditional willingness to embrace it. Only those who had never
consented and wholly objected to baptism should not be coerced.28
However, no such legal distinction is to be found in the correspondence of
Innocent’s successors.29 Indeed, as we have seen, Gregory IX complained against
crusaders who justified killing and continuing hostility to Jews on the grounds that
they refused baptism, reiterating vehemently that Jews were only to be baptized if
they should seek it of their own free will:
But those to whom God wants to be merciful are not to be compelled to the grace of
baptism unless they want it voluntarily. . . 30
The canonist Raymond of Peñafort summed up Gregory’s position which then
­entered the canon law collections:
So one ought to ensure that the Jews like the Muslims be called upon afresh to the
Christian faith by authorities, reasons and blandishments rather than by acts of harsh­
ness, but not to be compelled, because forced servitude does not please God.31
This statement became the official teaching of the Church.32

26 Innocent III, ‘Maiores ecclesie causas’ (September–October 1201), Grayzel, Vol.  1, p.102;
Simonsohn, pp.80–1.
27  Innocent III, ‘Maiores ecclesie causas’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.100–2; Simonsohn, p.80: ‘ubi dicitur
quod qui jampridem ad Christianitatem coacti sunt, . . . quia jam constat eos sacramentis divinis asso­
ciatos, et baptismi gratiam suscepisse, et chrismate unctos esse, et corporis Domini exstitisse partici­
pes; oportet etiam ut fidem, quam necessitate susceperunt, tenere cogantur, ne nomen Domini
blasphemetur, et fides quam susceperunt vilis ac contemptibilis habeatur.’
28  Innocent III, ‘Maiores ecclesiae causas’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.100–2; Simonsohn, pp.80–1.
29  For example, Honorius III, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.144; Simonsohn, p.102.
30 Gregory IX, ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum in’, Grayzel, Vol.  1, p.228; Simonsohn, p.164;
‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum in’, Grayzel, Vol.  1, p.228; Simonsohn, p.165: ‘Quia tamen, cui vult
Dominus miseretur, non sunt ad baptismi gratiam, nisi sponte voluerint, compellendi . . .’
31 Raymond of Peñafort, Summa de poenitentia et matrimonio (repr. Farnborough, 1967), Bk 1, Section
2, pp.32–3: ‘Tam iudaei quam sarraceni auctoritatibus, rationibus et blandimentis, potius quam asperita­
tibus, ad fidem christianam de novo suscipiendam provocari, non autem compelli, quia coacta servitia non
placet Deo.’ For Christian polemicists, see Harvey Hames, The Art of Conversion, Christianity and Kaballah
in the Thirteenth Century (Leiden, 2000), p.6. For Raymond of Peñafort, see Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.9; p.13.
32  Innocent IV, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.260–2; Simonsohn, p.189; ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, Grayzel,
Vol. 1, p.274; Simonsohn, pp.192–3.
252 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

Papa l R h eto r ic : ‘ P e r fi d ia’ , ‘ D u r itia’ , ‘ C aecitia’

Papal letters concerned with the treatment of Jews varied considerably in style and
mode of expression. Thus, for example, whereas Innocent III, Gregory IX, and
Innocent IV regularly quote Scripture, Honorius III’s letters were less rhetorical and
more practical.33 Hence variegated expression can be found in papal correspondence,
depending on content and context. So, while the language of letters or sections of
letters concerned with Jewish usury was very plain, often formulaic, and varied little
from pope to pope,34 letters about protection were more varied, often citing biblical
texts such as Psalms 59: 12, Psalms 89: 14, Psalms 94: 14, Isaiah 58: 6, and Romans
9: 27–8.35 The wickedness of the Jews (Psalms 59: 12) meant that only a number of
them would be saved (Romans 9: 27–8), yet the Lord would not forever forsake His
people (Psalms 94: 14) but would act with righteousness and justice towards them
(Psalms 89: 14) and would save those who were oppressed (Isaiah 58: 6).
Particular themes recur in papal correspondence concerned with Jews. One of
the most frequent was the theme of Jewish ‘perfidy’ (‘Perfidia’). Damasus I (366–384)
appears to be the first pope to have used the term ‘Perfidia’ to refer to the Jews. Leo
I (440–461) had repeated it, reiterating that the Jews’ rejection of Jesus was the
cause of the destruction of the Temple and of their dispersion. The word is
also common to the correspondence of Gregory the Great, as in a letter of 599 in
which he praised the Visigothic king of Spain for refusing a bribe from Jews
in ­return for the mitigation of a law directed against their ‘Perfidia’.36 In the twelfth
century Innocent II described the usurpation of the papal throne by Anacletus II,
the anti-pope of Jewish descent, as ‘an insane Jewish perfidy’, while Alexander III
also referred to Jewish ‘perfidy’ and ordered stringent precautions against its conta­
gious effects.37 The theme persisted in the correspondence of thirteenth-century
popes.38 Hence at the beginning of Innocent III’s reissue of the ‘Constitutio pro
Iudaeis’ we read ‘Licet perfidia Judeorum sit multipliciter improbanda’—‘Although

33  For example, Honorius III, ‘Ineffabilis providentia Dei’ (11 December 1225), Grayzel, Vol. 1,
pp.172–4.
34  For example, the ‘template’ was Innocent III, ‘Post miserabile(m) Hierusolymitanae’ (17/15
August 1198), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.86; Simonsohn, p.71.
35  Innocent III, ‘Licet perfidia Judeorum’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.92–4; Simonsohn, pp.74–5; Gregory
IX, ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum in’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.226–8; Simonsohn, pp.163–4; ‘Lachrymabilem
Judeorum in’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.228–30; Simonsohn, p.165; Innocent IV, ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum
Alemannie’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.268–70; Simonsohn, pp.194–5.
36  Gregory I, ‘Explere verbis’ (August 599), Simonsohn, pp.21–2, especially p.21: ‘contra Iudaeorum
perfidiam’.
37 Innocent II, ‘Apostolicae sedis consueta’ (6 October 1131), PL 179, cols 102–4. See Louis
Newman, Jewish Influence on Christian Reform Movements, (New York, 1925), pp.251–2; Mary Stroll,
The Jewish Pope: Ideology and Politics in the Papal Schism of 1130 (Leiden, 1987), p.163. The phrase
used by Alexander III was ‘Iudaismi perfidiam’. See Alexander III, ‘Quia super his’ (1159–1179),
Simonsohn, p.50. See Richard Dobson, The Jews of Medieval York and the Massacre of 1190 (York,
1974), p.19.
38  For example, Honorius III, ‘Sedes Apostolica pia’ (26 August 1220), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.152–4;
Simonsohn, pp.108–9; Gregory IX, ‘Sufficere debuerat perfidie’ (5/4 March 1233), Grayzel, Vol. 1,
pp.198–200; Simonsohn, pp.141–3; Innocent IV, ‘Impia Judeorum perfidia’ (9 May 1244), Grayzel,
Vol. 1, pp.250–2; Simonsohn, pp.180–2.
 Papal Rhetoric: Heretics, Muslims, and Jews 253

the Jewish perfidy is in every way worthy of condemnation’.39 Gregory IX frequently

referred to the ‘perfidy’ of the Jews,40 to the ‘depravity of the Jewish error’,41 and
to the Jews remaining ‘obstinate in their perfidy’.42 Similarly we find this in the
correspondence of Innocent IV,43 as in a letter of 1244 to the king of France which
referred to:44
The wicked perfidy of the Jews, from whose hearts, because of the immensity of their
crimes, our Redeemer has not removed the veil but allows them still to remain in that
blindness which partly obtains in Israel.45
Hence we also see the idea of Jewish blindness (‘Caecitas’ / ‘Caecitia’). The idea
here is that the blindness is partial, not complete, since Jews accepted the Old
Testament. Or again in a letter of 1267 to the archbishops and bishops in the
Counties of Poitiers, Toulouse, and Provence, Clement IV referred to the ‘dam­
nable perfidy of the Jews’ (‘dampnabili perfidia Judaeorum’) who flouted canonical
regulations pertaining to their proper treatment in Christian society.46
Yet despite the frequency of the term, it is difficult to determine exactly what
was meant by the noun ‘Perfidia’ and the adjective ‘perfidus’. Some historians
have argued that these words meant simply ‘unbelief ’ and ‘unbelieving’ and had no
particularly negative colouring, particularly since papal descriptions of Muslims
as well as Jews as ‘perfidi’ suggest that it was a standard epithet for ‘unbelieving’
non-Christians.47 Others have argued that in certain texts—depending on the
context—the meaning was both more complex and more negative.48
It is possible that in papal correspondence the noun ‘Perfidia’ carried stronger
negative undertones than the adjective ‘perfidus’. Yet even here there is dispute over
the word. Some historians have argued that there was a subtle but definite develop­
ment in language and that the meaning of the term ‘Perfidia’ gradually grew from

39  Innocent III, ‘Licet perfidia Judeorum’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.92; Simonsohn, p.74.
40  Gregory IX, ‘Etsi Judeorum sit’ (6 April 1233), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.200–2; Simonsohn, pp.143–5.
41  Gregory IX, ‘Sua nobis Newronius’ (9 May 1235), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.220; Simonsohn, pp.155–6,
especially p.155: ‘de Judaice pravitatis errore’.
42  Gregory IX, ‘Si vera sunt’ (20 June 1239), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.242; Simonsohn, p.174: ‘qua Judeos
in sua perfidia retinet obstinatos’.
43  For example, Innocent IV, ‘Ex parte Judeorum’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.268; Simonsohn, pp.193–4.
44  Innocent IV, ‘Impia Judeorum perfidia’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.250–2; Simonsohn, pp.180–2.
45 Innocent IV, ‘Impia Judeorum perfidia’, Grayzel, Vol.  1, p.250; Simonsohn, p.180: ‘Impia
Judeorum perfidia, de quorum cordibus propter immensitatem eorum scelerum Redemptor noster
velamen non abstulit, sed in cecitate, que contingit ex parte, in Israel adhuc manere permittit’.
Grayzel’s translation: ‘The wicked perfidy of the Jews, from whose hearts our Redeemer has not
removed the veil of blindness because of the enormity of their crime, but has so far permitted to
­remain in blindness such as in a measure covers Israel’ is not quite accurate here.
46  Clement IV, ‘Dampnabili perfidia Judaeorum’ (23 December 1267), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.106–10;
Simonsohn, pp.239–40.
47  For example, Innocent III, ‘Quia maior nunc’ (22 April 1213), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.136; Simonsohn,
p.97.
48  There is a huge amount of secondary material on the meaning of ‘perfidia’ with respect to
the Jews. See, for example, Joseph Osterreicher, ‘Pro perfidis Judaeis’, Theological Studies 8 (1947),
80–7; Bernhard Blumenkranz, ‘Perfidia’, Archivum Latinitatis Medii Aevi (Bulletin du Cange) 22
(Brussels, 1952), pp.157–70; Dobson, The Jews of Medieval York and the Massacre of March 1190,
p.20.
254 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

‘unbeliever and disbelief, along with treachery’, to ‘intentional and malevolent infi­
delity . . . and treachery’.49 Others, that although there was undoubted increasing
papal concern about the supposed danger to Christian souls from all intercourse
with Jews, which, as we have seen, was given formal expression in Canon 27 of the
Third Lateran Council of 1179, nevertheless ‘Perfidia’ lacked the negative force of
the modern translation ‘treachery’; rather it implied a mixture of ‘distortion of faith’
and ‘a deliberate denial of Jesus’.50 Hence it was a theological term rather than a
term of denigration.
So although such language appears to us very harsh, it was a mere commonplace
in medieval rhetoric, not at all unique to papal correspondence, and not deliberately
abusive as some historians have suggested.51 Hence Jews were frequently d ­ escribed
as ‘perfidious’ in language based on the Good Friday liturgy of the Roman rite,
which contained a prayer that the ‘perfidious Jews’ might come to acknowledge
Christ:52
O omnipotent eternal God, you who do not reject even the Jewish perfidy, hear our
prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people, so that, by the acknowledged
light of your truth, which is Christ, they may be rescued from their darkness. Through
the same Lord. Amen.53
The decision not to kneel at this prayer had been introduced into the Roman lit­
urgy by Gallo-Frankish reformers, possibly in the eighth and certainly in the ninth
century.54 From then on such language became increasingly common.
As well as referring to Jewish blindness (‘Judaice caecitas’), popes also referred to
Jewish obduracy (‘Contumacia’ or more frequently ‘Duritia’).55 ‘Caecitia’ signified
the Augustinian idea of the Jews’ spiritual blindness.56 So, for example, in a letter
of 1229 to the bishop of Strasbourg, Gregory IX ruled that in the case of a man
who had been ‘saved from the error of Jewish blindness and brought to the true

49  Shlomo Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History (Toronto, 1991), p.9; Marie Therese
Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome: Papal Attitudes
toward Biblical Judaism and Contemporary European Jewry (Ph.D. Dissertation, Louisiana State
University, 2005), p.81.
50 Dobson, The Jews of Medieval York and the Massacre of March 1190, p.19; Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.92,
footnote 2.
51  For example, Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.47.
52  The phrases are ‘Judei perfidi’ (‘perfidious Jews’) or ‘perfidia Judeorum’ (‘the perfidy of the Jews’).
See Innocent III, ‘Etsi Judeos quos’ (15 July 1205), Grayzel, Vol.  1, pp.114–16, passim; Simonsohn,
pp.86–8, passim; ‘Licet perfidia Judeorum’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.92–4, passim; Simonsohn, pp.74–5, passim.
53  ‘Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui etiam Judaicam perfidiam a tua misericordia non repellis:
exaudi preces nostras, quas pro illius populi obcaecatione deferimus; ut, agnita veritatis tuae luce, quae
Christus est, a suis tenebris eruantur. Per eumdem Dominum. Amen.’ See Josef Jungmann, The Mass
of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development, trans. F. A. Brunner (London, 1959), Vol. 1, p.244.
54  Theodor Klauser, A Short History of the Western Liturgy: An Account and Some Reflections, 2nd
edn (London, New York, 1979), p.81; Bernhard Blumenkranz, Juifs et Chrétiens dans le Monde
Occidental, 430–1096 (Paris, 1960), p.92; Osterreicher, ‘Pro perfidis Judaeis’, 90–5.
55 For example, Innocent III, ‘Quanto populus Judaice’ (5 December 1199), Grayzel, Vol.  1,
pp.96–8, passim; Simonsohn, p.77, passim.
56 St Augustine, The Fathers of the Church, Vol.  27, trans. C. T. Wilcox and ed. R. J. Deferrari
(New York, 1955), Ch. 1, p.392; Ch. 5, p.398; Ch. 7, p.403; p.405; p.406; Ch. 8, p.406; Ch. 9, p.411;
Ch. 11, p.413. See Stow, Alienated Minority, pp.19–20.
 Papal Rhetoric: Heretics, Muslims, and Jews 255

light of Christ’ and who subsequently wanted his son also to be brought up in the
Catholic faith and not in the faith of his Jewish wife, the boy should be assigned to
his father.57 Innocent IV also made reference to the ‘shadows of Jewish blindness’,58
and the ‘blindness of Jewish error’.59 And in a letter of 1267 to John de Salins,
Count of Burgundy, Clement IV complained that the count’s lands harboured
Jews who after baptism had reverted to ‘the old and corrupt Jewish blindness’.60
Similarly, re-issues of the ‘Constitutio pro Iudaeis’ emphasized a Jewish ‘Duritia’,
the obstinacy of the Jews in refusing to accept Christianity:
although they prefer to remain hardened in their obstinacy rather than acknowledge
the prophetic words, and the eternal secrets of their own scriptures, that they might
thus arrive at the understanding of Christianity and Salvation . . . 61
This metaphor suggested not just ‘obstinacy’ but a spiritual ‘hardness of heart’ since
the idea behind it was that Jews deliberately refused to recognize Jesus as Christ
and accept his teachings as revealed in the New Testament. In his letter ‘Vineam
sorec’ of 1278 to the prior of the Dominicans in Lombardy urging him to organize
missionary sermons, Nicholas III referred in graphic language to the Jews as a stub­
born and hard hearted people who merited their punishment. We have seen how,
although he believed that it was his duty as pope to make them see the the light of
truth, he emphasized that if ‘like deaf adders’ they do not listen to the friars, they
must be reported so that he himself might deal with those remaining obstinate.62
So both ‘Duritia’ and ‘Caecitia’ indicated a refusal, incomprehensible to Christians,
to acknowledge Christ as the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament. Yet such
language must be understood in the context of its time. When one considers the
way Jews were frequently described by Christian writers and polemicists such as
Peter the Venerable or Raymond Lull, papal correspondence does not stand out as
unusually harsh nor condemnatory of Jews. Whenever medieval popes referred to
Jews as ‘blind’ or ‘stubborn’ or ‘hard of heart’ they were trying to explain in simple
terms what they believed to be the correct Christian theological attitude. That does

57 Gregory IX, ‘Ex litteris tuis’ (16 May 1229), Grayzel, Vol.  1, pp.180–2, especially p.180;
Simonsohn, pp.128–9, especially p.128: ‘quidam videlicet de Judaice cecitatis errore ad Christum
lumen verum (et viam veritatis) adductus’.
58  Innocent IV, ‘Cum a nobis’ (21 April 1250), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.284; Simonsohn, pp.201–2, espe­
cially p.201: ‘de Judaice cecitatis tenebris’.
59 Innocent IV, ‘Sicut dilecta in’ (15 July 1250), Grayzel, Vol.  1, pp.286–8, especially p.286;
Simonsohn, pp.203–4, especially p.203: ‘de Judaice cecitatis errore’.
60  Clement IV, ‘Professionis Christianae’ (17 August 1267), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.104–6, especially
p.105; Simonsohn, pp.237–8, especially p.238: ‘caecitatis iudaicae veterem et corruptam’ and ‘herbam
mortiferam’.
61  Innocent III, ‘Licet perfidia Judeorum’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.92; Simonsohn, p.74: ‘licet in sua magis
velint duritia perdurare, quam prophetarum verba, et suarum scriptuarum arcana cognoscere, atque
ad Christiane fidei et salutis notitiam pervenire / licet in sua magis velint duritia perdurare quam
vaticinia prophetarum et legis archana cognoscere, atque ad Christiane fidei notitiam pervenire. . .’.
See also, for example, the phrase in the following letters: Honorius III, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, Grayzel, Vol. 1,
p.144; Simonsohn, p.102; Gregory IX, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.218; Simonsohn, pp.154–5;
Innocent IV, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.260–2; Simonsohn, p.189; ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, Grayzel, Vol. 1,
p.274; Simonsohn, pp.192–3.
62 Nicholas IV, ‘Vineam sorec velut’ (4 August 1278), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.142–5, especially p.144;
Simonsohn, pp.249–52, especially p.251: ‘veluti aspis surda’.
256 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

not mean that there was no element of ‘anti-Jewishness’ in their utterances; that
may have been there consciously or unconsciously, varying from one pope to
­another. Yet popes in their correspondence never employed images such as the
‘Judensau’—an image of Jews in obscene contact with a large female pig, an
­unclean animal in Judaism—which became such a popular notorious symbol
in the later Middle Ages.63
Hence just as a contemporary artisan who sculpted a statue of blind ‘Synagoga’
(‘Synagogue’) and triumphant ‘Ecclesia’ (‘Church’) for the local church doubtless
thought that in doing so he was depicting—in material culture for the benefit of
those who would hear the Mass there—correct theological teaching about the dif­
ference between Christianity and Judaism, so too the popes’ aim was to promul­
gate Christian theology. Of course the artisan, like the popes, may also have been
motivated by less virtuous feelings of dislike for Jews, real or imagined, and by
suspicion of Judaism, known or unknown—but this was usually not the primary
motivation for his representation.

J ews V e r s u s M u s l ims a n d Paga n s

I n C h r istia n S o ciety

In a letter of 1225 addressed to all Christians in the province of Rouen, Honorius

III, comparing the Catholic, the heretic, the pagan, and the Jew, summed up the
papacy’s traditional stance towards non-Catholics:
Hence, because the Catholic, his spirit of charity having grown cold, has become
inactive in the exercise of good works; because the heretic, misled by error, acts fool­
ishly; because the Jew, his heart still covered by a veil, gropes blindly; and because the
pagan, the Star of Light not yet having as yet risen for him, walks in darkness;—therefore
does the Lord in His mercy, wanting none to perish, renew his signs, and in his pity,
cause his wonders not to cease, when He strikingly and miraculously displays the faith
and merit of those whom he glorifies for the triumph of the Church, that in this way
Catholics, breaking through their mental sloth, may at once be aroused to good deeds. . .64
It concluded:
 . . . heretics, forsaking their errors, may from the wrong road be led back to the
right . . . 
And it compared pagans (here non-believers) with Jews:65

63 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.47.

64 Honorius III, ‘Ineffabilis providentia Dei’, Grayzel, Vol.  1, pp.172–4: ‘Ceterum quia caritate
frigescente ab exercitio hujusmodi boni operis torpet catholicus, errore devio abducente, derilat here­
ticus, cecutit, velamine adhuc super cor permanente, Judeus, et in tenebris ambulat, sidere lucis
­nondum sibi oriente paganus; misericors Dominus, qui neminem vult perire, signa interdum innovat,
et mirabilia miseratus immutat, ex numero illorum, quos in ecclesie triumphanti glorificat, aliquorum
fidem et merita in militanti miraculis declarando. Ut per ea Catholici, mentis torpore discusso, ad
boni operis excitentur instantiam, . . . ’.
65 Honorius III, ‘Ineffabilis providentia Dei’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.172–4.
 Papal Rhetoric: Heretics, Muslims, and Jews 257
. . . Jews and Pagans, recognising the true Light may from the darkness and shadow of
Death run to Christ, the light, the Way, the Truth, and the Life. . .66
Such statements reflected and echoed a rhetoric about minority groups common
in the polemical literature of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.
Popes might compare Muslims, heretics, pagans, and Jews in order to make a
particular theological point. So Gregory VII insisted in a letter of 1084 that no
salvation could come from the religion of Jews, Muslims, or pagans (again here
non-believers).67 Or the intention might be to encourage the conversion of
non-Christians, as the ‘Evangelica docente scriptura’ of 1205 to the prelates and
clergy of Constantinople in which Innocent III emphasized the importance of
converting Jews and pagans (here possibly a reference to Muslims):68
That, however, I may not become confounded by reason of over much insensibility, I
ought to note carefully what Jesus said to Simon, ‘Fear not, for henceforth thou shalt
catch men.’ It is as if he had said, ‘Thou mayst be absolutely sure that after thou hast
caught the fish,’ that is, after you have led back the Christians, ‘thenceforth thou wilt
catch men’, that is, you will convert Jews and Pagans.69
Or to prevent Christians converting to other religions, as in a letter of Nicholas IV
of 1288 in which he urged the king of Hungary to give up all association with
Muslims, pagans, and nonbelievers generally.70
Muslims and Jews—‘infideles’ (‘infidels’)—featured particularly prominently in
papal correspondence concerned with the sacraments of marriage and baptism. So,
in a letter dated between 1187 and 1191, Clement III informed the bishop of
Segovia that Jewish converts married to relatives contrary to canon law need not be
parted from their wives.71 Or, in a letter of 1198 to the archbishop and chapter
of Tyre, Innocent III affirmed that in the case of infidels who had converted to
Catholicism and had been married before conversion, such marriages were not to
be dissolved upon baptism.72 Or, in a letter of 1206 he urged the clergy of Barcelona
to baptize any Jew or Muslim who asked for it.73 In 1264, Urban IV asked the
Patriarch of Jerusalem to ensure that at least while they were being instructed in
the Faith, poverty-stricken Muslims and Jews who had come to Acre wanting to be

66 Honorius III, ‘Ineffabilis providentia Dei’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.174: ‘. . . heretici, errore dimisso, ab
invio reducantur ad viam; Judei atque Pagani, vero lumine cognito, de tenebris et umbra mortis cur­
rant ad Christum, lucem, viam, veritatem et vitam  . . . ’
67  Alexander II, ‘Pervenit frates karisssimi’ (July–November 1084), Simonsohn, pp.39–41.
68  Innocent III, ‘Evangelica docente scriptura’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.110.
69  Innocent III, ‘Evangelica docente scriptura’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.110: ‘Sed ne forte pro nimio stu­
pore confundar, notare debeo diligenter, quod Jesus inquit ad Simonem: Noli timere, quoniam ex hoc
jam homines eris capiens, quasi dicat: - Pro certo confide, quia, postquam ceperis pisces, id est post­
quam reduxeris Christianos, extunc homines capies, id est Judeos et paganos convertes.’
70 Nicholas IV, ‘Si sparsa semina’ (8 August 1288), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.169–71. NB: Jews were not
mentioned specifically in this letter.
71  Clement III, ‘Interrogatum est ex’ (1187–1191), Simonsohn, p.65: ‘utrum Judaei vel Saraceni ad
fidem Christianam conversi’.
72  Innocent III, ‘De infidelibus ad’ (30 December 1198), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.88; Simonsohn, p.72.
73 Innocent III, ‘Orta tempestate in’ (26 August 1206), Grayzel, Vol.  1, p.118; Simonsohn,
pp.88–9.
258 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

baptized but who had subsequently returned to Islam and Judaism because they
could not support themselves financially, should be housed in monasteries by the
Church.74
In particular, letters addressed to Spain concerned with the prevention of Jewish
dominance over Christians reflected popes’ awareness of the large Muslim and
Jewish populations of the Iberian peninsula. So in 1205 Innocent III urged Alfonso
VIII of Castile not to be seen exalting Synagogue and Mosque over Church and
thus decreasing ecclesiastical power by refusing to compel Jews to pay the tithe or
giving them greater rights to purchase extensive property.75 The same issues arose
in southern Italy and Sicily. As we saw in Chapter Two, a letter of Honorius IV of
1285 ratified provisions and ordinances for the Kingdom of Sicily, and included a
decree that in cases of unresolved homicide, no community should be penalized by
a fine exceeding one hundred augustales where the victim was a Christian, but only
fifty augustales where he or she was Jewish or Muslim.76
Yet often these comparisons placed the Jews in a more favourable light than
their Muslim neighbours. We have seen how in the eleventh century Alexander II
emphasized in his letter ‘Placuit nobis’ of 1063 to Spanish bishops concerning the
Reconquista that ‘the case of Jews and Saracens is very different’, and he praised the
bishops of France and Spain who defended Jews against atrocities committed by
those fighting against the Muslim enemy.77 In the thirteenth century Gregory IX
also contrasted Muslims unfavourably with Jews, expressing his indignation that
crusaders in France who were about to take part in the ‘Barons’ Crusade’ of 1236
were massacring Jews when they should rather be preparing to set out against
Muslims:78

74 Urban IV, ‘Nonnulli sicut accepimus’ (26 July 1264), Grayzel, Vol.  2, pp.83–4; Simonsohn,
p.224. At the Council of Vienne between 1311 and 1312, it was decreed that since Jews and Muslims,
protected (against Christian testimony) by privileges specially granted by kings and princes, could not
be convicted in civil and criminal cases through the testimony of Christians alone—an arrangement
which was not only unjust, but even insulting to the Christian religion—kings and princes were for­
bidden to grant such privileges in the future and to rescind those already granted. If Jews continued
to enjoy these privileges, they must be deprived of all contact with Christians. Yet Clement V also
made provision that Hebrew, Arabic, and Chaldean be taught wherever the curia resided, as well as at
the universities of Paris, Oxford, Bologna, and Salamanca because the conversion of non-Catholics
could not take place if preachers did not know the languages understood by diverse peoples. See
Clement V, ‘Quum Judaei’ (1311–1312), Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.225; ‘Inter sollicitudines’ (1311–1312/6
May 1312), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.225–7; Simonsohn, pp.294–5.
75  Innocent III, ‘Non minus pro’ (5 May 1205), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.112; Simonsohn, pp.85–6.
76 Honorius IV, ‘Justitia et pax’ (17 September 1285), Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.155; Simonsohn, pp.260–1.
77  Alexander II, ‘Placuit nobis’ (1063), Simonsohn, pp.35–6, especially p.36: ‘Dispar nimirum est
Judaeorum et Sarracenorum causa’.
78 Gregory IX, ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum in’, Grayzel, Vol.  1, pp.226–8, especially p.226;
Simonsohn, pp.163–4, especially p.163: ‘… quod cum crucesignati civitatum vestrarum et diocesum
debuerint corda et corpora preparasse ad proelium Domini proeliandum, ac hereditatem Christi lib­
erare de manibus paganorum, qui exigentibus culpis populi Chrisitani detinent et coinquinant tem­
plum Dei. . . iidem cum aliis crucesignatis adversus Judeos eosdem impia consilia cogitantes nec
attendentes, quod quasi ex archivis ipsorum Christiane fidei testimonia prodierunt, et propheta
testante, si fuerint velut arena maris, ipsorum tandem reliquie salve fient, quoniam non repellet in
sempiternum Dominus plebem suam . . .’. See also Gregory IX, ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum in’,
Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.228–30, especially p.228; Simonsohn, p.165. ‘Pagani’ often referred to Muslims;
 Papal Rhetoric: Heretics, Muslims, and Jews 259
It shows that although the crusaders of your district and dioceses should have pre­
pared heart and body to fight the battles of the Lord, and to liberate the heritage of
Christ from the hands of the pagans who, because of the enormous sins of the
Christian people, hold and defile the Temple of God . . . yet (despite all this) these
very ones, along with others who have taken the Cross, plot impious designs against
the Jews . . .
Here Gregory was deliberately recalling the earlier comparison made by Alexander
II in ‘Placuit nobis’ which was influential enough to be recorded by Gratian in his
Decretum.79
Yet at times comparisons between Muslims and Jews might be much more nega­
tive towards the latter. In a letter of 1205 Innocent III noted that Muslims living
in Spain had not only expelled Jews from their territory but rebuked Christians for
tolerating them:
. . . even the Saracens who persecute the Catholic faith and do not believe in the Christ
whom the Jews crucified, cannot tolerate the Jews and have even expelled them from
their territory, vehemently rebuking us for tolerating those by whom, as we openly
acknowledge, our Redeemer was condemned to the suffering of the Cross. . . 80
Nevertheless, even here, mindful of Christian theology, Innocent was careful to
stress that God’s Grace would eventually save the Jews as in his letter ‘Evangelica
docente scriptura’ of 1205:
For ‘fish’, since they live in water, stand for Christians who have a second birth by
means of water and the Spirit, while ‘men’, since they live upon the earth, stand for
Jews and pagans who breathe and cling to things terrestrial. But, after all Christians
shall have returned completely in obedience to the Apostolic Throne, then will
the multitude of Gentiles also be drawn to the Faith, and so ‘will Israel dwell in
safety’ . . . 81
So eventually—after all Christians had returned obediently to the Apostolic Faith—
Jews and even Muslims would also convert and be saved.82

for example, Innocent III referred to Muslims as ‘pagans’ in the full text of Innocent III, ‘Graves
orientalis terrae’ (31 December 1199), ed. O. Hageneder, W. Maleczek, A. Strnad, Die Register
Innocenz III, Publikationen des Österreichischen Kulturinstituts in Rom, 2 (Graz, Vienna, Cologne,
1979), p.492.
79  Alexander II, ‘Placuit nobis’, Simonsohn, pp.35–6; Gratian, C.23.q.8.c.11, col. 955. See Gilbert
Dahan, Les Intéllectuels chrétiens et les juifs au moyen âge (Paris, 1990), p.115.
80  Innocent III, ‘Etsi Judeos quos’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.114; Simonsohn, p. 86: ‘Saraceni, qui fidem
Catholicam persequuntur, nec credunt in crucifixum ab illis, sustinere non possunt, sed potius a suis
finibus expulerunt, in nos vehementius exclamantes, eo quod sustineantur a nobis, qui ab ipsis crucis
patibulo condemnatum Redemptorem nostrum veraciter confitemur… ’.
81  Innocent III, ‘Evangelica docente scriptura’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p. 110: ‘Pisces enim, qui vivunt in
aqua, Christianos designant, qui ex aqua et spiritu renascuntur; hominess autem, qui vivunt in terra,
Judeos et paganos significant, qui terrenis inhiant et inherent. Sed postquam ad obedientiam aposto­
lice sedis omnes omnino reversi fuerint Christiani, tunc multitudo gentium intrabit ad fidem, et sic
omnis Israel salvus fiet …’.
82  Innocent III, ‘Evangelica docente scriptura’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.110.
260 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

J ews as He r etics

In the ancient world Judaism was often equated with the Arian heresy because of
the latter’s emphasis on the humanity rather than the divinity of Christ. Hence
Arians were often regarded as ‘judaizing’ Christians. In the High Middle Ages, as
an inevitable result of Jews and Christians living side by side in many parts of
medieval Europe, informal private discussions between the two religions concerning
their beliefs and practices were common. Yet unlike the formal publicized debates
such as the Disputations of Paris or Barcelona, where Christians invariably won the
argument because Jews were under considerable constraints from both secular and
religious authorities not to offend Christian sensibilities, such private discussions
were less predictable.83 Disputations between Christians and Jews were wide-­
ranging and exhaustive.84 Since, as we have seen, Jews were often as much, if not
more, conversant than their Christian counterparts with the New as well as the
Old Testament— at least until the rise of scholasticism in the thirteenth century—
popes were often reluctant to permit such discussions.85
Hence in 1233 Gregory IX urged the clergy of Germany to forbid Jews to dispute
their religion with Christians,86 while in 1259 Alexander IV forbade any lay person
to dispute, either publicly or privately, about the Catholic faith.87 That popes at
times made direct comparisons between heretics and Jews was not surprising since,
according to Christian theology, neither Jews nor heretics understood the truth of
Christianity, although for different reasons. In particular, as we saw in Chapter
Five, after the Inquisition began its work in the thirteenth century, Jews came to be
increasingly associated with heretics. Not only did the papacy authorize the
Inquisition to enquire into the practices of both groups, but the definition of her­
etic came to include those Christians who had reverted to or embraced Judaism. In
‘Turbato corde’ of 1264 Clement IV complained that he was immensely disturbed
that a number of Christians in Spain had defected to Judaism and ordered that
Christians found guilty of this must be treated as heretics. All Jews found to have
induced Christians to adopt their rites must be appropriately punished.88
Two decades later, in 1281, Martin IV made a similarly direct comparison when
he wrote to the archbishops and bishops of France describing the findings of
French inquisitors. His letter explained how in order to escape punishment for
their crimes, not only Christians accused of heresy, but also Jews who had been

83 Other disputations during the period include the Disputation of Ceuta (1179) and the
Disputation of Majorca (thirteenth century). Whether these actually took place or were literary topoi
remains a subject of scholarly debate. See, for example, Maya Soifer, ‘You Say That the Messiah Has
Come . . .’. The Ceuta Disputation (1179) and its Place in the Christian Anti-Jewish Polemics of the
High Middle Ages’, Journal of Medieval History 31/3 (2005), 287–307, passim; 296.
84 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.331.
85  Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.68, footnote 3.
86  Gregory IX, ‘Sufficere debuerat perfidie’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.198–200; Simonsohn, pp.141–3.
87  Alexander IV, ‘Justis petentium’ (17 September 1259), Grayzel, Vol.  2, pp.66–7; Simonsohn,
pp.216–18. This canon derived from a letter of Gregory IX excommunicating heretics but was soon
interpreted to apply also to Jews.
88  Clement IV, ‘Turbato corde audivimus’ (27 July 1267), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.102–4; Simonsohn,
pp.236–7.
 Papal Rhetoric: Heretics, Muslims, and Jews 261

baptized but subsequently apostatized, were seeking sanctuary in churches. What

is so striking about this letter and a second he subsequently wrote to the inquisitors
themselves, is the language by which he referred to the ‘enemies of the orthodox
faith’.89 Here, as with Innocent III, is another example of a pope emphasizing that
Jews were enemies within Christendom.
The issue of apostasy resurfaced next in 1290, in letters to clergy in the provinces
of Aix, Arles, and Embrun and to the nobles of the Comtat Venaissin, in which
Nicholas IV highlighted the danger it constituted to the unity of Christendom and
claimed that Jews, who he described as ‘corrupters of our faith’ were fomenting
it.90 As we saw in Chapter Six, that year he also urged Franciscan inquisitors in
Arles, Aix, and Embrun to root out heresy, and singled out for particular oppro­
brium that people who had been baptized—converts from Judaism—were not
only frequenting synagogues, but lighting lamps, holding vigils, partaking in
Jewish rites, and even honouring the Torah Scroll.91 Nicholas urged the inquisitors
to proceed against these Jews ‘as idolators and heretics’,92 and took the opportunity
to re-issue ‘Turbato corde’.93 Boniface VIII similarly stipulated that it was important
to proceed against Christians who adopted or reverted to Jewish rites as against
heretics who had confessed or been convicted.94
Indeed the word ‘synagogue’ (‘synagoga’) itself seems to have been widely employed
by popes as a term of opprobrium. In Christian writing, perhaps originating from
the Gospel account of Christ’s cleansing of the Temple, Jewish synagogues had a
long tradition of being places of evil repute.95 In the fourth century John
Chrysostom had described the synagogue as a place inhabited by demons, a house
of prostitution, a theatre, and a place of ‘disgraceful behaviour and indecorous
dances . . . ruled by gluttony and licentiousness’ where Jews behaved ‘like drunken
dogs’.96 Similar language appears not only in papal correspondence but also in
twelfth- and thirteenth-century conciliar legislation. Thus, for example, referring
to the financial institutions of moneylenders, the Council of Paris (1213) claimed

89  Martin IV, ‘Ex parte dilectorum’ (21 October 1281), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.150–1, especially p.151;
Simonsohn, pp.255–6, especially p.255: ‘ad extirpandos orthodoxe fidei inimicos’; ‘Ex parte vestra’ (21
October 1281), Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.152; Simonsohn, p.256 (my italics).
90 Nicholas IV, ‘Attendite fratres et’ (28 January 1290), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.174–8, especially p.176;
Simonsohn, pp.271–2, especially p.272: ‘Judaicae caecitatis’; ‘ac ipsi Judaei nostrae fidei corruptores
conversos, et baptizatos de ipsis ad fidem nostrram, immo ipsos etiam Christianos inficere, et aposta­
tare pro posse nituntur quotidie in contumeliam fidei Christianae’ (my italics); Martin IV, ‘Inter
innumerabiles sollicitudines’ (28 January 1290), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.178–9.
91 Nicholas IV, ‘Ad augmentum Catholice’ (20 February 1290), Grayzel, Vol.  2, pp.179–81;
Simonsohn, pp.273–4.
92 Nicholas IV, ‘Ad augmentum Catholice’, Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.180; Simonsohn, p.273: ‘procedere
tanquam contra idololatras seu haereticos’.
93 Nicholas IV, ‘Turbato corde audivimus’ (9 September 1290), Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.181; Simonsohn,
pp.275–6.
94  Boniface VIII, ‘Contra Christianos’ (before/c.1298), Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.209; Simonsohn, pp.285–6.
Yet, as we have seen, on one particular occasion in 1299 Boniface showed himself favourable to Jews.
See Boniface VIII, ‘Exhibita (nobis) pro parte’ (13 June 1299), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.204–6; Simonsohn,
pp.286–7.
95  John, 2: 13–22, Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, Vol. 2 ed. Weber.
96 Stow, Alienated Minority, pp. 24–5; Robert Wilken, John Chrysosotom and the Jews: Rhetoric and
Reality in the Late Fourth Century (Berkeley, 1983), passim.
262 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

that there were ‘synagogues for the wicked’, communes of usurers and extor­
tioners, in every city throughout France.97 Furthermore, we have seen how in the
work of Nicholas Maniacutius, as in many other writings of the period, there was
a deliberate traditional contrasting of ‘synagoga’ and ‘ecclesia’. This method of
contrasting the Church/Christians as ‘Ecclesia’, and Judaism/Jews as ‘Synagoga’
continued to be used throughout the High Middle Ages both in art and in written
texts.98
Indeed ‘Synagoga’ was regularly compared unfavourably with ‘Ecclesia’ in count­
less expressions of medieval art which personified them as two women. From the
eleventh century onwards that opposition was emphasized: ‘Synagoga’ appeared
veiled, because blinded to the truth of Christianity; ‘Ecclesia’ triumphant.99
Increasingly ‘Synagoga’ was portrayed not merely as a representative of Old Testa­
ment doctrine to be fulfilled by the New Testament but as a symbol of contem­
porary Jews despised for denying Christ and rejecting Christiantity.100 The use of
the word ‘synagogue’ in papal letters to describe the places of worship of both her­
etics and Jews further reinforced the idea that both were enemies of the Christian
faith.101 Yet on the few occasions when popes emphasized Jews as enemies this sat

97  The phrase used is ‘synagogas malignantium’. See Mansi, Vol. 22 col. 851; Grayzel, Vol.  1,
p.306. See James Parkes, The Jew in the Medieval Community: A Study of his Political and Economic
Situation (London, 1938), pp.284–5; Kenneth Stow, ‘Papal and Royal Attitudes toward Jewish
Lending in the Thirteenth Century’, American Jewish Society Review 6 (1981), 178–9; Grayzel, Vol. 1,
p.306, footnote 3. The Church increasingly feared that communes of usurers were wrecking the eccle­
siastical system of jurisdiction by establishing their own courts in defiance of local bishops. See Mansi,
Vol. 22, cols 851–2; Mansi, Vol. 24, col. 4.
98 Champagne, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome, p.68.
99 Ruth Mellinkoff, Outcasts: Signs of Otherness in Northern European Art of the Late Middle Ages
(Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford, 1993), pp.48–51.
100 Mellinkoff, Outcasts, p.64.
101 References by Bernard of Clairvaux to heretical assemblies in the south of France—which he
described as ‘synagogues’—were repeated by Honorius III in a letter of 1219 addressed to William
bishop of Chalons who was about to embark on a crusade in the south of France. See Honorius III,
‘Ad colligendum zizania’ (1 April 1219), Horoy 3, col. 185; Bernard of Clairvaux, Opera Sancti
Bernardi 8, ed. Leclercq, Talbot, Rochais, p.125. I have only given a few instances of the use of
‘synagogue’ here, but the fact that it was widespread means that the vocabulary should be considered
significant. For a summary of papal ‘policy’ and the Jews, see Kenneth Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and
Papal Sovereignty: Jewish Perceptions of the Papacy and Papal Policy in the High Middle Ages (Cincinnati,
1984), pp.1–48; Newman, Jewish Influence on Christian Reform Movements, p.195, footnote 2. In the
correspondence of John XXII we get a few more insights into language. In a letter of 1213 to William,
bishop of Paris, John XXII ordered him to ensure that the churchmen, monasteries, and convents in
France make proper provision for a certain John Salvati, a cleric and convert from Judaism and a
scholar in Hebrew and Aramaic, who wanted to translate books from these languages into Latin and
to instruct Christians in these languages so that they might in turn convert others. See John XXII,
‘Cum sicut’ (24 February 1319), Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.307; Simonsohn, pp.310–11. In 1322 John XXII
referred to the ‘blindness of Judaism’ and ordered them to enquire into those guilty, accused, or sus­
pected of heresy and also against converted Jews who subsequently either clearly or apparently
apostazised. See John XXII, ‘Ex parte vestra’ (3 July 1322), Grayzel, Vol.  2, pp.325–6; Simonsohn,
p.334. In 1326 John XXII asked the bishop of Paris for a report on the situation regarding Hebrew,
Greek, Arabic, and Chaldaic studies in the University of Paris. See John XXII, ‘Cupientes ut’ (25 July
1326), Grayzel, Vol. 2, p.332; Simonsohn, p.347. And in 1331 in a letter to the abbot of the Cistercian
monastery at Chalon-sur-Saône John XXII referred to the fact that it had once been generally believed
that lepers and certain Jews deserved to have secular justice condemn them to the stake. See John
XXII, ‘Porrecta nobis’ (18/19 October 1331), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.339–40; Simonsohn, pp.365–6.
 Papal Rhetoric: Heretics, Muslims, and Jews 263

uncomfortably with the Pauline–Augustinian idea that a remnant of them would

be saved at the end of days.

T h e C o r r esp o n d e n ce o f I n n o ce n t
I ii a n d His S u ccess o r s

Of all the popes of the High Middle Ages, Innocent III’s letters are perhaps the
most colourful and rhetorical. They are also arguably less compassionate towards
the Jews than those of his twelfth-century predecessors or—perhaps with the
­exception of Clement IV—his thirteenth-century successors. Both the decrees of
the Fourth Lateran Council and Innocent’s correspondence suggest that it was
during this pope’s pontificate that the idea of Jews as potential enemies of Christian
society first comes to the fore, since, as we have seen, it was in his correspondence
and in particular in his re-issue of the ‘Constitutio pro Iudaeis’ that we find for the
first time the additional final sentence that only those Jews who did not plot against
the Christian faith were to be protected.102
Although Innocent III was always careful to maintain a correct theological atti­
tude towards Jews, the language he—and his notaries—employed often appears
harsh. In his letter ‘Ut esset Cain’ of 1208, drawing on the Old Testament motif
that ‘the elder shall serve the younger’, he emphasized the importance of Jewish
servitude:103
The Lord made Cain a wanderer and a fugitive over the earth, but set a mark upon
him, making his head to shake, lest any finding him should slay him. Thus the Jews,
against whom the blood of Jesus Christ calls out, although they ought not be killed,
lest the Christian people forget the Divine Law, yet as wanderers ought they to remain
upon the earth, until their countenance be filled with shame and they seek the name
of Jesus Christ, the Lord. That is why blasphemers of the Christian name ought not to
be aided by Christian princes to oppress the servants of the Lord, but ought rather be
forced into the servitude of which they made themselves deserving when they raised
sacrilegious hands against Him Who had come to confer true liberty upon them, thus
calling down His blood upon themselves and upon their children.104

102  Innocent III, ‘Licet perfidia Judeorum’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.92–4; Simonsohn, pp.74–5. See also
Honorius III, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.144; Simonsohn, p.102; Gregory IX, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’,
Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.218; Simonsohn, pp.154–5; Innocent IV, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.260–2;
Simonsohn, p.189; ‘Sicut Iudaeis’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.274; Simonsohn, pp.192–3.
103  Innocent III, ‘Ut esset Cain’ (17 January 1208), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.126–30; Simonsohn, pp.92–4.
104  Innocent III, ‘Ut esset Cain’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.126; Simonsohn, pp.92–3: ‘Ut esset Cain vagus
et profugus super terram, nec interficeretur a quoquam, tremorem capitis signum Dominus impo­
suit super eum; quare Judei, contra quos clamat vox sanguinis Jesu Christi, etsi occidi non debeant,
ne divine legis obliviscatur populus Christianus, dispergi tamen debent super terram ut vagi, quate­
nus facies ipsorum ignominia repleatur, et querant nomen Domini Jesu Christi. Blasphematores
enim nominis Christiani non debent a Christianis principibus in oppresionem servorum Domini
confoveri, sed potius comprimi servitute, qua se dignos merito reddiderunt cum in illum manus
injecere sacrilegas qui veram eis conferre venerat libertatem, super eos et filios suos esse ipsius san­
guinem conclamantes.’
264 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

Other letters employed colourful metaphors and similes to express his concern
about the influence of Jews on Christian society. One letter stated:105
Yet, while they [the Jews] are mercifully admitted into our intimacy, they threaten us
with that retribution which they are accustomed to give to their hosts, in accordance
with the common proverb: ‘like the mouse in a pocket, like the snake around one’s
loins, like the fire in one’s bosom’.106
Innocent elaborated on the same simile later in the same letter:
For, as soon as they begin to gnaw in the manner of a mouse, and to bite in the
manner of a serpent, one may fear lest the fire that one keeps in his bosom burn up
the gnawed parts.107
As we saw in Chapter Five, Clement IV employed the same image; indeed it seems
to have been a common saying picked up and used by medieval rulers, both secular
and religious, as, for example, by Charles of Anjou in his edict of expulsion of
1289.108
By contrast letters of Innocent III’s which seemed to countenance if not endorse
the idea of Jews as potential enemies of Christian society, those of his successors,
Gregory IX and Innocent IV, appear much less severe and more compassionate.
We have noted how in two letters concerned with the ‘Barons’ Crusade’ of 1236,
Gregory described with horror the massacre of Jews by crusaders.109 The letters of
his namesake and later successor Innocent IV were milder still. We saw in Chapter
Two how, following a plea from Jews for protection, Innocent complained in his
letter ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum Alemannie’ of 1147 to the archbishops and
bishops of Germany that Jews had been unjustly accused of eating the heart of a
murdered child, declaring that it was impossible they could have committed such
a crime.110 He re-asserted that the papacy was the protector of the Jews and
that they were under ecclesiastical jurisdiction.111 Again, citing Psalms 63: 7, he
encouraged Thibaut IV of Champagne to do all he could to protect Jews in Spain
against the blood libel charge:

105 ‘Innocent III, ‘Etsi Judeos quos’, Grayzel, Vol.  1, pp.114–16; Simonsohn, pp.86–8; Robert
Chazan, ‘Pope Innocent III and the Jews’, Pope Innocent III and his World, ed. J. C. Moore (Aldershot,
1999), p.201.
106  Innocent III, ‘Etsi Judeos quos’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.114; Simonsohn, p.87: ‘. . . qui, tanquam in
nostram misericorditer familiaritatem admissi, nobis illam retributionem impendunt, quam, juxta
vulgare proverbium, mus in pera, serpens in gremio et ignis in sinu, suis consueverunt hospitibus
exhibere’.
107  Innocent III, ‘Etsi Judeos quos’, Grayzel, Vol.  1, p.114; Simonsohn, p.87: ‘. . . quia, cum jam
incoeperint rodere more muris et pungere sicut serpens, verendum est ne ignis receptatus in sinu cor­
rosa consumat’.
108 Robin Mundill, England’s Jewish Solution. Experiment and Expuslion, 1262–1290 (Cambridge,
1998), p.299.
109  Gregory IX, ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum in’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.226–8; Simonsohn, pp.163–4;
‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum in’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.228–30; Simonsohn, p.165.
110  Innocent IV, ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum Alemannie’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.268–70; Simonsohn,
pp.194–5.
111  Innocent IV, ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum Alemannie’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.268–70; Simonsohn,
pp.194–5.
 Papal Rhetoric: Heretics, Muslims, and Jews 265
Thus shall you by your actions show that you hate iniquity and love justice, when even
the Jews, protected by your might, are able to breathe freely under the shadow of your
wings. . . 112
So both Gregory IX and Innocent IV appear more sympathetic to the plight of
Jews than Innocent III and Clement IV.113 Nevertheless, all popes remained in
theory committed to the Pauline–Augustinian idea of protection.

112  Innocent IV, ‘Ex parte Judeorum’, Grayzel, Vol.  1, p.272; Simonsohn, p.196: ‘. . . ita quod te
odire iniquitatem ac deligere iustitiam, operum exhibitione demonstres. Ipsique Judei tua eos prote­
gente potentia sub allarum tuarum umbra valeant respirare’.
113  For example, Gregory IX, ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum in’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.226–8; Simonsohn,
pp.163–4; ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum in’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.228–30; Simonsohn, p.165; Innocent IV, ‘Ex
parte Judeorum’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.268; Simonsohn, pp.193–4; ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum Alemannie’,
Grayzel, Vol.  1, pp.268–70; Simonsohn, pp.194–5; ‘Ex parte Judeorum’, Grayzel, Vol.  1, p.272;
Simonsohn, pp.195–6.
 Conclusion

The relationship of the papacy to the Jews during the High Middle Ages is a vital
part of the long and tumultuous history of Christian–Jewish relations which has
fascinated generations of historians. The period from Urban II’s call for the First
Crusade in 1095 to the year 1291, which during the pontificate of Nicholas IV
witnessed the fall of the last crusading stronghold of Acre and the expulsion of Jews
from England, is crucial for understanding the wider context of the Christian
Church’s attempts to shape medieval western European society within which papal
concerns for Jews developed.1 By addressing the papal angle I hope to have deep-
ened our understanding of the social and legal status of Jewish communities in the
light of papal authorization of crusading, prohibitions against money-lending, in-
creasing charges of ritual murder and host desecration, and the growth of Christian
polemical literature.2 Furthermore, by evaluating the development of papal pro-
nouncements protecting and restricting Jews, manifested on the one hand by con-
demnation of crusader violence and the blood libel charge, and on the other by
restrictions on Jewish rights and calls for the Talmud—a religious text for Jews se-
cond only to the Torah—to be burnt as blasphemous and as heresy within Judaism,
I have chronicled the development of new and important themes in the history of
medieval papal–Jewish relations.
First there is the language and rhetoric of papal correspondence and the influ-
ence of classical and patristic texts on the formation, development, and direction
of papal thought. As we have seen, the majority of papal statements about Jews
were carefully worded responses to secular and religious authorities which can only
be understood if read in the context of the great political, social, and economic
changes of the age and by appreciation of the characters and concerns of individual
pontiffs and the theological precepts underlying their pronouncements.3 Usually
popes reacted to events, although sometimes they took the initiative.4 Papal pro-
nouncements about Jews were primarily responsive: if Christians complained about

1  Seminal works include Edward Synan, The Popes and the Jews in the Middle Ages (New York,
London, 1965); Kenneth Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and Papal Sovereignty: Jewish Perceptions of the
Papacy and Papal Policy in the High Middle Ages (Cincinnati, 1984).
2  For example, Anna Abulafia, Christians and Jews in Dispute: Disputational Literature and the Rise
of Anti-Judaism in the West (c.1000–1150) (Aldershot, 1998); Robert Chazan, Daggers of Faith:
Thirteenth-Century Christian Missionizing and Jewish Response (Berkeley, 1989); Jeremy Cohen, The
Friars and the Jews: the Evolution of Medieval Anti-Judaism (Ithaca, 1982); Mark Cohen, Under Crescent
and Cross: the Jews in the Middle Ages (Princeton, 1994); Gilbert Dahan, La Polémique chrétienne contre
le Judaisme au Moyen Age (Paris, 1991).
3  See especially Kenneth Stow, Alienated Minority: the Jews and Medieval Latin Europe (Cambridge,
Mass., 1992); Kenneth Stow, ‘Papal and Royal Attitudes toward Jewish Lending in the Thirteenth
Century’, Association for Jewish Studies Review 6 (1981), 161–84.
4  Shlomo Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History (Toronto, 1991), pp.298–9.
 Conclusion 267

Jewish activities, popes responded to their concerns. So in their dealings with

Jewish communities, popes were highly influenced by whichever party—Christian
or Jews—appealed to them first. This could result in inconsistent determinations.
The character and ages of popes was also important.5 We have seen how although
Innocent III’s ideas about the Jews were not new, his formulations and repetitions
brought a new and harder note to papal pronouncements which was sometimes
followed by his thirteenth-century successors, in particular Clement IV.6
Certainly Innocent III, autocratic, vibrant, and determined to ensure success for
his crusades, appears harsher towards the Jews than his twelfth-century predeces-
sors. In particular, his zeal for crusading fostered his views on the evil of Jewish
usury, and he tended to encourage the idea that Jews were a potential threat to
Christians.7 By contrast, letters of Honorius III and Gregory IX suggest a more
sympathetic viewpoint and in particular a wish to protect Jews against crusader
excesses, despite an ever increasing level of hostility in Christian Europe towards
Jews as manifested in the growing number of charges of blood libel, ritual murder,
and host desecration. Innocent IV’s promulgations concerning Jews in the context
of crusading were also less harsh than those of his namesake Innocent III and he
began to redefine the role of the papacy, claiming greater papal jurisdiction over
Jews, but also insisting that this entailed clemency.8
Second we have noted the relationship between papal directives, canon law, and
conciliar legislation, all of which increasingly decreed the separation of Jews and
Christians in social and political life. Which brings us to my third theme: how
papal authorization of crusades against Muslims, heretics, schismatics, and polit-
ical enemies in the context of the development of Christian theories of holy war
and just war, was fundamentally detrimental to the status of Jews as a persecuted
minority group in medieval Europe.
We have seen how individual popes thought and acted when confronted with a
wide range of competing demands from those who petitioned the curia. This has
led some historians to claim that the papacy tried to steer a ‘middle course’ of pro-
tection and restriction in their dealings with Jews.9 Yet in analysing the formation,
development, and direction of papal statements towards the Jews as an important
minority, which contemporary polemicists stigmatized as a threat to the well-being
5 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.465; p.467.
6 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, pp.99–100. 
7  Innocent III, ‘Licet perfidia Judeorum’ (15 September 1199), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.92–4; Simonsohn,
pp.74–5. See Robert Chazan, ‘Pope Innocent III and the Jews’, Pope Innocent III and his World, ed. J.
C. Moore (Aldershot, 1999), pp.187–204.
8  Honorius III, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (7 November 1217), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.144; Simonsohn, p.102; ‘Cum
olim nobilis’ (28 January 1217), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.144; Simonsohn, p.102; ‘Dilecta in Christo’ (21 June
1219), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.150–2; Simonsohn, pp.106–7; Gregory IX, ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (3 May 1235)
Grayzel, Vol.  1, p.218; Simonsohn, pp.154–5; ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum in’ (5 September 1236),
Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.226–8; Simonsohn, pp.163–4; ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum in’ (5 September 1236),
Grayzel, Vol.  1, pp.228–30; Simonsohn, p.165; Innocent IV, ‘Ex parte Judeorum’ (12 June 1247),
Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.268; Simonsohn, pp.193–4; ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum Alemannie’ (5 July 1247),
Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.268–70; Simonsohn, pp.194–5; ‘Ex parte Judeorum’ (6 July 1247), Grayzel, Vol. 1,
p.272; Simonsohn, pp.195–6; ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (22 October 1246), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.260–2; Simonsohn,
p.189; ‘Sicut Iudaeis’ (9 July/June 1247), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.274; Simonsohn, pp.192–3. 
9 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.461; p.468.
268 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

of an increasingly unified and centralized Christian society, I have argued that

papal pronouncements reflected both an overriding vision of the appropriate status
and treatment of Jews, and the pragmatic policies of individual popes. Overall, my
aim has been to illustrate how papal statements, fortified by canon law, theology,
and the teachings of the Church fathers, became increasingly unified by a common
fear that through contact of Christians with Jews and Judaism, Christianity itself
would be weakened and endangered.
My intention in this book has been to explore afresh the nature of the relation-
ship between the papacy and Jewish communities, illuminating the predicament of
medieval Jews within Christian society. Blindness (‘Caecitia’) and stubbornness
(‘Duritia’) were charges which medieval Christians levelled at Jews for their incom-
prehensible refusal to acknowledge Christ as the Messiah prophesied in the Old
Testament. In response Jewish rabbis and other authorities subverted such ideas by
exposing and questioning inaccuracies and inconsistencies in Christian ideas about
popes and the papacy, not least regarding the doctrine of apostolic succession. By
evaluating the other side of the history—Jewish perceptions of popes and the
papacy as an institution—I have shown how differences in papal attitudes were not
just a question of personal quirks of individual popes—although personality was
important—but were tied to ongoing changes in society. Two issues which greatly
affected Jewish communities and were directly linked to the papacy’s authorization
of crusades were physical protection and usury. Yet many other papal concerns
were related not to crusading but to social and political developments largely out-
side papal control.
My conclusions are twofold. The first concerns the papal perspective. Given the
highly complex nature of the relationship between popes and Jews during the High
Middle Ages, the phrase ‘papal policy’—often used by historians to describe papal
attitudes—misleadingly suggests a monolithic, clearly planned, and carefully
­defined initiative towards Jewish communities. Rather, against a background of
Pauline–Augustinian theology, papal pronouncements about Jews were responses to
secular and religious authorities in the context of the continually changing eco-
nomic and social conditions of medieval Europe, the developing idea of the nation
state, the growing bureaucracy and centrality of the papal curia, and the different
characters and lengths of pontificate of those who held the ‘throne of St Peter’.
Christian theology ensured that popes remained committed to protecting the Jews,
but popes also believed that they must ensure the spiritual welfare of Christian
­society. Over time this led them increasingly to restrict the activities of Jewish
communities.
The limited and demarcated role which Jews were expected to play in an expand­
ing papal vision of this society brought with it the idea of Jewish subservience
and was an important factor in the general deterioration of Christian attitudes. Yet
the aim of papal pronouncements was never to degrade the Jews for its own sake but
to fulfil the requirements of theology and papal authority. We have seen, for
­example, how popes were inconsistent over the issue of synagogues. Although
­officially Jews were not supposed to build new synagogues, but only to maintain old
 Conclusion 269

ones, synagogues continued to be constructed throughout medieval Europe during

the High Middle Ages.10 In general the popes of this period introduced few new
and drastic measures against Jews; rather the increasing number of papal pro-
nouncements on a variety of subjects, which were subsequently enshrined in canon
law, indirectly but steadily increased the oppression of Jewish communities.11
My second conclusion concerns the Jewish perspective. Although papal percep-
tions of Jews throughout the High Middle Ages are a well-established area of research,
Jewish ideas about the papacy are not. Jewish writers were desperate to ensure the
safety of those communities and grateful for statements of papal protection, yet they
were also highly critical of Christian beliefs about the papacy, particularly apostolic
succession. They acknowledged that popes had always played and would continue to
play an important role in safeguarding their well-being and determining their future.
Yet although contemporary and later writers often valued papal protection more
highly than that of monarchs, emperors, or clergy, they knew that it had carefully cir-
cumscribed limits. Jewish ideas about the papacy are therefore nuanced and complex
and deserve more rigorous and wide-ranging investigation.
It is difficult to gauge the effect of papal pronouncements on individual Jewish
communities.12 Rulers certainly ignored them when they were not in their interest.13
Yet we have seen how popes often had a restraining effect on both civic and religious
authorities.14 Indeed they managed to ensure some measure of religious freedom
for Jews in the face of more hostile rulers and to curb some of the excesses of the
clergy, not least of the mendicants. Nevertheless, given the increasing expulsions of
Jews from parts of Europe during the High Middle Ages, the papacy overall was
too quiet and ineffective.15 Far away in Rome, Jews remained only a minor con-
cern of medieval popes.16 When they did intervene, their intervention was often
inadequate.17
Yet we must also conclude that the Apostolic See took a generally favourable
stance towards the Jews throughout our period.18 As the High Middle Ages pro-
gressed, popes, egged on by the friars, increasingly favoured missionary activity and
began to hope for the immediate conversion of the Jews.19 Yet although there ap-
pears to be a degree of papal hardening towards the Jews over time, this did not
really become apparent until the late medieval and early modern period—with
which the High Middle Ages should not be confused.20 Early modern popes were
faced with a very different world from their medieval predecessors.

10 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews, History, pp.122–4; p.130.
11 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.94.
12 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.462.
13 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, pp.463–5.
14 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.465.
15 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.466.
16 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.463.
17 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.467; p.469.
18 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, pp.468–9.
19 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.468.
20 Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, p.467.
270 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

A subsidiary but important aim of this book has been to highlight the com-
plexity and richness of medieval Christian and Jewish law, theology, and rhetoric.
It is my deepest wish that as well as being a contribution to Jewish history and to
the history of the papacy at the time of its greatest political power and influence, it
will forward our understanding of the history of Italy, of the crusades, and more
widely of Europe’s cultural and religious heritage.
 Appendix

The Historiography

The present book is firmly rooted in recent work by scholars such as Solomon Grayzel,
Shlomo Simonsohn, Kenneth Stow, Edward Synan, Anna Abulafia, Nora Berend, Peter
Browe, Robert Chazan, Jeremy Cohen, Mark Cohen, Gilbert Dahan, Alfred Haverkamp,
William Chester Jordan, Gavin Langmuir, and Miri Rubin, all of whom have contributed
greatly to our understanding of the social and legal status of Jewish communities in
Christian Europe during the High Middle Ages, especially with reference to increasing
charges of blood libel and host desecration, the growth of both Christian and Jewish po-
lemic, and the effect on Jewish communities of pogroms perpetrated by crusaders on their
way to take part in crusades, both to the Near East and within Europe. Particularly relevant
to my own research have been the writings of Grayzel, Simonsohn, and Stow.
For reasons of space I can only list some of the most important books in this scholarly
tradition. In 1965 Edward Synan produced The Popes and the Jews in the Middle Ages (New
York, London, 1965) which has remained an important piece of scholarship to this day and
which has certainly influenced this study. Kenneth Stow has written extensively on
Jewish–Christian relations—for example his book Jewish Dogs: An Image and its
Interpreters: Continuity in the Catholic-Jewish Encounter (Stanford, 2006)—and he is the
only recent historian to have examined papal–Jewish relations in any real depth in English.
His overriding concern, however, has been with the early modern period: hence Kenneth
Stow, Conversion, Christian Hebraism and Hebrew Prayer in the Sixteenth Century, Hebrew
Union College Annual, 47 (1976); Catholic Thought and Papal Jewry Policy, 1555–1593
(New York, 1977); The Jews in Rome, 2 vols. ed. K. Stow (Leiden, New York, 1995–1997),
and Jewish Life in Early Modern Rome: Challenge, Conversion and Private Life (Aldershot,
2007). Stow’s two monographs specifically on medieval Europe are The ‘1007 Anonymous’
and Papal Sovereignty: Jewish Perceptions of the Papacy and Papal Policy in the High Middle
Ages (Cincinnati, 1984) and Alienated Minority: the Jews and Medieval Latin Europe
(Cambridge, Mass., 1992). The former discusses both papal attitudes to the Jews and
Jewish perceptions of the papacy, but in a limited context, largely in relation to a single
eleventh-century chronicle. In any case, Stow’s book—written in the 1980s—is now rela-
tively out of date—there have been substantial advances in the study of Jewish–Christian
relations since its composition.
The aim of my own book is not simply to complement such previous scholarship, but to
re-focus the existing awareness of historians through attending to detail on central but often
neglected themes with regard to specifically papal–Jewish relations. Works especially rele-
vant to this theme are those by Anna Abulafia: Christians and Jews in the Twelfth-Century
Renaissance (London, New York, 1995), Christians and Jews in Dispute: Disputational Literature
and the Rise of Anti-Judaism in the West (c.1000–1150) (Aldershot, 1998), Religious Violence
between Christians and Jews: Medieval Roots, Modern Perspectives, ed. A. S. Abulafia
(Basingstoke, 2002), and most recently Christian-Jewish Relations 1000–1300: Jews in the
Service of Medieval Christendom (Harlow, 2011). All these books are concerned with dif-
ferent types of contact between Christians and Jews: intellectual, ideological, economic,
political, and religious.
272 Appendix
Robert Chazan’s seminal works—Medieval Jewry in Northern France: A Political and
Social History (Baltimore, London, 1973), Church, State and Jew in the Middle Ages, ed.
R. Chazan (New York, 1980), European Jewry and the First Crusade (Berkeley, London,
1987), Daggers of Faith: Thirteenth-Century Christian Missionizing and Jewish Response
(Berkeley, 1989), Barcelona and Beyond: the Disputation of 1263 and its Aftermath (Berkeley,
Oxford, 1992), In the Year 1096: the First Crusade and the Jews (Philadelphia, 1996),
Medieval Stereotypes and Modern Anti-Semitism (Berkeley, London, 1997), God, Humanity
and History: the Hebrew First Crusade Narratives (Berkeley, 2000), and Fashioning Jewish
Identity in Medieval Western Christendom (Cambridge, 2004), The Jews of Medieval Western
Christendom, 1000–1500 (Cambridge, 2006), The Trial of the Talmud: Paris, 1240. Hebrew
Texts translated by John Friedman, Latin Texts translated by Jean Cornell Hoff; Historical Essay
by Robert Chazan (Toronto, 2013)—deal with a wide range of issues including the impact
of the First Crusade on Jewish communities and the effects of Christian missionizing and
disputations. Yet they do not seek to analyse in depth the particular relationship between
the papacy and Jewish communities.
There are also the seminal works of Jeremy Cohen. These include The Friars and the Jews:
the Evolution of Medieval Anti-Judaism (Ithaca, 1982), Essential Papers on Judaism and
Christianity in Conflict: from Late Antiquity to the Reformation, ed. J. Cohen (New York,
London, 1991), From Witness to Witchcraft: Jews and Judaism in Medieval Christian Thought,
ed. J. Cohen (Wiesbaden, 1996), Living Letters of the Law: Ideas of the Jew in Medieval
Christianity (Berkeley, London, 1999), and Sanctifying the Name of God: Jewish Martyrs and
Jewish Memories of the First Crusade (Philadelphia, 2004). Their primary concern is the impact
of the thirteenth-century mendicant movements on Jewish communities, intellectual
­exchanges between Jews and Christians, and the fall-out for the Jews from the First Crusade.
Other important monographs deal with topics both specifically and more indirectly
­related to my own. These include William Chester Jordan’s The French Mon­archy and the Jews:
from Philip Augustus to the Last of the Capetians (Philadelphia, 1989) on Capetian–Jewish
relations and the eventual expulsion of Jews from medieval France, and Mark Cohen’s
Under Crescent and Cross: the Jews in the Middle Ages (Princeton, 1994), which explores the
experience of Jewish communities under Muslim as well as Christian rule. Miri Rubin’s
Gentile Tales: the Narrative Assault on Late Medieval Jews (New Haven, CT, London, 1999)
has been extremely useful on Christian charges of blood libel and host desecration and
Nora Berend’s At the Gate of Christendom: Jews, Muslims and ‘Pagans’ in Medieval Hungary,
c.1000–c.1300 (Cambridge, 2001) has aided medieval comparisons between Jews and
Muslims. Gavin Langmuir’s Toward A Definition of Antisemitism (Berkeley, Oxford, 1990)
has helped clarify concepts of ‘anti-Judaism’ and ‘anti-semitism’.
I have also learnt much from Peter Browe’s Die Judenmission in Mittelalter und die
Päpste (Rome,1942), Gilbert Dahan’s Les Intellectuels chrétiens et les Juifs au moyen âge
(Paris, 1990), La Polémique chrétienne contre le Judaisme au moyen âge (Paris, 1991),
Robert Chazan’s ‘The Hebrew Report of the Trial of the Talmud: Information and
Consolation’, in Le Brulement du Talmud à Paris, 1242–1244, ed. G. Dahan (Paris,
1999), pp.79–93, Alfred Haverkamp’s Juden und Christen zur Zeit der Kreuzzüge,
Vorträge und Forschungen 47, Konstanzer Arbeitskreis für mittelalterliche Geschichte
(Sigmaringen, 1999), Robin Mundill’s England’s Jewish Solution. Experiment and
Expulsion, 1262–1290 (Cambridge, 1998), Judah Galinsky’s ‘The Different Hebrew
Versions of the “Talmud Trial” of 1240 in Paris’, in New Perspectives on Jewish-Christian
Relations, ed. E. Carlebach and J. Schachter (Leiden, Boston, 2012), pp.109–40, René
Moulinas’s Les Juifs du Pape: Avignon et le Comtat Venaissin (Paris, 1992), and Marie
Therese Champagne’s first-class Ph.D. dissertation: The Relationship between the Papacy and
 Appendix 273
the Jews in Twelfth-Century Rome: Papal Attitudes toward Biblical Judaism and Contemporary
European Jewry (Ph.D. Dissertation, Louisiana State University, 2005).
Throughout the book I have used the editions of papal letters of Grayzel and Simonsohn,
as well as Simonsohn’s masterly summary: The Apostolic See and the Jews. History (Toronto,
1991) which accompanies his six volumes of documents. In the nineteenth century Emil
Friedberg compiled complete editions of the Decretum, the Quinque antiquae compilationes,
and Raymond of Peñafort’s Liber extra decretalium, and I have used these for this study.
Also invaluable have been Gratian, ‘Concordia discordantium canonum’, Corpus iuris can-
onici, ed. E. Friedberg, Vol. 1 (Leipzig, 1879), Gregory IX, Pope, ‘Liber extra decretalium’,
Corpus iuris canonici, ed. E. Friedberg, Vol. 2 (Leipzig, 1881), pp.5–928, and the Quinque
compilationes antiquae, ed. E. Friedberg (Leipzig, 1882). A reliable, if early, edition which I
have also used is Innocent IV, Apparatus super quiinque libris decretalium (Turin, 1581). A
lack of nineteenth- and twentieth-century editions of other important thirteenth-century
texts of formal canon law concerned with heretics and Jews has often meant reliance on
fifteenth- and sixteenth-century editions. Here catalogues such as John Oates, A Catalogue
of the Fifteenth-Century Printed Books in the University Library, Cambridge (Cambridge,
1954), have been invaluable.
With respect to conciliar legislation, including Church councils held in the south of
France during the period of the Albigensian Crusade, the standard collected edition used
by historians remains Mansi’s Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, published
in the eighteenth century and based on the earlier collections of editors such as that of
Labbé. There are also a number of much more recent editions and studies of conciliar legis-
lation pertaining in particular to the Lateran Councils of the period, for example, Decrees of
the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1: Nicaea I to Lateran V, ed. N. Tanner (London, 1990), and
Jacques Berlioz, Identifier sources et citations, L’Atelier du médiéviste 1 (Turnhout, 1994).
 List of Popes Relevant to this Study
Fifth Century
Leo (I) the Great (440–461)
Sixth Century
Gregory (I) the Great (590–604)
Eighth Century
Stephen III (768–772)
Adrian I (772–795)
Ninth Century
Nicholas I (858–867)
Tenth Century
Leo VII (936–939)

Eleventh Century
John XVIII (1003–1009)
Sergius IV (1009–1012)
Leo IX (1049–1054)
Nicholas II (1058–1061)
Alexander II (1061–1073)
Gregory VII (1073–1085)
Victor III (1086–1087)
Urban II (1088–1099)
Paschal II (1099–1118)
Twelfth Century
Gelasius II (1118–1119)
Calixtus II (1119–1124)
Honorius II (1124–1130)
Innocent II (1130–1143)
Celestine II (1143–1144)
Lucius II (1144–1145)
Eugenius III (1145–1153)
Alexander III (1159–1181)
Lucius III (1181–1185)
Gregory VIII (1187)
Clement III (1187–1191)
Celestine III (1181–1198)
276 List of Popes Relevant to this Study
Thirteenth Century
Innocent III (1198–1216)
Honorius III (1216–1227)
Gregory IX (1227–1241)
Celestine IV (1241)
Innocent IV (1243–1254)
Alexander IV (1254–1261)
Urban IV (1261–1264)
Clement IV (1265–1268)
Gregory X (1271–1276)
John XXI (1276–1277)
Nicholas III (1277–1280)
Martin IV (1281–1285)
Honorius IV (1285–1287)
Nicholas IV (1288–1292)
Boniface VIII (1294–1303)

Fourteenth Century
Clement V (1305–1314)
John XXII (1316–1334)
Fifteenth Century
Paul IV (1476–1559)
Twentieth Century
Pius X (1903–1914)
Pius XI (1922–1939)
Pius XII (1939–1958)
John XXIII (1958–1963)
Paul VI (1963–1978)
John Paul II (1978–2005)
Twenty-First Century
Benedict XVI (2005–2013)
Francis I (2013– )
 Bibliography
P r i m a ry S o u rc e s
Acta pontificum Romanorum inedita, Vol. 3: Urkunden der Päpste vom Jahre c.590 bis zum
Jahre c.1197, ed. J. von Pflugk-Harttung (Stuttgart, 1888).
‘Adversus Iudaeos Orationes’, Patrologia cursus completus, Series Latina, comp. J. P. Migne
(Paris, 1841–1864) 48, cols 843–942.
Agobard of Lyons, Epistolae Karolini Aevi, Tome 3, ed. E. Dummler (Berlin, 1899).
Agostino Paravicini-Bagliani, The Pope’s Body, trans. D. Peterson (Chicago, London, 2000).
Alain of Lille, ‘Contra Haereticos Libri Quatuor’, Patrologia cursus completus, Series Latina,
comp. J. P. Migne (Paris, 1841–1864) 210, cols 305–430.
Alain of Lille, ‘Liber tertius contra Iudaeos’, in ‘De fide catholica contra hereticos’, Patrologia
cursus completus, Series Latina, comp. J. P. Migne (Paris, 1841–1864) 210, cols 399–422.
Alexander de Roes, Notitia Saeculi, Vol. 8, in Monumenta Germaniae Historica.
Staatschriften 1956– ), ed. G. H. Pertz, Vol. 1, Part 1.
Alexander of Hales, Doctoris irrefragabilis Alexandri de Hales Ordinis minorum Summa theo-
logica (Rome, 1924).
Alpert of Metz, ‘De diversitate temporum’ in Anna Abulafia, ‘An Eleventh-Century
Exchange of Letters between a Christian and a Jew’, Journal of Medieval History 7 (1981),
153–74.
Ambrose, De Cain et Abel, Libri Duo, Patrologia cursus completus, Series Latina, comp. J. P.
Migne (Paris, 1841–1864) 14, cols 333–80.
‘Annales Quedlinburgensis’, Monumenta Germaniae Historica Scriptores, ed. G. H. Pertz
(Hanover, 1922ff), Vol. 3 (1839), pp.22–69; pp.72–90.
Anonymus in Vita s. Leonis, Pontificum Romanorum qui fuerunt inde ab exeunte saeculo IX
usque ad finem saeculi XIII. Vitae ab aequalibus conscriptae, ed. I. M. Watterich, Vol. 1
(Leipzig, 1862).
Augustine of Hippo, St, Adversus Iudaeos, The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 27, trans. C. T.
Wilcox, ed. R. J. Deferrari (New York, 1955), pp.391–414.
Augustine of Hippo, St, De civitate Dei, ed. B. Dombart, A. Kalb, 2 vols (Stuttgart, 1981).
Baldus de Ubaldis, Consilia, Vol. 5 (Venice, 1575).
Benedictus Canonicus, ‘Liber politicus’, in Le Liber censuum de l’église romaine, ed. P. Fabre,
L. Duchesne, Vol. 2 (Paris, 1910), pp.141–77.
Benedictus Canonicus, ‘Mirabilia Urbis Romae’, in Codice topografico della città di Roma,
ed. R. Valentini, G. Zucchetti, 4 vols (Rome, 1940–1953), Vol. 3 (Rome, 1946),
pp.17–65.
Bernard of Clairvaux, Omnia opera sancti Bernardi, 8 vols, ed. J. Leclercq, C. H. Talbot,
H. M. Rochais (Rome, 1957–1977), Vol. 7 (Rome, 1974), Vol. 8 (Rome, 1977).
Bernard of Clairvaux, ‘Sermo mihi ad vos’ (1146), ed. in J. Leclercq ‘L’Encyclique de Saint
Bernard en faveur de la croisade’, Revue Bénédictine 81 (1971), 295–300.
Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, 2 vols, 2nd edn, ed. R. Weber (Stuttgart, 1975).
Boniface VIII, Liber Sextus decretalium, 4 Parts (Lyons, 1524).
Caesar of Heisterbach, Dialogus Miraculorum, ed. J. Strange (Cologne, Bonn, Brussels,
1851), 2 vols.
278 Bibliography
Cardinal Albinus, ‘Gesta pauperis scolaris’, in Le Liber censuum de l’église romaine, ed.
P. Fabre, L. Duchesne, Vol. 2 (Paris, 1910), pp.87–137.
Cardinal Boso, ‘Les Vies des Papes rédigées par le Cardinal Boson et inserées dans le Liber
Censuum’, in Le Liber Pontificalis: Texte, introduction et commentaire, ed. L. Duchesne,
3 vols, 2nd Series (Paris, 1955–1957), Vol. 2 (Paris, 1892), pp.353–446.
Cardinal Jacopo Gaetani, in Storia de’ solenni possessi de’ Sommi Pontefici, ed. F. Cancellieri
(Rome, 1802), pp.25–6.
Cencius Camerarius, ‘Liber Censuum’, in Le liber censuum de l’église romaine, ed. P. Fabre,
L. Duchesne, 3 vols (Paris, 1889–1952), Vol. 1 (Paris, 1905).
Chronicle of the Reign of Henry II and Richard I, 2, Chronicles and Memorials, ed. W. Stubbs,
Rolls Series 49 (London, 1867).
Church, State and Jew in the Middle Ages, ed. R. Chazan (New York, 1980).
Codex Theodosianus 16,8,1–29, trans. P. Lang (Bern, Frankfurt, New York, Paris, 1991).
‘Compilatio prima’, Quinque compilationes antiquae, Corpus iuris canonici, ed. E. A.
Friedberg (Leipzig, 1882).
‘Compilatio quarta’, Quinque compilationes antiquae, Corpus iuris canonici, ed. E. A.
Friedberg (Leipzig, 1882).
‘Compilatio quinta’, Quinque compilationes antiquae, Corpus iuris canonici, ed. E. A.
Friedberg (Leipzig, 1882).
‘Compilatio secunda’, Quinque compilationes antiquae, Corpus iuris canonici, ed. E. A.
Friedberg (Leipzig, 1882).
‘Compilatio tertia’, Quinque compilationes antiquae, Corpus iuris canonici, ed. E. A.
Friedberg (Leipzig, 1882).
‘Contra Faustum Manichaeum’, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, Vol. 4 (Grand
Rapids, MI, 1974), pp.113–24.
Corpus iuris canonici, ed. E. A. Friedberg, Vol. 1 (Leipzig, 1879).
Corpus iuris canonici, ed. E. A. Friedberg, Vol. 2 (Leipzig, 1881).
Coutumes et règlements de la République d’Avigonon au trezième siècle, ed. M. A. de Maulde
(Paris, 1879).
Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1: Nicaea I—Lateran V, ed. N. P. Tanner (London,
Washington, 1990).
‘De processione imperatoris’ in the ‘Graphia Aureae Urbis Romae’ in Kaiser, Kőnige und
Päpste, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Geschichte des Mittelalters, ed. P. E. Schramm, Vol. 3
(Stuttgart, 1969), pp.350–2.
‘De Sacramentis per improbos administratis’, Patrologia cursus completus, Series Latina,
comp. J. P. Migne (Paris, 1841–1864) 145, cols 529–30.
‘Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae’, in Codice topografico della città di Roma, ed. R. Valentini,
G. Zucchetti, 4 vols (Rome, 1940–1953), Vol. 3 (Rome, 1946), pp.326–73.
Die Register Innocenz’ III, Publikationen des Österreichischen Kulturnistituts in Rom, ed.
O. Hageneder, H. Haidacher, A. Strnad, 8 vols in 11 (Graz, Vienna, Cologne, 1965– ).
‘Edut adonai ne‘emena’, in Mehqarim u-meqorot, ed. J. Rosenthal, 2 vols. (Jerusalem,
1967), Vol. 1, pp.373–430.
Ephraim of Bonn, in Sefer gezerot sarfat ve-ashkenaz, ed. A. M. Habermann (Jerusalem, 1945).
‘Ex Historia Mauriniacensis monasterii’, in Monumenta Germaniae Historica Scriptores, Vol. 26,
pp.37–45.
Gesta regis Henrici Benedicti Abbatis 2, ed. W. Stubbs, Rolls Series 49 (London, 1867; Kraus
Reprint, 1965).
Gratian, ‘Concordia discordantium canonum’, Corpus iuris canonici, ed. E. A. Friedberg,
Vol. 1 (Leipzig, 1879).
 Bibliography 279
Guy Terre, Summa de heresibus (Cologne, 1631).
Hasdai Crescas, Bitul ‘iqarei dat ha-nosrim, ed. E. Deinard (Kearny, N.J., 1904).
Hasdai Crescas, ‘Bitul ‘Iqarei Dad Ha-Norim’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. J. D. Eisenstein (New
York, 1929), pp.288–310.
Hebraische Berichte über die Judenverfolgungen während der Kreuzzuge, ed. A. Neubauer and
M. Stern (Berlin, 1892).
Heresies of the High Middle Ages. Selected Sources Translated and Annotated, ed. W. Wakefield,
A. Evans (New York, London, 1969).
Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe. Documents in Translation, ed. E. Peters (London,
1980).
Hincmar of Reims, ‘Hincmari Remensis epistola ad Flodoard’, Historia Remensis, Book 3,
Chapter 26, Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Scriptores, ed. G. H. Pertz (Hanover,
1859–1874), Vol. 13.
Hostiensis, Summa aurea (Venice, 1605).
Humbert of Romans, Sacrorum Conciliorum Collectio, Vol. 24, ed. G. D. Mansi (Venice, 1780).
‘In libros octo contra Iudaeos Monitum’, Patrologia cursus completus, Series Latina, comp.
J. P. Migne (Paris, 1841–1864) 48, cols 839–42.
Innocent II, ‘Epistolae et Privilegia’, Patrologia cursus completus, Series Latina, comp. J. P.
Migne (Paris, 1841–1864) 179, cols 53–686.
Innocent III, ‘De contemptu mundi’, Patrologia cursus completus, Series Latina, comp. J. P.
Migne (Paris, 1841–1864) 217, cols 701–46.
Innocent IV, Apparatus super quiinque libris decretalium (Turin, 1581).
Ivo of Chartres, Decretum beati Iuonis (Louvain, 1561).
Jacob ben Elie, ‘Vikuah R. Ya’acov mivinisya’, in Sefer Ginze nistarot (Ginse Nistaroth), ed.
J. Kobak (Bamberg, 1868), 4 vols in 1, Vol. 2, pp.1–64.
Jacob ben Elie, ‘Vikuah R. Ya’acov mivinisya’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. J. D. Eisenstein (New
York, 1929), pp.184–93.
Jellinek, Adolph, Bet ha-midrasch (Jerusalem, 1967), Vol. 6.
Jews. Medieval Jewish Chronicles and Chronological Notes, ed. A. Neubauer (Oxford, 1887).
John Chrysostom, ‘Contra Judaeos et Gentiles quod Christus sit Deus’, Patrologia cursus
completus, Series Latina, comp. J. P. Migne (Paris, 1841–1864) 48, cols 813–88.
Joseph Albo, ‘Sefer ha-‘iqqarim / The Book of Principles’, in Ma’amar 3, ed. and trans.
I. Husik, 4 vols (Philadelphia, 1946).
Joseph Albo, ‘Vikuah R. Yosef Albo’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. J. D. Eisenstein (New York,
1929), pp.111–15.
Joseph ben Nathan Official, in Sepher Joseph hamekane. Metkitse nivdamim, ed. J. Rosenthal
(Jerusalem, 1970).
Joseph ben Nathan Official, ‘Vikuah Rabbi Yehiel Miparis’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. J. D.
Eisenstein (New York, 1929), pp.81–6.
Judaism on Trial: Jewish-Christian Disputations in the Middle Ages, ed. and trans. H. Maccoby
(Rutherford, London, 1982).
Kitve rabenu Mosheh ben Nahman: yotsi’m la’or ‘al-pi kitve yad u-defusim ri’shonim, ed. H. D.
Chavel (Shevel) (Jerusalem, 1963), Vol. 1.
Les Juifs du Languedoc antérieurement au XIV siècle, ed. G. Saige, (Paris, 1881).
Les Registres de Grégoire IX, ed. L. Auvray, 4 vols, Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes
et de Rome, 2nd Series, (Paris, 1890–1955).
‘Liber extra decretalium’, Corpus iruis canonici, ed. E. A. Friedberg, Vol. 2 (Leipzig, 1881).
‘Liber nizzachon vetus’, in Tela ignea satanae, ed. J. Ch. Wagenseil (Frankfurt am Main,
1861), Vol. 1, pp.1–260.
280 Bibliography
Matthew Paris, Chronica majora 5, ed. H. R. Luard, Rolls Series 57 (London, 1857; Kraus
Reprint, 1964).
Matthew Paris, Chronica majora 3, ed. H. R. Luard, Rolls Series 57 (London, 1877; Kraus
Reprint, 1964).
Meir Ben Simeon of Narbonne, Milhemet Misvah, ms Parma, 2749.
Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Scriptores ed. G. H. Pertz (Hanover, 1922ff.), Vol. 11.
Nachmanides, ‘Vikuah ha-Ramban’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. J. D. Eisenstein (New York,
1929), pp.86–94.
Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere Deutsche Geschichtskunde 45, ed. P. Rassow (Berlin, 1924).
Nicholas Maniacutius, De sacra imagine SS Salvatoris in Palatio Lateranensi, see Historia
Imaginis Salvatoris, in Salus Populi Romani: Die Geschichte rőmischer Kultbilder im
Mittelalter, ed. G. Wolf (Weinham, 1990), pp.321–5.
Nicolai Maniacoria Suffraganeus bibliothece, ed. C. Linde (Turnhout, 2013).
Oldradus Pontanus Laudensis, Concilia aurea (Lyon, 1550).
Ottonis et Rahewina Gesta Friderici I Imperatoris 1, 3rd edn, ed. B. von Simson (Hanover,
Leipzig, 1912).
Patrologia cursus completus, Series Latina, comp. J. P. Migne (Paris, 1841–1864).
Peter Damian, ‘Liber Primus’, Patrologia cursus completus, Series Latina, comp. J. P. Migne
(Paris, 1841–1864) 144, cols 205–54.
Peter Damian, ‘Liber qui dicitur gratissimus’, Opera omnia, Patrologia cursus completus,
Series Latina, comp. J. P. Migne (Paris, 1841–1864) 145, cols 205–54.
Peter Lombard, Sententiae in IV libris distinctae, 3rd edn, ed. I. C. Brady, 2 vols (Grottaferrata,
1971–1981).
Peter of Blois, ‘Contra perfidiam Iudaeorum’, Patrologia cursus completus, Series Latina,
comp. J. P. Migne (Paris, 1841–1864) 207, cols 825–70.
Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay, The History of the Albigensian Crusade, ed. and trans. W. A. and
M. D. Sibly (Woodbridge, 1998).
Peter the Chanter, ‘Verbum Abbreviatum’, Patrologia cursus completus, Series Latina, comp.
J. P. Migne (Paris, 1841–1864) 205, cols 21–554.
Peter the Chanter in Gilbert Dahan, ‘L’Article Iudei de la Summa Abel de Pierre le Chantre’,
Revue des Études Augustiniennes 27 (1981), 105–26.
Peter the Venerable, ‘Tractatus contra Judaeorum inveteratam duritiem’, Patrologia cursus
completus, Series Latina, comp. J. P. Migne (Paris, 1841–1864) 189, cols 507–650.
Peter the Venerable, ‘Sermo de sancto Marcello papa et martyre, Sermones tres’, ed.
G. Constable, Revue Bénédictine 64 (1954), 255–65.
Peter the Venerable, The Letters of Peter the Venerable, Vol. 1, ed. G. Constable, Harvard
Historical Studies 78 (Cambridge, Mass., 1967).
Peter the Venerable, Adversus Iudeorum inveteratam duritiem, ed. Y. Friedman, Corpus
Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis 58 (Turnhout, 1985).
Popular Medicine in Thirteenth-Century England. Introduction and Texts, ed. T. Hunt
(Cambridge, 1990).
Profiat Duran, ‘Sefer klimat ha-goyim’, ed. N. Posnanski, in Ha sofeh me’eres Hagar 3 (1913)
and 4 (1914).
Profiat Duran, ‘Sefer Klimat ha-goyim’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. J. D Eisenstein (New York,
1929), pp.260–88.
Quinque compilationes antiquae, ed. E. A. Friedberg (Leipzig, 1882).
R. Salamo aben Verga, Shevet Jehudah, trans. M. Weiner (Neudruck, 1924).
Ralph Glaber, Patrologia cursus completus, Series Latina, comp. J. P. Migne (Paris, 1841–1864)
142, cols 611–98.
 Bibliography 281
Ralph of Diceto, Opera historica, ed. W. Stubbs, 2 vols, Rolls Series 68 (London, 1876;
Kraus Reprint, 1965), Vol. 2.
Raymond Lull, El ‘Liber praedicationis contra Iudaeos’ de Raymond Lull, ed. J. M. M.
Vallicrosa (Madrid, 1957).
Raymond Martin, Pugio Fidei adversus Mauros et Iudaeos, ed. J. B. Carpzov (Leipzig, 1687).
Raymond Martin, Pugio Fidei adversus Mauros et Iudaeos, ed. J. de Voisin and J. B. Carpzovi
(Leipzig, 1687: repr. Gregg, 1967).
Raymond Martin, Pugio Fidei adversus Mauros et Iudeos, ed. F. Lanckisi (Leipzig, 1687:
repr. Farnborough, 1967).
Raymond of Peñafort, Summa de poenitentia et matrimonio (repr. Farnborough, 1967).
Regesta pontificum romanorum ab condita ecclesia ad annum post Christum natum 1198, ed.
P. H. Jaffé, Vol. 1 (Berolini, 1851).
Regesta pontificum romanorum ab condita ecclesia ad annum post Christum natum 1198, ed.
P. H. Jaffé, Vol. 1 (Lipsiae, 1885), Vol. 2 (Lipsiae, 1888).
Roger of Hoveden, Chronica 3, ed. W. Stubbs, Rolls Series 51 (London, 1871; Kraus
Reprint, 1964).
Roger of Hoveden, Chronica 4, ed. W. Stubbs, Rolls Series 51 (London, 1871; Kraus
Reprint, 1964).
S. Gregorii Magni registrum epistularum libri VIII–XIV, Appendix, ed. D. Norberg (Turnhout,
1982).
Sacrorum concilium nova et amplissima collectio, ed. G. D. Mansi, 56 vols (Florence, Venice
and Paris, 1759–1798, 1901–1927).
Sacrosancta concilia ad regiam editionem exacta quae nunc quarta prodit auctor studio 10, ed.
P. Labbé, G. Cosserti (Paris, 1671).
Sancti Bernardi . . . Opera, Vol. 1, ed. J. Mabillon (Paris, 1719).
Sefer gezerot sarfat ve-ashkenaz, ed. A. M. Habermann (Jerusalem, 1971).
Sefer Nizzahon Yashan (Nizzahon Vetus). A Book of Jewish-Christian Polemic. A Critical
Edition, ed. M. Breuer (Ramat Gan, 1978).
Sefer Ṿ ikuaḥ Rabenu Yeḥi’el mi-Paris, ed. S. Gruenbaum (Thorn, 1873).
Shelomo bar Shimshon, in Sefer gezerot sarfat ve-ashkenaz, ed. A. M. Habermann (Jerusalem,
1971).
Shlomo Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History, Studies and Texts 109 (Toronto,
1991).
Simeon ben Zemah Duran, ‘Vikuah ha-Rashbatz’, in Osar wikuhim, ed. J. D. Eisenstein
(New York, 1929), pp.118–33.
St Anselm, ‘Cur Deus Homo’, Book 2, in S. Anselmi Cantuariensis archiepiscopi opera omnia
/ ad fidem codicum recensuit Franciscus Salesius Schmitt, ed. F. S. Schmitt, 6 vols
(Edinburgh, 1946–1961), Vol. 2 (1946), pp.97–133.
St Augustine, Adversos Iudaeos, The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 27, ed. R. J. Deferrari (New
York, 1955).
St Augustine, De civitate Dei 2, ed. B. Dombart, A. Kalb (Stuttgart 1981).
St John Chrysostom, Contra Iudaeos, The Fathers of the Church, ed. B. Dombart, A. Kalb,
Vol. 68 (Washington, 1977).
Summa Theologiae, ed. T. Gilby (London, 1975), Vol. 32.
Teshuvot hakhme sarfat ve-lotair, ed. J. Muller (Presburg, Vienna, 1881).
The Apostolic See and the Jews, Vol. 1: Documents 492–1404, ed. S. Simonsohn (Toronto, 1988).
The Apostolic See and the Jews, Vol. 2: Documents 1394–1464, ed. S. Simonsohn (Toronto, 1988).
‘The Chronicle of Ademar of Chabannes’, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, ed.
G. H. Pertz (Hanover, 1922ff.), Vol. 4.
282 Bibliography
The Church and the Jews in the Thirteenth Century, Vol. 1: A Study of their Relations During
the Years 1198–1254, based on the Papal Letters and the Conciliar Decrees of the Period, ed.
S. Grayzel (New York, 1966); The Church and the Jews in the Thirteenth Century, Vol. 2:
1254–1314, ed. S. Grayzel (New York, 1989).
The Crusades. Idea and Reality, ed. L. Riley-Smith, J. S. C. Riley-Smith (London, 1981).
The Deeds of Pope Innocent III by an Anonymous Author, ed. and trans. J. M. Powell
(Washington DC, 2004).
The Disputation at Barcelona, ed. C. B. Chavel (New York, NY, 1983).
The Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolimitanorum, ed. R. Hill (Oxford, 1962).
The Holy Bible Translated from the Latin Vulgate. The Old Testament First Published by the
English College at Douay, A.D. 1609; and The New Testament First Published by the English
College at Rheims, A.D. 1582 (Belfast, 1858).
The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela: Travels in the Middle Ages, Text, Translation and
Commentary, ed. M. N. Adler (London, 1907).
The Jew in the Medieval World. A Source Book, 315–1791, ed. J. R. Marcus (New York, 1975).
The Jew in the Medieval World: A Source Book, 315–1791, revised ed. J. R. Marcus,
M. Saperstein (Cincinatti, Ohio, 1999).
The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages: A Critical Edition of the Nizzahon
Vetus, ed. D. Berger (Philadelphia, 1979).
The Jews and the Crusaders. The Hebrew Chronicles of the First and Second Crusades, trans.
and ed. S. Eidelberg (Madison, 1977).
The Josippon, ed. D. Flusser, 2 vols (Jerusalem, 1978–1979), Vol. 2.
The Letters of Peter the Venerable, 1, ed. G. Constable, 2 vols (Cambridge, Mass., 1967).
The Letters of St Bernard of Clairvaux, trans. B. S. James, 3rd edn (Stroud, 1998).
The Life and Miracles of St William of Norwich by Thomas of Monmouth, ed. and trans.
A. Jessop and M. R. James (Cambridge, 2011).
The Ma’aseh Book, ed. M. Gaster, 2 vols (Philadelphia, 1934), Vol. 2.
The Refutation of the Christian Principles by Hasdai Crescas, ed. and trans. D. J. Lasker (Albany, 1992).
The Shebet Yehudah of Shelomo ibn Verga, ed. A. Shohat (Jerusalem, 1947).
The Summa Theologica of St Thomas Aquinas, trans. by the Fathers of the English Dominican
Province, Part 2, Second Part, QQI–XLVI (London, 1916).
The Summa Theologica of St Thomas Aquinas, trans. by the Fathers of the English Dominican
Province, Part 2, Second Part, QQXLVII–LXXIX (London, 1929).
The Trial of the Talmud: Paris, 1240. Hebrew Texts translated by John Friedman, Latin Texts
translated by Jean Connell Hoff; Historical Essay by Robert Chazan (Toronto, 2012).
Thomas de Chobham, Summa de arte praedicandi, ed. F. Morenzoni (Turnhout, 1989).
Thomas of Cantimpré, Bonum universal de apibus (Douai, 1627).
Thomas of Chobham, Summa Confessorum, Analecta Medieaevalia Namercensia, 25, ed.
F. Broomfield (Louvain, Paris, 1968).
Thomas of Monmouth, The Life and Passion of William of Norwich, ed. and trans. M. Rubin
(London, 2014).
Uodalscalcus de Eginone et Herimanno, ed. P. Jaffé, Monumenta Germaniae Historica
Scriptores, Vol. 12 (Hanover, 1856), pp.429–48.
Walter of Châtillon, ‘Dialogus contra Iudaeos’, Patrologia cursus completus, Series Latina,
comp. J. P. Migne (Paris, 1841–1864) 209, cols 423–58.
William of Bourges, Bellum Domini contra Iudaeos et contra Iudaeorum hereticos,
Supplementum patrum, ed. J. Homoney (Paris, 1686).
William of Bourges, Bellum Domini contra Iudaeos et contra Iudaeorum hereticos, Sources
Chrétiennes, ed. G. Dahan (Paris, 1981).
 Bibliography 283
William of Bourges, ‘Liber bellorum Domini contra Iudaeos et contra Iudaeorum hereticos’,
in Livre des guerres du Seigneur et deux homélies, Sources chrétiennes, ed. G. Dahan (Paris,
1981), pp.66–273.
William of Newburgh, ‘Chronicles of William of Newburgh’, Vol. 1, Bk 4, ed. R. Howlett,
Rolls Series 82 (London, 1884; Kraus Reprint, 1964).

S e c o nd a ry L i t e r at u r e
Abulafia, Anna, ‘The Interrelationship between the Hebrew Chronicles on the First
Crusade’, Journal of Semitic Studies 27/2 (1982), 221–39.
Abulafia, Anna, ‘Invectives against Christianity in the Hebrew Chronicles of the First
Crusade’, in Crusade and Settlement. Papers Read at the First Conference of the Society for
the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East and Presented to R.C. Smail, ed. P. W. Edbury
(Cardiff, 1985), pp.66–72.
Abulafia, Anna, ‘Jewish-Christian Disputations and the Twelfth-Century Renaissance’,
Journal of Medieval History 15/2 (1989), 105–25.
Abulafia, Anna, Christians and Jews in the Twelfth-Century Renaissance (London, New York, 1995).
Abulafia, Anna, Christians and Jews in Dispute: Disputational Literature and the Rise of Anti-
Judaism in the West (c.1000–1150) (Aldershot, 1998).
Abulafia, Anna, ‘The Intellectual and Spiritual Quest for Christ and Central Medieval
Persecution of Jews’, in Religious Violence between Christians and Jews: Medieval Roots,
Modern Perspectives, ed. A. S. Abulafia (Basingstoke, 2002), pp.61–85.
Abulafia, Anna, Religious Violence between Christians and Jews: Medieval Roots, Modern
Perspectives, ed. A. S. Abulafia (Basingstoke, 2002).
Abulafia, Anna, ‘Christians and Jews in the High Middle Ages: Christian Views of Jews’, in
The Jews of Europe in the Middle Ages (Tenth to Fifteenth Centuries). Proceedings of the
International Symposium held at Speyer, 20–25 October 2002, ed. C. Cluse (Turnhout,
2004), pp.19–28.
Abulafia, Anna, Christian-Jewish Relations 1000–1300: Jews in the Service of Medieval
Christendom (Harlow, 2011).
Abulafia, David, Mediterranean Encounters, Economic, Religious, Political, 1100–1550
(Aldershot, Burlington, 2000).
Agus, Irvin, Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg. His Life and his Works as Sources for the Religious, Legal, and
Social History of the Jews of Germany in the Thirteenth Century, Vol. 1 (Philadelphia, 1947).
Agus, Irvin, Urban Civilization in Pre-Crusade Europe. A Study of Organised Town-Life in
Northwestern Europe during the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries based on the Responsa
Literature (Leiden, 1965).
Almog, Shmuel, ed., Antisemitism through the Ages, trans. N. H. Reisner (Oxford, New
York, 1988).
Alteras, Isaac, ‘Jewish Physicians in Southern France during the 13th and 14th Centuries’,
Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, 68/4 (1978), 209–23.
Andrea, Alfred, ‘Innocent III, the Fourth Crusade and the Coming Apocalypse’, in The
Medieval Crusade, ed. S. J. Ridyard (Woodbridge, 2004), pp.97–106.
Bagby, Albert, ‘The Jew in the Cántigas of Alfonso X, El Sabio’, Speculum: A Journal of
Medieval Studies 46/4 (1971), 670–88.
Baldwin, John, Masters, Princes and Merchants, Vol. 1 (Princeton, 1970).
Bale, Anthony, ‘Fictions of Judaism in England before 1290’, in The Jews in Medieval
Britain: Historical, Literary and Archaeological Perspectives, ed. P. Skinner (Woodbridge,
2003), pp.129–44.
284 Bibliography
Baron, Salo, A Social and Religious History of the Jews: Late Middle Ages and Era of European
Expansion, 1200–1650, Vol. 9: Under Church and Empire, 2nd edn (New York, London, 1965).
Baron, Salo, ‘Population’, in Encyclopedia Judaica, 2nd edn (Detroit, Mich, 2007; Jerusalem,
1971), Vol. 16, pp.871–9.
Baron, Salo, ‘“Plenitude of Apostolic Powers” and Medieval “Jewish Serfdom”’, in Ancient
and Medieval Jewish History, ed. L. A. Feldman (New Brunswick, 1972), 284–307.
Baskin, Judith, ‘Some Parallels in the Education of Medieval Jewish and Christian Women’,
Jewish History 5/1 (1991), 41–51.
Baur, Chrysostomus, Saint Jean Chrysostome et ses oevres dans l’histoire litteraire (Louvain,
Paris, 1907).
Baur, Chrysostomus John Chrysostom and His Time. Vol. 1: Antioch, trans. M. Gonzaga (London,
1959).
Baur, Chrysostomus John Chrysostom and His Time. Vol. 2: Constantinople, trans. M. Gonzaga
(London, Glasgow, 1960).
Beinart, Haim, Atlas of Medieval Jewish History (London, 1992).
Ben-Shalom, Ram, Exempla and Popes: Church Imagery in the Spanish and Provencal Jewish
Mentalité (Pamplona, 2004).
Ben-Shalom, Ram, ‘The Social Context of Apostasy among Fifteenth-Century Spanish
Jewry’, in Rethinking European Jewish History ed. J. Cohen, M. Rosman (Portland, Oregon,
2009), pp.173–98.
Berger, David, ‘The Attitude of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux toward the Jews’, Proceedings of
the American Academy for Jewish Research 40 (1972), 89–108.
Berger, David, ‘Christian Heresy and Jewish Polemic in the Twelfth and Thirteenth
Centuries’, Harvard Theological Review 68/3–4 (1975), 287–303.
Berger, David, The Jewish–Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages: A Critical Edition of the
Nizzahon Vetus (Philadelphia, 1979).
Berger, David, ‘Mission to the Jews and Jewish–Christian Contacts in the Polemical
Literature of the High Middle Ages’, American Historical Review 91/3 (1986), 576–91.
Berger, David, ‘On the Uses of History in Medieval Jewish Polemic against Christianity:
The Quest for the Historical Jesus’, in Jewish History and Jewish Memory: Essays in Honour
of Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, ed. E. Carlebach, J. M. Efron, D. N. Myers (Hanover,
London, 1998), pp.25–39.
Berliner, Abraham, Storia degli Ebrei di Roma, dall’antichità allo smantallamento del ghetto
(Milan, 2000).
Berlioz, Jacques, Identifier sources et citations, L’Atelier du médiéviste 1 (Turnhout, 1994).
Berschin, Walter, Greek Letters and the Latin Middle Ages: from Jerome to Nicholas of Cusa,
trans. J. C. Frakes (Washington D.C., 1988).
Bialer, Yehuda, Fink, Estelle, Jewish Life in Art and Tradition. Based on the Collection of the
Sir Isaac and Lady Edith Wolfson Museum, Hechal Shlomo, Jerusalem (London, 1976).
Bietenholz, Peter, Historia and Fabula: Myths and Legends in Historical Thought from
Antiquity to the Modern Age (Leiden, 1994).
Bird, Jessalyn, ‘Reform or Crusade? Anti-Usury and Crusade Preaching during the
Pontificate of Innocent III’, in Pope Innocent III and his World, ed. J. C. Moore (Aldershot,
1999), pp.165–85.
Bisson, Thomas, The Medieval Crown of Aragon: A Short History (Oxford, New York, 2000).
Blumenkranz, Bernhard, ‘Perfidia’, Archivum Latinitatis Medii Aevi (Bulletin du Cange) 22
(Brussels, 1952), pp.157–70.
Blumenkranz, Bernard, Juifs et Chrétiens dans le monde occidental 430–1096 (Paris, 1960).
Blumenkranz, Bernard, ‘Anti-Jewish Polemics and Legislation in the Middle Ages: Literary
Fiction or Reality?’, Journal of Jewish Studies 15/3–4 (1964), 125–40.
 Bibliography 285
Blumenkranz, Bernhard, Histoire des Juifs en France, Historia Variorum Series, Vols 1–3
(Toulouse, 1960–75), Vol. 1 (Toulouse, 1972).
Blumenkranz, Bernhard, Juifs et Chrétiens Patristique et Moyen Age (London: Variorum
Repr. 1977).
Blumenkranz, Bernard, ‘The Roman Church and the Jews’, in Essential Papers on Judaism
and Christianity in Conflict: From Late Antiquity to the Reformation, ed. J. Cohen (New
York, London, 1991), pp.193–230.
Bodian, Miriam, ‘The Reformation and the Jews’, in Rethinking European Jewish Identity,
ed. J. Cohen, M. Rosman (Portland, Oregon, 2009), pp.112–32.
Bonfil, Robert, Rabbis and Jewish Communities in Renaissance Italy, trans. J. Chipman
(Oxford, 1990).
Bonfil, Robert, Jewish Life in Renaissance Italy, trans. A. Oldcorn (Berkeley, Los Angeles,
London, 1994).
Bowman, Steven, The Jews of Byzantium 1204–1453 (Alabama, 1985).
Browe, Peter, Die Judenmission im Mittelalter und die Päpste, Miscellanea Historiae
Pontificiae 6 (Rome, 1942).
Brundage, James, Medieval Canon Law and the Crusader (Madison, London, 1969).
Brundage, James, Medieval Canon Law (London, New York, 1995).
Bull, Marcus, Knightly Piety and Lay-Response to the First Crusade: the Limousin and Gascony
(c.970–c.1130) (Oxford, 1993).
Burns, Robert, Muslims, Christians and Jews in the Crusader Kingdom of Valencia: Societies in
Symbiosis (Cambridge, 1984).
Burns, Robert, Jews in the Notorial Culture: Latinate Wills in Medieval Spain (Berkeley,
1996).
Capelli, Piero, ‘Rashi nella controversia parigina sul Talmud del 1240’, in Ricercare la
Sapienza di Tutti gli Antichi, Series 3, Vol. 1, Miscellanea in Onore de Gian Luigi Prato,
ed. M. Milani, M. Zapella (Bologna, 2013), pp.441–8.
Caputo, Nina, Nahmanides in Medieval Catalonia: History, Community and Messianism
(Notre Dame, Ind., 2007).
Carlebach, Elisheva, ‘Between History and Myth: the Regensburg Expulsion in Josel of
Rosheim’s Sefer ha-miknah’, in Jewish History and Jewish Memory: Essays in Honour of
Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, ed. E. Carlebach, J. M. Efron, D. N. Myers (Hanover, London,
1998), pp.40–53.
Carlebach, Elisheva, Efron, John M., Myers, David N. eds, Jewish History and Jewish
Memory: Essays in Honour of Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi (Hanover, London, 1998).
Champagne, Marie Therese, The Relationship between the Papacy and the Jews in Twelfth-
Century Rome: Papal Attitudes toward Biblical Judaism and Contemporary European Jewry
(Ph.D. Dissertation, Louisiana State University, 2005).
Champagne, Marie Therese, ‘“Treasures of the Temple” and Claims to Authority in Twelfth-
Century Rome’, in Aspects of Power and Authority in the Middle Ages, ed. B. Bolton,
C. Meek (Turnhout, 2007), pp.107–18.
Champagne, Marie Therese, ‘Celestine III and the Jews’, in Pope Celestine III (1191–
1198): Diplomat and Pastor, ed. J. Doran, D. J. Smith (Farnham, Burlington, 2008),
pp.271–85.
Champagne, Marie Therese, ‘Walking in the Shadows of the Past: The Jewish Experience of
Rome in the Twelfth Century’, in Rome Re-Imagined: Twelfth-Century Jews, Christians
and Muslims Encounter the Eternal City, ed. L. Hamilton, S. Riccioni, Medieval Encounters
17/4–5 (2011), 464–94.
Chazan, Robert, ‘The Blois Incident of 1171: A Study in Jewish Inter-Communal
Organization’, Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 36 (1968), 13–31.
286 Bibliography
Chazan, Robert, ‘1007-1012, Initial Crisis for Northern European Jewry’, Proceedings of the
American Academy for Jewish Research 39 (1971), 101–18.
Chazan, Robert, Medieval Jewry in Northern France. A Political and Social History (Baltimore,
London, 1973).
Chazan, Robert, ‘Rabbi Ephraim of Bonn’s Sefer Zechirah’, Revue des Études Juives 132
(1973), 119–26.
Chazan, Robert, ‘The Hebrew First Crusade Chronicles’, Revue des Études Juives 133
(1974), 235–54.
Chazan, Robert, ed. with intro. and notes, Church, State and Jew in the Middle Ages, ed.
R. Chazan (New York, 1980).
Chazan, Robert, European Jewry and the First Crusade (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London,
1987).
Chazan, Robert, ‘Review of Kenneth Stow, The ‘‘1007 Anonymous’’ and Papal Sovereignty’,
Speculum: A Journal of Medieval Studies 62/3 (1987), 728–31.
Chazan, Robert, Daggers of Faith: Thirteenth-Century Christian Missionizing and Jewish
Response (Berkeley, 1989).
Chazan, Robert, Barcelona and Beyond: The Disputation of 1263 and its Aftermath (Berkeley,
Los Angeles, 1992).
Chazan, Robert, ‘The Deteriorating Image of the Jew—Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries’,
in Christendom and its Discontents, ed. P. Diehl, S. Waugh (Cambridge, 1996), pp.220–33.
Chazan, Robert, In the Year 1096: The First Crusade and the Jews (Philadelphia, 1996).
Chazan, Robert, Medieval Stereotypes and Modern Anti-Semitism (Berkeley, London,
1997).
Chazan, Robert, ‘The Mainz Anonymous: Historiographic Perspectives’, in Jewish History
and Jewish Memory: Essays in Honour of Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, ed. E. Carlebach, J. M.
Efron, D. N. Myers (Hanover, London, 1998), pp.54–69.
Chazan, Robert, ‘The Hebrew Report on the Trial of the Talmud: Information and
Consolation’, in Le Brulement du Talmud a Paris, 1242–124, ed. G. Dahan (Paris, 1999),
pp.79–93.
Chazan, Robert, ‘Pope Innocent III and the Jews’, in Pope Innocent III and his World, ed.
J. C. Moore (Aldershot, 1999), pp.187–204.
Chazan, Robert, God, Humanity and History: the Hebrew First Crusade Narratives (Berkeley,
2000).
Chazan, Robert, Fashioning Jewish Identity in Medieval Western Christendom (Cambridge,
2004).
Chazan, Robert, The Jews of Medieval Western Christendom, 1000–1500 (Cambridge, 2006).
Chazan, Robert, ‘The First Crusade Narrative of R. Eliezer bar Nathan’, in Between Rashi
and Maimonides. Themes in Medieval Jewish Thought, Literature and Exegis, ed. E. Kanarfogel,
M. Sokolow (New York, 2010), pp.191–203.
Chazan, Robert, Reassessing Jewish Life in Medieval Europe (Cambridge, 2010).
Clarence Smith, John, Medieval Law Teachers and Writers, Civilian and Canonists (Ottawa, 1975).
Coats, George, ‘Abraham’s Sacrifice of Faith. A Form-Critical Study of Genesis 22’, in The
Sacrifice of Isaac. Studies in the Development of a Literary Tradition, ed. E. Yassif (Jerusalem,
1978), pp.1–12.
Cohen, Jeremy, The Friars and the Jews. The Evolution of Medieval Anti-Judaism (Ithaca,
London, 1982).
Cohen, Jeremy, ‘Recent Historiography on the Medieval Church and the Decline of
Medieval Jewry’, in Popes, Teachers and Canon Law in the Middle Ages, ed. J. R. Sweeney,
S. Chodorow (Ithaca, 1989), pp.251–62.
 Bibliography 287
Cohen, Jeremy, ‘Scholarship and Intolerance in the Medieval Academy: The Study and
Evaluation of Judaism in European Christendom’, in Essential Papers on Judaism and
Christianity in Conflict, ed. J. Cohen (London, New York, 1991), pp.310–41.
Cohen, Jeremy, ‘The Hebrew Crusade Chronicles in their Christian Cultural Context’, in Juden
und Christen zur Zeit der Kreuzzüge, Vorträge und Forschungen 47, Konstanzer Arbeitkreis für
mittelalterliche Geschichte, ed. A. Haverkamp (Sigmaringen, 1999), pp.17–34.
Cohen, Jeremy, Living Letters of the Law: Ideas of the Jew in Medieval Christianity (Berkeley,
London, 1999).
Cohen, Jeremy, ‘A 1096 Complex Constructing the First Crusade’, in Jews and Christians
in Twelfth-Century Europe, ed. M. A. Signer, J. van Engen (Notre Dame, Ind., 2001),
pp.9–26.
Cohen, Jeremy, Sanctifying the Name of God (Philadelphia, 2006).
Cohen, Jeremy, ‘Introduction’, in Rethinking European Jewish History, ed. J. Cohen,
M. Rosman (Portland, Oregon, 2009), pp.1–12.
Cohen, Jeremy, ed., Essential Papers on Judaism and Christianity in Conflict (London,
New York, 1991).
Cohen, Jeremy, Moshe, Rosman, eds., Rethinking European Jewish History (Portland,
Oregon, 2009).
Cohen, Mark, Under Crescent and Cross: the Jews in the Middle Ages (Princeton, Oxford,
1994).
Colish, Martha, Peter Lombard, Vol. 1 (Leiden, New York, 1994).
Corrigan, John, ‘Introduction. A Critical Assessment of Scholarly Literature in Religion
and Emotion’, in Emotion and Religion. A Critical Assessment and Annotated Bibliography,
ed. J. Corrigan, E. Crump, J. Kloos (Westport, Conneticut, London, 2000), pp.1–19.
Cutler, Alan, ‘Innocent III and the Distinctive Clothing of Jews and Muslims’, Studies in
Medieval Culture 3, ed. J. Sommerfeldt (1970), 92–116.
Dahan, Gilbert, ‘L’Article Iudei de la Summa Abel de Pierre le Chantre’, Revue des études
augustiniennes 27 (1981), 105–26.
Dahan, Gilbert, Les Intellectuels chrétiens et les Juifs au moyen âge (Paris, 1990).
Dahan, Gilbert, La Polemique chrétienne contre le judaisme au moyen âge (Paris, 1991).
Dahan, Gilbert, Christian Polemic Against Jews in the Middle Ages, trans. J. Gladding (Notre
Dame, Ind., 1998).
Dawidowicz, Lucy S., Kozodoy, Neal, eds, What is the Use of Jewish History? (New York, 1992).
de Roover, Raymond, The Emergence of International Business 1200–18, Vol. 2, Money,
Banking and Credit in Medieval Bruges, A Study in the Origins of Banking (London, New
York, 1999).
Deen Schildgen, Brenda, Pagans, Tartars, Moslems, and Jews in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales
(Florida, 2001).
Delaborde, Henri-François, Oeuvres de Rigord et de Guillaume le Breton, Vo1.1 (Paris, 1882).
Della Pergola, Sergio, ‘Some Fundamentals of Jewish Demographic History’, in Papers in
Jewish Demography 1997, ed. S. Della Pergola and J. Even (Jerusalem, 2001), pp.11–33.
Dickson, Gary, ‘The Advent of the Pastores’, in Religious Enthusiasm in the Medieval West,
ed. G. Dickson (Aldershot, 2000), VI, pp.249–67.
Dickson, Gary, ‘The Genesis of the Children’s Crusade (1212)’, in Religious Enthusiasm in
the Medieval West, ed. G. Dickson (Aldershot, 2000), pp.152.
Dickson, Gary, The Children’s Crusade: Medieval History, Modern Mythistory (Basingstoke,
2008).
Dobson, Richard Barrie, The Jews of Medieval York and the Massacre of March 1190 (York,
1974).
288 Bibliography
Dönitz, Saskia, ‘Historiography among Byzantine Jews: the case of Sefer Yossipon’, in Jews
in Byzantium. Dialectics of Minority and Majority Cultures, ed. R. Bonfill, O. Irshai,
G. G. Stroumsa, R. Talgam (Leiden, Boston, 2012).
Dzon, Mary, Kenney, Theresa M., eds, The Christ Child in Medieval Culture: Alpha Es Et O!
(Toronto, 2012).
Ehrle, Frederick, Historia Bibliothecae Romanorum Pontificum tum Bonifatianae tum Aven­
ionensis, Vol. 1 (Rome, 1890).
Einbinder, Susan, Beautiful Death. Jewish Poetry and Martyrdom in Medieval France (Princeton,
2002).
Einbinder, Susan, No Place of Rest. Jewish Literature, Expulsion, and the Memory of Medieval
France (Philadelphia, 2009).
Elstein, Yoav, Lipsker, Avidar, Kushelevsky, Relah, eds, ‘The Jewish Pope’, in Encyclopedia of
the Jewish Story. Sippur okev sippur (Ramat-Gan, 2004), Vol. 1, pp.351–62.
Elukin, Jonathan, ‘The Discovery of the Self: Jews and Conversion in the Twelfth Century’,
in Jews and Christians in Twelfth-Century Europe, ed. M. A. Signer, J. Van Engen (Indiana,
2001), pp.63–76.
Eming, Jutta, Emotion und expression. Untersuchungen zu deutschen und franzözischen
liebes—und abenteuerromanen des 12.-16. jahrhunderts (Berlin, New York, 2006).
Encyclopedia Judaica: The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, 16 vols, ed. C. Roth (Jerusalem,
1971–1972), Vol. 13.
Enders, Jody, ‘Dramatic Rumors and Truthful Appearances. The Medieval Myth of
Ritual Murder by Proxy’, in Rumor Mills. The Social Impact of Rumor and Legend, ed.
G. A. Fine, V. Campion-Vincent, C. Heath (New Brunswick, London, 2004),
pp.15–29.
Engel, David, ‘Away from a Definition of Antisemitism: An Essay in the Semantics of
Historical Description’, in Rethinking European Jewish History, ed. J. Cohen, M. Rosman
(Portland, Oregon, 2009), pp.30–53.
Erdmann, Carl, Die Enstehung des Kreuzzugs Gedankens (Stuttgart, 1935), The Origin of the
Idea of Crusade, trans. M. W. Baldwin and W. Goffart (Princeton, 1977).
Esposito, Anna, ‘Un’ altra Roma: Minoranze nazionali e comunità ebraiche tra Medioevo e
Rinascimento (Rome, 1995).
Evans, Gillian, Alan of Lille. The Frontiers of Theology in the Later Twelfth Century (Cambridge,
1983).
Fedele, Pietro, ‘Le Famiglie di Anacleto II e di Gelasio II’, Archivio della Regia Società
Romana di Storia Patria 27 (1904), 399–433.
Finucane, Ronald, Miracles and Pilgrims: Popular Beliefs in Medieval England (London,
1977).
Fredriksen, Paula, Augustine and the Jews. A Christian Defence of Jews and Judaism (New
York, 2008).
Funkenstein, Amos, Maimonide, nature, historie et messianisme. Traduit de l’hébreu par
Catherine Chalier (Paris, 1988).
Funkenstein, Amos, Perceptions of Jewish History (Berkeley, Oxford, 1993).
Galinsky, Judah, ‘The Different Hebrew Versions of the “Talmud Trial” of 1240 in Paris’, in
New Perspectives on Jewish-Christian Relations, ed. E. Carlebach, J. Schachter (Leiden,
Boston, 2012), pp.109–40.
Gardiner, Harry M., Metcalf, Ruth C., Beebe-Center, John G., eds, Feeling and Emotion.
A History of Theories (New York, 1937; First Greenwood Reprinting, 1970).
Georg von Mutius, Hans, Hymnen und Gebete, Ephraim von Bonn (Hildesheim, Zurich,
New York, 1989).
 Bibliography 289
Geremek, Bronislaw, The Margins of Society in Late Medieval Paris, trans. J. Birrell (Paris,
Cambridge, 1987).
Gilchrist, John, ‘The Perception of the Jews in the Canon Law in the Period of the First Two
Crusades’, Jewish History 3, Part 1 (1988), 9–24.
Goldin, Simha, ‘The Socialisation for Kiddush ha-Shem among Medieval Jews’, Journal of
Medieval History 23/2 (1997), 117–38.
Goodman, Martin, The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies (Oxford, 2002).
Graus, Frantisek, ‘Historische Traditionen über Juden im spätmittelalter (Mitteleuropa)’,
in Zur Geschichte der Juden im Deutschland des späten Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit
herausgegeben von Alfred Haverkamp, ed. A. Haverkamp (Stuttgart, 1981), pp.1–26.
Grayzel, Solomon, ‘The Papal Bull “Sicut Iudeis” , in Studies and Essays in Honour of
Abraham B.  Neuman, ed. M. Ben-Horin, B. D. Weinryb, S. Zeitlin (Philadelphia,
Leiden, 1962), pp.243–80.
Grayzel, Solomon, ‘The Talmud and the Medieval Papacy’, in Essays in Honour of Solomon
B. Freehof, ed. W. Jacob et al. (Pittsburgh, 1964), pp.220–45.
Grayzel, Solomon, ‘Jews and the Ecumenical Councils’, in The Seventy-Fifth Anniversary
Volume of the Jewish Quarterly Review, ed. A. A. Neuman, S. Zeitlin (1967), 287–311.
Grayzel, Solomon, ‘Pope Alexander III and the Jews’, in Salo W. Baron Jubilee Volume.
American Academy for Jewish Research (Jerusalem, New York, 1974), pp.555–72.
Grayzel, Solomon, ‘Popes, Jews and Inquisition from “Sicut” to “Turbato”’, in Essays on the
Occasion of the Seventieth Anniversary of the Dropsie University, ed. A. I. Katsh and
L. Nemoy (Philadelphia, 1979), pp.151–88.
Grayzel, Solomon, ‘The Papal Bull “Sicut Iudaeis”’, in Essential Papers in Judaism and
Christianity in Conflict, ed. J. Cohen (New York, London, 1991), pp.231–59.
Gross, Charles, The Exchequer of the Jews of England in the Middle Ages. A Lecture Delivered
at the Anglo-Jewish Historical Exhibition (London, 1887).
Gross, Nachum, Baron, Salo W., Kahan, Areadius, et al, eds, Economic History of the Jews
(Jerusalem, 1975).
Grossman, Abraham, ‘The Cultural and Social Background of Jewish Martyrdom in
Germany in 1096’, in Juden und Christen zur Zeit der Kreuzzüge, Vorträge und Forschungen
47, Konstanzer Arbeitkreis für mittelalterliche Geschichte, ed. A. Haverkamp (Sigmaringen,
1999), pp.73–86.
Grossman, Abraham, Pious and Rebellious. Jewish Women in Medieval Europe, trans. J.
Chipman (Waltham, Mass., 2004).
Gurevich, Aron, Categories of Medieval Culture, trans. G. L. Campbell (London, Boston,
Melbourne, Henley, 1985).
Gurevich, Aron, Medieval Popular Culture: Problems of Belief and Perception, trans. J. M.
Bak, P. A. Hollingsworth (Cambridge, 1988).
Hames, Harvey, The Art of Conversion, Christianity and Kaballah in the Thirteenth Century
(Leiden, 2000).
Hames, Harvey, Like Angels on Jacob’s Ladder: Abraham Abulafia, the Franciscans and
Joachimism (Bristol, 2007).
Hanan Yuval, ‘“They tell lies: you ate the man”: Jewish Reactions to Ritual Murder Charges’,
in Religious Violence between Christians and Jews: Medieval Roots, Modern Perspectives, ed.
A. S. Abulafia (Basingstoke, 2002), pp.86–106.
Haverkamp, Alfred, Juden und Christen zur Zeit der Kreuzzüge, Vorträge und Forschungen
47, Konstanzer Arbeitskreis für mittelalterliche Geschichte (Sigmaringen, 1999).
Haverkamp, Alfred, ‘The Jews of Europe in the Middle Ages: By Way of Introduction’, in
The Jews of Europe in the Middle Ages (Tenth to Fifteenth Centuries). Proceedings of the
290 Bibliography
International Symposium held at Speyer, 20–25th October 2002, ed. C. Cluse (Turnhout,
Belgium, 2004), pp.1–16.
Haverkamp, Eva, Hebräische berichte über die judenverfolgungen während des ersten kreuzzugs
herausgegaben von Eva Haverkamp (Hanover, 2005).
Hebraische Berichte über die Judenverfolgungen während der Kreuzzuge, ed. A. Neubauer,
M. Stern (Berlin, 1892).
Hiestand, Robert, ‘Juden und Christen in der Kreuzzugspropoganda und bei den
Kreuzzugspredigern’, in Juden und Christen zur Zeit der Kreuzzüge, Vorträge und
Forschungen 47, Konstanzer Arbeitskreis für mittelalterliche Geschichte, ed. A. Haverkamp
(Sigmaringen, 1999), pp.153–208.
Hillaby, Joe, ‘Beth Miqdash Me’at: The Synagogues of Medieval England’, Journal of
Ecclesiastical History 44/2 (1993), 182–98.
Holzmann, Walther, ‘Zur päpstlichen Gesetzgebung über die Juden im zwölften
Jahrhundert’, Festschrift Guido Kisch (Stuttgart, 1935), pp.217–35.
Hood, John, Aquinas and the Jews (Philadelphia, 1995).
Hood, John, Aquinas and the Persecution of European Jewry (Philadelphia, 1995).
Horowitz, Elliott, ‘Jewish Life in the Middle Ages and the Jewish Life of Israel Abrahams’,
in The Jewish Past Revisited: Reflections on Modern Jewish Histories, ed. D. N. Myers,
D. B. Ruderman (New Haven, CT, London, 1988), pp.143–57.
Inwood, Stephen, A History of London (London, 1998).
Iogna-Pratt, Dominique, Ordonner et exclure: Cluny et la societé chrétienne face a l’hérésie au
judaisme et l’Islam, 1000–1150 (Paris, 1998), trans. G. R. Edwards, Order and Exclusion:
Cluny and Christendom Face Heresy, Judaism and Islam, 1000–1150 (Ithaca, London, 2002).
Jacob, Joseph, The Jews of Angevin England: Documents and Records (London, Strand, 1893).
Johnson, Willis, ‘The Myth of Jewish Male Menses’, Journal of Medieval History 24/3 (1998),
273–95.
Jordan, William Chester, The French Monarchy and the Jews: from Philip Augustus to the Last
of the Capetians (Philadelphia, 1989).
Jordan, William Chester, ‘Jews, Regalian Rights and the Constitution in Medieval France’,
in Ideology and Royal Power in Medieval France: Kingship, Crusades and the Jews, ed. W. C.
Jordan (Aldershot, 2001).
Jordan, William Chester, ‘The Jews and the Transition to Papal Rule in the ­Comtat-Venaissin’,
in Ideology and Royal Power in Medieval France: Kingship, Crusades and the Jews, ed. W. C.
Jordan (Aldershot, 2001), pp.213–32.
Jordan, William Chester, ‘The Representation of the Crusades in the Songs Attributed to
Thibaud, Count Palatine of Champagne’, in Ideology and Royal Power in Medieval France:
Kingship, Crusades and the Jews (Aldershot, 2001), pp.27–34.
Jungmann, Josef, The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development, trans. F. A. Brunner
(London, 1959), Vol 1.
Kanerfogel, Ephraim, Sokolow, Moshe, eds, Between Rashi and Maimonides. Themes in
Medieval Jewish Thought, Literature and Exegesis (New York, 2010).
Kanarfogel, Ephraim, Jewish Education and Society in the High Middle Ages (Detroit, 1992).
Kanarfogel, Ephraim, ‘Peering through the lattices’. Mystical, Magical and Pietistic Dimensions
in the Tosafist Period (Detroit, 2000).
Katz, David, ‘Shylock’s Gender: Jewish Male Menstruation in Early Modern England’, The
Review of English Studies 50 (1999), 440–62.
Katz, Solomon, ‘Pope Gregory the Great and the Jews’, Jewish Quarterly Review 24/2 (1933),
113–36.
Kedar, Benjamin, ‘Canon Law and the Burning of the Talmud’, Bulletin of Medieval Canon
Law 9 (1979), 79–82.
 Bibliography 291
Kedar, Benjamin, Crusade and Mission: European Approaches towards the Muslims (Princeton,
1984).
Kelly, John, Golden Mouth. The Story of John Chrysostom—Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop (London,
1995).
Ker, Neil Ripley, Watson, Andrew G. eds, Medieval Libraries of Great Britain. A List of
Surviving Books (London, 1987).
Kieckhefer, Richard, ‘The Specific Rationality of Medieval Magic’, American Historical
Review 99/3 (1994), 813–36.
Klauser, Theodor, A Short History of the Western Liturgy: An Account and Some Reflections,
2nd edn (London, New York, 1979).
Kriegel, Maurice, ‘Prémarranisme et Inquisition dans la Provence des XIIIe et XIVe siècles’,
Provence historique 29 (1977), 313–23.
La Piana, George, ‘The Church and the Jews’, Historia Judaica 11/2 (1949), 117–44.
Lambert, Malcolm, Medieval Heresy, 2nd edn (Oxford, 1992).
Landau, Peter, ‘Gratian’, Theologische Realenzyklopädia 14 (Berlin, 1985), 124–30.
Langmuir, Gavin, Toward a Definition of Anti-Semitism (Berkeley, London, 1996).
Lasker, Daniel, ‘Jewish Philosophical Polemics in Ashkenaz’, in Contra Iudaeos. Ancient and
Medieval Polemics between Christians and Jews, ed. O. Limor, G. G. Stroumsa (Tübingen,
1996), pp.195–211.
Lasker, Daniel, ‘Rashi and Maimonides on Christianity’, in Between Rashi and Maimonides.
Themes in Medieval Jewish Thought, Literature and Exegesis, ed. E. Kanerfogel, M. Sokolow
(New York, 2010), pp.3–22.
Le Goff, Jacques, Your Money or Your Life: Economy and Religion in the Middle Ages
(New York, London, 1998).
Lefèvre, Georges, ‘Le traité ‘De usura’ de Robert de Courcon: Texte et traduction publiés avec
une introduction’, Travaux et mémoires de l’université de Lille 10, Mémoire No. 30 (Lille,
1902), pp.1–83.
Leon Poliakov, The History of Anti-Semitism, Vol. 4: From Mohamed to the Marranos, trans.
N. Gerardi, Vol. 2 (London, 1974).
Lerner, Robert, The Heresy of the Free Spirit in the Late Middle Ages (Berkeley, 1972).
Levi, Israel, ‘Les Juifs de France du Milieu du IXe siècle aux croisades’, Revue des Études
Juives 52 (1906), 161–8.
Liebeschütz, Hans, ‘The Crusading Movement in its Bearing on the Christian Attitude
­towards Jewry’, Journal of Jewish Studies 10/3–4 (1959), 97–111.
Liebeschütz, Hans, ‘Judaism and Jewry in the Social Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas’, Journal
of Jewish Studies 13/1–4 (1962), 57–81.
Liebeschütz, Hans, ‘Relations between Jews and Christians in the Middle Ages’, Journal of
Jewish Studies 16/1–2 (1965), 35–46.
Liebeschütz, Hans, ‘The Crusading Movement in its Bearing on the Christian Attitude
­towards Jewry’, in Essential Papers on Judaism and Christianity in Conflict, ed. J. Cohen
(New York, London, 1991), pp.260–75.
Linder, Amnon, ‘“The Jews too were not Absent…Carrying Moses’ Law on their Shoulders”:
The Ritual Encounter of Pope and the Jews from the Middle Ages to Modern Times’,
Jewish Quarterly Review 99/3 (2009), 323–95.
Lipton, Sara, Images of Intolerance. The Representation of Jews and Judaism in the Bible
Moralisée (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 1999).
Little, Lester, ‘The Jews in Christian Europe’, in Essential Papers on Judaism and Christianity
in Conflict: From Late Antiquity to the Reformation, ed. J. Cohen (New York, London,
1991), pp.276–97.
Lloyd, Simon, English Society and the Crusade, 1216–1307 (Oxford, 1988).
292 Bibliography
Longère, Jean, Oeuvres Oratoires de Maîtres Parisiens au Xiiè siècle. Étude Historique et
Doctrinale, Vol. 1 (Paris, 1975).
Lower, Michael, ‘The Burning at Mont-Aimé: Thibaut of Champagne’s Preparations for the
Barons’ Crusade of 1239’, Journal of Medieval History 29/2 (2003), 95–108.
Lower, Michael, The Barons’ Crusade. A Call to Arms and Its Consequences (Philadelphia, 2005).
Lucas, Leopold, ‘Innocent III et les Juifs’, Revue des Études Juives 35 (1897), 247–55.
MacLehose, William, ‘A Tender Age’: Cultural Anxieties Over the Child in the Twelfth and
Thirteenth Centuries (New York, 2008).
Marcus, Ivan, Piety and Society. The Jewish Pietists of Medieval Germany (Leiden, 1981).
Marcus, Ivan, ‘A Pious Community and Doubt: Qiddush Hashem in Ashkenaz and the
Story of Rabbi Amnon of Mainz’, in Julius Carlebach. Festschrift, Studien zur jüdischen
Geschichte und Soziologie (Heidelberg, 1992), pp.97–113.
Marcus, Ivan, Rituals of Childhood. Jewish Acculturation in Medieval Europe (New Haven,
CT, London, 1996).
Marvin, Laurence, The Occitan War. A Military and Political History of the Albigensian
Crusade, 1209–1218 (Cambridge, 2008).
Mayer, Wendy, Allen, Pauline, John Chrysostom (London, New York, 2000).
McCracken, Peggy, The Curse of Eve, the Wound of the Hero: Blood, Gender and Medieval
Literature (Philadelphia, 2003).
McVaugh, Michael, Medicine before the Plague: Practitioners and their Patients in the Crown
of Aragon 1285–1345 (Cambridge, 1993).
Mellinkoff, Ruth, Outcasts: Signs of Otherness in Northern European Art of the Late Middle
Ages (Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford, 1993).
Menache, Sophia, The Vox Dei. Communication in the Middle Ages (New York, Oxford,
1990).
Moore, John, ‘Pope Innocent III and Usury’, in Pope, Church and City: Essays in Honour of
Brenda Bolton, ed. F. Andrews, C. Egger, C. M. Rousseau, The Medieval Mediterranean,
56 (Leiden, 2004), pp.59–75.
Moore, Rebecca, Jews and Christians in the Life and Thought of Hugh of St. Victor (Atlanta,
1998).
Moore, Robert, The Formation of a Persecuting Society: Power and Deviance in Western Europe
950–1250 (Oxford, 1987).
Moore, Robert, The Formation of a Persecuting Society: Authority and Deviance in Western
Europe, 950–1250, 2nd edn (Oxford, 2007).
Morezoni, Franco, Des écoles aux paroisses: Thomas de Chobham et la promotion de la prédica-
tion au début du XIIe siècle (Paris, 1995).
Moulinas, René, Les Juifs du pape en France. Les communautés d’Avignon et du Comtat
Venaissin aux 17e et 18e siècles (Paris, 1981).
Moulinas, René, Les Juifs du Pape: Avignon et le Comtat Venaissin (Paris, 1992).
Muldoon, James, Popes, Lawyers and Infidels; the Church and the Non-Christian World 1250–
1550 (Philadelphia, 1979).
Mundill, Robert, England’s Jewish Solution. Experiment and Expulsion, 1262–1290 (Cambridge,
1998).
Mundy, John, Europe in the High Middle Ages (London, 1973).
Murray, James, Bruges, Cradle of Capitalism, 1280–1390 (Cambridge, 2005).
Myers, David, ‘Of Marranos and Memory: Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi and the Writing of
Jewish History’, in Jewish History and Jewish Memory: Essays in Honour of Yosef Hayim
Yerushalmi, ed. E. Carlebach, J. M. Efron, D. N. Myers (Hanover, London, 1988),
pp.1–21.
 Bibliography 293
Myers, David, ‘Introduction’, in The Jewish Past Revisited: Reflections on Modern Jewish
Histories, ed. D. N. Myers, D. B. Ruderman (New Haven, CT, London, 1998),
pp.1–15.
Myers, David, Resisting History. Historicism and its Discontents in German-Jewish Thought
(Oxford, 2003).
Myers, David, Ruderman, David, ‘Preface’, in The Jewish Past Revisited: Reflections on
Modern Jewish Histories, ed. D. N. Myers, D. B. Ruderman (New Haven, CT, London,
1998), pp.ix–xi.
Newman, Jewish Influence on Christian Reform Movements (New York, 1925).
Nirenberg, David, Communities of Violence: Persecution of Minorities in the Middle Ages
(Princeton, 1996).
Nirenberg, David, ‘Spanish “Judaism” and “Christianity” in an Age of Mass Conversion’,
in Rethinking European Jewish History, ed. J. Cohen, M. Rosman (Portland, Oregon,
2009), pp.149–72.
O’Brien, John, ‘Jews and Cathari in Medieval France’, Comparative Studies in Society and
History 10/2 (1968), 215–20.
Osterreicher, John, ‘Pro perfidis Judaeis’, Theological Studies 8 (1947), 80–96.
Page, Sophie, Magic in Medieval Manuscripts (Toronto, 2004).
Pakter, Walter, ‘De his qui foris sunt: the Teachings of the Medieval Canon and Civil
Lawyers concerning Jews’ (Ph.D. dissertation, John Hopkins University, 1974).
Pakter, Walter, Medieval Canon Law and the Jews (Ebelsbach am Main, 1988).
Pales-Gobillard, Anette, ‘L’Inquisition et les Juifs: le cas de Jacques Fournier’, in Juifs et
judaisme de Languedoc, ed. B. Blumenkranz, M.-H. Vicaire (Toulouse, 1977).
Paravicini-Bagliani, Agostino, The Pope’s Body, trans. D. Peterson (Chicago, London, 2000).
Parkes, James, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue: A Study in the Origins of
Antisemitism (London, 1934).
Parkes, James, The Jew in the Medieval Community: A Study of his Political and Economic Situation
(London, 1938).
Parkes, James, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue. A Study in the Origins of
Antisemitism (Cleveland, Philadelphia, 1961).
Pelikan, Jaroslav, The Christian Tradition. A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 3:
The Growth of Medieval Theology (600–1300) (Chicago, London, 1978).
Perry, Marvin, Schweitzer, Frederick, Antisemitism: Myth and Hate from Antiquity to the
Present (New York, 2002).
Philips, Jonathan, The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople (London, 2004).
Plested, Marcus, ‘Symposium in Honour of the 1600th Anniversary of St John Chrysostom
held under the Aegis of the Ecumenical Patriarchate’ (Constantinople, 13–18 September
2007), pp.1–12.
Poliakov, Leon, The History of Anti-Semitism, trans. R. Howard, Vol. 4 (London, 1965).
Postan, M. M., Miller, Edward, Postan, Cynthia, eds, The Cambridge Economic History of
Europe, Vol. 2: Trade and Industry in the Middle Ages, 2nd edn (Cambridge, 1987).
Powell, James, Anatomy of a Crusade 1213–1221 (Philadelphia, 1986).
Prestwich, Michael, Edward I (London, 1988).
Rabbi Moses Nahmanides (Ramban). Explorations in his Religious and Literary Virtuosity, ed.
I. Twersky (Cambridge, Mass., London, 1983).
Rankin, Oliver, Jewish Religious Polemic of the Early and Late Centuries: A Study of Documents
here Rendered in English (Edinburgh, 1956).
Raspe, Lucy, ‘Payetanim as Heroes of Medieval Folk Narrative: the Case of R. Shimón
B.  Yishaq of Mainz’, in Jewish Studies Between the Disciplines. Judaistik zwischen den
294 Bibliography
disziplinen. Papers in honour of Peter Schäfer on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, ed.
K. Hermann, M. Schlüter, G. Veltri (Leiden, Boston, 2003), pp.354–69.
Raspe, Lucy, Jüdische Hagiographie im mittelalterlichen Aschkenas (Tübingen, 2006).
Rassow, Peter, ed., Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere Deutsche Geschichtskunde 45
(Berlin, 1924).
Rembaum, Joel, ‘The Talmud and the Popes: Reflections on the Talmud Trials of the 1240s’,
Viator 13 (1982), 203–24.
Resnick, Irvene, Marks of Distinction: Christian Perceptions of Jews in the High Middle Ages
(Washington D.C., 2012).
Rethinking European Jewish History, ed. J. Cohen, M. Rosman (Portland, Oregon, 2009),
pp.95–111.
Richard, Jean, Saint Louis. Roi d’une France féodale, soutien de la Terre sainte (Fayard, 1983).
Richards, Jeffrey, Sex, Dissidence and Damnation: Minority Groups in the Middle Ages
(London, 1991).
Riley-Smith, Jonathan, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading (London, 1986).
Riley-Smith, Jonathan, ed., The Atlas of the Crusades (London, 1991).
Riley-Smith, Jonathan, The First Crusaders, 1095–1131 (Cambridge, 1997).
Riley-Smith, Jonathan, ‘Christian Violence and the Crusades’, in Religious Violence between
Christians and Jews: Medieval Roots, Modern Perspectives, ed. A. S. Abulafia (Basingstoke,
2002), pp.3–20.
Riley-Smith, Jonathan, ‘The Crown of France and Acre, 1254 –1291’, in France and the
Holy Land, ed. D. H. Weiss, L. Mahoney (Baltimore, London, 2004), pp.45–62.
Riley-Smith, Jonathan, What were the Crusades? 4th edn (Basingstoke, 2009).
Rist, Rebecca, The Papacy and Crusading in Europe, 1198–1216 (London, 2009).
Rist, Rebecca, ‘Salvation and the Albigensian Crusade: Pope Innocent III and the Plenary
Indulgence’, Reading Medieval Studies 36 (2010), 95–112.
Rosenthal, Judah, ‘The Talmud on Trial. The Disputation at Paris in the Year 1240’, Jewish
Quarterly Review 47/1 (1956), 58–76; 47/1 (1956), 145–69.
Rosman, Moshe, How Jewish is Jewish History? (Oxford, Portland, Oregon, 2007).
Rosman, Moshe, ‘Jewish History Across Borders’, in Rethinking European Jewish History,
ed. J. Cohen, M. Rosman (Portland, Oregon, 2009), pp.15–29.
Roth, Cecil, ‘Forced Baptism in Italy: A Contribution to the History of Jewish Persecution’,
Jewish Quarterly Review, new series, 27 (1936–1937), 117–36.
Roth, Cecil, ‘The Popes and the Jews’, Church Quarterly Review 123 (1936–1937), 75–91.
Roth, Cecil, The History of the Jews in Italy (Philadelphia, 1946).
Roth, Cecil, ‘The Qualification of Jewish Physicians in the Middle Ages’, Speculum: A
Journal of Medieval Studies 28/4 (1953), 834–43.
Roth, Cecil, ‘Popes’, in Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem 1971), cols 851–61.
Roth, Cecil, ‘The Medieval Conception of the Jew: A New Interpretation’, in Essential Papers on
Judaism and Christianity in Conflict, ed. J. Cohen (New York, London, 1991), pp.298–309.
Rubin, Miri, Gentile Tales: The Narrative Assault on Late Medieval Jews (New Haven, CT,
London, 1999).
Rubin, Miri, ‘Desecration of the Host: The Birth of an Accusation’, in Medieval Religion:
New Approaches, ed. C. Hoffman Berman (New York, London, 2008), pp.363–76.
Rubin, Miri, Emotion and Devotion: The Image of Mary in Medieval Religious Cultures
(Budapest, New York, 2009).
Ruderman, David, ‘Jewish Cultural History in Early Modern Europe: An Agenda for
Future Study’, in Rethinking European Jewish History, ed. J. Cohen, M. Rosman (Portland,
Oregon, 2009), pp.95–111.
 Bibliography 295
Ruderman, David, ‘Hope Against Hope: Jewish and Christian Messianic Expectations in
the Late Middle Ages’, in Exile and Diaspora. Studies in the History of the Jewish People
Presented to Professor Haim Beinart, ed. A. Mirsky, A. Grossman, Y. Kaplan (Jerusalem,
1991), pp.185–202.
Rupp, Jean, L’idée de Chrétienté dans la pensée pontificale des origins à Innocent III (Paris,
1939.
Russell, Frederick, The Just War in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, New York, 1975).
Saige, Gustave, Les Juifs des Languedoc antérieurement au XIVe siècle (Paris, 1881).
Saperstein, Marc, Decoding the Rabbis: A Thirteenth-Century Commentary on the Aggadah
(Cambridge, Mass., 1980).
Schäfer, Peter, ‘Jews and Christians in the High Middle Ages: The Book of the Pious’, in The
Jews of Europe in the Middle Ages (Tenth to Fifteenth Centuries). Proceedings of the
International Symposium held at Speyer, 20-25 October 2002, ed. C. Cluse (Turnhout,
2004), pp.29–39.
Schiffmann, Sara, ‘Heinrichs IV. Verhalten zu den Juden zur Zeit des ersten Kreuzzuges’,
Zeitschrift für die Geschichte der Juden in Deutschland 3 (1931), 39–58.
Schreckenberg, Heinz, Die Christlichen Adversus-Iudaeos-Texte und ihr literarisches und his-
torisches Umfeld (Frankfurt am Main, 1982).
Schreckenberg, Heinz, Die christlichen Adversus-Judaios-Texte (11th–13th Jahrhundert) mit
einer Ikonographie des Judenthemas bis zum 4 Lateranskonzil (Frankfurt am Main, 1988).
Schwartz, Joshua, Poorthuis, Marcel, Saints and Role Models in Judaism and Christianity
(Leiden, Boston, 2004), pp.289–310.
Shatzmiller, Joseph, ‘L’Inquisition et les juifs de Provence au XIIIe siècle’, Provence histo-
rique 23 (1973), 327–38.
Shatzmiller, Joseph, Jews, Medicine, and Medieval Society (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 1994).
Shatzmiller, Joseph, Simonsohn, Shlomo, Michael: On the History of the Jews in the Diaspora,
XII: The Jews of France in Medieval and Modern Times (Tel Aviv, 1991).
Simonsohn, Shlomo, The Apostolic See and the Jews. History (Toronto, 1991).
Slater, Terry, Rosser, Gervais, eds, The Church in the Medieval Town (Aldershot, Brookfield, 1998).
Soifer, Maya, ‘ “You say that the Messiah has come . . .”. The Ceuta Disputation (1179) and
its Place in the Christian anti-Jewish Polemics of the High Middle Ages’, Journal of
Medieval History 31/3 (2005), 287–307.
Soloveitchik, Haim, ‘Pawnbroking: A Study in Ribbit and of the Halakah in Exile’, Pro­
ceedings of the Jewish Academy for Jewish Research 38–39 (1970–1971), 203–68.
Somekh, Alberto, ‘Gli Ebrei a Roma durante l’alto medievo’, in Roma fra Oriente e Occidente.
Settimane di studio del centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo 49, 2 vols (Spoleto, 2002),
Vol. 1, pp.209–35.
Stacey, Robert, ‘From Ritual Crucifixion to Host Desecration: Jews and the Body of Christ’,
Jewish History 12/1 (1998), 11–28.
Stacey, Robert, ‘Crusades, Martyrdom and the Jews of Norman England 1096-1190’, in
Juden und Christen zur Zeit der Kreuzzüge, Vorträge und Forschungen 47, Konstanzer
Arbeitkreis für mittelalterliche Geschichte, ed. A. Haverkamp (Sigmaringen, 1999),
pp.233–51.
Stanislawski, Michael, ‘The Yiddish Shevet Yehudah: A Study in the “Ashkenization” of a
Spanish-Jewish Classic’, in Jewish History and Jewish Memory: Essays in Honour of Yosef
Hayim Yerushalmi, ed. E. Carlebach, J. M. Efron, D. N. Myers (Hanover, London,
1998), pp.135–49.
Stock, Brian, Myth and Science in the Twelfth Century. A Study of Bernard Silvester (Princeton,
1972).
296 Bibliography
Stow, Kenneth, ‘The Church and the Jews: from St Paul to Paul IV’, Bibliographical Essays
in Medieval Jewish Studies (New York, 1976), pp.109–65.
Stow, Kenneth, ‘Hatred of the Jews or Love of the Church: Papal Policy Toward the Jews in
the Middle Ages’, Antisemitism through the Ages (Jerusalem, 1980), pp.71–89.
Stow, Kenneth, ‘Papal and Royal Attitudes toward Jewish Lending in the Thirteenth
Century’, American Jewish Society Review 6 (1981), 161–84.
Stow, Kenneth, Taxation, Community and State: The Jews and the Fiscal Foundations of the
Early Modern Papal State (Stuttgart, 1982).
Stow, Kenneth, The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and Papal Sovereignty: Jewish Perceptions of the Papacy
and Papal Policy in the High Middle Ages (Cincinnati, 1984).
Stow, Kenneth, Alienated Minority. The Jews of Medieval Latin Europe (Cambridge, Mass.,
London, 1992).
Stow, Kenneth, ‘The Papacy and the Jews, Catholic Reformation and Beyond’, Jewish
History 6/1–2 (1992), 257–79.
Stow, Kenneth, ‘The Pitfalls of Writing Papal Documentary History: Simonsohn’s Apostolic
See and the Jews’, Jewish Quarterly Review 85/3–4 (1995), 397–412.
Stow, Kenneth, ‘Conversion, Apostasy and Apprehensiveness: Emicho of Flonheim and the
Fear of the Jews in the Twelfth Century’, Speculum: A Journal of Medieval Studies 76/4
(2001), 911–33.
Stow, Kenneth, Jewish Dogs: An Image and Its Interpreters. Continuity in the Catholic Jewish
Encounter (Stanford, California, 2006).
Stow, Kenneth, ‘The Church and the Jews: St Paul to Pius IX’, in Popes, Church and Jews in
the Middle Ages: Confrontation and Response, ed. K. Stow (Aldershot, 2007), pp.1–70.
Stroll, Mary, The Jewish Pope: Ideology and Politics in the Papal Schism of 1130 (Leiden, 1987).
Supplement Dictionnaire de la Bible ‘Reste d’Israel’, Fascicle 55 (1981).
Synan, Edward, The Popes and the Jews in the Middle Ages (New York, London, 1965).
Szpiech, Ryan, Conversion and Narrative: Reading and Religious Authority in Medieval
Polemic (Philadelphia, 2013).
Talmage, Frank, The Polemical Writings of Profiat Duran (Jerusalem, 1981).
Tartakoff, Paola, Between Christian and Jew: Conversion and Inquisition in the Crown of
Aragon, 1250–1391 (Philadelphia, 2012).
Taylor, Henry, The Medieval Mind. A History of the Development of Thought and Emotion in
the Middle Ages, 4th edn, 2 vols (London, 1925).
Tierney, Brian, Origins of Papal Infallibility 1150–1350: A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility,
Sovereignty and Tradition in the Middle Ages (Leiden, 1972).
Tierney, Brian, Foundation of the Conciliar Theory. The Contribution of the Medieval
Canonists from Gratian to the Great Schism (Basil, 1998).
Tirosh-Samuelson, Hava, ‘Maimonides’ View of Happiness: Philosophy, Myth, and the
Transcendence of History’, in Jewish History and Jewish Memory: Essays in Honour of Yosef
Hayim Yerushalmi, ed. E. Carlebach, J. M. Efron, D. N. Myers (Hanover, London,
1988), pp.189–213.
Todeschini, Giacomo, ‘Usury in Christian Middle Ages. A Reconstruction of the
Historiographical Tradition (1949–2010)’, in Religion and Religious Institutions in the
European Economy, 1000–1800, ed. F. Ammannati (Firenze, 2012), pp.119–30.
Trautner-Kromann, Hanne, Shield and Sword: Jewish Polemics against Christianity and the
Christians in France and Spain from 1100–1500 (Tübingen, 1993).
Trinkaus, Charles, In Our Image and Likeness. Humanity and Divinity in Italian Humanist
Thought, Vol. 1 (London, 1970).
Twyman, Susan, Papal Ceremonial at Rome in the Twelfth Century (London, 2002).
 Bibliography 297
Tyerman, Christopher, The Invention of the Crusades (Basingstoke, 1988).
Ullmann, Walter, The Papacy and the Faithful (Cambridge University Library, presented by
the Author, 1965).
Van Laarhoven, Jan, ‘Christianitas et la Réforme grégorienne’, Studi Gregoriani 6 (1959–
60), 1–98.
Vicaire, Marie-Humbert, Juifs et Judaisme de Languedoc, 13e siècle—début 14e siècle, Cahiers
de Fanjeaux 12 (Toulouse, 1977).
Victor, Jeffrey, Satanic Panic: The Creation of a Contemporary Legend (Chicago, 1993).
von Allmen, Jean-Jacques, ed., Vocabulary of the Bible (London, 1958), 1–98.
Watt, James, ‘Jews and Christians in the Gregorian Decretals’, Studies in Church History 29
(1992), 93–105.
Watt, John, The Theory of Papal Monarchy in the Thirteenth Century: the Contribution of the
Canonists (New York, 1965).
Watt, John, ‘The Crusades and the Persecution of the Jews’, in The Medieval World, ed.
P. Linehan, J. Nelson (London, New York, 2001), pp.146–61.
Waugh Scott L., Diehl, Peter, eds, Christendom and Its Discontents (Cambridge, 1996).
White, Stephen, ‘The Politics of Anger’, in Anger’s Past. The Social Uses of an Emotion in the
Middle Ages, ed. B. H. Rosenwein (Ithaca, London, 1998), pp.127–52.
Wilken, Robert, John Chrysostom and the Jews. Rhetoric and Reality in the Late Fourth
Century (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 1983).
Williams, Lukyn, Adversus Iudaeos: A Bird’s Eye View of Christian Apologiae until the Renaissance
(Cambridge, 1935).
Williman, Daniel, Bibliothèques Ecclésiastiques au Temps de la Papauté d’Avignon, Vol. 1
(Paris, 1980), Vol. 2 (Paris, 1980).
Winroth, Anders, The Making of Gratian’s Decretum (Cambridge, 2000).
Wolfson, Elliot, Along the Path. Studies in Kabbalistic Myth, Symbolism, and Hermeneutics
(Albany, 1995).
Wolfson, Harry, Crescas’ Critique of Aristotle. Problems of Aristotle’s Physics in Jewish and
Arabic Philosophy (Cambridge, Mass., 1957; repr. 1971).
Yassif, Eli, Jewish Folklore. An Annotated Bibliography (New York, London, 1986).
Yassif, Eli, The Hebrew Folktale: History, Genre, Meaning, trans. J. S. Teitelbaum
(Bloomington, Indianapolis, 1999).
Yerushalmi, Yosef, From Spanish Court to Italian Ghetto. Isaac Cardoso. A Study in Seventeenth
Century Marranism and Jewish Apologetics (New York, London, 1971).
Yerushalami, Yosef, The Lisbon Massacre of 1506 and the Royal Image in the Shebet Yehudah
(Cincinatti, 1976).
Yerushalmi, Yosef, Zakhor. Jewish History and Jewish Memory (Seattle, London, 1982).
Yuval, Israel, Two Nations in Your Womb. Perceptions of Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity
and the Middle Ages (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 2006).
Zema, Demetrius, ‘The Houses of Tuscany and of Pierleone in the Crisis of Rome in the
Eleventh Century’, Traditio 2 (1944), 155–75.
Zfatman, Sara, The Jewish Tale in the Middle Ages. Between Ashkenaz and Sepharad (Jerusalem,
1993).
Zink, Miche, La Prédication en Langue Romane avant 1300 (Paris, 1976).
 Index
‘1007 Anonymous’  1n1, 2n3, 3n7, 5n15,
12n56, 13n59, 28n1, 32n21, 36n40, 37n47,
38n49, 40, 40n62, 43n77, 44n84, 46nn96–8,
47n99, 48n106, 49n111, 50n117, 51nn123,
124, 52, 53n145, 63n203, 86n116, 112n58,
114n65, 116n78, 117nn81, 83, 124n122,
130n154, 146n66, 167n19, 262n101,
266n1, 271
Abbot Bernard  233
abbot of Cluny  47, 146
abbot of Joigny  121
abbot of St Anthony in Pamiers  139
abbot of St Augustine of Canterbury  121, 137, 158
abbot of St Geneviève of Paris  121, 138
Abbot Suger of St Denis  211
abbots of St Jean de Vignes in Soissons and in
Valsecret 121
Abel 69
Abelard  199, 231
Abraham Abulafia  46, 52n128, 60, 60n188
accusations  12, 39, 70, 81, 82, 84n101, 85, 87,
89–91, 99, 130, 167, 168, 195, 196,
223n117, 244
Achille Ratti  xiv
Acre  ix, 101, 145n57, 159, 257, 266
Action Française xiv
Ad liberandam  18n81, 20, 123, 153, 155, 157,
161, 179
adders  219, 255
adextratores 239
Adhémar of le Monteil  111
Adrian I, pope  10, 247n8
adventus  235n64, 239–43, 245
adventus ceremonies  226, 232, 234–7,
241, 242
Africa 158
Aggadah 61
Aix  96n174, 215, 261
Alain of Lille  9, 9n45, 13n62, 222, 222n116
Albi  11, 95, 143, 143n49, 154
Albigensian Crusade  18, 18n82, 128–32, 152,
157, 179, 273
Alcuin of York  8n41
Alexander II, ‘Placuit nobis’  75, 93, 124, 181,
230, 231, 258, 259
Alexander II, pope  4, 5n15, 11n50, 57, 75,
75n56, 79, 87n119, 93, 124, 124n121, 181,
208, 208n14, 216n96, 229, 229n21, 248,
257n67, 258, 258n77, 259, 259n79
Alexander III, pope  10n46, 12n38, 14, 15,
15nn70, 71, 16, 19, 20n96, 24, 24n118, 27,
33, 33n31, 43, 43n77, 47, 77, 79, 81,
112n58, 113, 113n60, 136, 137, 137nn6–9,
142–4, 147, 147n71, 164, 165, 165n5, 166,
166n11, 178, 179, 179n95, 182, 182n111,
188, 189, 192, 193, 193n196, 209,
209nn19–22, 232, 233, 235, 241–4, 250,
250n25, 252, 252n37
Alexander IV, pope  13n58, 17n76, 24, 81,
81n86, 92, 96, 97, 97n183, 110, 139,
139nn26–8, 141, 158, 159nn152–3,
174, 174n56, 177, 177n76, 205, 205n290,
212, 212nn48–9, 228, 229n19, 260,
260n87
Alexander of Hales  14n62, 77
Alexander Roes  49n111
Alexius I Comnenus  111
Alfonso III of Portugal  174
Alfonso, son of James II of Aragon  134
Alfonso VI of León and Castile  125
Alfonso VIII of Castile  126, 258
Alfonso X of Castile  91, 171
All Saints Day  145
Almohads 124
Almoravids  123, 124
Alpert of Metz  37n47
Alps 132
Alsace  87, 224
Amalric de Montfort  157
Ambrose, St  169
American Jewish Congress  xx
Amiens 133
Anacletus II (anti-pope)  34, 221, 228–31, 252
anathema  94, 164
Andreas Abalat, bishop of Valencia  96
Andrew II of Hungary  120, 176
Angevin 17
Angoulême  110, 121, 122
Anjou  67, 70, 72, 110, 122, 180, 235, 264
annalists 101
annals  71, 81
Anonymous author of the Sefer Nisahon
Yashan 46
Anselm, St  83, 83n97, 223, 223n120
Anselm II of Lucca  104, 105
answer  2n3, 35, 50, 53, 98, 101, 104, 108,
190, 201, 212, 215
Antichrist  60, 63
anti-Christian polemic  46, 195, 223
anti-historicism 28n1
anti-Jewish allegations  129, 167
anti-Jewish legislation  95, 164, 179
anti-Jewish polemic  13n62, 14n62, 45, 47,
222, 260n83
anti-Jewish policies  49
300 Index
anti-Jewish propaganda  228
anti-Jewish riots  78, 112
anti-Judaism, concept of  5
anti-popes  15, 34, 43, 43n77, 63, 77, 112,
113, 221, 228–30, 252
antiquity  xiv, 14, 86, 205
anti-semitism, concept of  64n207, 272
anti-usury regulations  142
Apocalypse  60, 249n15
apostasy  215, 261
apostates  48, 208, 213
Apostle, the  106, 192
apostolic authority  28, 45, 55, 65, 115,
125, 145
Apostolic Faith  259
Apostolic See  45n88, 71, 105, 115n69, 130,
139, 140, 211, 213n57, 228, 269
apostolic succession  28, 55, 65, 265, 269
apostolic throne  122, 191, 249, 259
Apostolic Writings  173
Apparatus super quinque libris decretalium of
Innocent IV  23, 184, 186, 200, 273
Apulia  216n72, 218
Aquinas, Thomas  3n7, 5, 6n22, 9, 12n55,
21n104, 141, 141n40
Arabic  13, 71, 223, 258n74, 262n101
Arabic texts  71, 223
Aragon  39n59, 49n111, 62, 72, 94, 95, 97,
124, 125, 128, 129, 134, 171, 193, 194,
196, 197, 206, 211, 213, 214, 217, 218,
224, 235
Aramaic 262n101
arch of Titus  234
archbishop of Aragon  211
archbishop of Arles  77, 120, 152, 251
archbishop of Bordeaux  110, 121, 122, 172
archbishop of Bourges  215n72, 219n91
archbishop of Braga  140
archbishop of Bremen  140n34
archbishop of Canterbury  69, 71, 97, 121n105,
137, 158, 206
archbishop of Castile  127, 193, 196
archbishop of Colosza  175, 193
archbishop of Compostela  125
archbishop of England  196
archbishop of France  196
archbishop of Germany  250, 264
archbishop of Gran  176
archbishop of Hungary  183
archbishop of León  177
archbishop of Mainz  112, 208
archbishop of Milan  114
archbishop of Narbonne  134
archbishop of Navarre  196
archbishop of Nevers  148, 193
archbishop of Paris  50, 139, 165, 193, 196,
197, 212
archbishop of Poitiers  253
archbishop of Portugal  196
archbishop of Provence  180
archbishop of Rheims  209
archbishop of Rouen  137
archbishop of Sens  50, 121, 138, 155, 156,
158, 159, 165, 182, 193, 198, 210, 228
archbishop of Seville  125
archbishop of Spain  209
archbishop of Tarragona  128, 172, 193, 206,
211, 218
archbishop of Toledo  126–8, 172
archbishop of Toulouse  134
archbishop of Tournai  212
archbishop of Tours  139, 151, 212
archbishop of Trier  112
archbishop of Tyre  114
archbishops in the Counties of Poitiers,
Toulouse, and Provence  177
archdeacon of Bristol  88
archdeacon of Ledesma in Salamanca  140, 177
archdeacons of Westbury  88
Arian heresy  260
Arians 260
Aristotle  141, 223
Ark of the Covenant  234
Arles  77, 92, 120, 152, 208, 215, 235, 251,
261
Arnold of Brescia  198, 231
Artois 122
Arukh 227
Ashkenazy  36, 38, 38n49
Astorga 176
astrology  91, 92
atonement 58n177
Augsburg 229
augustales  93, 258
Augustine of Canterbury, St  137, 158
Augustinian idea of Jewish servitude  221
Augustinian ideas  69, 207, 221, 254, 265
Augustinian tradition  6, 218
Austria  xvi, 120, 171
authority/authorities  4, 8, 11, 15, 19–21, 24,
27, 28, 32, 34, 35, 37, 37n47, 39, 40, 46,
49, 51, 53n139, 55, 57, 58, 59n177, 60, 64,
65, 67, 70, 85, 87, 89, 93, 94, 97, 102, 103,
105–7, 123, 125, 133, 139, 159, 160n161,
163–206, 208, 211, 213, 214, 219, 228,
232, 233, 246, 260, 266, 268, 269
Auxerre  137, 148
Avignon  9n43, 25, 27, 32, 46, 55, 87, 97, 131,
133, 134, 143, 143n49, 171, 213n57, 228,
236, 237
Avignon exile  236
Ayyubids 121
Babylonian Talmud  146
badge  20, 20n96, 68, 69n21, 131, 170, 171,
174, 179, 180
Baeza, province of  194
Baghdad 227
Balderic of Dol  111
Baldus de Ubaldis  18n83
 Index 301
Baldwin IX of Flanders  119 bishop of Marseilles  137, 208
Balkans 112 bishop of Naples  208
Baltic  x, 101, 125 bishop of Palermo  228
baptism  10, 10n46, 16, 48, 75–9, 81nn102–3, bishop of Pamplona  139
178, 180, 183, 187, 190, 208–10, 212, 213, bishop of Paris  50, 139, 165, 193, 196, 197,
250, 251, 251nn27, 30, 255, 257 212, 262n101
baptized slaves  190, 211 bishop of Poitiers  110, 121, 122
Barbastro 124 bishop of Prague  112
Barcelona  13, 24, 97, 134, 193, 210, 213, bishop of Provence  71
257, 260 bishop of Regensburg  123
Bari 96 bishop of Rieti  159
‘Barons’ Crusade’  13, 72, 80, 87, 109, 110n44, bishop of Rome  37, 233
121, 122n110, 157, 191, 191n189, 248, bishop of Saintes  110, 121, 122
258, 264 bishop of Segovia  257
Baruch, Jewish convert  229 bishop of Senlis  50, 121, 156, 158
Bavaria 112 bishop of Speyer  71, 112
Beauvais 213 bishop of Toulouse  253
Becket, Thomas  137 bishop of Tournai  209
Beirut 122 bishop of Tusculum  123, 158, 201, 216n72
Bela IV  177 bishop of Worcester  88, 168
Bellum Domini contra Iudaeos et contra bishop-elect of Trani  216n72
Iudaeorum hereticos  13n62, 222, 222n116, bishop-elect of Valence  121, 158
223n117 bishopric of Avignon  213n57
bellum sacrum 101 bishops in the Counties of Poitiers, Toulouse,
Benedict XIII (anti-pope)  43n77, 63, 113n58 and Provence  253
Benedict XVI, pope  276 bishops of Brandenburg  140n34
Benjamin of Tudela  227, 232–4, 243 bishops of France  258
Benzo of Albi  11 bishops of Germany  81, 250, 264
Berbers 124 bishops of Hildesheim  140n34
Berkhamstead 68 bishops of Hungary  183
Bernard of Clairvaux, St  34n32, 39n58, bishops of Portugal  140
116nn76, 78 bishops of Saintes, Angoulême, and
Bernard of Parma  181 Poitiers  110, 121, 122
Berthold of Regensburg  218 bishops of Spain  258
Béziers  72, 92, 95, 128, 143 Black Death  70
Bible  53n139, 59n177, 196, 197, 199, 200, Blanche of Brittany  110
202, 204, 206, 223 Blanche of Castile  50, 133, 154, 195
Bibles moralisées  18, 18n84 Blanche of Champagne  138, 155, 156
Biblical Hebrew  135 blasphemy  22, 23n110, 91, 92, 96, 155,
Biblical Judaism  231–4, 241 193–5, 204
bishop of Angoulême  110, 121, 122 blind  8, 9, 18, 83, 84, 247, 255, 256
bishop of Arles  208 blindness  6n26, 253–5, 253n45, 262n101, 268
bishop of Astorga  176 Blois  12, 39, 39n59, 86, 99, 130, 146, 167
bishop of Autun  210 blood  5n19, 12, 23, 61, 81–7, 89, 90
bishop of Auxerre  137, 148 blood libel  5, 5n19, 12, 17n75, 23,
bishop of Baeza  138 23n114, 24, 39, 48, 52, 70, 81–90,
bishop of Beauvais  213 90n134, 99, 205, 244, 250, 264, 266,
bishop of Breslau  138 267, 271, 272
bishop of Burgos  126, 138, 156, 172 blood of Jesus Christ  165, 166, 168, 169, 263
bishop of Carpentras  215 body of Jesus Christ  5n19, 15, 88, 165, 188
bishop of Chichester  121, 158 Bohemia  88, 94, 112
bishop of Cordova  194 Bologna  14, 22n107, 50n117, 105, 106, 180,
bishop of Galencia  122 195n215, 196n229, 258n74, 272
bishop of León  140, 177 Bonaventure 9
bishop of Lisbon  176 Boniface of Montferrat  119
bishop of Livonia  210 Boniface VIII, pope  9n43, 23, 23n113, 25, 78,
bishop of Lucca  160n161 78n65, 81n87, 88, 89n130, 140n34,
bishop of Lugo (Portugal)  176 160n161, 215, 215n72, 216nn73–4, 229,
bishop of Maguelonne  173 229n20, 236, 237, 261, 261n94, 276
bishop of Mainz  34 Bonn  9n45, 211
302 Index
Bonum universale de apibus of Thomas of Canterbury  69, 71, 97, 121, 121n105, 137,
Cantimpré 198 158, 206
book burnings  198, 217 Cantigas 91n139
books of the Jews  51n125, 96 capes  170, 173
Bordeaux  110, 121, 122, 172, 175 Capetians 272
borrowers  156, 161 Carcassonne 128
Bourg de Saint Gilles  179 Cardinal Albindus  236
Bourges  121, 133, 138 Cardinal Bea  xviii
Braga 140 Cardinal Boso  11, 227, 227n6, 238, 240, 243,
Braisne 83 243n133
Brandenburg 140n34 Cardinal Gasparri  xiv
Bray-sur-Seine 118 Cardinal Hyacinth  125
Bremen 140n34 Cardinal Jacopo Gaetani Stefaneschi  236,
Brescia  198, 231 236n80
Breslau  71, 85, 88, 138, 224 cardinals  34–6, 61, 96n174, 158, 186, 202,
bribery  117, 146 211, 229, 230
Bristol  52n128, 82, 88 Carentan 114
Brittany  67, 70, 110, 160n161 Carpentras 215
Büren 87 Castile 196
Burgos  126, 138, 156, 172 Catalan  58n177, 224
Burgundio of Pisa  8 Catalonia 124
Burgundy  174, 177, 205, 212, 220, 255 Cathar heresy  128, 131
Bury St Edmund’s  44n87, 68, 82, 118 Cathar texts  198
business deals  140, 153, 161, 187 Catharism  21, 128
‘business of the faith’  101, 106 Cathars  102, 128, 131, 132, 198, 224
Byzantine Christians  110 cathedra 233
Byzantine East  13 Catholic faith  53, 88, 134, 166, 205, 206, 255,
Byzantine Jews  36n39, 41, 42 259, 260
Byzantines 36 Catholicism  213n57, 257
Byzantium 36n39 Catholics xiv
Causa 17 of the Decretum 104
‘Caecitia’  252–6, 268 Causa 23 of the Decretum  104, 104n17, 180,
‘Caecitas’   6n26, 247n3, 253, 254 181, 181n106
Caesar of Heisterbach  9n45 Causa 24 of the Decretum  105, 180
Cahors  96n174, 97, 144 Causa 28 of the Decretum 97
Cahorsins  17, 144 Cavaillon 95
Cain  18, 169, 169n29, 263 Celestine II, pope  235, 275
Calabria 235 Celestine III, pope  12n58, 16, 79, 79n70, 87,
Calahorra 235 109, 118, 118n86, 137, 137n1, 147,
Calatayud 140 147n72, 182, 182n112, 183n123, 227,
Caliphs 171 228n12, 231n37, 232, 241, 242, 275
Calixtus II, pope  1, 1n2, 12n38, 27, 43, 43n82, cemeteries  79, 244
78, 78n66, 108, 108n32, 113, 113n60, 114, Cencius Camerarius  227, 227n11, 236,
125, 229–32, 235, 239, 240, 242, 275 236n79, 238, 239n100, 242n122
Cambrai 84n102 Censius II 235
Cambridge 82 censorship  201, 203, 205
Canon 67 of Lateran IV  137, 138, 140, 151, Central France  144
152, 155, 156, 161, 183, 184, 188 Central Middle Ages  108
Canon 14 of Toledo III  174 ceremonial tradition  245
Canon 57 of Toledo IV  76, 77 Chaldean 258n74
Canon Benedict  227, 227n11, 234, 236, Chalon-sur-Saône 262n101
236n79, 238 chamber serfdom  219
canon law  2, 5, 6, 13, 15, 15n70, 18, 23, 28, 51, Champagne  13, 22nn12, 13, 22nn15–17,
75–7, 103–7, 112, 142, 160–4, 166, 180–6, 25n128, 34n33, 71, 72, 109, 110n44, 118,
191n186, 207, 208, 226, 257, 267–9, 273 118nn86, 87, 121, 122n110, 138, 154–8, 171,
canon law collections  180, 223n117, 251 191n189, 226n1, 227n8–11, 229nn21–3,
canon lawyers  21, 75, 78, 101, 103–6, 142, 230nn25–6, 30, 32, 231–5nn33–64,
163, 184, 191, 192, 199, 207, 208 237nn84, 86–9, 238nn90–5, 239nn99, 103,
canon of Bourges  138 240nn104–11, 241nn112–20, 242nn121–2,
canon of Troyes  159 124–7, 129, 243nn130–4, 244nn139–44,
canonists  8n37, 23, 71, 75–7, 104–6, 136, 245nn145–8, 249, 254nn49, 262n98, 264,
143, 162, 192, 200, 251 272
 Index 303
Champenois 118
chancellor of the University of Paris  50, 202
Charles I of Anjou, king of Naples and Sicily
and count of Provence  70, 122, 180, 264
Charles VI  70
Chartres 132
Chichester  121, 158
child murder accusations  83
children  xxi, 44, 70, 81, 83–7, 90, 98, 99, 113,
130, 132, 143, 164, 166, 168, 182, 185,
188–90, 199, 208, 211–13, 220, 263
Children’s Crusade  132
Chobham  9n45, 17n78, 161n163, 220,
220n103
Christ  7, 11, 18, 19, 34n32, 36, 44, 46, 48,
55n153, 73–6, 80, 82–91, 105, 108, 110,
114, 116, 121, 125, 132, 153n115, 166,
167, 169, 174–6, 186, 188, 191, 193, 194,
199, 200, 205, 219, 220, 222, 222n113,
231, 234, 240, 243, 246, 250, 254, 255,
257, 259, 260, 262, 263, 268
Christ Child  85, 90
Christ the Redeemer  91
Christendom  ix, 11, 14, 47n101, 60, 64, 203,
205, 220, 224, 228, 244, 261
Christian abstinence  131
Christian arguments  47, 53, 56
Christian attitudes  1n1, 42, 268
Christian authority  219
Christian beliefs  19, 53, 56, 234, 269
Christian burial  142
Christian children  81, 84–6, 99
Christian clemency  76, 79, 248
Christian communities  6, 14n66, 30, 76, 81,
85, 94, 99, 101
Christian converts to Judaism  224
Christian doctrine  52, 53, 57n169, 58n177,
61n18, 178, 201, 218
Christian Europe  1n1, 17, 35, 103, 107, 119,
124, 128, 133, 180, 181, 186, 198, 223,
267, 271
Christian exegetes  14
Christian faith  4, 6, 16, 17n75, 55, 73, 77, 78,
80, 84, 94, 102, 119, 165, 166, 183, 188,
201, 208–10, 212, 220, 246, 248, 249, 251,
262, 263
Christian faithful  4, 5, 8, 13, 63, 101, 125,
147, 149, 157, 158
Christian festivals  166, 193
Christian Hebraists  233
Christian heritage  108, 233, 259
Christian history  45, 76
Christian ideas  28, 54, 58n177, 223, 268
Christian identity  85
Christian law  106, 192
Christian lenders  145, 153, 153n112, 113, 161
Christian martyrdom  82
Christian medieval theology  38, 53n138, 76,
86, 142
Christian missionizing  272
Christian moneylenders  12n55, 152, 162, 192
Christian money-lending  17, 146, 147, 151
Christian narratives  84
Christian neighbours  20, 31, 85, 165, 166
Christian nurses  165, 168, 169, 188
Christian owners  138, 139
Christian people  188, 259, 263
Christian polemic  9, 46, 64, 195, 266
Christian polemicists  56, 59, 251n31
Christian possessions  167
Christian properties  118n87, 127
Christian province  127, 170, 188
Christian relics  242
Christian religion  xix, 89, 151, 152, 168, 209,
224, 258n74
Christian revenues  136
Christian servants  16, 34, 130, 164, 168, 171,
182, 220, 244
Christian slaves  10, 74, 75, 164, 168,
189, 190
Christian society  6, 12–20, 15n69, 18n85,
22–7, 72–5, 78, 80, 81, 91, 92, 95, 101,
102, 104, 106, 108, 129, 131, 140–4,
147, 150, 162–5, 168, 169, 175, 180,
181, 183, 187, 191, 192, 197, 198, 201,
203, 207–25, 246, 248, 253, 256–9, 263,
264, 268
Christian soldiers  129
Christian souls  9, 71, 222, 254
Christian sources  29n6, 196
Christian territories  4, 124, 181
Christian testimony  19, 178, 258n74
Christian theology  51–60, 82, 117, 194, 206,
219, 250, 256, 259, 260, 268
Christian theories of Holy War  267
Christian theories of Just War  267
Christian usury  17, 140–4, 146, 184, 190
Christian wet nurses  69, 165, 167, 168, 188
Christian women  127, 166, 169, 172, 189
Christian writers  42, 49n111, 52, 53, 59, 255
‘Christianitas’ 14
Christianity  4, 4n13, 7, 8, 10, 14, 14n62,
16, 20n97, 22, 23, 25, 25n122, 27, 29,
30n15, 31, 34, 35, 41–3, 46, 47n104,
50n117, 51–3, 57, 57n165, 58, 60n188,
61n188, 62, 63, 65n211, 70, 73–8, 80,
82–4, 98, 99, 101, 102, 111, 113, 124,
128, 130, 167, 170, 178, 179, 182,
182n112, 183, 185, 186, 193–5, 201,
209–14, 214n62, 218, 219, 221, 223–5,
229, 231, 237, 248, 249, 251, 255, 256,
260, 262, 268
Christ-killers (Jews as)  108
Christological interpretations  53n139,
57n177
Christological prophecy  7, 74
Christ’s Church  23, 186
Christ’s representative  108
Christ’s vicar  23, 186, 200
Chronica majora of Matthew Paris  85n41, 117,
133, 133n174
chroniclers  39n58, 40, 42, 44, 44n87, 46, 47,
59, 98, 99, 101, 109, 112, 114, 115n68,
117, 133, 150
304 Index
chronicles  ix, x, 28–30, 36, 39–45, 40nn61–2,
42nn72, 75, 44n83, 49n111, 68, 71, 81, 99,
102, 110, 112, 112n56, 113, 114n63, 115,
135, 146, 178, 271
‘Chronicles of William of Newburgh’  44n87, 118n84
Church councils  70, 92, 94, 104, 130, 141,
143, 146, 171, 273
Church courts  141, 192
Church discipline  104, 180
Church dogma  53
Church fathers  ix, 6, 104, 105, 180, 268
Church in Sicily  138
Church of Magdeburg  140n34
Church of Rimini  136
Church of St Stephen  72
Church of the Holy Sepulchre  11
Church policy  3, 3n7, 5n16
Church vessels  148
churches  39, 67, 74, 89, 111, 118n87, 130,
137–40, 150, 156, 167, 168, 176, 182, 189,
190, 211, 214, 261
cinnamon 238
circumcision 187
Cistercian abbot of Aulne  159
Cistercian monastery at
Chalon-sur-Saône 262n101
Cistercian monastery of Cambron  84n102
Cistercians  39n58, 84n102, 116, 159, 233,
262n101
civil law  74, 79, 247
Clairvaux  34n32, 39n58, 114, 116, 116n76–8,
117n81, 146, 146n66, 194, 222, 222nn113–14,
230, 231, 241, 262n101
Classical texts  52
clemency  76, 79, 152, 248, 267
Clement III, pope  12n58, 16, 17n76, 79,
79n70, 109, 109n35, 182, 208, 208n15,
227, 232, 235, 242, 257, 257n71, 275
Clement III (antipope)  43, 77, 112, 182
Clement III, ‘Quam gravis et’  79n70, 109, 109n35
Clement IV, correspondence of  263
Clement IV, ‘Non sine misterio’  125
Clement IV, pope  1, 1n2, 14, 23n110, 24,
25n122, 27, 96, 123n116, 125, 125n129,
169, 169nn30–1, 174, 174nn57–8, 177,
177nn77–8, 206, 206nn292–3, 212,
212nn52–3, 214, 214nn61–3, 216, 216n72,
218, 253, 253n46, 255, 255n60, 260,
260n88, 263–5, 267, 276
Clement IV, ‘Turbato corde’  1, 1n1, 24, 25,
25nn122, 124, 96, 214, 214nn62–4, 215,
215n67, 216, 216n77, 217, 218, 260,
260n88, 261, 261n93
Clement V, pope  ix, 81n87, 133, 133n75,
140n34, 160n161, 236, 258, 258n74, 276
Clement V, ‘Exurgat Deus’  133, 133n175,
160n161
clergy of Barcelona  210, 257
clergy of Constantinople  257
clergy of France  120, 151, 157
clergy of province of Aix  261
clergy of province of Arles  215, 261
clergy of province of Embrun  215, 261
clergy of Sens  155
clerical garb  179
Clerical Orders  173
Clermont  41, 43, 43n81, 108, 110–13,
113n62, 124, 134
Cluny  47, 146, 211
‘coacti’  77, 78, 213, 213n56
collective memory  30n11, 31, 33
Cologne  9n45, 18n82, 87, 114, 132, 200n252,
259n78
Colosza  175, 193
commentaries  8, 8n41, 9, 53n139, 54, 59n177,
61, 71, 103–5, 180, 184, 184n133, 185,
186, 191, 199, 216n78
commune of usurers  262, 262n97
communion  84, 84n102, 87–9, 142, 147n73,
174n55, 184n130
community of Rome  226–9, 229n20, 239,
243–5
community of the faithful  14, 14n66
commutation 57
‘compelle intrare’  250
Compilatio Prima  181, 182, 182n111, 183
Compilatio Quarta 182
Compilatio Quinta 183
Compilatio Secunda  182, 183n123
Compilatio Tertia  107, 119, 162, 183, 192
Compostella  156, 176, 193
Comtat Venaissin  25, 26n125, 32, 32n22, 95,
135n182, 160n161, 213n57, 215, 261
conciliar legislation  2, 14n62, 27, 28, 97, 122,
140, 142, 164, 180, 191, 261, 267, 273
Conciliar Movement  32, 58n177
Concordat  xiv, xv, xvi
Concordia discordantium canonum  75, 180,
273; see also Decretum of Gratian
confiscation  89, 118n87, 155
Conrad II of Germany (emperor)  235
Conrad III of Germany (emperor)  114
consecration  236, 238, 239, 239n101
Constantine I (Roman emperor)  74, 233
Constantinople  8, 9n41, 112, 119,
249, 257
‘Constitutio pro Iudaeis’  1n2, 12, 16, 17,
24,43, 43n79, 45, 64, 74, 77–83, 81n87,
90, 98, 102, 108–10, 113, 113n59, 115,
175, 182, 185, 191, 208, 232, 248, 252,
255, 263
Constitutio super Ordinatione Regni Siciliae 93
Constitution 71 of Lateran IV  123, 161
Continuations of the History of William
Archbishop of Tyre 117
Contra Iudaeos of John Chrysostom  8, 8n39, 9
Contra Iudaeos of St Augustine of Hippo  73
Contra perfidiam Iudaeorum of Peter of Blois
13–14n62, 222, 222n116
convent of Cluny  211
 Index 305
convent of St Anthony in Pamiers  139
convention of Pamiers  139
Conversi  30n15, 210, 257n71
conversion  xi, 6, 10, 19, 20n97, 23, 29,
30n15, 43, 48, 53, 56n165, 64, 70, 73,
75–7, 82, 84, 88, 98–100, 135n184, 165,
168, 169, 178, 183, 207–13, 213n57, 218,
219, 224, 238, 244, 246, 247, 249, 250,
257, 258n74, 269
conversionary sermons  68, 72, 207, 217–19
converts  6, 10, 14, 14n62, 19–22, 25, 36,
37n47, 41, 47, 53, 62, 69, 78, 96n174, 106,
130, 132, 163, 165, 168, 179, 195–7, 206,
208–214, 213n57, 214n62, 216, 216n72,
219, 224, 225, 229, 244, 250, 257, 259,
261, 262n101
Cordova, province of  194
Corinthians, First Epistle to the  106, 192
coronation  68, 91, 235, 236, 238, 242
Council of Albi  143n49, 154
Council of Arles  92
Council of Avignon  87, 131, 143n49
Council of Béziers  95, 143n49
Council of Béziers-Lyon  143n49
Council of Breslau  224
Council of Clermont  41, 108, 110, 124
Council of Exeter  69, 97
Council of Montélimar  130
Council of Montpellier  95, 130, 143n49, 179
Council of Narbonne  69n21, 131, 143n49,
171
Council of Paris  131, 143n49, 145, 261
Council of Rheims-Château Gontur  143n49
Council of Rouen  143n49
Council of Sens  198, 231
Council of Soissons  198
Council of Tours  121, 176
Council of Trèves  95
Council of Valladollid  125
Council of Vienne  87, 141, 143n49, 258n74
Count Emicho of Leiningen  111–12
count of Burgundy  212, 255
count of Nevers  148, 193
Count Raymond VI of Toulouse  128
countess of Champagne  121, 155
countess of Flanders  157
countess of Troyes  220
County of Edessa  44, 114
County of La Marche  78, 213
County of Poitiers  177, 253
County of Provence  180
County of Toulouse  129
Courçon  120, 149, 150
courts  18, 19, 21n104, 22, 37n47, 50, 74,
84n102, 97, 98, 107, 140n34, 141, 154,
167, 188, 192, 196, 202, 205, 207, 208,
212, 213, 215, 223n117, 224, 262n97
covenant  xx, xxi, 6n26, 7, 21, 46, 73, 76, 165,
175, 231, 233, 234, 238, 243, 247
Coventry 91
Creator  50, 169
creditors  38, 142, 145, 149, 149n89, 151, 153,
157
croiserie 101
crosses  18, 43, 52, 101, 103, 107, 108, 111,
112, 114, 125, 134, 145, 152, 153, 156,
161, 162, 166, 170, 180, 184, 193, 241,
242, 248, 259
Crown of Aragon  124
‘crucesignati’  101, 106, 108, 248n13,
258n78
Crucified One  166
crucifixion  11, 54, 55, 82, 84, 85, 90, 91, 99,
103, 130n152, 167n17, 169, 193
crusade indulgences  125
Crusade of Peter the Hermit  132
Crusade of the Shepherds / ‘Crusade of the
Pastoureaux’  102, 132–4, 134n182, 135
crusade preachers  104, 146
crusade preaching  106, 149n91
crusade sermons  111
crusade vows  xi, 104, 184n133
crusader finances  157n141
crusader privileges  123
crusader violence  viii, 43, 109, 117, 119, 122,
123, 191, 266
crusaders’ debts  153, 161
crusading  ix, x, xi, 13, 17, 18, 21, 26, 66, 68,
79, 99, 101–14, 101n2, 103n9, 119–28,
123n116, 129n151, 131, 132, 134, 135,
144–9, 158, 159, 161, 162, 179, 193, 194,
266–8
Curia (papal)  9, 11, 13, 15, 28, 29, 41, 59, 64,
73, 89, 96n174, 97, 101n2, 121n105, 139,
140, 174, 227, 229, 233, 235, 236–7, 245,
258n74, 267, 268
curses  18, 69, 96n174, 209, 219n91
Cyprus 235
Dalmatian Coast  119
Damascus 117
Damasus I  252
Damietta 120–2
Daniel, Book of  63
dapifer 244
David 169
David Maimuni  37n47
De civitate Dei of St Augustine of Hippo  7,
7n30, 8, 26, 27, 31–5, 73–4n49, 75n55, 76,
78, 83, 83n95, 103, 104, 117n80, 121,
124n121, 137, 158, 175, 181n106, 219,
219n96, 246, 247, 247n6, 254n56
De Consideratione of Bernard of Clairvaux 
241
‘De diversitate temporum’ of Alpert of
Metz 37n47
De fide catholica contra hereticos of Alain of
Lille  13n62, 222, 222n116
De Gloria Martyrum of Gregory of Tours  84
de Montfort, Simon  68, 128, 129, 131, 179
306 Index
De sacra imagine SS Salvatoris in Palatio
Lateranensi of Nicolaus Maniacutius  Disputation of Majorca  260n83
232, 233
deaf adders  219, 255
dean of Burgos  138, 156
dean of Calahorra  138, 156
dean of Ledesma in Salamanca  140, 177
dean of Lugo (Portugal)  176
dean of Soissons  121
dean of Tournai  209
deans of Burgos and Calahorra  138, 156
debates  11, 11n54, 16, 17, 22, 29, 30, 38, 40,
46, 49, 51, 52, 62, 98, 107, 108, 151, 153,
195, 213, 214, 260, 260n83
debtors  38, 142, 145, 148, 151, 152, 157, 162
debts  18n81, 38, 44, 45, 107, 115, 117, 119,
120, 122, 123, 137, 138, 140n34, 145, 146,
148, 151, 153–5, 157–9, 161, 162, 228, 241
decrees  xiii, 15, 19, 20, 20n96, 34, 35, 41,
68–70, 76, 77, 80, 90, 94, 95, 107, 127,
130, 131, 137, 141, 143, 146, 149–52,
154–7, 161, 165, 168–71, 173, 174, 177,
179, 180, 182n111, 186, 191, 209–11, 232,
244, 245, 247, 250, 258, 263
Decretales extravagantes 105
Decretalists 75
decretals  75, 97, 105–7, 142, 162, 163, 180–2,
184, 185, 185n140, 186–91, 191n186, 192,
216, 217n78
Decretals of Gregory IX  5n21, 17n76, 217n79
Decretists 75
Decretum of Gratian  77, 105, 106, 180, 192,
200, 223n117, 231, 259
Decretum of Ivo of Chartres  180, 181n104, 231
degradation  3, 4, 27
deicide 54
Derby 68
Descriptio basilicae Vaticanae of Petrus
Mallius 234
Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae (anony-
mous)  227, 227n11, 233
Deuteronomy, Book of  39, 54, 73, 141, 141n36
Devil  xviii, 91, 97
Dialogue of Miracles 86
Dialogus contra Iudaeos of Walter of
Châtillon  13n62, 222, 222n116
Dialogus inter Christianum et Iudeum 52
diaspora 74
Diego Galmirez  125
diocese of Bonn  211
diocese of Cambrai  84n102
diocese of Liege  159
diocese of Paris  160n161, 171, 212
Dionysius of Portugal  140, 174
disbelief  6n22, 23, 88, 92, 254
disciples  56–8, 59n177, 149
disease  97, 150, 189
dispersion  7, 74, 252
Disputation of Barcelona  62, 62n194, 195,
198, 207, 213, 224, 260
Disputation of Ceuta  260n83
Disputation of Paris  22, 22n108, 47–51,
50n119, 69, 72, 96, 195, 260
Disputation of Tortosa  43n77, 113n58
disputational literature  28, 63, 71
disputations  13, 30, 47, 51, 52n137, 56, 62,
65, 214, 260n83
distinguishing garb  20, 20n96, 69, 95, 170,
171, 173, 174, 177, 189, 194
divine law  190, 263
Divine Mercy  4, 124
divine plan  7, 19, 73
divinity of Christ  60, 260
doctors, Christian  93
doctors, Jewish  93–5, 97, 136, 182
doctrine  5, 15n70, 28, 52, 59, 65, 125,
178, 183n125, 201, 203, 204, 223, 226,
262, 268
Doge of Venice  119
dogs  8n40, 261
Dominican inquisitors  216
Dominican Master General  224
Dominican Order  218
Dominican theologians  155
Dominicans  62, 68, 69, 96n174, 123, 158,
195, 196, 206, 207, 212, 213
Don Isaac Benveniste  95
Donatists  7n32, 181n106
Donin, Nicholas  22, 48–51, 117, 195–8, 203,
204, 213
dress  20, 107, 127, 128, 169, 170, 172, 174,
183, 188, 189, 218
drunken dogs, motif of  261
Duke Jean II of Brabant  133
Duke Leopold of Austria  120
duke of Brabant  159
duke of Burgundy  174, 177, 205, 220
duke of Silesia  138
Duran, Profiat  56, 56n165, 57nn166–8,
170–1, 58, 58nn172–6, 59nn178, 182
‘Duritia’  84, 252–6, 268
early Middle Ages  10n47, 30
early modern period  xiii, 10n46, 26n128,
27n130, 31, 269, 271
East  7, 13, 17, 18, 68, 98, 101, 101n2, 102,
108, 110, 114, 119, 121–4, 129n151, 132,
143, 145, 150–2, 156, 157, 180, 224, 229,
249, 271
Easter  86, 125, 165, 166, 230, 235, 236, 238–41
Easter Monday  235, 238, 239
Easter Monday procession  235, 236, 238
Easter Sunday  238, 241
Eastertide 237
Eastertide ceremonies  236
Ecclesia  34, 88n123, 94n162, 105, 126n133,
137n11, 200n252, 256, 262
ecclesiastical authority/authorities  93, 106,
107, 192, 198
 Index 307
ecclesiastical benefices  212
ecclesiastical censure  151, 198, 201, 202
ecclesiastical jurisdiction  264
ecclesiastical legislation  69, 107, 189, 192
ecclesiastical officials  105
ecclesiastical restrictions  244
ecclesiastical sanction  72, 214
ecumenical councils  19n91, 142, 143, 164–80
Edessa  44, 114
edicts  45, 67n4, 116, 127, 140nn31–2, 148,
149, 154, 155, 215, 218, 264
‘Edut Adonai Ne’emena  53, 53nn144–6, 54,
54nn147, 149
Edward I of England  68, 217
Egypt  132, 133
Eighth Crusade  123n116
El Sabio  91n139
elections  60, 80, 104, 109, 221, 229, 231, 233,
236, 237, 240, 241, 249
Elhanan 33–6
Eliezer Ben Natan  99
Eliyahu Capsali  49n111
Embrun  215, 261
Emicho of Flonheim  43n77, 112n58
encyclicals  1, 145, 214
England  11–12n54, 12, 44, 68, 70, 72, 82, 91,
92, 115, 117, 121, 130, 133, 143, 156, 167,
171, 210, 266, 1196
English councils  145
English Crown  210
Enlightenment 31n15
Enrico Dandalo  119
entry-type papal adventus ceremonies  226, 232,
234–7, 241, 242
Ephraim ben/bar Jacob of Bonn  39n59
Épinal 87
Epistles  63, 106, 192
error  7, 74, 80, 84, 96n174, 98, 173, 199, 202,
203, 205, 206, 212, 216n72, 219n91, 253–6
eschatology  102, 107, 241, 249
Eucharist  52, 86, 87, 91, 193
Eugenio Pacelli  xv–xviii
Eugenius III, ‘Divini dispensatione’  125,
125n127
Eugenius III, pope  12n58, 43, 43n82, 44, 45,
45nn88, 90, 79, 79n68, 107n28, 109,
109n34, 113, 113n60, 114, 115, 115nn69–
71, 116n74, 118, 125, 125n127, 144, 145,
145n58, 146, 146n62, 150, 192n195,
231–3, 235, 238, 240–2, 275
Eugenius III, ‘Quantum praedecessores’  44,
45, 45n90, 107n28, 114–17, 115nn70–1,
144n55, 145–6, 145n58, 146n62, 150,
192n195
excommunication  15n71, 19, 23, 24, 90, 95,
118n87, 131, 147, 153, 153n115, 165,
165n4, 175, 175n67, 184, 197, 209,
209n23, 211
exegesis  13, 14, 51, 169
exegetes  54, 226, 227
Exeter  69, 95, 97
Exodus, Book of  54, 56, 73, 141,
141n36
expeditio crucis 101
expulsions  11n54, 25, 25n128, 30n15,
32n21, 49, 49n115, 66–71, 73, 126,
134n182, 135, 148, 165, 167, 264, 266,
269, 272
external enemies  17, 181
extortioners 262
Faculty of Medicine at Vienna  94
Faith  21, 35, 73, 78, 79, 102, 104, 106, 126,
166, 192, 193, 199, 209, 221, 223, 249,
250, 257, 259
Fardus Hugolini  213n57
Ferdinand III of Castile  127, 138
festivals  19, 131, 166, 179, 188, 193
Fifth Crusade  20, 109, 119–21, 129n151,
143, 149, 150, 157, 179
Final Judgement  7
finances  39n59, 136, 138, 150, 155,
157n141, 159
First Crusade  ix, 1, 2n3, 12, 12n56, 40–4,
42n72, 75, 47n104, 86n116, 98, 99,
99n194, 101, 104, 105, 107, 107nn27, 29,
108, 108n30, 109n33, 110–14, 111nn49,
52, 112n56, 124, 144, 144n53, 145n57,
157, 157n141, 158, 192, 192n193, 208,
232, 266, 272
Flanders  119, 144, 157
Flavius Josephus  36
folktales  28, 32–6, 35n34, 63
forced baptism  10, 10nn46, 48, 16, 76–8, 103,
178, 180, 208, 210
fortune tellers  92
Fourth Council of Toledo  76, 77, 250, 251
Fourth Crusade  107, 109, 119, 131, 147, 149,
182, 249
Fra Bartholomeo de Aquila  218
France  12, 17, 18, 21, 21n104, 22, 25, 31, 39,
40, 44, 46, 48, 53, 59, 67, 70–2, 78, 83, 86,
87n119, 88, 92, 93, 109, 111, 112, 114,
115, 118n87, 120, 128–34, 143, 144, 147,
148, 150, 151, 154, 156, 157, 159, 165–8,
170, 171, 173, 178, 179, 193, 197, 198,
202, 215, 217, 224, 228, 230, 258, 262,
262n101, 272, 273
Francis I, pope  276
Franciscan inquisitors  261
Franciscan theologians  155
Franciscans  6, 62, 69, 96n174, 123, 155, 195,
197, 207, 215, 218, 225
Franconia 87
Frankfurt  47n105, 74n50, 76n58, 83,
191n186, 223n117
Frederick I Barbarossa (German emperor)  117
Frederick II of Germany (emperor)  49, 70, 87,
138, 157, 171, 219, 228
free will  75, 77, 251
308 Index
French archbishops  174
French Church  111, 131, 140n3
French clergy  118n87, 120, 121, 148, 150, 155
French Crown  147, 154
French Jews  45, 70, 110, 146, 148, 154, 193,
195, 196, 204
friars  14, 22, 24, 25, 68, 69, 72, 169, 171, 179,
196, 197, 206, 207, 210, 214, 216n72,
217–19, 221, 224, 255, 269
Friday 86
Fulcher of Chartres  111
Fulda  12, 70, 81, 83, 85, 87
Fulk of Neuilly  119, 149
Galeran bishop of Beirut  122
Gallo-Frankish reformers  254
Gascony  68, 70
Gaufre Isnard, bishop of Cavaillon  95
Gelasius II, pope  235, 275
general crusading letters  109, 119, 129n151,
131, 147, 149, 161, 162
general letters  43–5, 63, 78, 84n102, 101,
106, 114, 120, 125, 140, 147, 149,
158, 161
Genesis, Book of  4n12, 7, 8, 51n127, 56, 73,
169
Genoa 132
Gentiles  6nn25–6, 7, 8n39, 30, 31, 36, 41, 60,
61, 64, 146, 200, 228, 239, 249, 259
Geoffrey of Villehardouin  50, 119
German Empire  132
Germany  12n54, 17, 31, 31n16, 34, 35,
37n47, 59, 70, 81, 83, 90, 110, 112, 114,
132, 143, 168, 171, 173, 176, 208, 228,
244, 249, 250, 260, 264
Gesta francorum Jerusalem Expugnantium 111
Gesta Innocentii III 163n166
Gesta pauperis scolaris of Cardinal
Albindus  236, 236n79
Gesta Regis Henrici Benedicti Abbatis 45n87,
118n84
ghetto  30n15, 226n11
Gilbert Crispin  52, 52n137
Girard of Marbais  159
glossae  105, 184
Gloucester 82
God  3, 4, 6n25, 7, 8n37, 9, 11, 35–7, 41, 42,
42n72, 44, 47, 54–6, 58, 60–3, 72–7, 82–4,
86, 87, 91, 98, 103, 106, 107, 116, 125,
128, 152, 156, 165, 166, 169, 178, 181n106,
188, 192, 196, 199, 201, 204–6, 209, 220,
223, 230, 231, 243, 249–51, 254, 259
God’s Mercy  205
Good Friday  86, 166, 183, 188, 193
Good Friday liturgy  254
Gospel of John  9
Gospels  22, 54, 58, 59, 63, 86, 181n106, 200,
261
Gottschalk 111
Grace  7, 73, 251, 259
Gran (Hungary)  176
Granada  124, 125
Grandmaster of the Hospitallers  133
Graphia Aureae Urbis Romae  235, 235n71
Gratian  43, 75, 76n58, 77n60, 63, 96, 97,
104, 104n13, 17, 105, 105n18, 106n23,
113, 125, 180, 180n103, 181, 181nn106–7,
192n190, 223n117, 259n79, 273
Gratianus Belmonte  96
Grayzel, Solomon  1nn1–2, 2nn3–4, 3, 3n7,
5nn16–17, 8n37, 10nn46–7, 12n57, 13n58,
15n71, 16nn74–5, 19nn89–1, 93, 20nn94,
96, 21nn100, 103, 22n106, 25n124,
26n129, 43nn77, 78, 45n88, 112n58,
113n59, 177n82, 179n91, 216n77, 253n45,
271, 273
Great Schism  14n66, 32
Greece  111, 239
Greek churches  37
Greek texts  223
Greeks  49n111, 239
Gregory I the Great, pope  10, 10n46, 12,
12n58, 13, 27, 43, 43n80, 74, 75, 76n58,
77–9, 79n67, 113, 113n16, 164, 208,
208nn10–12, 247n7–8, 250, 252n36
Gregory IX, pope  5n17, 21, 12n58, 14, 17n76,
20, 20n96, 22, 22n107, 23n110, 24,
24n120, 26, 48–51, 51n125, 72n46, 80,
80n82, 81, 96, 105, 109, 109nn40, 45, 119,
119n88, 121, 121nn103–8, 122nn109–13,
130, 138, 138nn19–22, 139n23, 156,
156nn135–8, 157, 157nn139–40, 142,
144–5, 158, 158nn146–8, 162, 168, 168n25,
170, 171, 173n53, 176, 176nn68–74,
177n75, 183, 186, 191, 191n189, 193,
193n204, 194n205, 195, 196n228, 197,
197nn230–2, 198, 201, 203, 204, 211,
211nn35–41, 220, 220nn96, 101, 221, 224,
248, 248nn9–10, 13–14, 249, 249nn16–17,
251, 251n30, 252, 252nn35, 38, 253,
253nn40–2, 254, 255nn57, 61, 258,
258n78, 260, 260nn86–7, 263n102, 264,
264n109, 265, 265n113, 267, 267n8,
273, 275
Gregory of Tours  84
Gregory VII, pope  11, 11n52, 64n209, 125,
229, 257, 275
Gregory VIII, pope  117, 118, 145n59, 275
Gregory X, pope  13n58, 17n76, 25, 55, 59,
81, 81n86, 89, 90n135, 110, 123,
123nn116, 120, 139, 139n29, 140n32,
159, 159n158, 214, 214n64, 221,
237, 276
Gregory X, ‘Si mentes fidelium’  123, 123n120,
159n158
Gregory X, ‘Tenorem litterarum quas’  90,
90n135
Guarcino 96
guerre sainte 101
Guibert of Nogent  52n133, 111
 Index 309
Guide for the Perplexed  37n47, 198
Guillaume le Breton  150, 150n92
Guy Terre  199, 200n252
Halakah 38n48
halakhists  38, 61
Ham 67
hardness of heart  255
Hasdai Crescas  56n161, 57n165, 58n177,
59nn177–8
‘hasid’  135, 135n184
hats  170, 171, 179
Hebraists 233
Hebrew  8n41, 14, 29, 29n5, 37, 47n103, 52,
60, 63, 91, 235, 239, 240, 242
Hebrew Bible  202, 204
Hebrew books  22, 33, 36, 44, 114, 195–9,
202, 203, 206, 217
Hebrew chronicles  36, 39n58, 40, 42nn72, 75,
44n83, 47n104, 65n211, 66n3, 98, 98n188,
102n6, 110, 112n56, 114n63
Hebrew crusade chronicles  41, 42n72, 44n83,
99, 102, 109n33, 114n63
Hebrew laudes  242, 243
Hebrew texts  22n107, 29n5, 37, 47n103,
50n119, 60, 63, 66n1, 102n8, 194n207, 272
Hebrews  8n41, 238, 243
Hell  57, 57n169, 59
Henry, court cleric  37n47
Henry I  68
Henry II  37n47, 70, 137, 145n59, 235
Henry II of Germany (emperor)  37n47, 70
Henry III of Castile  39n59
Henry IV  114
Henry IV of Germany (emperor)  11n48, 71,
112, 231
Henry of Segusio, cardinal bishop of Ostia  186
Henry V of Germany (emperor)  235, 239
Henry VI of Germany (emperor)  242
heresy  1n1, 6n22, 13, 16, 19, 21, 24, 27, 90,
93, 96, 102, 105, 128, 129, 131, 141, 157,
194, 203, 214–16, 216n72, 221, 224,
229n20, 260, 261, 262n101, 266
Heresy of the Free Spirit  102n5
heretics  1n1, 4, 7n32, 9, 9n45, 18, 18nn82,
83, 85, 21n104, 83, 101–5, 108, 119, 120,
129–31, 148, 151, 170, 173, 180, 181n106,
184, 186, 189, 190, 197, 202, 203, 213–16,
218, 221, 223, 223n117, 224, 229n20,
246–65, 267, 273
High Middle Ages  1n1, 2–5, 7n29, 8–16, 27,
28, 28nn1–2, 29, 29nn3–5, 30nn12, 15,
31nn17–18, 33, 37, 37n47, 38n50, 39n58,
43n80, 44n83, 45, 46n94, 47n100, 104–05,
48nn106–07, 109, 49n111, 51, 52nn131,
133–37, 53nn138–39, 54n150, 55n152,
154, 55n157, 57n165, 58n177, 59nn181–3,
60, 60nn186, 188, 61n193, 63, 64nn206–8,
65, 66, 71n37, 73, 83n94, 85n108, 86n116,
112n58, 113n61, 114, 116n75, 136,
153n112, 164, 178, 181, 194, 219, 247n4,
260, 260n83, 262, 263, 266, 268, 269, 271
Hildesheim  13n60, 140n34
Hincmar of Rheims  8
Hispano-Papal contact  124
Historia Hierosolymitana Gesta Francorum 111
Historia Hierosolymitana Libri IV 111
Historia Imaginis Salvatoris of Nicholas
Maniacutius  227, 227n11, 232
Historia quae dicitur Gesta Dei per Francos 111
historians  1, 2, 2n6, 4, 6, 8, 11, 15n69, 17, 20,
20n96, 21n104, 22, 24, 26, 31, 40, 43n77,
69, 73, 85, 93, 98, 99, 102, 113n58, 115,
117, 130n152, 146, 167n17, 175, 217, 218,
221, 237, 241, 242, 244, 245, 253, 254,
266–8, 271, 273
historicism 1n1
historiography  28–32, 64n207, 86n113, 178,
220n97, 271–3
Hitler  xv, xvi, xvii, xviii
Holland xvii
Holocaust  xiii, xix
Holy Land  80, 101, 103, 106, 108, 109, 111,
121, 123, 124, 132–4, 147, 150, 153,
158–60, 160n161, 161, 234
Holy of Holies  234
Holy Sepulchre  11, 67, 111, 228
Holy Spirit  134
Holy War  ix, 107, 111, 224, 267
Holy Week  72, 166, 238
homicide  93, 140, 258
Honorius II, pope  275
Honorius II (anti-pope)  229
Honorius III, ‘Cum te sicut’  95n164, 97,
97n178
Honorius III, pope  5n17, 12n58, 17n76,
18n86, 24, 24n119, 80, 80n81, 81, 95,
95n164, 97, 97n178, 109, 119, 119n88,
120, 120nn99–100, 121, 121n101,
122n113, 126, 126n135, 127, 127nn138–9,
128nn140–1, 130, 138, 138nn15–18,
148n77, 155, 155nn130–2, 156n134, 168,
168nn22–3, 172, 172nn45–50, 173,
173nn51–2, 175, 175nn66–7, 183, 193,
193nn202–3, 211, 211n34, 217, 227,
248n9–10, 251n29, 252, 252nn33, 38,
255n61, 256, 256nn64–5, 257n66,
262n101, 263n102, 267, 267n8, 275
Honorius IV, ‘Nimis in partibus’  69n26, 97,
97n185, 168n26, 206nn294–5
Honorius IV, pope  13n58, 17n76, 25,
69, 69n26, 81, 81n86, 93, 93n153,
97, 97n185, 110, 168, 168n26,
206, 206nn294–5, 216n72, 258,
258n76, 276
Hospitallers  133, 160n161
host desecration  5, 5n19, 23, 52, 81–90, 99,
240, 266, 267, 271, 272
Hostiensis  162, 186–91, 221
Houses of Converts  210
310 Index
Hugh Géraud, bishop of Cahors  96n174
Hugh III of Jerusalem and Cyprus  235
Huguccio  106, 192
Humbert of Romans  9n45, 221
Hungary  112, 120, 133, 168, 175, 176, 181,
183, 257
Iberian peninsula  xiii, 31, 43n77, 48, 113n58,
124, 125, 258
ideology  111, 271
idolatry  xv, 166, 215, 261
Île-de-France 71
image of Christ  234, 240
immoderate interest  131, 143, 163, 190
immoderate usury  121, 121n105, 144, 150,
158, 161, 162, 193
imperial adventus ceremony  237
imperial coronations  238
Incarnation  52, 52n133, 55n152, 87
incest 140
indulgence  18n82, 59, 108, 124, 125, 161,
213n57
infidel spouses  182, 185
infidel women  108
infidelity 254
infidels  23, 27, 47, 68, 76, 97, 101, 106, 108,
111, 124, 168, 175, 182–7, 190, 191n186,
192, 200, 250, 257
Innocent II, pope  34n32, 142, 177, 222,
222n113, 230, 230n29, 236, 241, 252,
252n37, 275
Innocent III, correspondence of  130, 175,
263–5
Innocent III, ‘Etsi non displiceat’  23n111, 88,
88n127, 129, 129nn148–9, 130n153, 158,
148nn81–2, 166, 166n13, 167n15, 16,
167nn18, 182, 182n115, 187n159, 193,
193n197, 198, 220n100
Innocent III, ‘Evangelica docente scriptura’  Alemannie’  23n115, 81n85, 89, 89n132,
249n15, 257, 257nn68, 69, 259, 259n81, 82
Innocent III, ‘Gloriantes hactenus in’  120n94,
122n113, 130, 130n156, 152n109
Innocent III, ‘Graves orientalis terrae’  18n81,
79n72, 109, 109n38, 119, 119nn91–2,
122n113, 130n157, 145n60, 147n74, 149,
149n90, 161, 259n78
Innocent III, ‘Licet perfidia Iudaeorum’  77
Innocent III, ‘Maiores ecclesie’  77, 77n63,
130n157, 210, 210n32, 251nn26, 27
Innocent III, ‘Mandatur ut inhibeant’  80n79,
120, 120nn95, 96
Innocent III, ‘Nisi nobis dictum’  18n81,
79n72, 109, 109n38, 119, 119n91,
122n113, 130n157, 145n60, 147n74, 149,
149n90, 161
Innocent III, ‘Per miserabilem’  107, 119, 162,
182, 192
Innocent III, pope  5n17, 12n58, 14, 15,
15n70, 16, 16nn74–5, 18nn81–2, 19,
19nn87–8, 20n96, 21nn101–2, 23,
23nn111–12, 25–7, 77, 77nn61, 63, 79,
79nn72–3, 80nn75–7, 79, 81, 83, 83n96,
88, 88nn127–8, 94, 107, 109, 109n38,
116n78, 118, 119, 119nn88, 91–2,
120nn93–7, 122, 122n113, 126, 126nn
132–3, 128, 129, 129nn148–51, 130,
130nn153, 156–8, 131, 131nn159, 161,
132, 137, 137nn12–14, 145, 145n60, 147,
147nn73–4, 148, 148nn81–5, 149nn87–91,
150nn95–7, 151, 151nn103–4, 152nn
107–9, 155, 161, 162, 165, 165nn6–8,
166nn9, 13, 167nn15, 16, 18, 169–71,
172n44, 173, 175, 175n65, 179, 182,
182n115, 183, 184, 184n130, 187,
187n159, 188, 189, 193, 193nn197–201,
210, 210nn27–32, 211, 212, 217, 219n96,
220, 220nn98–100, 221, 224, 232, 242,
248, 248nn9, 11, 12, 249, 249n15, 250,
250n25, 251nn26–8, 252, 252nn34–5,
253nn39, 47, 254nn52, 55, 255n61, 257,
257nn68, 69, 257nn72, 73, 258, 258n75,
259, 259nn78, 80–2, 261, 263, 263nn
102–4, 264, 264nn105–7, 265, 267,
267n7, 275
Innocent III, ‘Post miserabile’  18n81, 107,
119, 119nn91–2, 122n113, 130n157, 131,
131n161, 145n60, 147, 147n73, 149,
149nn89–90, 151, 161, 162, 182, 184,
252n34
Innocent III, ‘Post miserabilem’  119, 162, 163,
184, 185, 190
Innocent III, ‘Quia maior’  120, 129n151,
149, 161
Innocent III, ‘Si parietem cordis’  129n150,
130, 130n158, 131n159
Innocent IV, ‘Divina justitia nequaquam’ 
23n115, 89, 89n132
Innocent IV, ‘Lachrymabilem Judeorum
90, 205n288, 248n10, 249nn18–19,
250n21, 252n35, 264, 264nn110–11,
265n113, 267n8
Innocent IV, pope  1n2, 5n17, 12n58, 14,
17n76, 23, 23nn114–16, 24, 24n117, 27,
71n35, 80, 80n83, 81, 81n84, 85, 89,
89n132, 90n134, 92, 96, 110, 119, 119n88,
122, 122nn113–14, 123nn115–17, 132,
133, 139, 139nn24–5, 141, 158, 158nn150–1,
160, 168n25, 173nn54–5, 184n34, 185,
185nn136–45, 186, 186nn146–8, 195, 199,
199nn248–9, 251, 200nn254, 256, 258,
201n259, 202–5, 205nn288–9, 291, 211,
211nn42–3, 212nn44–7, 213, 218, 218n89,
219, 248nn9–10, 249, 249nn18–19,
250nn20–2, 251n32, 252, 252n35, 38, 253,
253nn43–5, 255, 255nn58–9, 61, 263n102,
264, 264nn110–11, 265, 265nn112–13,
267n8, 273, 276
Innocent IV, ‘Si diligenter attenderet’  23n115,
89, 89nn132–3
 Index 311
Inquisition  1n2, 2n4, 4n13, 21n100, 22n106,
25, 25nn122, 124, 26n129, 27, 81, 90, 96,
141, 164, 173, 207, 213–17, 216n72,
217n77, 224, 260
Inquisitor-General 218
inquisitors  24, 25, 78, 81, 96, 164, 213–16,
216n72, 217, 229, 229n20, 260, 261
insults  166, 170, 193, 203
intellectual contact between Christians and
Jews 51
interdict 211
interest  1n1, 3–5, 10, 12n55, 13, 14, 17, 18,
18n81, 20, 21n104, 24, 38–40, 44–6, 51,
63, 66, 67, 67n4, 69, 69n20, 94, 96, 108,
115–17, 118n87, 120, 122, 123, 129, 131,
135, 137, 138, 140–53, 153nn112–13,
155–7, 159, 160, 160n161, 161–3, 167,
180, 190, 190n183, 191, 209, 218, 226,
228, 233, 241, 269
intermarriage  20, 75, 164, 183, 185
internal crusades  101–3
internal enemies  101–3, 108, 221
investigations  25, 70, 81, 101n2, 155, 199,
202, 206, 216, 217, 229n20, 269
Irving, Agus  3, 3n8
Isaac, Jew of Barcelona  193
Isaac Ben Mordecai  97
Isaac ben Yedaiah  60n187, 61, 61nn190–2
Isaiah, Book of  62, 252
Isidore of Seville  103
Islam  15n67, 51, 60, 60n188, 258
Israel  2n3, 6, 6n26, 41, 47n104, 54, 61, 63,
74, 74n104, 230n29, 246, 247, 249,
249n15, 253, 253n45, 259, 259n81
Israel Singer  xxi
Israelites 233
Italian banking  146
Italian moneylenders  144
Italian State  xiv, xviii
Italy  4n13, 12, 21, 31, 49, 70, 93, 96, 111,
144, 170, 171, 181, 258, 270
iter  101, 153n117
iter sanctum  106, 115n70
Itinerarium of Benjamin of Tudela  232
Ivo of Chartres  104, 180
Jacob b. Elijah of Venice/Jacob bar/ ben Elie  Jewish folktales  32, 35n34
48, 48n110, 49, 49n111, 51, 51n126, 112,
113, 114
Jacob ben Reuben  46
James I of Aragon  62, 97, 128, 171, 193, 206,
211, 213, 217, 218
James of Vitry  17n78, 120, 161n163
Jechiel 243–5
Jeremiah, Book of  98n190
Jerusalem  xix, 3n7, 10n46, 11, 11n54, 12, 17,
19n91, 31n18, 33n29, 35n36, 37n43,
38n50, 39n58, 42, 42n75, 43, 43n77, 44,
51n127, 53n144, 55n156, 56n165, 60n184,
61n193, 95n163, 108, 111, 112, 112nn56,
58, 113n58, 114, 115, 117–20, 122, 125,
132, 133, 135n184, 178n88, 234, 235, 257
Jerusalem Temple  234
Jesuits  xv, xvii, xviii
Jesus Christ  xx, 22, 36, 47, 47n104, 52–60,
59n177, 62, 63, 72, 83, 132, 166, 193, 200,
205, 206, 241, 252, 254, 255, 257,
257n69, 263
Jewish ancestry  230
Jewish authorities  xix, 53, 59
Jewish beliefs  ix, 19, 23, 28, 40, 53, 55, 56, 63,
76, 91, 92, 167, 199, 213, 233, 234
Jewish blasphemy  195, 203, 216
Jewish blindness  253–5
Jewish books  22, 195, 198, 199, 202, 206, 217
Jewish children  165, 182, 208
Jewish–Christian relations  viii, ix, xviii, 1, 10,
2n3, 22n107, 30, 30n15, 31, 42, 101n2,
195n215, 271, 272
Jewish chroniclers  98, 99, 112, 114
Jewish circumcision  187
Jewish communities  1, 3, 5, 10–13, 16, 19, 20,
23–5, 31–3, 35–7, 39–41, 44, 49, 51, 60,
63, 64, 66–7, 69, 71–3, 78, 79, 88–90, 95,
98, 100, 102, 108, 109, 113, 114, 116–18,
118n87, 120, 121, 123–8, 132–5, 147, 165,
166, 178–80, 191–4, 205, 214–18, 222,
224, 226–32, 235, 237–9, 241, 243–5, 250,
267–9
Jewish community of Rome  226–9, 229n20,
239, 243–5
Jewish conversion  70, 209
Jewish converts  10, 14, 47, 62, 208–14, 216,
224, 229, 257
Jewish covenant  7, 73
Jewish culpability  130n152, 167n17
Jewish debt  122
Jewish defendants  216, 229n20
Jewish doctors  93–5, 97, 182
Jewish doctrinal texts  204
Jewish error  253, 255
Jewish exegetes  227
Jewish faith  xx, 27, 35, 207, 214
Jewish families  23, 84, 88, 227
Jewish festivals  19, 131, 166, 188, 193
Jewish flux  86
Jewish ghetto of Rome  226n1
Jewish heritage  232, 244
Jewish historiography  28–32, 36
Jewish history  ix, 29, 29n7, 36, 40n61,
234, 270
Jewish homes  164, 178
Jewish ideas  x, 28–65, 269
Jewish identity  31n15, 42n72, 44, 46nn95–6,
51n127, 85, 113, 224, 272
Jewish influence  92, 201, 221n111, 230n29,
252n37, 262n101
Jewish law  24, 90, 186n147, 195, 197, 199,
202, 270
312 Index
Jewish leaders  48, 198, 202
Jewish lenders  67n4, 120, 146
Jewish lending  1n1, 18n81, 72n39, 140n35,
143n47, 146n65, 147, 152, 152n110,
153nn111, 116, 156n133, 157n143, 161, 162,
162n164, 163n167, 190n183, 262n97, 266n3
Jewish life  3, 30n12, 31n18, 39n39, 96, 179,
244, 271
Jewish literature  13, 30n15, 31n20, 97n180,
178n86
Jewish liturgical texts  33n27
Jewish medieval law  105n19, 180n103,
181n104, 184nn132–3, 186n150
Jewish medieval theology  18n83, 142
Jewish memory  29, 30n15, 40n61, 42n72,
47n104, 60n188, 114n63, 178n86, 272
Jewish merchants  159, 228
Jewish moneylenders  17, 20, 66, 116, 146,
147, 150, 163, 241
Jewish money-lending  18, 72, 117, 120, 123, 135,
145, 147, 148, 149, 151, 155, 162, 163, 185
Jewish neighbours  85, 108, 167
Jewish perceptions of the papacy  1n1, 28n1,
63, 86n116, 112n58, 146n66, 167n19,
262n101, 266n1, 271
Jewish perfidy  16, 79, 80, 221, 222, 230, 252–4
Jewish physicians  69, 92, 93, 93n150, 152,
93nn154, 155, 94–7, 189
Jewish polemic  13, 29n6, 34n32, 46, 47n104,
50n117, 51–60, 98, 222n114, 223,
223n123, 271
Jewish polemicists  58
Jewish pope  33, 33n29, 228, 230n29, 252n37
Jewish populations  4, 14n62, 124, 134, 258
Jewish presbyterium 238
Jewish quarter  72, 88, 127
Jewish quarter in Rome  226, 229
Jewish relics  233, 234
Jewish revolt  124
Jewish rights  201, 266
Jewish rites  25, 215, 229n20, 261
Jewish schola 237–40
Jewish scholars  91, 227
Jewish self-government  37n46
Jewish servants  244
Jewish service  75n55, 124n121, 220n97
Jewish servitude  207, 221, 241, 263
Jewish society  32, 71, 195, 245, 262n97
Jewish sources  31, 32, 63–5, 196
Jewish study  1n1, 2n3, 3n7, 13n58, 14n62,
33n29, 72n39, 85n107, 140n35, 195, 266n3
Jewish subservience  7, 27, 76, 268
Jewish synagogues  261
Jewish taxation  26n128
Jewish Temple  233, 234
Jewish testimony  178, 215, 248
Jewish usury  18, 20, 68, 69, 117, 117n82,
119–22, 141, 143, 148–51, 154, 155, 159,
160n161, 162, 163, 179, 183, 184, 199,
207, 218, 252, 267
Jewish wives  182, 255, 257
Jewish women  44, 44n83, 84, 113, 114n63,
144, 172, 218
Jewish writers  28, 29, 29n6, 48, 48n107, 49,
52, 55n157, 60, 64, 99, 177, 227, 234, 269
Jewish writing  29, 29n6, 42, 45, 52, 63, 198
Jewish–papal relations  178, 229
Jewry  1n1, 2n3, 3n7, 5, 6n22, 12n55, 13n58,
21n104, 26n128, 30, 30n15, 34n33, 40n62,
42nn72–3, 44n86, 59, 64, 68, 69, 115n67,
154n120, 226n1, 242, 254n49, 271–3
Jews as potential enemies  81, 102, 221–5,
263, 264
Jews as servants  219–21
Jews of Rome  34, 215, 229, 237–40, 242, 245
Jihad ix
Joachim of Fiore  60, 60n186
Johannes Teutonicus  181
John, a dean  137
John, the Apostle  106, 192
John Chrysostom  8, 8nn39–41, 9nn41–4, 261
John de Salins, Count of Burgundy  255
John Flamens of Lessines  84n102
John of Brienne (king of Jerusalem)  120
John of Wales  181
John Paul II, pope  276
John Peckham, archbishop of Canterbury  69,
71, 206
John Salvati  262
John the Deacon  227, 233, 234
John XVIII, pope  11n50, 41n66, 87n119, 275
John XXI, pope  25, 96, 139, 139n30, 140, 276
John XXII, ‘Cum difficile procul’  134,
134nn176–7
John XXII, ‘Decet sedis apostolice’  134,
134n180
John XXII, ‘Per tuas litteras’  134, 134n178
John XXII, pope  26n128, 84n102, 96n174,
97, 134, 134nn176–82, 135, 140n34,
160n161, 213n57, 215n72, 216n73,
219n91, 262n101, 276
John XXII, ‘Significasti nobis’  134, 134n179
John XXIII, ‘Nostra aetate’  xviii
John XXIII, pope  276
Joigny 121
Jorge Mario Bergoglio  xxi
Joscius of Tyre, archbishop  117
Joseph/Yosef Hamekane  46, 55, 55nn155–8,
59, 59n182, 195
Joseph Albo  56, 56nn160–1, 163–4, 59n177
Joseph Alois Ratzinger  xxi
Joseph ben Nathan Official (the younger)  46,
49, 50, 50nn116, 117, 119–22, 51, 55,
55nn156–8, 59n182, 195
Joseph ben Shem Tov  58n177
Joseph Kimi  46
Judaism  1, 5, 7–10, 16, 19–22, 28, 29, 34, 35,
40, 51–3, 69, 77, 100, 102, 112, 130,
163–206, 208–10, 212, 214, 218, 224,
232–4, 244, 256, 260, 261, 262n101
 Index 313
Judaizing Christians  8, 260
Judas 86
Judenhut 171
‘Judgement of the Jews’  147
just war  ix, 4, 103, 104, 180, 181n105, 267
Kabbalah  25n122, 29n9
Kalonymos Bar Yehuda  99
Karol Jozef Wojtyla  xix
‘Kiddush ha-Shem’  98nn186–7, 192, 195,
98n198; see also Qiddush ha-Shem
King Charles of Sicily  160n161
King Solomon  91
Kingdom of Aragon  72, 94
Kingdom of Castile  127, 156, 172
Kingdom of France  17, 148, 200
Kingdom of Hungary  175
Kingdom of Navarre  232
Kingdom of Portugal  174, 177, 212
Kingdom of Sicily  139, 171, 228, 258
King’s Lynn  44n87, 117
Knights Hospitaller  133, 160n161
kosher law  37
laity  173, 238
Languedoc  71, 88n125, 129
Las Navas de Tolosa  125
Las Siete Partidas  91, 94
later Middle Ages  9n43, 14, 256
Lateran  19, 233, 234, 236–8, 240
Lateran Basilica  233, 234, 237
Lateran Councils  9, 15, 17, 19, 68, 95, 107,
125–7, 129, 143, 151, 155, 161, 162, 164,
165, 169, 172, 177, 178, 182, 182n111,
183, 192, 209, 227, 232, 244, 245, 254,
263, 273
Lateran I (First Lateran Council)  19, 232
Lateran II (Second Lateran Council)  19,
142, 177
Lateran III (Third Lateran Council)  9, 15, 17, 19,
19n91, 142, 143, 165, 167n14, 164, 168, 171,
178, 182, 182n11, 183, 184, 244, 245, 254
Lateran IV (Fourth Lateran Council)  15, 19,
19n91, 20, 20nn96–7, 52, 68, 69, 72, 94,
95, 107, 123, 126, 127, 129, 130, 131, 137,
138, 140, 143, 149, 151, 152, 154–9, 161,
162, 169, 171–5, 177–9, 182, 183, 184,
188, 192, 193, 209, 227, 263, 245
Lateran palace  233, 234, 236
Latin  xvii, 77, 106, 133, 196, 213, 219, 223,
235, 239, 240, 242, 262n101
Latin Christianity  42, 249
Latin churches  111
Latin Empire  121, 157
Latin kingdoms / Latin States  123, 156
Latin texts  22n107, 47n103, 66n1, 71, 102n8,
194n207, 272
Latin West  30
Latins 239
laudes  235, 238–40, 240n104, 242, 243
laws  5, 6, 13, 15, 23–4, 37, 48, 51, 52, 58, 60,
74–6, 79, 90, 103–7, 112, 147, 160–3, 166,
169, 171, 174, 180–7, 189, 192, 195, 197,
199–202, 206, 208, 217, 234, 238, 239,
241, 247, 257, 270
Ledesma  140, 177
legal rights  75, 211
legal texts  17n79, 103, 160n162, 180
legates  4, 61, 111, 119, 120, 122, 123, 125,
128, 131, 149, 150, 158, 185n140, 195,
201–4, 224
legends  28, 30, 32–9, 41, 56, 65, 70n30,
83n94, 86, 111
legislation  2, 10, 14n62, 19, 20, 27, 28, 49, 69,
70, 72, 75, 75n54, 76, 92, 93, 95, 97, 107,
122, 127, 128, 130, 142, 143, 149, 152,
154–6, 154n120, 158, 159, 161, 162, 164,
170–3, 175, 177–80, 189, 191, 192, 210,
218, 227, 245, 261, 267, 273
legitimate authority  103
Leicester  68, 210
lending at interest  12n55 17, 38, 120, 145,
146, 150, 152, 155, 160, 161, 190n183
Lent  38, 141, 196, 197
Leo, son of the Jewish convert Baruch  229
Leo I, the Great, pope  252
Leo IX, pope  239, 240
Leo VII, pope  10, 208, 208n13, 275
León  86n113, 125, 140, 159, 177, 193,
196, 197
lepers  134, 202, 262n101
Lessines 84n101
Leviticus  73, 141, 141n36
Libellus de cerimoniis Aule Imperatoris 235
Liber bellorum Domini contra Iudaeos et contra
Iudaeorum hereticos 14n62
Liber Censuum (Romanae Ecclesiae) of Cencius
Camerarius  138, 227, 236, 238, 239,
240, 242
Liber extra decretalium (Liber extra) 5n21,
17n76, 18n85, 77, 105, 106, 107, 119, 136,
143, 151, 162, 183, 184, 184n133, 185,
185n135, 186, 192, 221, 273
Liber Politicus of Canon Benedict (Benedict
Canonicus) 236
Liber Pontificalis of Cardinal Boso  238
Liber Sextus decretalium  78, 78n65
liberation  111, 111n51, 123
Liberator 247
licentia docendi 93
Liege 159
light of Christ  255
Limoges  67, 228
Lincoln  44n87, 68, 83, 118, 218
Lisbon 176
Lisbon Massacre  135nn183–6, 178nn84, 85, 87
Lisieux 137
literaria 41
liturgy  29, 33n27, 236, 254, 254n34
Livonia 210
314 Index
livres 23 Marranos  xiv, 30n15, 86n113
loans  18, 20, 45, 67, 68, 115, 118n87, 140, marriage  15n70, 37, 75, 168, 169, 182, 184,
142, 145, 155, 162, 184, 190 186, 210, 257
Loire 71 Marseilles  137, 171, 208
Lombard banking  146 Martin IV, pope  13n58, 17n76, 25, 25n125,
Lombards  13n61, 17, 48n107, 53n138, 81, 81nn86, 87, 110, 140, 170, 170n60,
140n34, 144, 146 177, 177n80, 212, 213n55, 214, 215nn65–6,
Lombardy  69, 114, 132, 218, 255 217, 217n78, 260, 261nn89–90, 276
London  68, 137 martyr  36, 41, 42n72, 272
Lord  xix, 35, 41, 63, 64, 95, 98, 128, 133, martyrdom  12n56, 17n80, 29n9, 31n16, 36,
144, 155, 156, 164, 166, 168, 169, 189, 36n40, 42n72, 44, 45n92, 67nn4, 6, 82,
192, 205, 209, 227, 240, 241, 245, 249–2, 86n116, 109n86, 110n46, 113, 114n63,
254, 256, 259, 263 116nn73, 76, 78, 117n82, 130n154,
Lord’s Passion  188 144nn54–5, 145n57, 146nn63, 67,
Louis, prince  129 147n69, 148n75, 167n19, 191n188,
Louis Count of Clermont  134 192nn194–5
Louis II of Germany (emperor)  37 Mary  48, 52, 55, 55nn152, 153, 72, 84,
Louis II of Anjou  235 84n101, 85, 133, 160n161, 169, 205, 206,
Louis IX of France  46, 48, 67, 122, 156, 230n29, 252n37
205, 217 Mary of France, Queen  160n161
Louis VII of France  39, 44, 114, 115, 194 Mass  1n1, 30n15, 32n21, 44n83, 57n165,
Louis VIII of France  67, 154 60n187, 61n193, 66n3, 98, 108n31,
Louis X of France  70 114n63, 115n67, 133, 135, 135n184,
Lucius II, pope  136, 136n4, 275 142n44, 146n67, 167, 199, 247n6, 254n53,
Lucius III, pope  16, 275 256, 266n3, 271
Lucus (bishop)  123 massacres  1, 12n56, 14n62, 17n80, 41, 45n87,
Ludwig II  235 68, 86n116, 114, 115n68, 118n84, 121,
Lugo (Portugal)  176 130n154, 135nn183–6, 146n63, 167n19,
Luke, Gospel of  54, 54n148, 111, 141n37 178nn84–5, 87, 218, 222n116, 232,
Lyons  10n47, 49n111, 68, 78n65, 122, 123, 252n37, 253n48, 254n50, 264
143, 149, 154, 159, 161, 162, 186, Master Gaio the Jew  97
200n257, 221 Master of Hungary  133
Lyons I (First Council of Lyons)  122, 143, 149, Master Rolandus  15n70
154, 161, 162, 186 Matthew, Gospel of  8n40, 9, 54, 54n148, 58,
Lyons II (Second Council of Lyons)  49n11, 68, 59n177, 83, 86, 91, 111
123, 159, 162, 221, 221n104 Matthew Paris  84, 109, 110, 110n41, 117,
133, 133n174
Ma’aseh Book  33, 33nn30–1, 36 medicine  85, 91–3, 93nn148, 149, 151, 94,
Madrid  14n62, 124, 214n62 94nn158, 160, 161, 95, 95nn165, 168–70,
Magdeburg 140n34 96, 96nn172, 173, 97, 97nn179, 182,
magic  90–2, 90n137, 96, 96n174, 97, 99, 155 150, 189
magicians 90–7 medieval Church  1n1, 3n7, 140
Magister Roger Normannus, canon of medieval Europe  3, 5, 25, 29n9, 30–2, 34, 38,
Rouen 137 39, 39n59, 44n83, 73, 82, 83n94, 102,
Maguelonne 173 114n63, 136, 144, 146, 164, 165, 226, 260,
Maharam 38 267–9, 271
Maimonides  42n72, 60, 60nn187, 188, medieval papacy  1, 3n7, 21n103, 22n106,
61nn188, 193, 91, 93, 198 142, 234
Maine  67, 70 medieval philosophy  31n15
Mainz  33n29, 34, 42nn72, 75, 70, 98, 112, medieval society  4, 76, 92, 93nn149, 151,
112n56, 114, 118, 140n34, 208, 211 93nn160–1, 94n158, 95nn165, 168–70,
Manichaeans 7n32 96nn172, 173, 97nn179, 182, 207, 220n97
Manifesto della razza xv Mediterranean  30, 70n33, 141n39, 219n93
manna 56 megillah 33n27
Manosque 97 Meir ben Simeon of Narbonne  46, 46n98
Manuel I of Portugal  135n184 memorbucher 33n27
Marguerite of France, Queen  159 memory  29, 29n8, 30nn11, 15, 31, 31n20,
Marian Tale  85 33, 33n28, 40n61, 42n72, 47n104,
Mark, Gospel of  54, 54n148 60n188, 91, 97n180, 114n63, 178n86,
Marr, Wilhelm  xiii 233, 272
 Index 315
mendicants  1, 14, 22, 25, 72, 139, 171, 179, Moses of Huesca  194
196, 207, 216–18, 221, 224, 269, 272 Moses of Salerno  46
merchants  68, 71, 149n91, 150n96, 159, 228, 238 Mosque 258
Mercy  4, 75, 76, 98, 124, 205, 208, 220, Mount Sinai  234
250, 256 Mozabaric rite  198
Messiah  22, 30n15, 47, 52, 54, 58n177, 60–3, Munich 70
75, 83, 231, 255, 260n83, 268 Muret 129
Messina 235 Muslim converts  14n62, 132, 182, 214n62
Michael (archangel)  62 Muslim enemy  108, 258
Middle Ages  2–5, 8–16, 27–30, 37, 45, 51, 60, Muslim neighbours  258
63, 65, 66, 73, 86, 108, 135, 136, 153n112, Muslim slaves  139, 213
164, 178, 181, 194, 219, 226, 260, 262, Muslims  4–5, 11, 16n75, 17, 18, 20, 67, 68,
263, 268, 269 75, 76, 80, 93, 101, 103, 106, 108, 109,
Milan  114, 226n5, 235n66 111, 119, 121, 123–5, 127, 128, 134, 139,
Milhemet Misvah of Meir ben Simeon of 140, 168, 171, 177, 178, 180–6, 190, 194,
Narbonne  46, 46nn97–8, 46–7n99 210–14, 218, 228, 256–9, 267
Milites Christi 124 Mussolini xiv–xviii
millenarian fervour  60, 102
Milo, Jewish convert  209 Nachmanides  46, 61, 61n193, 62, 62n194,
minorities  180, 191n187 63n201, 195–200, 198, 207, 213, 214
minority groups  67n5, 101, 108n31, 130, Name of God  35, 36, 44, 98, 99n194, 152, 272
141n41, 170n36, 217n82, 224, 257, 267 Naples  180, 208
Mirabilia Urbis Romae of Canon Benedict/ Narbonne  46, 46n98, 69n21, 131, 134, 143,
Benedict Canonicus  227, 227n11 143n49, 171
miracles  23, 82, 82n90, 85n106, 86n111, 88, Nathan ben Yehiel  227
132, 193 Nathan Official (the elder)  46, 50
missionaries  14, 53, 225 Natural Law  200
missionary sermons  69, 217, 219, 255 Navarre  80, 121, 139, 158, 171, 196, 197,
mockery  82, 193, 194 232, 249, 250
modernism xiv Nazis  xiii, xvii, xviii
modernists xiv Nazism xv
Mohammedans 108 Near East  7, 13, 17, 18, 68, 98, 101, 101n2, 102,
Monastery of St Augustine of Canterbury  121, 108, 110, 114, 119, 121–3, 129n151, 132,
137, 158 143, 145, 150–2, 156, 157, 180, 224, 249, 271
moneylenders  xi, 12n55, 17, 17n80, 20, 45, necromancy 155
66, 116, 144, 146, 146n63, 147, 150–2, negotium fidei 106
159, 162, 163, 192, 241, 261 negotium Jhesu Christi 101
money-lending  vii, xi, 17, 18, 37, 38, 38n48, Nero (Roman emperor)  58
66, 68, 72, 93, 115, 117, 119–21, 123, 135, Netherlands 133
136, 144–51, 145n56, 155–8, 160–3, 185, Neuilly  119, 149
190n183, 193, 266 Nevers  6, 7, 12, 14, 20, 25, 27, 32, 46, 70, 73,
Mongols 181 77, 78, 80, 82, 84, 101, 107, 132, 133, 145,
monks  82, 111, 114, 133, 160n161, 211, 233, 239 148, 151, 159, 160, 184, 193, 201, 207, 211,
Monotheism 60n188 224, 227, 228n17, 230, 248, 251, 256, 268
monotheistic faiths  51 New Covenant  7, 73, 233
Mont-Aimé  110n44, 122n110, 191n189 New Temple  234
Montclus of Barcelona  134 New Testament  6n25, 8n36, 11, 21, 22, 53–5,
Montélimar  130, 175 57, 58, 62, 83, 86, 142, 197, 199, 206, 249,
Monsignor Montini  xix, xv, xvi 255, 262
Montpellier  92, 93, 95, 130, 143, 179, 198 Newcastle 68
Moore, Robert  51n127, 52n128, 101, Nice 171
102nn3–4, 224n126 Nicholas Donin  22, 48, 50, 195, 196, 198,
Moors 127 203, 204
Mordecai of Avignon  46 Nicholas I, pope  10, 247n8, 275
Morocco  123, 158 Nicholas II, pope  105, 275
mortgages  144, 145n56, 192, 193 Nicholas III, pope  13n58, 17n76, 25, 61, 69,
Mosaic Law  48, 60, 187 69n25, 81, 81n86, 110, 140, 140n31, 159,
Moses  52, 55, 56n165, 61n193, 62, 127, 170, 159n159, 160n160, 174, 174n59, 177,
197, 206, 234, 235nn65, 68–72, 236nn73–80, 177n79, 212, 212n54, 218, 219, 219n90,
237nn81–3, 238nn97–8, 242n128 255, 276
316 Index
Nicholas III, ‘Vineam sorec’  69, 69n25,
212n54, 218, 219n90, 255, 255n62
Nicholas IV, pope  13n58, 17n76, 25, 25n124,
78, 78n64, 81, 81n86, 97, 110, 140,
140nn33–4, 159, 174, 174n61, 177, 177n81,
212, 213, 213nn56–7, 215nn67–71, 216n77,
234, 255n62, 257, 257n70, 261, 261nn90–3,
266, 276
Nicholas IV, ‘Sicut nobis significare’  78, 78n64,
213n56
Nicholas Maniacutius  227, 262
Nimrod 62
Niort 70
Nizzahon Vetus  29n3, 47, 47nn104–5, 48,
48nn106–7, 55; see also Sefer Nisahon Yashan
Normandy, duchy of  118n87
Normans  12n56, 17n80, 45n92, 67nn4,
7, 86n116, 109n36, 110n46, 116nn73,
76, 78, 82, 130n154, 144nn54–5,
145n57, 146nn63, 67, 147n69,
148n75, 167n19, 169n188,
192nn194–5, 273
northern France  31, 42n72, 44n86, 59,
115n67, 132, 154n120, 272
northern Italy  21, 144
Norwich  12, 82, 82nn89, 90, 85n106,
86n111, 118, 130, 167
notaries  101, 263
‘Nova Lex’  48
‘Nullus’ (decretal of Gratian)  97
Numbers, Book of  73, 205
Nur-al-Din 117
nurses  19, 130, 165–9, 182, 188–90, 220
oaths  45, 46, 115, 126, 145, 149, 151, 153,
157, 161
Oberwesel  70, 83
Occitan 129n147
Odo (Eudes) of Châteauroux, cardinal bishop
of Tusculum  50, 55n153, 122, 123, 158,
195, 196, 201, 202, 203, 204, 216n72
Odo of Deuil  114
Official family  195
Old Covenant  21, 76, 165, 175, 231, 234
Old Law  197, 200, 206
Old Temple  234
Old Testament  6, 6n25, 7, 7n32, 22, 24, 52,
73, 74, 91, 108, 141, 186, 195, 197, 205,
218, 224, 231, 247, 248, 253, 255, 260,
262, 263, 268
Oldradus Pontanus  200, 200n257
Oliver of Paderborn  120
Opera historica of Ralph of Diceto  44n87,
118nn84–5
‘Oral Torah’  194, 198, 203, 204
Orders  xi, 1, 22, 25, 54, 69, 118, 157, 173,
179, 198, 202, 216–18
Ordinances of Mélun  67
Ordines XXV/XXVI 235
Ordo Romanus XIII of Gregory X  237
original sin  52
Orleans  67, 83, 118n87, 133, 228
Ostia  88n123, 186
‘Other’, the  15n69, 73, 76, 89, 91, 102, 108
Oxford 171
Pablo Christiani  62, 196
Pact of Omar  16n75
pagans  7, 18, 73, 82n88, 101, 174, 175, 177,
185, 189, 200, 208, 211, 223, 223n117,
246, 247, 256–9, 272
Palermo  43, 113, 228
Palestine  108, 123, 125
Palm Sunday  72
Pamiers  131, 139, 140n34
Pamplona (cathedral chapter of )  139
Panormia 231
papacy  1–3, 5, 14, 15, 17, 23, 28–65, 69, 70,
72–7, 96, 96n174, 97, 102, 103, 105, 108,
110–28, 135–47, 156–8, 161, 163, 165,
177, 180–6, 188, 191–204, 207–25,
229–31, 233–4, 237–9, 243, 245, 256, 264,
266–70
papal adventus ceremonies  226, 232, 234–7,
241, 242
papal authority  35, 39, 40, 51, 60, 133, 211,
213, 233, 268
papal ceremonials  235n64, 238n96,
239nn101–2, 240n106, 242nn123–4,
242n129
papal chamberlain  227, 239
papal correspondence  4, 8–16, 18, 22, 27, 87,
94, 103, 146, 171, 193, 248, 250, 252–5,
257, 261, 266
papal crown  37, 126, 154, 235, 236
papal decretals  75, 105, 107, 163, 180,
186–91
papal General-Vicar for Sicily and
Calabria 235
papal household  244
papal inauguration  236
papal legate  111, 119, 120, 122, 125, 149,
185n140, 195, 202, 224
papal letters  4, 5n17, 11, 11n50, 14, 24, 27,
87n119, 101n2, 103n9, 105, 136, 145, 146,
165, 197, 252, 262, 273
papal policy  1n1, 2–6, 26, 26n130, 27, 28n1,
86n116, 112n58, 146n66, 167n19,
262n101, 266n1, 268, 271
papal processions  235
papal pronouncements  2, 4–6, 8n37, 12n54,
28, 45, 104, 115, 154, 180, 191, 246, 266–9
papal protection  12n57, 16, 24–5, 28, 34, 35,
39, 41n66, 42, 46, 49, 51, 60, 64–6, 72, 79,
90–7, 109, 112, 118, 182, 191, 243, 269
papal responses  26, 26n130
papal rhetoric  9, 245–65
Papal Schism  230n29, 252n37
papal statements  4, 16, 18n81, 26, 27, 110,
266, 267
 Index 317
papal states  3n11, 5, 15, 25, 25n128, 26n128,
32, 32n21, 119, 226, 227, 246
papal vicar  208
papal–imperial relations  37
papal–Jewish relations  1, 2, 15, 27, 63–5, 217,
244, 245, 266, 271
Parable of the Vineyard  54
Paris  13, 22, 38, 88, 121, 123, 133, 134, 138,
139, 143, 151, 158, 165, 171, 182, 193,
195–9, 201–5, 207, 212, 227, 230, 240,
241, 244
Paris Disputation  22, 47–51, 50nn117, 119,
69, 72, 96, 195
Paris jury  201, 203
parishes  72, 87, 89, 118n87, 139, 140n34,
141, 156, 179
Parisian coins  88
parricide 140
Partito Popolare xv
Paschal II, pope  114, 124, 229, 235, 275
passagium generale 101
Passion  xix, 17, 82n89, 89n133, 103, 170,
188, 220
Passion Sunday  170
Passover  12, 48, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 205
patriarch of Constantinople  8, 249
Patristic texts  266
Paul, St  2n3, 3n7, 5, 6, 6n26, 7n27, 8n40,
13n58, 16n75, 17nn75–6, 18n84, 20n96,
98, 22n106, 23n113, 27, 27n130, 73, 76,
78, 89n130, 183n125, 246
Paul Christian/Paul Christianus/Pablo
Christiani, Friar  62, 196, 204, 206, 207,
213, 214, 217, 224
Paul IV, ‘Cum nimis absurdum’  226n1
Paul IV, pope  3n7, 7n28, 20n96, 22n106,
27n130, 226n1, 276
Paul VI, pope  276
Pauline theology  75, 82
Pauline–Augustinian idea of protection  69,
207, 265
Pauline–Augustinian theology  268
Paulinzelle (Benedictine monastery
of ) 160n161
‘Peasants Crusade’  111
Pelagius 120
penalties  39n59, 66, 137, 141, 165, 172,
187–9, 209, 245
penance  59, 107, 108, 141, 159
penitential prayers  33n27
People of God  63
pepper tributes  242
peregrinatio  101, 106
‘Perfidia’  12n58, 16nn74–5, 77, 77n61, 79n72,
80nn75–7, 83n96, 109n38, 151n100,
152n111, 168n25, 174n58, 175n65,
177n78, 197n231, 199nn248–9, 205n291,
206nn292–3, 248nn9, 11–12, 250n20, 25,
252–6, 263n102, 267n7
perfidious Jews  9, 193, 254, 254n52
‘perfidus’ 253
Perfidy  16, 79, 80, 88, 151, 152, 197, 221, 222,
230, 249, 252, 253, 253n45, 254, 254n52
perjury 140
Perpignan 56
persecution  2n3, 10, 10n46, 11n50, 12, 24,
34n32, 43, 43n77, 44, 63, 70–2, 81,
87n119, 92, 107, 112, 113, 113n58, 114,
135, 146, 167, 191n187, 222n113, 232
Peter, St  34n32, 55, 55n157, 57, 76, 222, 268
Peter Abelard  231
Peter Alfonsi/Petrus Alfonsi  47, 194
Peter Arnaldi of Sarrians  213n57
Peter Capuano  119
Peter Damian  9n45, 52, 105, 221, 221n110
Peter I of Aragon  194
Peter II of Aragon  125, 129
Peter IV of Aragon  217
Peter Leone  230
Peter of Blois  9, 9n45, 13n62, 52, 222, 222n116
Peter of Castelnau  128
Peter the Chanter  9, 9n45, 16, 16n73, 149,
220, 220n102
Peter the Hermit  111, 132
Peter the Lion (Petrus Leonis)  231
Peter the Venerable, abbot of Cluny  47, 146
Petrus, convert from Judaism  195
Petrus Mallius  234
Petrus Pierleoni  229
Pharaoh 62
Philip de Montfort  157
Philip II Augustus of France  25, 32n21, 49,
49n115, 67, 117, 118, 118n87, 120, 129,
132, 138, 148, 150, 152, 154, 155, 156,
166, 193, 211, 244
Philip IV ‘the Fair’ of France  134, 217
Philip V of France  134
Philip VI of Valois  84n102
philosophy  29n9, 31n15, 53, 57n165,
60n188, 71
physicians, Christian  93, 95, 97
physicians, Jewish  69, 92, 93, 93n150, 152,
93nn154, 155, 94–7, 189
Picardy 132
Pierleoni (family)  221, 229–31
Pietro Collivaccino  162, 181
Pietro Tacchi-Venturi  xv
piety  4, 33n27, 44n83, 89, 114n63, 144n54,
192n194
pilgrimage  84n102, 101, 106, 110, 111, 124
pilgrims  85n106, 101, 107, 111
Pius X, pope  276
Pius XI, ‘Humani generis Unitas’  xvi
Pius XI, ‘Mit Brennender Sorge’  xvi
Pius XI, ‘Non abbiamo bisogno’  xv
Pius XI, pope  276
Pius XI, ‘Quas primas’  xiv
Pius XII, pope  276
Plato 223
Platonists 223
318 Index
pledges  45, 67n4, 116, 144, 145, 147, 148,
157, 159, 168, 192, 209
plenary indulgence  18n82, 108
pogroms  39n59, 45, 48, 67, 68, 110–12, 115,
116, 133, 228, 230, 271
Poitiers  110, 121, 122, 137, 177, 253
Poitou  67, 72, 110
Poland  33, 169, 171
polemic  7n29, 9, 13, 13n62, 14n62, 18, 18n83,
28, 29, 29n3, 6, 34n32, 39n59, 45–7,
47nn104, 105, 48nn106, 107, 50n117,
51–60, 62nn196, 198, 200, 63, 63n201, 64,
71, 98, 195, 222, 222n114, 223, 223n117,
224, 247, 257, 260n83, 266, 271
polemicists  21, 46, 53, 55, 58, 59, 169, 223,
251n31, 255, 267
Poles 224
policy of degradation  3, 4, 27
political enemies  101, 103, 105, 119, 267
Politics (Aristotle)  141
Pons 228
pontifical mitre  236
Pontifical of the Roman Curia  236, 237
Pontoise 83
‘popular’ crusades  132–5
Portugal  31, 124, 135n184, 139, 140, 174,
176–8, 196, 197, 212
post-enlightenment  4, 76
potential enemies  81, 102, 221–5, 263, 264
pounds  23, 41, 97, 148, 159, 238
Prague 112
prayers  33n27, 96n174, 98, 198, 206,
254, 271
preachers  8n39, 101, 104, 111, 119, 120, 146,
149, 169, 219, 258n74
preaching campaigns  66
prebends  137, 209, 211
precise coacti  78, 213, 213n56
prefect of Rome  229
Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of
the Faith  xxi
presbyterium  238, 239, 239n100
President of the World Jewish Congress  xxi
Prince Edward of England  123n116
principal, the  18, 20, 67n4, 146, 152, 153,
157, 159, 160n161, 161, 162
prior of St Geneviève of Paris  138
Prior of the Dominicans at Paris  158
Prior of Troyes  159, 228
privilege  12n57, 18, 51, 70, 74, 76, 96, 105,
108, 110, 122, 123, 127, 133, 136, 138,
152, 155, 156, 158, 159, 160n161, 162,
187, 191, 215, 219, 258n74
processions  235–68, 240, 241, 243, 244
Profiat Duran  56, 56n165, 57nn166–8, 170–1,
58nn172–6, 59nn178, 182
pronouncements  2, 4–6, 8n37, 12n54, 24, 27,
28, 37, 40, 45, 64, 71, 76, 95, 96, 103, 104,
115, 117, 117n82, 120, 121, 137, 140n34,
144, 151, 154, 160n161, 161, 164, 180,
191, 216n72, 246, 266–9
Prophets  6, 55, 59n177, 61, 73, 79, 132, 194,
199, 224, 247–50, 250nn21–2
prostitutes 189
protection  2, 11–13, 16, 23–6, 28, 32, 34, 35,
39–45, 47, 49, 51, 60, 64–100, 108–10,
112, 114–18, 120–3, 155, 182, 191, 207,
208, 212, 216–19, 228, 231, 232, 240, 243,
248, 265, 267, 269
Provencal  28n1, 61
Provence  25n122, 31, 71, 177, 180, 214n62,
217, 253
province of Aix  215, 261
province of Arles  215, 261
province of Embrun  215, 261
province of Rouen  256
province of Vienne  80, 89
Provincial Council of Béziers  92
Psalms, Book of  7, 55, 79, 80, 86, 116, 205,
249, 252, 264
public disputations  13
public office  15, 15n71, 20, 27, 50, 69, 75,
107, 129, 136, 159, 164, 174–7, 179, 183,
192, 193, 245
pueri 132
Pugio Fidei adversus Mauros et Iudaeos of
Raymond Martin  14n62, 25n122, 62n194,
214n62, 223, 224
Purgatory  57, 57n169
Pyrenees 11n54
Qiddush ha-Shem  36, 44, 98, 99, 113; see also
Kiddush ha-Shem
Quaestio 1 105
Quaestio 2 105
Quaestio 3 105
Quaestiones 104
Quanto amplius (Constitution 67, Lateran IV)  151,
151n100, 152, 152n111, 155, 163, 184, 190
Quinque antiquae compilationes  106, 181,
183, 273
rabbis  8, 20, 24, 28, 35, 37, 37n47, 38n48, 41,
60, 60n187, 61n190, 61n191, 62n196, 93,
136, 146, 169, 180, 186n147, 196, 200,
208, 268
Rabbi Amnon of Mainz  42, 42n75, 112n56
Rabbi Daniel  244
Rabbi Isaac Benveniste  95, 97, 179, 193
Rabbi Jechiel  243–5
Rabbi Levi  179
Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg  38, 46n98, 196
Rabbi Mordechai Man Yosef Oynin  180
Rabbi Nathan  244
Rabbi of Algiers  63
Rabbi Shlomo de Shalom  180
Rabbi Ya’acov bar Yakutiel  41
Rabbi Yehi’el of Paris  48, 50–1, 50n117, 195, 198
rabbinic literature  6, 62, 83, 194, 213, 207
Rachel, Jewish mother  98
Racial Manifesto xv
Rainer, bishop of Rimini  136
 Index 319
Ralph Glaber  9n45 Robert, abbot of the monastery of St Augustine
Ralph of Diceto  44n87, 118, 118nn84–5 of Canterbury  137
Ramah 98 Robert, bishop of Aix  96n174
Ramerupt 114 Robert, Patriarch of Jerusalem  122
Rashbatz  63, 63nn202, 204–5 Robert II ‘the Pious’ of France  40, 41
Rashi 227 Robert of Artois  122
Rathier of Verona  8n41 Robert of Cleri  119
Ravenna 96 Robert of Courçon  120, 149–50
Raymond de Peralta  139, 140 Robert of Glove, cleric  121n105
Raymond Lull  14n62, 25n122, 214n62, Robert the Monk  111
225, 255 Roger of Hoveden  44n87, 118n84, 150n92
Raymond Martin  14n62, 25n122, 62n194, Rolf Hochhuth  xvii
214n62, 223, 224 Roman adventus ceremony  226, 232, 234–7,
Raymond of Peñafort  5n21, 105, 162, 183, 239–43, 245
213, 224, 251, 251n31, 273 Roman Catholic Church  4, 37, 59n177, 105,
Raymond Roger Trencavel  128 204, 233
Raymond VI of Toulouse  128–9, 131 Roman clergy  238, 239
Raymond VII of Toulouse  129 Roman Commune  230, 231, 240, 241
Raynerius Flamingi  23, 89 Roman crown  235
Reconquista  75, 123–5, 258 Roman Empire  156
Redeemer  91, 170, 199, 253, 253n45, 259 Roman Jewish community  232, 245
redemption  55, 60, 61, 61n193, 62, 133, 200 Roman Jews  136, 226, 229–32, 234, 238,
Reform Movement  64 240–3, 245
Reformation 31n15 Roman Law  5, 76
Regensburg  123, 218 Roman liturgy  235, 236, 254
Register  16, 148 Roman rite  254
relics  233, 234, 241, 242 Romans, Book of (St Paul)  6, 6nn25–6, 73,
religious authorities  vii, x, xi, 4, 39, 67, 85, 94, 73n48, 82n92, 246, 246n2, 247nn3, 5,
102, 260, 266, 268, 269 249, 252
religious houses  xvii, 210 Rome  11, 12n57, 15, 32, 34, 35, 37, 41, 42,
religious life  184, 186, 201 58, 61, 63, 64, 67, 73, 95, 112, 114, 136,
remedium 87 137, 150, 159, 170, 179, 198, 215,
remission of interest  159, 161, 162 226–45
remission of penance  108 rouelle  170, 171
remission of sins  84n102, 108 Rouen  67, 94, 118n87, 133, 137, 139, 143,
Republic of Salo  xvii 228, 256
responsa  28, 30, 37–8n48, 37–9, 38nn49, Royal Exchequer  17
52–5, 39nn56–7, 71, 135 royal policy  3n11
Resurrection  55, 56, 166 Rudiger of Speyer (bishop)  71
Rheims  8n41, 209, 212 Rudolph  114, 116–17
Rheims-Château Gontur  143 Russia 33
Rhenish Jews  33, 44
rhetoric  8, 8n40, 9, 11, 16, 25, 43, 46, 52, 58, Sabbath  34, 56, 59n177, 74, 188, 215, 228
69, 74, 80, 124, 169, 212, 222, 223, sacrament of baptism  77, 251, 257
245–66, 270 sacrament of marriage  257
Rhine  44, 132, 133 Sacrament of the Body and Blood of
Rhineland  67, 87, 98, 99, 112–14, 116, 228 Christ 166
Richard, archdeacon of Poitiers  137 Sages 194
Richard I ‘the Lionheart’ of England  44n87, Saint Denis  120, 211, 230, 236
68, 91, 117, 118 Saint Stephen (Church of )  72
Richard of Cornwall  13, 72, 109, 157 Saint-Denis 132
Rieti 159 Saint-Dié 87
Rimini 136 Saintes  110, 121, 122
rites (Christian)  187, 198, 240, 254 Saint-Jean-en-Grève 89
rites ( Jewish)  25, 69, 79, 81, 86, 108, 168, Saint-Quentin 132
186, 209, 214, 215, 229n20, 236–7, 242, Saint-Sauveur 118n87
260, 261 Saladin  117, 119
ritual cannibalism  5n19 Saladin tithe  117
ritual murder  5, 11–12, 13n58, 23, 39, 48, 70, Salamanca  140, 177, 258
71, 80–90, 99, 130, 167–8, 218, 240, 244, Salerno  46, 92
266, 267 Salian Ordo  235, 238
320 Index
salvation  9, 9n45, 25n6, 42, 60, 82, 84, 86, 89,
99, 156, 249, 255, 257
Sancho II of Portugal  177
Sancta Sanctorum 234
Saracens  108, 126, 127, 164, 169, 176, 181,
182n112, 189, 190, 258
Saragossa  70, 83
Sarrians 213
Satan  42, 112, 125
Saturday  56, 59n177, 196, 197, 228n17
Saviour  89, 96, 116
Schism  32, 55, 59n177
schismatics  180, 267
scholae 237–40
scholars  3, 14, 23, 61, 88, 91, 99, 130, 167–8,
203, 227
scholasticism  64, 64n208, 260
Schools 223
scribes 197
Scripture  xix, 7, 51, 53, 83, 194, 197, 205,
247, 252
Scroll/s of the Law/Torah  7, 47, 48, 54, 56,
59n177, 60n188, 73, 194, 196, 198, 203,
204, 215, 230, 231, 234, 236–43, 261, 266
Second Crusade  34n32, 36, 42n75, 44, 45, 98,
102, 109, 112n56, 114–18, 125, 145, 194,
222, 241
Second World War  xvii
Sefardic 36
Sefer Joseph Hamekane (Book of Joseph the
Zealot)  46, 46, 55nn157–8, 195
Sefer Klimat ha-Goyim  56, 59
Sefer Nisahon Yashan (Nizzahon Vetus)  46, 47,
47n104
Sefer Yosef ben Gurion 36
Sefer Yossipon  36–7, 39, 41
Sefer Zekhirah (Book of Remembrance)  44, 114
Segovia 257
segregation  2, 20n99, 71, 85
selihot 33
Seljuk Turks  43, 111, 112
Semites xvi
‘senescalcus’ 244
seneschal of Champagne  154
seneschal of Toulouse  134
Senlis  50, 121, 156, 158
Sens  23, 50, 88, 121, 138, 155, 156, 158,
159, 165, 167, 182, 187, 193, 198, 210,
228, 231
Sergius IV, pope  10, 11n49, 234
sermons  8, 9, 17n78, 68, 69, 72, 104,
111, 150, 161n163, 207, 217–19,
219n91, 255
servants  16, 19, 34, 61, 69, 70, 79, 126, 130,
131, 164, 165, 167, 168, 171, 182, 185,
189, 190, 219–22, 243–4, 263
‘servi camere nostre’  70
servitude  79, 168, 169, 190, 207, 213, 219–21,
241, 251, 263
Seventh Crusade  122, 133
Seville  103, 125, 127
sexual contact  168
Shabbat 56
Shabbat Mitzvah  56
Shebet Yehudah  95, 135, 178–80
shekels 41
Shelomo bar Shimshon  40, 42, 42nn75–6, 43,
45, 112, 112nn56–7, 113, 115
Shelomo ibn Verga  135n184, 178,
178nn84, 87
Shem-Tob Sonzolo  177
Sicily  138, 139, 171, 180, 181, 208, 228,
235, 258
‘Sicut Iudaeis’  1, 1n2, 12–13, 12nn57–8,
16n75, 17n76, 23, 23nn114–15, 24,
24n118, 25, 25n125, 27, 43, 43nn79–80,
82, 45n88, 74, 77, 78, 78n66, 79,
79nn67–70, 80nn81–3, 81n84, 86–7, 89,
89n132, 90n134, 108n32, 109nn34–5, 40,
113, 113nn60–1, 114, 115n69, 116,
116n74, 78, 118, 118nn86–7, 182, 185,
216, 217, 217n78, 221, 230–2, 240–3,
247, 247n7, 248, 248n9, 250n25,
251nn29, 32, 255n61, 263n102, 267n8
Siena 96
Silesia 138
Silvester, treasurer of Lisieux  137
Simeon ben Zemah Duran  63, 63nn202,
204, 205
Simeon the Great of Mainz  34–6, 228
simony 140
sin  7, 34n32, 52, 53, 55, 57, 74, 83, 84n102,
105, 107, 108, 124, 141, 142, 156,
160n161, 178, 186, 187, 193, 205, 222,
247, 259
Sion 6n26
Sisebut (king of the Visigoths)  77
slavery  61, 132, 220
slaves  10, 19, 74, 75, 126, 139, 164, 168, 185,
189, 190, 208, 211, 213, 220
‘societas Christiana’  80, 218
sodomy 140
Soffredo 119
Soissons  121, 198
solidi  126, 239
Solomon bar Simson  98
Solomon ben Isaac of Troyes  227
Solomon Petit  37n47
sorcerers 92
south of France  18, 21, 21n104, 88, 93, 120,
128–31, 148, 151, 157, 179, 224,
262n101, 273
Southampton 68
Spain  ix, 1, 4, 8n40, 11, 16, 30n15, 31, 47, 63,
70, 72, 75, 76, 83, 93, 123–8, 134, 135,
138, 156, 168, 170–3, 178, 181, 209, 217,
224, 228, 229, 231, 252, 258–60, 264
Spanish bishops  75, 124, 125, 181, 258
Spanish Christians  76, 124
Spanish councils  76
 Index 321
Spanish crusade  125 Tablets of the Law  171, 234
Spanish expulsion  30n15 Talmud  vii, viii, xi, xix, xx, 13, 14, 21, 22,
Spanish peninsula  123 22n107, 23n110, 24, 26, 27, 47, 48, 50–2,
spells 96n174 55n153, 62, 64, 69, 83, 92, 96, 96n174, 97,
Speyer  71, 112, 114 102, 135, 146, 186, 194–207, 213,
Spirit  xix, 134, 259 215–16n72, 217, 218, 224, 227, 266
spiritual authority  xi, 8, 15, 35, 37, 49, 55, 64, Talmudic studies  71
163, 177, 246 Tancred 181
spiritual Israel  74 Tarragona  124, 128, 172, 193, 206, 211, 218
spiritual power  xi, 5, 32, 39, 46, 232 Tartars 49n111
spiritual privileges  152 tax collectors  39n59, 126, 164
spiritual rewards  108, 124, 180 taxes  127, 131, 139, 140, 177, 208, 212, 226
spouses  182, 183, 185, 186 Temple  7, 9n45, 233, 234, 252, 259, 261
St Geneviève  121, 138 Temple Treasures  233, 234
St John the Evangelist  63 Tertiary Franciscans  225
St Paul  xx, 2n3, 2n5, 3n7, 6, 6n26, 7n28, 8n40, Tesaurus pauperum 96
13n58, 16–17n75, 17n76, 18n84, 20n96, The Answer of the Wise People of France or
20n98, 22n106, 23n113, 26, 27, 27n130, 73, Lotharingia 38
76, 78, 89n130, 183n125, 246, 249 The Argument (Vikhuah) of Rabbi Yacov of
St Peter  xviii, 34n32, 55, 55n157, 57–8, Venice 48
59n177, 76, 222, 234, 268 The Book of Preaching against the Jews 225
St Peter’s altar  235 The Disputation of Rabbi Yeh’iel of Paris 50,
St Peter’s Basilica  236 195, 207
St Thomas Aquinas; see Aquinas, Thomas The Formation of a Persecuting Society, Robert
Stamford  44n87, 117 Moore  15n69, 101, 102nn3–4, 224n126
Star of Light  256 The Life and Miracles of St William of
Statute of the Jewry  68, 69 Norwich  82, 82n90, 86n111
statutes  71, 171, 172, 179, 193, 200, 219n91 The London Chronicle 68
Stephen III, pope  10, 11, 11n51 ‘The Representative’  xvii
Stephen of England (King)  44, 82, 115 The Terrible Event of 1007  40, 42, 45
Stephen of Cloyes  132 Theobold/Thibaut Count of Blois  39
Strasbourg 254 Theobold of Sézanne  196
stubborn  9, 83, 84, 255 Theoderic bishop of Bari and later Ravenna  96
stubbornness  vii, xii, 84, 218, 268 Theodosian Code  10, 27, 74, 76, 78, 247, 248
subservience  6–7, 7n27, 26, 27, 76, 164, 181, Theodosius II (Roman emperor)  74
219, 230, 268 theologians  5, 21, 38, 52, 71, 103, 105, 142,
suffragans  96n174, 97, 138, 152, 155, 172, 155, 207, 208
175, 176, 193, 215n72, 219n91 Thibaut I of Navarre, IV of Champagne  110,
Suger, abbot of Saint Denis  120, 236 158, 171, 249, 264
Sully 114 Thibaut IV of Champagne, King of
Summa Abel  16n73, 220n102 Navarre  110, 158, 171, 264
Summa aurea  186, 186nn151–3, 187nn154–8, Third Council of Toledo  75, 131, 174, 175,
188nn160–4, 189nn165–4, 190nn175–85, 176, 193
221n107 Third Crusade  44n87, 109, 115n68, 117,
Summa de casibus penitentiae 106 118, 120
Summa iuris canonici 106 Thomas de Chobham  20n99
Summa Theologica 5 Thomas of Cantimpré  86, 198, 198n244
summae  105, 184 Thomas of Monmouth  82, 82n89, 86n111
Sunday  56, 59n177, 72, 131, 170, 238, 241 throne of St Peter  xviii, 34n32, 222, 268
Sylvester I  56, 56n161, 59n177 Tiber, River  229, 234n58
Synagoga  256, 261, 262 tithes  126, 127, 136–40, 140n34, 147, 171,
synagogue  xxi, 9, 10, 16, 67, 69, 70, 74, 87, 184, 187
98, 118n87, 125, 126, 130, 167, 169, 171, Titus (Roman emperor)  234
182, 187, 196, 197, 215, 217, 227, 234, Toledo  75–7, 126–8, 131, 137, 160n161, 172,
244, 247, 256, 258, 261, 262, 262n101, 174–6, 193, 198, 235, 250, 251
268–9 toleration  xii, 6, 64, 66, 76, 83, 201, 219, 220,
Synod of Breslau  71, 85 245, 246
Synod of Oxford  171 Torah  xx, 7, 47, 48, 54, 56, 59, 60n188, 194,
Synod of Worcester  92 196, 204, 215, 230, 231, 234, 236–43, 261
Syria  123, 125 Torah scrolls  215, 237, 240, 242, 261
322 Index
Toulouse  18n82, 72, 80n78, 96n174, 128, Valery 137
129, 131, 134, 177, 180, 253 Valois 84n102
Tournai  209, 212 Valréas  70, 71, 80, 83, 89
Tournai (chapter of )  209, 212 Valsecret 121
Tours  121, 133, 139, 151, 176 Vatican  x, xiv–xix, 234n58, 235–7
Tractatus contra Iudaeorum inveteratam duritiam Vatican Basilica  235–7
of Peter the Venerable  52, 222 Vatican City  xiv, xviii
trade  xvi, 17, 71, 142, 161, 185 Vatican II  xix, xxi
Trani 216n72 Venetians 119
Transubstantiation 52 Venice  18, 46, 48, 119
Trastevere 226 Verona 8n41
treachery 254 Vespasian (Roman emperor)  234
Treasury of Merits  59 Vicar of Christ  46, 200
Trent, Council of  xiv vice-chancellor xii
Trèves 95 Victorines 52
Trial of the Talmud  22n107, 47n103, 66n1, Vienna  18n82, 38n52, 88, 94, 95, 219,
102n8, 194nn207–11, 195, 195nn212, 259n78
215–16, 218–20, 196nn221–27, 229, Vienne  70, 80, 87, 89, 141, 143, 143n49,
197nn235–9, 198nn240–1, 198n244, 258n74
199nn246–7, 250, 201nn260–4, vifgages  144, 153, 161
203nn269–75, 204–206, 204nn276–80, Vikuah Ha-Ramban  61, 61n193, 62,
205nn282–7, 207nn1–3, 272 62nn196–200, 63n201
Trier 112 Vikuah Ha-Rashbatz  63, 63nn202, 204–5
trilingual acclamations  239, 240, 242 violence  4, 10n48, 11, 13, 21–4, 39n59, 40–5,
Trinity  52, 55, 128, 223 66, 68, 70, 72, 77, 78, 87, 99, 102–5, 107,
Troppau 88 109–14, 115n68, 116–20, 122–4, 133, 134,
Troyes  138, 159, 220, 227, 228 166, 177, 180, 191, 194, 208, 232, 251, 266
Tunis 123n116 virgin birth  55
Turks  43, 111, 112 Virgin Mary, Blessed  205
Tusculum  123, 158, 201, 216n72 Visigothic Church  15–16
Tyre  114, 117, 183, 235, 257 Visigothic king of Spain  252
Tyre (chapter of )  183, 257 Vitry  17n78, 120, 161n163
Volkmar 111
unbelief 253 voluntary baptism  209
unbelievers  200, 254 vows  106, 107, 184n133
unclean  36, 166, 256
United States Council of Catholic Bishops  xx wafers  23, 88, 90
University of Bologna  258n74 Waldensians 102
University of Oxford  258n74 Walter Kasper  xx
University of Paris  258n74 Walter of Châtillon  13n62, 222, 222n116
University of Salamanca  258n74 Walter the Penniless  111
Uodalscalcus of Augsburg  229 Waltham 137
Urban II, pope  41–3, 43n77, 81, 77, 101, wax images  96n174
104–6, 110–13, 113n62, 114, 124, 144, Wecelin 37n47
192, 229, 231 Wehrmacht xvi
Urban IV, ‘Cum praedicationem crucis’  123, Weissenberg 224
159n154 well poisoning  23, 87, 88, 94, 95, 96n174
Urban IV, pope  13n58, 17n76, 24, 62, 81, West  4, 8, 9, 11n54, 13, 21, 30, 47, 67, 83,
81n86, 96, 96nn175–6, 110, 123, 142, 223, 228
128nn118–19, 139, 159, 159nn154–6, 212, Westbury 88
212nn50–1, 213, 228, 228n18, 257, 258n74 Westphalia 87
Urban IV, ‘Sane mirantes’  96, 96nn175–6 wet nurses  69, 165, 167, 168, 182, 188, 190
usurers  18, 142, 143, 146, 148, 150, 159, 160, Wibert of Ravenna  43, 112
190, 262, 262n97 widows 182n112
usury  5, 17, 17n79, 18, 18n81, 20, 24, 38, 45, William, a Jew  12, 167
66–9, 92, 117, 119–23, 130, 131, 140–63, William, archbishop of Tyre  114
167, 179, 182–5, 190, 193, 199, 218, 267, 268 William bishop of Chalons  262n101
William bishop of Paris  50, 262n101
Valence  121, 158 William de St Valery, archdeacon  137
Valencia 96 William II of England  112
 Index 323
William of Bourges  13n62, 14n62, 222, Worms  71, 98, 112, 138
222n116, 223n117 ‘Written Torah’  194, 196
William of Newburgh  44n87, 118n84 Würzburg 114
William of Norwich  12, 82, 82n89, 85n106,
86n111, 130, 167 Yacov of Venice  46
Winchester  83, 85 Yahweh 243
witnesses  7, 9, 13n58, 19, 73, 89, 134, 164, 184, York  8n41, 12n56, 17n78, 44n87, 45n87, 68,
197, 208, 214, 216, 225, 229n20, 248 86n116, 118, 167n19, 222n116, 252n37
wives  182, 257
Worcester  88, 92, 168 Zara 119
Word of God  230, 243 Zion  61, 247