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
ProTecTioN ANd reSTricTioN iN The
‘coNSTiTUTio Pro iUdAeiS’
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.