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.45In 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.