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
THE LIMITATIONS OF PAPAL PROTECTION
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.