102 Law and Morality Abroad (to ca. ad 1550)be devised. Th at posed something of a challenge. But there was no shortage
of lawyers prepared to meet it.Justifi cations for Crusading
If traditional just-war theory was to be employed to justif y crusading, then a
persuasive just cause (iusta causa) would have to be identifi ed. One possible
theory was repressive rule by the Saracens (in the form of persecution of
Christians), which could be argued to justify forfeiture of their right to rule.
Th is was put forward, admittedly not in very dispassionate legal terms, at
the outset of the crusading movement to the Holy Land. Th e famous sermon
by Pope Urban II at Clermont in 1095, in one of the versions in which it has
been reported (supposedly fi rsthand), contained an extensive cata logue of
atrocities attributed to the Muslims. Th ese included the devastation of the
Holy Land with “pillage, fi re, and the sword,” the infl iction of “cruel tortures”
onto Christians, the destruction of churches, and the ruining of altars with
“fi lth and defi lement.”
In the longer term, however, allegations of misconduct by infi del rulers
lost their persuasiveness, and resort was had to two other theories that were
devised outside the framework of general just-war theory. One of them,
known as recuperatio (“recovery”), was applied to crusading in the Holy
Land. Th e other, known as dilatatio (“expansion” or “widening,” cognate
with the En glish word “dilate”), applied to the northeastern Eu ro pe an cru-
sading theater.
Th e recuperatio theory was the more widely accepted of the two, since it
had the support of Innocent IV himself. It held that the Holy Land must be
seen as something of a special case. It was stated to be, uniquely, a res sancta
(“sacred thing”) belonging, in permanent right, to the whole of Christen-
dom. Th at meant that any infi del rulership over it could never be regarded
as legitimate. Consequently, any Christian prince was entitled to reconquer
it on behalf of the Christian community generally. Among the writers who
supported this doctrine were John of Legnano and Bonet.
Th e dilatatio theory was more controversial. It was essentially a Christian
version of the Muslim thesis, identifi ed earlier, that the conquest of foreign
lands was justifi able as a means to the eff ective promotion of the true faith.
Conquest of a non- Christian land could be authorized (the theory went) on