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.