120 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291
by Innocent and Honorius III and led by John of Brienne (titular king of Jerusalem),
King Andrew II of Hungary, and duke Leopold vI of Austria under the spiritual
guidance of the preachers robert of Courçon, Oliver of paderborn, and James of
vitry, as well as the papal legate pelagius, was originally to re-take Jerusalem and,
when this failed, to secure the strategically placed town of damietta. Once again
the papacy intervened both to protect and to restrict Jewish communities. In par-
ticular, Innocent’s general letter ‘Quia maior’ of 1213 calling for the new crusade
issued specific instructions regarding crusades and Jewish money-lending at inter-
est.93 Innocent also ordered the archbishop of Arles to ensure that those wielding
temporal power force Jews to remit the interest on debts for crusading against
heretics in the south of France.94
Yet, as we have seen, Innocent’s correspondence reveals that throughout his pon-
tificate, he, like his predecessors, remained committed to the pauline and patristic
idea of protection. So, for example, in one letter, ‘Mandatur ut inhibeant’, of which
only the rubric survives, but which was addressed to the clergy of France, he categor-
ically forbade all Christians, and especially crusaders, from harming Jews or their
families.95 Issued in 1215 or 1216 it suggests that, reacting to the precedents of the
First, Second, and Third Crusades, he was concerned that religious fervour engen-
dered by preparations for the upcoming Fifth Crusade might lead to new outbreaks
of violence.96 However, as we shall see in Chapter Four, his pronouncements with
regard to specifically Jewish usury and the crusades were rather more complex and
ambiguous than they at first appear. In particular he seems to have been angered by
philip Augustus’s treatment of his legate, robert of Courçon, who was preaching the
Fifth Crusade in France. Nevertheless, he admitted that robert had received no
mandate to preach against usury and noted that he had ordered him to moderate his
preaching—which suggests that he realized it was causing problems for the Jews
and, indirectly, for the Crown, which profited from Jewish usury.97 Innocent knew
that the clergy also benefitted, albeit indirectly, from it; Abbot Suger, who in the
twelfth century had derived revenues from taxing Jewish lenders on his estates, used
the money for the construction of the great monastery of St denis and was therefore
willing to tolerate money-lending by Jews provided the interest was moderate.98
Innocent’s successor Honorius III repeated the stipulations of ‘Quia maior’ that
Jews must remit usury to crusaders.99 Yet again, like Innocent, he also seems to
have been aware that the French clergy were inclined to treat the Jews more harshly
than he himself and his predecessors would have wished.100 Hence during the
Fifth Crusade he expressed concern about such behaviour, complaining to the
93 Innocent III, ‘Quia maior nunc’ (22 April 1213), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.136; Simonsohn, p.97.
94 Innocent III, ‘gloriantes hactenus in’ (11 November 1209), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.134; Simonsohn, p.96.
95 Innocent III, ‘Mandatur ut inhibeant’ (1215–1216), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.142; Simonsohn, p.100.
96 Innocent III, ‘Mandatur ut inhibeant’ Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.142; Simonsohn, p.100.
97 Innocent III, ‘Quanto melior est’ (14 May 1214), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.138–40.
98 Stow, Alienated Minority, p.226.
99 Honorius III, ‘dilecta in Christo’ (21 June 1219), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.150–2; Simonsohn,
pp.106–7.
100 Honorius III, ‘Cum olim nobilis’ (28 January 1217), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.144; Simonsohn, p.102;
‘dilecta in Christo’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.150–2; Simonsohn, pp.106–7.