Jews and Money 143
suspended from the performance of his office until he has made satisfaction according
to the judgement of his own bishop.46The alms of usurers were also to be rejected. For the next hundred years this ban
was reiterated by numerous Church councils.
Alexander iii’s especial concern with usury was clear not only from the legisla-
tion of a council over which he presided, but also from many of his letters. His
position is set out as early as 1163 when he prohibited the exaction of immoderate
interest by Christians,47 even declaring that the children of usurers should make
restitution for their parents’ gains from their inheritance.48 That his letter was later
included in Gregory iX’s Liber extra, showed the importance future canonists
attributed to this prohibition.
Concern continued to grow during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. As a
result of Lateran iii, from 1179 onwards a significant number of local councils in
France, england, and Germany continued Alexander iii’s effort to ensure that the
decrees laid down at the ecumenical council were enforced by enacting further
legislation against Christian and—increasingly—Jewish usury. so, among others,
in France the councils of Avignon (1209), Paris (1212), Montpellier (1214),
narbonne (1227), Rouen (1231), Rheims-Château Gontur (1231), Béziers-Lyon
(1246), Albi (1254), Béziers (1255), and Vienne (1267) all issued stringent decrees
against usurers and the practice of usury.49 The Fourth Lateran Council (1215)
was the next ecumenical council to pronounce against it: Constitution 67 is con-
cerned very specifically with Jewish usury, while Constitution 71 tackles Jewish
usury in the context of the papal promulgation of the Fifth Crusade. next followed
the First Council of Lyons in 1245, Constitution 1 of which condemned usury in
general, while Constitution ii.5 again took up Jewish usury in the context of yet
another crusade to the near east.50
46 Tanner, Vol. 1, p.223: ‘Quia in omnibus fere locis crimen usurarum ita inolevit, ut multi aliis
negotiis praetermissis quasi licite usuras exerceant, et qualiter utriusque Testamenti pagina con-
demnentur nequaquam attendant, ideo constituimus, ut usurarii manifesti nec ad mommunionem
admittantur alteris nec christianam, si in hoc peccato decesserint, accipiant sepulturam, sed nec eorum
oblationem quisquam accipiat. Qui autem acceperit aut eos christianae tradiderit sepulturae, et ea
quae acceperit reddere compellatur et, donec ad arbitrium sui episcopi satisfaciat, ab officii sui maneat
exsecutione suspensus.’
47 stow, ‘Papal and Royal Attitudes toward Jewish Lending in the Thirteenth Century’, 166.
48 X.5.19.9, cols 813–14. see Parkes, The Jew in the Medieval Community, p.283.
49 Council of Avignon, Mansi, Vol. 22, cols 783–98 at col. 786; Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.304; Council of
Paris: Mansi, Vol. 22, cols 817–54 at col. 852; Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.306; Council of Montpellier: Mansi,
Vol. 22, cols 935–54 at col. 946; Council of narbonne: Mansi, Vol. 23, cols 19–26 at col. 21; Grayzel,
Vol. 1, pp.316–18 at p.316; Council of Rouen: Mansi, Vol. 23, cols 213–22 at col. 213; Grayzel, Vol. 1,
pp.322–4 at p.322; Council of Rheims-Château Gontur: Mansi, Vol. 23, cols 222–42 at col. 239;
Council of Béziers-Lyon: Mansi, Vol. 23, cols 689–704 at col. 701; Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.332; Council of
Albi: Mansi, Vol. 23, cols 832–52 at col. 850; Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.334–6 at p.334; Council of Béziers:
Mansi, Vol. 23, cols 875–84 at cols 882–3; Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.336; Council of Vienne: Mansi, Vol. 23,
cols 1167–78 at cols 1172–3 and cols 1175–6. see John O’ Brien, ‘Jews and Cathari in Medieval
France’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 10 (1967), 217–19; Parkes, The Jew in the Medieval
Community, p.283.
50 Tanner, Vol. 1, pp.265–6; p.269; pp.293–5; pp.299–300.