Jews and Money 153
Thus first of all, although Christian lenders were absolutely forbidden to lend at
interest, no such rule was made for Jews.112 Jews were not to exact ‘oppressive and
excessive interest’—which implied that they were permitted to demand from
Christians a reasonable rate.113 secondly, just as in innocent’s correspondence, Ad
liberandam, concerned with the recovery of the Holy Land, decreed that crusaders
were to be released from their oath to pay interest:
if any of those setting out are bound by oath to pay interest, we ordain that their cred-
itors shall be compelled by the same punishment to release them from their oath and
to desist from exacting the interest.114Thus Jews were to remit to crusaders not just interest accrued once they had taken
the Cross, but all interest for past debts.
Furthermore, Christians who made business deals with Jews who exacted usury
from crusaders were to be excommunicated:
we order that Jews be compelled by the secular power to remit interest, and that until
they do so all intercourse shall be denied them by all Christ’s faithful under pain of
excommunication.115significantly, however, crusaders’ debts to Jews were not to be cancelled but merely
postponed, along with the interest, until their return home:116
secular princes shall provide a suitable deferral for those who cannot now pay their
debts to Jews, so that after they have undertaken the journey, and until there is certain
knowledge of their death or of their return, they shall not incur the inconvenience of
paying interest.117Finally, referring to vifgages, if Jews held crusaders’ property as security for repay-
ment of a debt, the revenues they received from such property must be included,
after deduction of necessary expenses, in the principal to be paid back: ‘The Jews
shall be compelled to add to the capital, after they have deducted their necessary
satisfecerint competenter.’ see also Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.306. stow, ‘Papal and Royal Attitudes toward
Jewish Lending in the Thirteenth Century’, 163.
112 There is an ongoing debate as to whether Christian lenders were forbidden to lend at interest or
forbidden only to lend at unreasonable interest. Usury did not necessarily mean all interest and the
terminology may also have shifted during the High Middle Ages.
113 Tanner, Vol. 1, p.265; Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.306: ‘graves et immoderatas usuras’. so it was potentially
unclear whether Christian lenders were forbidden to lend at interest, or only to lend at unreasonable
interest. it seems that usury did not necessarily mean all interest and that the terminology did eventu-
ally shift.
114 Tanner, Vol. 1, p.269: ‘si qui vero proficiscentium, illuc ad praestandas usuras iuramento tenen-
tur adstricti, creditores eorum, ut remittant eis praestitum iuramentum et ab usurarum exactione
desistant, eadem praecipimus districtione compelli.’ see also Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.312.
115 Tanner, Vol. 1, p.269: ‘iudaeos vero ad remittendas usuras per saecularem compelli praecipimus
potestatem et, donec illas remiserint, ab universis Christ fidelibus per excommunicationis sententiam
eis omnino communio denegetur.’ see also Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.312.
116 stow, ‘Papal and Royal Attitudes toward Jewish Lending in the Thirteenth Century’, 162.
117 Tanner, Vol. 1, p.269: ‘His autem, qui iudaeis debita solvere nequeunt in praesenti, si principes
saeculares utili dilatione provideant, quod post iter arreptum, usquequo de ipsorum obitu vel reditu
certissime cognoscatur, usurarum incommoda non incurrant... ’ s ee also Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.312.