Jews and Money 155
his land completely in order that it no longer be polluted by their filth.127 in 1235
he banned the practice of usury by Jews altogether. Then, on the eve of his departure
to crusade in 1248 he ordered a general confiscation of all Jewish funds and all
debts owed to Jews, stating that he was determined to restore all goods to those
from whom the Jews had extorted them through usurious viciousness. Finally, as
part of his general reform of the kingdom, he ordered in 1254 that Jews desist from
usury, blasphemy, magic, and necromancy, threatened to expel those who dis-
obeyed, and ordered them to live only by light commerce and manual labour.
nevertheless, despite these stipulations and regulations, Jews continued to be
deeply involved in money-lending at interest. Meanwhile increasingly in the thir-
teenth century Franciscan and dominican theologians began to develop theo-
logical justifications for usury and profit-taking more generally in order to allow
Christians to participate with an easier conscience. This ensured that Jewish dom-
inance in loan finance faded, although it did not end a legacy of economic resent-
ment and stereotyping.128
Against this backdrop innocent iii’s successors continued to issue letters con-
cerned with both usury in general and usury in the specific context of the author-
ization of crusades. Following their predecessor, they also continued to issue
instructions with regard to Jewish usury in particular. Thus, Honorius iii made no
change in the stance of his predecessor with regard to money-lending by Jews to
crusaders. in 1217 he requested an investigation into allegations made by Blanche
of Champagne,129 who claimed that the archbishop of sens and his suffragans
had refused to allow the same privileges to crusaders and Jews in her territory with
regard to money-lending as were permitted in Philip Augustus’s lands after 1206.130
Referring to his edict of 1206, the pope complained that the clergy of sens were
indeed preventing Blanche from acting as she wanted. He was also concerned that
the countess’s Jews were being harassed beyond the decrees of the Fourth Lateran
Council.131 it seems that both Philip Augustus’s decree of 1206 and Constitution
67 of Lateran iV were much more favourable to Jews than many French clergy
wished. The countess of Champagne was appealing to the pope to ensure not only
that crusaders’ rights with regard to usurious contracts were maintained but also
that there was some degree of protection for Jews living in her territory and making
loans at interest.
Two years later, in 1219, Honorius again complained that certain archbishops
and other prelates were harassing the countess’s Jews and abusing the legislation of
Lateran iV which decreed that Jews be compelled by secular lords to return usury
to crusaders.132 French clerics, unhappy with the stipulations on Jewish money-
lending of Quanto amplius, Constitution 67 of Lateran iV, and Ad liberandam,
127 Richards, Sex, Dissidence and Damnation, p.113.
128 Richards, Sex, Dissidence and Damnation, p.113.
129 Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.55; p.144, footnote 3.
130 Honorius iii, ‘Cum olim nobilis’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.144; Simonsohn, p.102. see Church, State
and Jew in the Middle Ages, ed. Chazan, pp.205–7.
131 Honorius iii, ‘Cum olim nobilis’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.144; Simonsohn, p.102.
132 Honorius iii, ‘dilecta in Christo’ (21 June 1219), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.150–2; Simonsohn,
pp.106–7.