Popes and Jews, 1095-1291

190 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291

therefore it is not permitted a Jew to keep Christian men or women in his house for

continuous service, nor as nurses nor as midwives; otherwise the Christians themselves

who dwell with them are excommunicated if they refuse to depart; and you may under-

stand that the same pertains to Saracens as they are under the same heading as Jews.175

In reply to the question of what should happen if a slave, after being purchased

wished to be baptized,176 he answered that he must not be prevented.177 He then asked:

What if the master does not allow it, saying that the slave is not doing this out of

divine love but so that he may not be beaten or ill treated as formally?178

before concluding that even so the master must be compelled to set him free.179

on the question of whether a baptized slave still remained a slave as before his

baptism,180 he argued that he must, since servitude was itself allowed under divine

law,181 although he qualified this conclusion:

However, I think that harshness is not to be used against him [the slave], as before,

indeed he is to be treated gently and kindly from among other non-Christian slaves.182

Again he concluded that if Jews or Muslims served heretics they might with

impunity leave their masters and seek refuge in churches, that Christians ought not

to serve in Jewish households nor act as wet nurses to their children, and that even

if an infidel servant was baptized he nevertheless remained a servant of his Christian

master.183

Another rubric was devoted to a wide ranging and general discussion of the

problem of usury. In discussing the origins of usury Hostiensis noted that Jews

themselves cited Deuterononomy 23–28 to justify making usurious loans to

Christians, but that this led to great social evil.184 As we discussed in Chapter Four,

in summarizing what punishments should be meeted out to such usurers he argued

that in order not to seem to contradict the papal decretal ‘Post miserabilem’ irre-

concilably, the statement in Quanto amplius that Jews should not charge Christians

‘immoderate interest’ ought to be read as a prohibition against Jews charging

Christians any interest at all.185

175 Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, col. 1527: ‘ideo Christianos vel Christianas non licet Iudaeo
habere intra domum assidue serviendi causa, neque tanquam nutrices, neque tanquam obstetrices:
alias Christiani ipsi cum eis habitantes excommunicantur, si discedere nolint. Et idem intelligas de
Saracenis, ut intra eodem Iudaei’.
176 Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, col. 1527.
177 Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, cols 1527–8.
178 Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, col. 1528: ‘Quid si dominus non permittat, dicens quod hoc
non facit servus ex charitate, sed ne sic, sicut prius verberetur, vel male tractetur?’.
179 Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, col. 1528.
180 Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, col. 1528.
181 Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, col. 1528.
182 Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, col. 1528: ‘puto tamen, quod non est ita desaeviendum in
eum, sicut prius, immo est inter alios servos non Christianos, tractandus leniter et benigne’.
183 Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, cols 1525–8. note that although a further rubric De usuris
discussed the Church’s complex rulings on money-lending at interest, it did not specifically focus on
Jewish lending. See Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, cols 1612–36.
184 Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, col. 1622.
185 Hostiensis, Summa aurea, Book 5, col. 1630.