Papal Rhetoric: Heretics, Muslims, and Jews 253
the Jewish perfidy is in every way worthy of condemnation’.39 Gregory IX frequently
referred to the ‘perfidy’ of the Jews,40 to the ‘depravity of the Jewish error’,41 and
to the Jews remaining ‘obstinate in their perfidy’.42 Similarly we find this in the
correspondence of Innocent IV,43 as in a letter of 1244 to the king of France which
referred to:44
The wicked perfidy of the Jews, from whose hearts, because of the immensity of their
crimes, our redeemer has not removed the veil but allows them still to remain in that
blindness which partly obtains in Israel.45hence we also see the idea of Jewish blindness (‘Caecitas’ / ‘Caecitia’). The idea
here is that the blindness is partial, not complete, since Jews accepted the old
Testament. or again in a letter of 1267 to the archbishops and bishops in the
Counties of Poitiers, Toulouse, and Provence, Clement IV referred to the ‘dam
nable perfidy of the Jews’ (‘dampnabili perfidia Judaeorum’) who flouted canonical
regulations pertaining to their proper treatment in Christian society.46
Yet despite the frequency of the term, it is difficult to determine exactly what
was meant by the noun ‘Perfidia’ and the adjective ‘perfidus’. Some historians
have argued that these words meant simply ‘unbelief ’ and ‘unbelieving’ and had no
particularly negative colouring, particularly since papal descriptions of Muslims
as well as Jews as ‘perfidi’ suggest that it was a standard epithet for ‘unbelieving’
nonChristians.47 others have argued that in certain texts—depending on the
context—the meaning was both more complex and more negative.48
It is possible that in papal correspondence the noun ‘Perfidia’ carried stronger
negative undertones than the adjective ‘perfidus’. Yet even here there is dispute over
the word. Some historians have argued that there was a subtle but definite develop
ment in language and that the meaning of the term ‘Perfidia’ gradually grew from
39 Innocent III, ‘licet perfidia Judeorum’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.92; Simonsohn, p.74.
40 Gregory IX, ‘Etsi Judeorum sit’ (6 April 1233), Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.200–2; Simonsohn, pp.143–5.
41 Gregory IX, ‘Sua nobis newronius’ (9 May 1235), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.220; Simonsohn, pp.155–6,
especially p.155: ‘de Judaice pravitatis errore’.
42 Gregory IX, ‘Si vera sunt’ (20 June 1239), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.242; Simonsohn, p.174: ‘qua Judeos
in sua perfidia retinet obstinatos’.
43 For example, Innocent IV, ‘Ex parte Judeorum’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.268; Simonsohn, pp.193–4.
44 Innocent IV, ‘Impia Judeorum perfidia’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.250–2; Simonsohn, pp.180–2.
45 Innocent IV, ‘Impia Judeorum perfidia’, Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.250; Simonsohn, p.180: ‘Impia
Judeorum perfidia, de quorum cordibus propter immensitatem eorum scelerum redemptor noster
velamen non abstulit, sed in cecitate, que contingit ex parte, in Israel adhuc manere permittit’.
Grayzel’s translation: ‘The wicked perfidy of the Jews, from whose hearts our redeemer has not
removed the veil of blindness because of the enormity of their crime, but has so far permitted to
remain in blindness such as in a measure covers Israel’ is not quite accurate here.
46 Clement IV, ‘dampnabili perfidia Judaeorum’ (23 december 1267), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.106–10;
Simonsohn, pp.239–40.
47 For example, Innocent III, ‘Quia maior nunc’ (22 April 1213), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.136; Simonsohn,
p.97.
48 There is a huge amount of secondary material on the meaning of ‘perfidia’ with respect to
the Jews. See, for example, Joseph osterreicher, ‘Pro perfidis Judaeis’, Theological Studies 8 (1947),
80–7; Bernhard Blumenkranz, ‘Perfidia’, Archivum Latinitatis Medii Aevi (Bulletin du Cange) 22
(Brussels, 1952), pp.157–70; dobson, The Jews of Medieval York and the Massacre of March 1190,
p.20.