20 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291
Innocent’s Lateran IV again emphasized the restricted place of Jews in Christian
society. Four constitutions condemned Jewish usury and ordered Jews to pay the
tithe, declared that Jews (and Muslims) must wear distinguishing garb, reiterated
that Jews must not hold public office, and stated that converts from Judaism must
not reconvert. As we shall see in Chapter Four, it also repeated regulations demanding
that Jewish moneylenders grant crusaders moratoria on the principal of their loans
and remit any interest paid before they set out, in the specific context of the decree
Ad liberandam which authorized the Fifth Crusade.^94 These ideas had already
appeared in Innocent’s correspondence but it was through the Council that they
were widely disseminated.
The idea of a distinguishing garb was not itself novel: Muslims had imposed
similar legislation on Jews and Christians living in their territories for centuries
and similar legislation was to be increasingly implemented by secular authorities in
towns and cities in thirteenth-century Europe to distinguish different peoples and
occupations—including different types of clergy and differing sorts and conditions
of lay men and women.^95 Yet the idea of separating Jews from their Christian
neighbours in this way had never before had papal blessing. The legislation of
Lateran IV referred rather generally to ‘distinctive habit’ rather than specifically to
a badge, though a badge would be enforced by Innocent’s successor, Gregory IX.^96
Some historians have argued that this legislation reflected a specific desire to dem-
onstrate unambiguously that Jews must be kept outside Christian society.^97 But, as
already noted, many categories of Christians were also marked out by distinctions
in dress. The stated—and plausible—reason for the decree was to prevent sexual
relations between Christians and Jews—which might lead to concubinage or inter-
marriage and hence proselytization—also a concern to the rabbis and leaders of
Jewish communities.^98 So it also reflected a wider fear of any contact between the
two faiths which might lead to Jewish proselytizing.^99
94 Tanner, Vol. 1, pp.265–6; Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.306–12; Grayzel, ‘Jews and the Ecumenical
Councils’, 296–9.
95 Baron, A Religious and Social History of the Jews, Vol. 9, p.27; La Piana, ‘The Church and the
Jews’, p.121; Stow, Jewish Dogs, p.155.
96 Gregory IX, ‘Quoniam volumus quod’ (1234), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.216. For discussion of the
decree about distinguishing garb, see Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.60–70; Stow, ‘The Church and the Jews:
St Paul to Pius IX’, pp.24–5. Some scholars have implied that Innocent III and Lateran IV stipulated
specifically that the distinguishing garb was to be a badge, see Baron, A Social and Religious History of
the Jews, Vol. 9, pp.27–9; Roth, ‘The Popes and the Jews’, 80; Grayzel, ‘The Papal Bull “Sicut Iudeis”’,
p.276; Grayzel, ‘Pope Alexander III and the Jews’, p.572; Stow, ‘The Church and the Jews: from
St Paul to Paul IV’, p.126. The issue is further complicated by the fact that such historians have
sometimes used the term ‘badge’ very loosely and interchangeably with ‘distinguishing garb’.
97 Tanner, Vol. 1, p.266. For example, for a discussion of Constitution 68 of Lateran IV, see Cutler,
‘Innocent III and the Distinctive Clothing of Jews and Muslims’, 106–16. Cutler saw the purpose of
the distinction in clothing in the case of both Muslims and Jews was to degrade them socially as a
means of facilitating their conversion to Christianity.
98 Stow, ‘The Church and the Jews: St Paul to Pius IX’, p.24.
99 For the idea that a reason for segregating Jews and Christians was the superior education, on
average, of Jews and the fear that this would give them an advantage in argument, see Franco
Morenzoni, Des écoles aux paroisses: Thomas de Chobham et la promotion de la prédication au début du
XIIe siècle (Paris, 1995), p.79.