Introduction 21
Furthermore, the Council wished to highlight a distinction between the people
of the Old Covenant and the people of the New. Hence another important under-
lying motive for the distinguishing clothing was to reiterate Innocent’s vision of
the correct theological status of Jews.^100 Nevertheless, he himself stipulated in his
correspondence that, although they must be thus distinguished from Christians it
should be guaranteed that this caused them no harm—by which he presumably
meant violence:
The order is given them to let the Jews wear clothes by which they might be distin-
guished from Christians, but not to force them to wear such as would lay them open
to the danger of loss of life.^101Such a statement seems to us absurd, since distinctive clothing was likely to encourage
discrimination of all kinds.^102 It was not, however, uncharacteristic of Innocent—or of
his age—since his theoretical ideas often overrode practical reflection. Just as he
attempted to deal with heresy by the blunt weapon of crusading, then later realized
the impracticalities of this decision, so here too he did not—perhaps could not—
think through the likely consequences of his regulations.
AFTER INNOCENT III
Innocent’s successors continued to express concern about Jews. In Chapter Five
I shall explore how, as knowledge of Jewish theological texts spread throughout the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and as the Talmud in particular became better
known with the flourishing of rabbinic studies in the West, popes remained anx-
ious on two particular issues.^103 The first, traditional enough, was the possibility
that Christians might be tempted to convert to Judaism, especially in areas where
the Faith was weak, such as the south of France and northern Italy. This fear was
unfounded: Catharism was inimical to Judaism and there is little evidence that
areas affected by heresy were particularly pro-Jewish.^104 The second, more realistic
concern echoed by theologians, canon lawyers, and polemicists, was the newly-
awakened unease that, whereas Christians had the New Testament, the Jews had
100 Grayzel, ‘Popes, Jews and Inquisition from “Sicut” to “Turbato”’, p.161.
101 ‘Mandatur ut permittant Judeos talem gestare habitum per quem possint inter Christianos
discerni, nec ad talem portandum compellant, per quem possint vite dispendium sustinere.’—rubric
of a letter of Innocent III (1215–1216), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.140; Simonsohn, p.99. The letter is lost.
102 Rubric of a letter of Innocent III (1215–1216), Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.140; Simonsohn, p.99. The
letter is lost.
103 Grayzel, ‘The Talmud and the Medieval Papacy’, p.234.
104 Liebeschütz, ‘Judaism and Jewry in the Social Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas’, 69. Liebeschütz
argued that nobles in the south of France, who used the popularity of heretical sects to advance their
own interests, deliberately appointed Jews, rather than orthodox Christians, to positions of authority.
This has been disputed by a number of historians who have argued that although Jews held positions
of importance at the courts of supposedly heretical as well as orthodox nobles in the south of France,
there is no evidence that they were more favoured by heretics than by orthodox Christians. See for
example, John O’ Brien, ‘Jews and Cathari in Medieval France’, Comparative Studies in Society and
History 10 (1968), 220.