The Papal Promise of Protection 69
century Lateran iV legislated that Jews must refrain from extorting ‘oppressive and
excessive interest’ from christians, must wear distinguishing garb, must not hold
public office, and if converted must not maintain any of their old rites.20 These
decrees profoundly affected the status and well-being of Jewish communities since
they were subsequently repeated and enforced at provincial and diocesan councils
and synods.21 Such increasing ‘official’ ecclesiastical legislation, coupled with
Gregory iX’s call for the Paris disputation of 1240 in which the Talmud was put
on trial, condemned, and copies confiscated and burned, further diminished Jewish
legal and social rights.
Yet other historians have argued that there was a deliberate change in papal atti-
tudes towards Jews in the 1280s and that this influenced edward’s actions.22
Nevertheless, edward’s ‘Statute of the Jewry’ forbidding Jewish usury also declared
categorically that it was the will and sufferance of holy church that they should live
and be preserved.23 edward well knew that the papacy was committed to the
Pauline-Augustinian idea of protection, and that this did not sanction expulsions.
So it is more likely that the conversionary activities of dominicans and franciscans
influenced his behaviour.24 As we shall see in chapter Six, in August 1278 Nicholas
iii promulgated ‘Vineam Sorec’, a highly rhetorical letter instructing dominicans
in Lombardy to preach missionary sermons to Jews, while less than two years later,
in January 1280, edward endorsed the desire of english dominicans to force Jews
to listen to such harangues.25 hence at least indirectly, papal endorsement of the
activities of the friars may have encouraged hostility to Jews and paved the way to
their expulsion, a point to which we shall return in that chapter.
in 1286 honorius iV complained about Jews in england who, he claimed,
studied the Talmud, encouraged converts to Judaism through gifts, invited
christians into their synagogues, maintained christians in their households as ser-
vants, employed christian wet nurses, ate and drank with christians, and even at
times had the temerity to abuse and curse them publicly.26 This complaint was
probably in response to John Peckham, archbishop of canterbury, who, preparing
for a forthcoming council of the church to be held at exeter, may well have written
to honorius asking for a statement on Jews to guide the council. following the
pope’s letter, in 1287 John Peckham then issued a series of decrees against Jews at
the council of exeter—with orders that all synagogues be closed and Jewish phys-
icians prohibited from treating christians.27 As we shall see, the stipulations of this
council went far beyond the pope’s demands. hence, although Jews were harmed
20 Tanner, Vol. 1, pp.265–6: ‘graves et immoderatas usuras’: ‘oppressive and excessive interest’.
21 Tanner, Vol. 1, pp.265–7. for example the council of Narbonne of 1227 decreed that Jews must
be forced to wear a distinguishing badge. See Mansi, Vol. 23, col. 21; Grayzel, Vol. 1, pp.316–18 at
p.316. See also Grayzel, Vol. 1, p.317, footnote 3.
22 Mundill, England’s Jewish Solution, pp.271–2.
23 Mundill, England’s Jewish Solution, p.292.
24 Mundill, England’s Jewish Solution, p.270.
25 Nicholas iii, ‘Vineam sorec velut’ (4 August 1278), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.142–5; Simonsohn,
pp.249–52; Mundill, England’s Jewish Solution, p.275.
26 honorius iV, ‘Nimis in partibus’ (30/18 November 1286), Grayzel, Vol. 2, pp.157–62; Simonsohn,
pp.262–4.
27 Mundill, England’s Jewish Solution, p.272.