Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T15:23:26.211Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Jews and Christians in the Gregorian Decretals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2016

John A. Watt
John A. Watt*
Affiliation:
University Of Newcastle Upon Tyne
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

With the promulgation of the five books of the Decretals by Gregory IX in 1234, that part of the law of the Church which regulated the Christian—Jewish relationship was to all intents and purposes authoritatively finalized. Christendom thenceforward had its norms: for episcopal legislators in the diocesan and provincial councils which carried universal law into the localities; for academics to analyse, expound, and pass on in their teaching and writing to form the outlook of successive generations of ecclesiastical leaders; for lay governments to accept or reject in detailing their policies towards Jews. The papacy had defined its position. Basic principles and their application in practice had been made clear in official tones. The law of the Latin Church had come of age, and with that, medieval ecclesiastical Jewry law had received formulation at the highest level. There had been nothing previously to match the authority of the Gregorian codex.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Church History , Volume 29: Christianity and Judaism , 1992 , pp. 93 - 105
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Glossa ordinaria ad Decretales (Paris, 1561), 5.6.5, s.v. ‘permittantur’: ‘Sed quid ad nos de his qui foris sunt: ut ii. q.i. multi, et xlv. dist. qui syncera? Solutio: de his qui foris sunt non iudicat ecclesìa ut poenam spiritualem infligat. In casibus tamen iudicat de eis, quia repellit lúdeos a communione Christianorum (there followed a list of such cases)… Hie ergo ecclesia excom-municat tantum illos Christianos qui cum eis habitare praesumunt, quandoque tamen indirecte excommunicat eos, quia excommunicat Christianos ne cum eis aliquod commer-cium habeant.’ For a number of earlier decretisi and decretalist texts on this theme, Pakter, W., Medieval Canon Law and thejews (Ebelsbach am Main, 1988), pp. 58–66, 201.Google Scholar

2 Decretales, 5.6.1 (col. 771); 5.6.2 (col. 772); 5.6.19 (col. 778).

3 Shlomo, Simonsohn, ed., The Apostolic See and the Jews. Documents: 492-1404 (Toront, 1988), no.81.Google Scholar

4 Simonsohn, , Documents, no. 83.Google Scholar

5 Decretales, 5.6.2 (col. 771) and Glossa ordinaria.

6 Decretales, 5.6.5 (col. 773); 5.6.8 (cols 773-4); 5.6.13 (cols 775-6).

7 Simonsohn, Documents, no. 54: ‘Prohibentes omnibus Dei fidelibus sub interminatione anathematis, ne quis Judaeis hominia vel fidelitates faciat; quoniam contrarium est sacris canonibus ut Christiani debeant Judaeis adscringi.’

8 Decretales, 5.6.16 (col. 777) (Lateran IV, c. 69): ‘Cum sit nimis absurdum utblasphemus Christi in Chrisrianos vim potestatis exerceat.’ Simonsohn, Documenti, no. 82; Decretales, 5.6.13 (Etsi lúdeos): ‘(… ne cervicem perpetue servitutis iugo submissam présumant erigere contra reverentiam fidei Christianae) inhibemus ergo districte ne de cetera nutrices vel servientes habeant Chrisrianos, ne fïlii liberae filiis famulentur ancillae, sed tanquam servi a Domino reprobati, in cuius mortem nequiter coniurarunt, se saltem per effectum operis recognoscant seruos illorum quos Christi mors liberos, et illos seruos effecit.’ That part of the text in brackets is in the original papal letter, as edited by Simonsohn, but was omitted in the Decretales version.

9 S. Grayzel, ‘The Papal Bull Siculjudeis’, in Meir ben Horin, et al., eds, Studies and Essays in Honor of Abraham Neuman (Philadelphia, 1962), pp. 243-80, at pp. 243-4.

10 Decretales, 5.6.7.

11 Decretales, 5.6.3.

12 Decretales, 5.6.5. Decretales, 5.6.8: ‘Quoniam Iudeorum mores et nostri in nullo concordant, et ipsi de facili ob continuam conversationem et assiduam familiaritatem ad suam superstitionem et perfidiam simplicium animas inclinarem.’

13 Decretales, 2.20.21 (col. 322); 2.20.23 (col.333-3)

14 Decretales, 5.6.5.

15 Decretum did. ante D45 c. 5 (col. 161).

16 Decretales, 3.42.4 (cols 646-7).

17 Decretales, 4.19.7 (cols 722–3): ‘Si enim alter infìdelium coniugum ad fìdem catholicam conuertatur, altero vel nullo modo, vel non sine blasphemia diuini nominis, vel ut euni pertrahat ad mortale peccatum, ci cohabitare volente, quia relinquitur, ad secunda si voluerit vota transibit, et in hoc casu intelligimus: Si infidelis delisdisced», discedat. Fraterenim vel soror non est seruituti subiectus in huiusmodi (1 Cor. 7. 15).’

18 Decretales, 3.33.2 (cols 588-9); Glossa ordinaria, s.v. ‘ad infidelitatis errorem’: ‘Hac de causa etiam si esset minor triennio, vel pater vellet eum perducere ad fidem, cum sit in eius potestate, patri debuit assignari in fauorem fidei Christiane.’

19 Decretales, 5.6.14 (col. 776).

20 Decretales, 5.19.18 (col. 816).

21 Ibid.

22 Decretales, 5.6.16 (col. 777).

23 Lateran IV, e. 71, Ad liberandam. The edited Decretales version (5.6.17) omitted the boycott reference.

24 Decretales, 5.19.12 (cols 814-15). Simonsohn, Documents, no. 67 omits that part of the text limiting its application to crusaders. The text printed by S. Grayzel, The Church and the jews in the Thirteenth Century (Philadelphia, 1933), no. 1, does not.

25 Stow, Kenneth R., ‘Papal and royal attitudes toward Jewish lending in the thirteenth century’Association for Jewish Studies Review, 6 (1981), pp. 161–84, at pp. 162–74.Google Scholar

26 Decretales, 5.6.14. The Glossa ordinaria summarized: ‘In quibusdam prouinciis Iudei seu Sarraceni per habitum disringuuntur a Christianis, in quibusdam vero non. Unde contingit aliquando quod Christiani ludeis et Iudei Christianis mulieribus per errorem carnaliter commiscentur. Ne igitur tarn damnatus excessus per talem errorem ulterius committatur, statuit concilium generale ut Iudei sive Sarraceni utriusque sexus in qualibet prouincia Chrisrianorum per habitum distinguantur a Christianis.’

27 The argument of Hostiensis was typical: Summa (Cologne, 1612), De ¡uà. et Sarrac. et eorum seruis, n. 6: ‘Hec differentia est inter Judeos et Christianos ideo facienda, quia in quibusdam partibus tanta confusici inolevit, quod proptet ignorantiam contingit ipsos aliquando carnaliter adinvicem commisceri, que commixtio seu coniunctio merito condemnatur, et ne sub hoc velamine velint aliqui errorem suum palliare, ideo est qualitas habitus discerncnda… et idem de Sarracenis.’

28 Decretales, 5.6.13. For the text, n. 8, above.

29 Guido, Kisch, The Jews in Medieval Germany. A Study of their Legal and Social Status (Chicago, 1949). pp. 146–52.Google Scholar

30 Simonsohn, Documents no. 78: ‘… cum constet non iam esse filios ancille, sed libere, qui elegerunt ibi in libértate spiritus Domino deservire’; ibid., no. 79: ‘… nec deterior sit Christianorum libertas quam servitus Iudeorum.’

31 Ibid., no. 71: ‘Licet perfìdia Iudeorum sit multipliciter improbanda, quia tamen per eos fides nostra veraciter comprobatur, non sunt a fidelibus graviter opprimendi, dicente propheta: ne occtderis eos ne quando oblwiscantur legis tue (Ps. 58. 12), ac si diceretur appertius, ne deleveris omnino lúdeos, ne forte Christiani legis tue valeant oblivisci, quam ipsi non intelligentes, in libris suis intelligentibus représentant.’

32 Ibid., no. 79: ‘Etsi non discipliceat Domino, sed ei potius sit acceptum, ut sub catholicis regibus et principibus christianis vivat et serviat dispersio Iudeorum …’. Ibid., no. 88: ‘Blasphematores enim nominis christiani non debent a christianis principibus in oppressio-nem servorum Domini confoveri, sed potius comprimi servitute …’.

33 Classa ordinaria ad $.6.9 (Sicut Iudeis) s.v. ‘cemeterium’: ‘Iudei vero non reputantur hostes, xxiii. q. viii. dispar (Decretam 23-q.S c. 11), licet sint hostes fidei nostre, infra eo. etsi lúdeos (5.6.13).

34 Hostiensis, Apparatus (Paris, 1511), ad 5.6.9, s.v. ‘cemeterium’: ‘Etsi sint fidei nostre hostes i. eo. etsi iudeos, semi tamen nostri sunt, et a nobis tolerantur et defenduntur, ut hic patet, et xxiii. q. viii. dispar.’