Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

The Inquisition and the Jews of France in the Time of Bernard Gui1

  • Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi (a1)

Extract

The Papal Inquisition of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries cannot be assigned so prominent a position in the history of French Jewry as that which the “New” Inquisition later occupied in the destinies of the Jews of Spain. It is perhaps for this reason that the Jewish aspects of the Inquisition in France have attracted comparatively little attention from scholars. The paucity of original documents relating to the subject may also have been a contributing factor. Still, though it can be understood, this neglect remains unfortunate. In addition to its intrinsic interest for the study of Franco-Jewish history and of Jewish relations with the medieval Church, research into the treatment of the Jews by the French Inquisition can shed much light on the later development in Spain. For all the difference in the historical situations, the Papal Inquisition adumbrated, in its dealings with the Jews, the institution which was to play such a formidable role in the Iberian Peninsula. There is surprisingly little in the theoretical, procedural, and even the practical approach of the Spanish Inquisition to Jewish affairs for which one cannot find the archetype in the earlier Inquisition.

Copyright

References

Hide All

2 A public lecture by Reinach, Solomon on “L'inquisition et les Juifs” was published in Revue des études juives, XL (1900), conférences, pp. xlix-lxiv. No comprehensive monograph on the subject has appeared. The only attempt to examine the relations between the Papal Inquisition and the Jews in some detail will be found in Newman's, Louis I.Jewish Influence on Christian Reform Movements (Columbia University Oriental Studies no. 23; New York, 1923). Important facts and references are assembled by Newman in the section devoted to the Inquisition, and this is the chief merit of the work. The analysis itself is disappointng. Much material is included which proves either irrelevant or misleading. The value of Newman's treatment of the Inquisition is further diminished by his insistent use of the texts as props for his extravagant claims of a major Jewish influence on the Albigensian heresies. For an incisive review of the entire book see Baron, Salo, “Jewish Influence on Christian Reform Movements,” Jewish Quarterly Review (N.S.), XXIII (1932), pp. 405410.

3 Only a fraction of the original records of the Inquisition in France has survived. Since documents pertaining to the Jews were in the minority to begin with, the loss in this area is even more grave. For surveys of inquisitorial sources see Molinier, Charles, L'lnquisition dans le midi de la France au XIIIe et au XIVe siècle: étude sur les sources de son histoire (Paris, 1880); idem., “Rapport à M. le Ministre de l'Instruction Publique sur une mission executée en Italie,” Archives des missions scientifiques et littéraires, sér. 3, XIV (1888), pp. 133336; Célestin Douais, , Documents pour servir à l'histoire de l'Inquisition dans le Languedoc (2 vols.; Paris, 1900). More recent literature is discussed by Borst, Arno, Die Katharer (Schriften der Monumenta Germaniae Historica no. 12; Stuttgart, 1953), pp. 158.

4 A full discussion of Bernard Gui's life and work will be found in Delisle, Léopold, “Notice sur les manuscrits de Bernard Gui,” Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale, XXVII (1879), Pt. 2, pp. 169454. Cf. Thomas, A., “Bernard Gui, frère Prêcheur,” Histoire littéraire de la France, XXXV (Paris, 1921), pp. 139232.

5 Liber sententiarum inquisitionis Tholosonae, in Limborch, Philip van, Historia inquisitionis (Amsterdam, 1692). The manuscript which Limborch published is no longer extant. The record of the trial proceedings had been lost earlier and was unavailable to him.

6 First published by Douais, C. with the title Practica inquisitionis heretice pravitatis (Paris, 1886). Cited hereafter as Gui, Practica. Later Part V was edited separately and published with a French translation by Mollat, G. as Manuel de l'inquisiteur (Les classiques de l'histoire de France au moyen âge, nos. 8–9. 2 vols.; Paris, 19261927). Cited as: Gui, Manuel.

7 A careful survey and analysis of the older inquisitorial compilations, most of them still in manuscript, is provided by Dondaine, Antoine in his study of “Le manuel de l'inquisiteur (1230–1330),” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, XVII (1947), pp. 85194.

8 The importance of this material was already recognized by Israel Lévi when he excerpted the Jewish sections of the Practica in a small pamphlet entitled Les Juifs et l'Inquisition dans la France méridionale; extraits de la Practica de Bernard Gui (Paris, 1891). Curiously, Lévi stated in his introduction that the Practica was as yet unedited. He was apparently unaware of Douais’ edition of the entire work five years earlier, which was based on MS. 387 in the municipal library of Toulouse. Lévi, therefore, had recourse to the copy of the Practica in vols. XXIX-XXX of the Doat Collection in the Bibliothèque Nationale, though in several places he refers to MS. 267 in Toulouse. (Douais and Mollat mention only two Toulousan MSS., numbered 387 and 388). The Doat copy has been characterized as “assez incorrecte” by Delisle, op. cit, p. 354.

Lévi's extracts were accompanied by sparse notes. Since then only Newman has dealt with the Jewish material in the Practica. (Newman, op. cit., pp. 263f., 304, 312, 321ff., and especially 382–390). His approach is more descriptive than analytic, and adds little to Lévi's rudimentary comments.

9 On the Expulsion of 1306 see H. Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, VII, pp. 243–249; Saige, Gustave, Les Juifs du Languedoc antérieurement au XIVe siècle (Paris, 1881), pp. 92ff. For this, as well as the subsequent expulsions from France, see Loeb, Isidore, “Les expulsions des Juifs de France au XIVe siècle,” in Jubelschrtft zum Siebzigsten Geburtstage des Prof. Dr. H. Graetz (Breslau, 1887), pp. 3856.

10 The inquisitors in France had been given jurisdiction over Judaizers ever since Clement IV's famous bull Turbato corde, issued on July 26, 1267 (Potthast, Regesta Pontificum Romanorurn, no. 20095). On this bull see infra, note 55.

11 For a general account of Philip's relations with the Inquisition see Lea, Henry Charles, A History of the Inquisition in the Middle Ages (New York, 1888; Reprint, 1955), H, p. 57ff.

12 For example, on May 17, 1288, some three weeks after thirteen Jews of Troyes were burned on a charge of ritual murder, Philip issued a decree forbidding the members of any order to pursue Jews in the Kingdom of France without informing the baillis and sénéchaux of the facts. (Laurière, E.J. de, Ordonnances des roys de France de la troisième race, I (Paris, 1723), p. 317. On the events see Arsène Darmesteter, “L'auto-da-fé de Troyes,” REJ, II (1881), pp. 199–247). In September of 1293 the king sent a long letter to Simon Briseteste, Sénéchal of Carcassonne and Beziers, enclosing copies of the bull Turbato corde and of his own edict of 1288. He commanded that while the bull was to be obeyed, no Jew was to be arrested for any cause not specified therein. (Saige, op. cit., Preuves, xliii no. 18, pp. 231–4).

If, in 1299, Philip issued a new edict (ibid., p. 235f.) accusing the Jews of blasphemy and other crimes, condemning the Talmud, and ordering the royal officials to obey the inquisitors, it was probably a conciliatory measure in his temporary truce with Boniface VIII. Their quarrel erupted anew in 1301 over the affair of Bernard Saisset, and in that year Philip sent royal “reformers” to Languedoc to curb the excesses of the Inquisitor of Toulouse, Foulques de St.-George, with the result that he was dismissed. The next year all the reforms were embodied ina general decree, and the legislation of 1293, protecting the Jews from the inquisitors, was repeated. (Lea, op. cit., II, p. 81). Shortly afterwards the king also forbade the Inquisition to take cognizance of usury, sorcery, and other alleged offenses of the Jews.

Quite often the dealings between Philip and his vassals on questions of inquisitorial jurisdiction over Jews assumed the bland character of a business transaction. On November 4, 1292 he commanded his officials to restore to the Viscount of Narbonne, Aimeri V, property which the inquisitors had confiscated from some of the latter's Jewish subjects, since those condemned were the Viscount's “own” Jews. See Regné, Jean, Étude sur la condition des Juifs de Narbonne (Narbonne, 1911), Preuves, X, p. 235.

13 Ordonnances, I, p. 488f.

14 Continuationis Chronici Guillelmi de Nangiaco, ed. H. Geraud (Publications de la Société de l'Histoire de France, no. 43; Paris, 1843) I, p. 363.

15 Ibid., p. 3631

16 Ibid., p. 380.

17 “Hoc etiam anno (1306) in augusto et septembri, omnes Judei, nisi forte pauci qui baptizari voluerunt, de regno Francie sunt expulsi…” Baluze, S., Vitae Paparum Avenionensium, ed. Mollat, G. (Paris, 1914) I, p. 5.

18 On the French exiles in Aragon and the return of converts to Judaism, see Yitzhak Baer, Toledot ha-Yehudim bi-Sefarad ha-nosrit (Tel-Aviv, 1945), I, p. 256ff.

19 Gui, Practica, Part II, nos. 48, 51, 52, pp. 67–71. The date 1309 given by Newman, Jewish Influence p. 322, is an error. In dating his documents Bernard Gui began the year on March 25th. (See A. Giry, Manuel de diplomatique, p. 123). Thus the documents in the Practica dated January 1309 were actually issued in January 1310 according to our reckoning. Cf. Delisle, MSS. de Bernard Gui, pp. 382, 384. On Jean de Crépy's role in the confiscations of Jewish property in Toulouse, see Saige, Languedoc, p. 95.

20 Gui, Practica, no. 50, p. 69.

21 “… nota quod anno Domini mccc nono tres plenae magnae quad-rigae librorum Judaeorum fuerunt combusti Parisius ante festum Nativitatis Domini, in crastinum (December 7) festi sancti Nicolai hyemalis, quos Judaei compilaverunt et facerant.” (M. Bouquet, Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, XXI, p. 813.).

22 Ordonnances, I, pp. 595–7. For Bernard Gui's curt notice of the return of the Jews to France see Bouquet, Recueil, XXI, p. 725.

23 About a decade earlier, of course, the papacy had been transferred to Avignon. Clement V, first of the Avignonese popes, died on April 14, 1314, and until the election of John XXII on August 7, 1316, the papal throne was vacant. However, the Doat Collection (vol. XXXVII, fol. 255r-257r) contains a copy of a bull issued in the name of Clement V and dated February 13, 1315, annulling an earlier bull which had exempted the Jews of Narbonne and Toulouse from the jurisdiction of the inquisitors, and had transferred cases then pending to the ordinary episcopal courts. Now they were once again to be called before inquisitorial tribunals. The text of the earlier bull is quoted without a date. Since it presupposes the existence of a regular Jewish community in Narbonne and Toulouse, it can only have been issued prior to the expulsion of 1306, in the first year of Clement's pontificate. Added weight is given such an assumption when we consider that around that time Clement also responded favorably to complaints of the citizens of ALbi and Carcassonne against the inquisitors. (See his bull, dated March 13, 1306, in Vidal, Jean-Marie, Bullaire de l'Inquisition française au XIVe siècle (Paris, 1913), no. 3, pp. 911.).

Neither Clement's first bull in favor of the Jews, nor the bull which revokes the concession are to be found outside the Doat Collection. They are cited neither in the Benedictine Regestum dementis Papae V, nor in Vidal's Bullaire. The earlier bull appears to be authentic. It is repeated almost verbatim in a bull of Clement VII granting the same privileges in 1383 to th e Jews of Sens, Rouen, Reims and Lyon (Vidal, op. cit, no. 318, p. 450f).

However, the date of Clement V's alleged revocation arouses suspicion, since actually he died almost a year before. I confess I have been unable to ascertain whether, during the papal interregnum, it was the practice to issue documents in the name and according to the year of the deceased pope. If the bull is not a forgery, it would mean that the inquisitors had succeeded somehow in obtaining from the papal chancery in Avignon a restoration of jurisdiction which had earlier been taken from them. In that event, it must have been done in anticipation of the return of the Jews. I propose this view with considerable diffidence in the absence of more substantive information.

24 Under the heading “Sentencia defunctorum in heresi,” we read: “Item quod Johannes conversus de judaysmo, qui dum erat Judeus vocabatur Josse, et consuevit morari in florencia dyocesis auxitane post sacramentum fidei a se susceptum fidem Christianam abnegando et blasfemando deseruit asserens se velle vivere et mori in fide seu magis perfidia Judeorum, nec admonitus et ortatus sepius per multos bonos viros ab ilia perfidia voluit resilire, tandemque requisitus judicialiter et canonice quod fidem Christianam quam susceperat et baptismum teneret et servaret et ore confiteretur noluit resipisci, sicque predictus Johannes conversus postmodum vero perversus et adversus a fide catholica reversusque ad vomitum judeismi in tali perfidia continue perseverans dampnabiliter in eadem.” (Liber sententiarum inquisitionis Tholosonae, p. 167). On the burning of the remains of deceased heretics see Tanon, L., Histoire des tribunaux de Vlnquisition en France (Paris, 1893), pp. 407413.

25 “Johannes de bretz filius quondam Jacob de serinhaco prope bellum montem dyocesis Tholosane conversus de judaysmo ad baptismum, sicut per ipsius confessionem factam in judicio XVIII Kalendas Julii, anno Domini MCCCXVII legitime nobis constat, dudum conversus fuit de judaysmo ad fidem Domini nostri Jesu Christi, fuitque baptisatus in villa que vocatur bretz prope insulam dyocesis Tholosane, perseveravitque sicut Christianus in fide Christi et baptismi annis tribus vel circa. Postmodum vero reversus est ad judaysmum, fuitque rejudaysatus secundum modum et ritum rejudaysacionis a Judeis in talibus fieri consuetum apud Ylerdam… et permansit vivendo judayce per tres annos servando vitam et ritum et fidem Judeorum, derelicta fide Christi et baptismi, et credidit se posse salvari in fide et vita et ritu et observancia Judeorum, et fuit in dicta credencia per tres annos, nee venit ad confitendum de predictis donee fuit adductus captus.” (Lib. sent. inq. Thol., p. 230).

It was undoubtedly activities such these which finally involved the Jewish community of Lerida itself with the Inquisition. In 1323 Jaime II of Aragon upbraided the inquisitor Bernard de Podio Certoso for instituting an inquisition aganst the Jews of Lerida without first informing him. See the letter in Finke, Heinrich, Acta Aragonensia (Berlin-Leipzig, 1908), II, no. 540, p. 859f.

26 Other examples of extradition from Aragon to France can be found, but it was probably not automatic. On July 10, 1321 Jaime II wrote to Bishop Raimund of Urgel that the Pope wanted him to hand over an imprisoned heretic to the Inquisitor of Carcassonne “qui pro eius capcione diu et longo tempore laboravit.” Finke, op. cit., II, no. 538 p. 857.

27 “Les livres de leur loy, qui encore sont pardevers nous, qui n'ont esté vendus, leur seront rendus, exceptés les Talameus (sic) condamnés.” (Ordonnances, I, p. 596). The reference to books which have been sold tends to confirm my impression that the confiscation of 1310 was largely of Jewish books in Gentile hands.

28 “In nomine Domini amen. Anno ejusdem Domini MCCCXIX IIII Kalendas Decembris. Ad requisicionem et mandatum ac judicium et ordinacionem religiosi viri fratris Bernardi Guidonis inquisitoris heretice pravitatis in regno Francie et specialiter in partibus Tholosanis per sedem apostolicam deputati, fuerunt libri Judeorum qui apellantur Talmut, quotquot apud Judeos portuerunt inveniri, conbusti et tracti prius per publicas carrerias Tholose in duabus quadrigis cum servientibus et ministris curie regalis cum voce preconia proclamante, propter errores et blasfemias contra Dominum Jesum Christum et ejus sanctissimam genitricem Virginem Mariam et nominis Christiani, qui errores et que blasfemie in eisdem libris inveniebantur contineri per juratos examinatores peritos in hebrayca linga, habito prius consilio maturo per eundem dominum inquisitorem cum peritis in utroque jure et religiosis et aliis multis discretis viris in aula veteri domini regis Tho-lose. Predicti autem libri prius diu antea fuerant cum multa sollicitudine et diligencia per manum regalium ad mandatum prefati domini inquisitoris habiti a Judeis et postmodum diligenter examinati.” (Lib. sent. inq. Thol, p. 273f).

29 G. Mollat, Lettres communes de Jean XXII, no. 12238; T. Ripoll, Bullarium ordinis FF. Praedicatorum, II, no. 28 p. 149; Grayzel, Solomon, “Jews in the Correspondence of John XXII,” Hebrew Union College Annual, XXIII (19501951), pp. 5458.

30 O. Raynaldus, Annales ecclesiastici, ann. 1320, no. 24ff; cf. Mollat, Lettres communes, no. 14131.

In the Practica of Bernard Gui (Pt. III no. 47, p. 170f.) there is an undated formula for the condemnation of the Talmud which refers to the bull of John XXII and, hence, must have followed it.

31 Vidal, J.-M., Le tribunal d'inquisition de Pamiers (Toulouse, 1906), p. 80 n. 3.

32 “Et en cest an, au temps de Karesme, furent condampnez les mauvais livrez des juifz, en la maistresse église Notre Dame de Paris.” (“Chronique Parisienne anonyme,” in Mémoires de la Société de l'histoire de Paris et de l'Ile-de-France, XI (1884), p. 56).

33 it is possible that the lament of Kalonymos b. Kalonymos, refers to one of these burnings. (See his Eben Boḣan, ed. A.M. Habermann (Tel-Aviv, 1956), p. 161).

34 On the events in Marseille see Crémieux, Adolphe, “Les Juifs de Marseille au moyen âge,” REJ, XLVI (1903), p. 29. Michel le Moine, a Franciscan, served as inquisitor in Provence, 1312–1328. He was particularly zealous in the persecution of the Spirituals. In 1312 he was summoned before Clement V to answer charges of misconduct and maltreatment. The charges were serious enough for the Pope to order his removal from his post, but this measure was apparently not carried out. For these and other details see Vidal, Bullaire, p. 38 no. 2.

35 On the massacres of the Pastoureaux see Graetz, Geschichte, VII, pp. 255–7.

36 “Confessio Baruc (teutonici), olim judei, modo baptizati, et postmodum conversi ad judaismum.” The full Latin text was first published by Vidal, J.-M. in his “l'Emeute des Pastoureaux en 1320; Déposition du Juif Baruc devant l'Inquisition de Pamiers,” Annales de Saint Louis des François, III (18981899), pp. 154174. (Cited hereafter as: Confessio Baruc). The text was translated into English with introduction and notes by Grayzel, Solomon, “The Confession of a Medieval Jewish Convert,” Historia Judaica, XVII (1955), pp. 89120.

37 Two documents in the Doat Collection dated March 1297 (= March 1298 n. st.) led Lea to conclude that by then the Jewish community in Pamiers was under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition. In these documents the inquisitor Arnaud Dejean authorized certain Jews to visit him at will on matters pertaining to his office, and also confirmed the Jews of Pamiers in the privileges they had long enjoyed according to the usages of the province of Narbonne, promising not to impose any new burdens. (Bibliothèque Nationale, Fonds Doat, XXXVII, fol. 160f.). However, in an earlier document dated 1279 (ibid., fol. 156), Bernard, Abbot of St. Antonin in Pamiers, approved the sumptuary laws the Jews had drawn up for themselves. Lea assumed therefore that sometime between 1279 and 1297 the Jews “had passed into the hands of the Inquisition.” (Lea, Inquisition, II, p. 96n.) This conclusion is unwarranted. Bernard Saisset, who had been the abbot of St. Antonin since 1267, became Bishop of Pamiers in 1295 when the diocese of Pamiers was created for him. It is hardly conceivable that he relinquished his authority over the Jews of the town after he became bishop. Arnaud Depean was appointed inquisitor by Boniface VIII in December, 1295. Saisset, totally indifferent to the pursuit of heresy, and much preoccupied with his own affairs, had the fullest confidence in Déjean, and on one occasion even sent him as his envoy to Paris. (See on this Vidal, J.-M., Bernard Saisset, Évêeque de Pamiers (Toulouse-Paris, 1926), pp. 61, 106). There can be no question of a conflict of jurisdiction between the two. The documents of 1297 are merely an assurance from the inquisitor, probably solicited by the Jews themselves, that he will not meddle in their internal affairs.

38 In his study of the trial Grayzel states (op. cit., p. 95): “It is to be noted… from the case of Baruc that there were bishops who took the initiative in arresting and interrogating relapsed converts. Of course, Jacques Fournier was not the ordinary bishop. He was known for his zeal in discovering and punishing heretics. To be sure, he had an inquisitor as a member of the court which examined Baruc, but the Bishop conducted the examination. One may well assume that men in Baruc's position preferred it so. For the Inquisition was clearly police-minded and saw its task in terms of eliciting confessions and inflicting punishment. An episcopal court was much more likely to be interested in discussion and instruction.”

This is somewhat oversimplified. Though headed by the Bishop, the tribunal which judged Baruch was not an ordinary episcopal court, but rather an inquisitorial tribunal of a very special nature. Jacques Fournier became Bishop of Pamiers in 1317. The pursuit of heresy in the diocese was from the first one of his major concerns. In 1312 the Council of Vienne had given the bishops powers fairly equal to those of the inquisitors in matters of heresy. (Clementin. Lib V, tit. III, cap. 1. Corpus Iuris Canonici ed. Friedberg, II, c. 1181–2). With this power in mind, Jacques Fournier turned to the Inquisitor of Carcassonne, Jean de Beaune, for aid in establishing a joint tribunal in Pamiers. The latter designated Gaillard de Pomies, a Dominican of Pamiers, to serve with the Bishop, beginning in December of 1318.

The result was perhaps the only successful example of an inquisitorial tribunal of mixed character, in which both bishop and inquisitor were intimately associated. For further details see J.-M. Vidal, Le tribunal d'inquisition de Pamiers, pp. 71–75.

As for Grayzel's intimation that a suspect might prefer to be judged by Fournier, one has only to note the comments of those who actually appeared before him, e.g.: “Everything is lost with this bishop. It matters little whether one is a heretic or a good Catholic. By his interrogations he transforms faithful Christians into avowed heretics.” (Vidal, loc. cit., p. 76. For the extraordinary activity of the Pamiers Inquisition in its seven years under Fournier, see the statistics ibid., pp. 115–120).

39 Interrogatus per dictum dominum episcopum, si quando stetit ante dictum capellanum et dictus capellanus procedebat in officio baptismi, vel etiam quando fuit positus in fontibus baptismalibus et in actu ipsius baptismi, reclamavit verbo vel facto, vel ostendit voluntatem contrariam, resistendo, quod nollet baptizari.” (Confessio Baruc, p. 164).

40 “Et incontinenti dictus dominus episcopus hortatus fuit dictum magistrum Baruc et monuit quod, cum baptismus taliter susceptus per eum, ut dictum est, quia susceptus fuerat per eum, non vi vel coactione absolute, obligabat eum secundum iura et racionem ad tenendam et credendam fidem christianam, quia ilia necessitas que impulit eum ad fidem, non ad deterius sed ad melius ipsum traxit, quod de cetero fidem christianam crederet et teneret, alioquin sciret pro certo quod, si permaneret in iudaismo obstinatus, quod procederetur contra eum, secundum iura, sicut contra hereticum obstinatum.” (ibid., p. 1651).

41 If the lengths of time for the disputations recorded by the notary are correct, the date August 16 given here must be an error, and September 16 would be more reasonable. The disputations began on July 14 or shortly thereafter. If we add the number of days given for each disputation, plus the fifteen days in which Baruch read the Bible, we have a total of at least fifty-nine days, whereas the period July 14—August 16 yields only thirty-three. On the other hand, it is possible that the length of the disputations was exaggerated deliberately to emphasize the patience with which the Bishop persuaded Baruch of the truth of Christianity.

42 I am assuming the date on which the trial resumed was September 16, and not August 16. If the latter date were indeed correct, the silence of the record would be even more startling. It would mean that at this point Baruch was so intransigent that it took more than a month (August 16-September 25) to bring about his final abjuration. Cf. Grayzel, Confession, p. 119 n. 66.

43 “Postque anno quo supra, die XXVa mensis septembris, constitutus in iudicio dictus Johannes in camera Sedis episcopalis Appamiarum coram dicto domino episcopo, assistente sibi dicto fratre Gaulhardo de Pomeriis, presentibus Archidiacono Maioricen., et canonico Narbonen., Germano de Castronovo, archidiacono Appamiarum… Hugone Artaudi priore de Praderiis, et multis aliis canonicis dicte ecclesie Appamiarum et religiosis viris prioribus beate Marie de Carmelo… et Augustinorum et subpriore Predicatorum… consulibus Appamiarum et multis aliis burgensibus dicte civitatis…” (etc.). (Confessio Baruc. p. 172).

44 On the nature and types of imprisonment by the Inquisition, see Tanon, Tribunaux, pp. 479–490.

45 The time of the expulsion and the motivation behind it hav e been disputed. While a date in 1322 has been generally assumed, Grayzel (John XXII, p. 611, n. 1, 2.) has demonstrated tha t it must hav e occurred in 1321, thus excluding a possible connection with the anti-Jewish agitation during the Leper Persecution. Grayzel's strictures on the various interpretations of the expulsion ar e well taken. His own suggestion is that “it was due to the existence of converts to Christianity at the height of the Shepherd Persecutions, who, having found a refuge in the Comtat, now reverted to Judaism. Th e inquisitors, especially Bernard Gui, thereupon stirred the Pope to action.” This is hardly likely. Faced with a considerable numbe r of relapsi, the inquisitors would have characteristically urged prosecution, rathe r than a n expulsion which would only infect other territories. A s for Bernard Gui himself, I know of no evidence that he exerted any influence on the Pope in this matter. In his chronicle of the pontificate of Joh n XXI I (Baluze, Vit. pap. Aven., p. 152ff.), there is an account of the pogroms of the Pastoureaux against the Jews, but no mention at all of the expulsion.

46 Graetz, Geschichte, VII, p. 258f.

47 On the expulsion by Charles IV see Loeb, Expulsions, p. 49ff. Loeb sees no necessary connection between this expulsion and the accusation, a year earlier, that the Jews had participated in the Lepers’ Plot.

48 L. Wadding, Annales Minorum, ann. 1322 no. lxix; Vidal, Bullaire, no. 38 p. 69f.; Grayzel, John XXII, p. 64ff. The bull was first issued in 1281 by Martin IV (Potthast, Regesta, no. 21806).

The date given for John's bull by Cherubini (Bullarium Romanum, I, p. 216) and Coquelines (Bull. Rom., Ill, Pt. 2, p. 154) is August 13, 1317. Grayzel points out that both dates may be correct. If the bull was first issued by John in 1317, it came shortly after the return of Jews to France, when some converts may have been emboldened to revert to Judaism.

49 At times conflicts of jurisdiction between bishops and inquisitors arose because of financial considerations. One such clash during the pontificate of John XXII occurred in Italy. On January 26, 1328 the Pope wrote to the inquisitors of Apulia ordering them not to proceed against Jews or relapsed converts unless requested to do so by the Bishop of Trani. The Bishop had complained that although the Church had derived considerable income from the Jews of the city, they now had become so impoverished, because of the extortions of the inquisitors, that this source of revenue was exhausted. See the bull in Grayzel, John XXII, no. 33 p. 73f.

50 Loeb, Expulsions, p. 51.

51 Jews were also liable to inquisitorial prosecution for usury, but this category is missing entirely in the Practica. Just as in other areas, so here too the Inquisition was theoretically concerned solely with matters of belief. Specific acts were important, not in themselves, but as manifestations of the beliefs which motivated them. Thus in theory usury was not subject to the Inquisition by its practice, but rather by the implicit assertion that it is not a sin. In a summary of heretical errors from the archives of the Inquisition of Carcassonne we read: “Dicunt quod tradere ad usuram, ratione termine, non est peccatum aliquod.” (de Vic-Vaissète, Histoire générale de Languedoc (Toulouse, 1872–92), VIII, Preuves, 983).

52 Such general forms usually contain instructions in the appropriate places for the insertion of the details of the specific heresy involved, e.g., “quod tu talis N. de tali loco commissisti, seu fecisti hoc et hoc’ (Gui, Practica, 111:16). Still, in addition to forms which can be applied to different sects, the Practica does contain specific forms for sentencing “Manicheans” (III: 32), Waldenses (III: 34) and Beguins (III: 37). There is no comparable formula for the sentencing of relapsed Jewish converts.

53 “Judei perfldi conantur, quando et ubi possunt, occulte pervertere christianos et trahere ad perfidiam judaycam, maxime illos qui prius fuerunt Judei et conversi sunt et receperunt bantismum et fidem Christi, presertim illos qui sibi attinent aut sunt afinitate vel consanguinitate juncti.” (Gui, Practica, V:v:l; Manuel, p. 6).

54 “Statutum est autem ut contra christianos qui ad ritum transierint vel redierint Judeorum, etiamsi hujusmodi redeuntes dum erant infantes, aut mortis metu, non tamen absolute seu precise coacti, baptizati fuerint, est tanquam contra hereticos, si fuerint de hoc confessi, aut per christianos seu Judeos convicti, et sicut contra fautores, receptatores et defensores hereticorum, contra fautores, receptatores et defensores talium procedendum.” (ibid.).

Cf. Sexti Decret. Lib. V, tit. II “De haereticos,” cap. xiii “Contra christianos” (Corpus Juris Canonici ed. Friedberg. II, c. 1075).

55 The bull Turbato corde as issued by Clement IV mentions only proselytes explicitly: “… quod quamplurimi christiani veritatem catholicae fidei abnegantes, se ad ritum iudaeorum damnabiliter transtulerunt.” (Bullarium Romanum Taurinensis, III no. 24, p. 785). Joshua Starr maintained therefore that authority to proceed against relapsi was not given until the renewal of the bull by Nicholas IV in 1288 See his “Mass Conversion of the Jews of Southern Italy (1290–1293),’ Speculum, XXI (1946), p. 205 n. 15. However Guido Kisch is essentially correct in stating that “from the point of view of canon law there can be no doubt that the equation of reversion to Judaism with ordinary heresy was first expressly stated in Clement IV's bull Turbato corde.' (The Jews of Medieval Germany (Chicago, 1949), p. 164 n. 101). Though it was not “expressly” stated by Clement, the bull certainly had equal implications for relapsi, since they were already Christians by baptism. Even in the decretal cited above, relapsi are not named as such, but are called “Christians who return to the Jewish rite.”

Specific mention of relapsed Jewish converts in the bull was first made, not by Nicholas IV, but by Gregory X in his recension of March 1, 1274 (Potthast, Regesta, no. 20798).

56 The basic position had already been established by Gregory the Great. Opposition to forced baptism was expressed also in the Constitutio pro Judaeis first issued by Calixtus II and renewed by almost every subsequent pope in the Middle Ages. See Baron, Salo W., A Social and Religious History of the Jews (2nd rev. ed.; New York, 1957) IV, pp. 71, 235f.

57 Potthast no. 1479; Grayzel, Solomon, The Church and the Jews in the Thirteenth Century (Philadelphia, 1933), no. 12 p. 100ff. The bull was incorporated into the Decretals of Gregory IX. (Decret. Greg. IX Lib. III, tit. XLII, cap. iii.).

58 “Verum id est Religioni Christiane contrarium ut semper invitus et penitus contradicens ad recipiendam et servandam Christianitatem aliquis compellatur. Propter quod inter invitum et invitum, coactum et coactum, alii non absurde distinguunt, quod is qui terroribus atque suppliciis violenter attrahitur, et ne detrimentum incurrat, Baptismi suscipit sacramentum, talis (sicut et is qui ficte ad Baptismum accedit) characterem suscipit Christianitatis impressum, et ipse tanquam conditionaliter volens, licet absolute non velit, cogendus est ad observantiam Fidei Christiane…” (ibid.)

59 Similarly on May 7, 1277 Nicholas III responded in the bull Sicut nobis significare that certain Jews, converted out of fear of death during a persecution in the county of La Marche, must be punished by the inquisitors for relapse into Judaism. (Fonds Doat, XXXVII, fol. 191ff.). Cf. Grayzel, Confession, p. 92 n. 11.

Nicholas specifically based his judgement on the fact that the baptism had been “non tamen absolute seu precise coacti.” That the inquisitors did not yet know what to do in such a case, and turned to the Pope for advice, indicates that up to 1277 precedent had not yet been firmly established. It was probably Nicholas's bull which fixed the papal policy on the matter, and it is from this that Boniface VIII borrowed the phrase for his decretal.

60 So, for example, Schmidt, Charles, Histoire et doctrine de la secte des Cathares ou Albigeois (Paris, 1849), II, p. 13; Saige, Languedoc. p. 19 n. 3; Guedemann, M., Ha-Torah ve-ha-hayyim bi-yeme ha-benayim (Warsaw, 18961899), Pt. I, pp. 179182.; Newman, Jewish Influence, pp 131–302. See especially, Scholem, Gershom, Reshit ha-kabbalah- (Jerusalem-Tel Aviv, 1948), pp. 8691, and more recently his Ursprung und Anfänge der Kabbala (Studia Judaica III; Berlin, 1962).

61 Scholem, Ursprung, pp. 206–9, reviews anew the suggestions on the relations between the nascent Kabbala in Provence and the doctrines of the Cathari which he made earlier in his Hebrew work While adding some isolated points and modifying others, he is forced tc conclude that “Dies sind aber nur lose Details und betreffen nebensach liche Punkte. In der Grundauffassung konnte ja zwischen den beiden Bewegungen keine sachliche Beriihrung bestehen…” (p. 208).

62 As I have stated above, there is no suggestion in the Practica of a Jewish link with the Albigensian heresies. In the Interrogation Formula for Jews and relapsed Jewish converts (V:v:3) the accused is never asked if he has information concerning Christian heretics and their beliefs, although these questions were posed to Christian prisoners at every opportunity. In the Abjuration Formula for Jews (V:v:9) there is again no mention of Christian heretical opinions.

Newman has claimed also that Jewish aid to the heretics themselves was a matter of concern to the Inquisition. He speaks of “numerous references in the Practica of Bernard Gui calling upon Jews to inform the inquisitors if they know or have heard of any heretics” (Newman, op. cit., p. 312). The fact is that none of these passages deals with Christian heretics. In every instance the Jew is asked to inform the inquisitors about proselytes, relapsi, and their fautors.

Only in the Abjuration Formula for relapsi (V:v:10) is there a reference to Christian sectarians: “Et abjuro omnem credentiam et participationem et favorem et receptationem et defensionem here-ticorum cujuscumque secte dampnate…” It should be emphasized, however, that here the person is abjuring not as a Jew but as a reconciled Christian, and nevertheless the formula immediately continues: “… et specialiter et expresse apostatantium a fide christian-orum transeuntium aut conversorum baptizatorum redeuntium ad ritum seu ad vomitum judaysmi…”

An analysis of the thirteenth- and-fourteenth-century papal bulls, conciliar canons, royal decrees, etc. would yield the same conclusions. Many and various charges are hurled against the Jews. Nowhere are they accused of influencing or aiding the heretics. The Church seems to have understood the gulf which separated them. In 1205, when the heretic movements were still at the height of their influence. Innocent III made this significant contrast in a letter to the heretics of Viterbo: “The Jews at least believe in only One God, the author of all things visible and invisible, but most of you believe that the earth and material nature are the works of Satan…” (Luchaire, A., Rome et l'Italie (Paris, 1905), pp. 93–4, cited by Grayzel, Church and the Jews, p. 25 n. 19).

63 The Inquisitors of Toulouse regularly spoke of themselves as inquisitors in regno Francie, sometimes adding Tholose residens. See Vidal, Bullaire, p. vii.

All inquisitors were directly responsible to the Pope. In theory it was he who commissioned them, even though the actual function of choosing the inquisitors had been delegated since Gregory IX to the provincials of the Dominican and Franciscan orders. See Tanon, Tribunaux, pp. 184–7.

64 “… Guillelmo Altissiodorensi ordinis fratrum praedicatorum praesentium exhibitori domini Papae inquisitori haereticorum ac perfidorum Judeorum in regno Francie…” (Lea, Inquisition, II, p. 575). Ten years earlier Bertrand de la Roche is described as inquisitor in Provence “against heretics and wicked Christians who embrace Judaism.” (ibid., p. 63).

65 See the bull Anxia nimis in Vidal, Bullaire, no. 229 p. 342.

66 The Interrogation has been translated by Newman, Jewish Influence, p. 383f.

67 A formula of interrogation, similar in almost all respects to the one given by Bernard Gui and clearly related to it, is found among documents from the archives of the Inquisition in Carcassonne (Doat XXXVII, fol. 262r-263v; Hist. gén. de Languedoc VIII, col. 988). It appears also in a collection of miscellaneous materials of the Inquisition in a Vatican manuscript (MS. lat. 3978; see Dondaine, Manuel, p. 149), and in a manuscript of the Bibliothèque Mazarine (MS. 2015; see Mollat's remarks in Gui, Manuel, p. 10f. n. 1; cf. Molinier, A., Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Mazarine (Paris, 1886), II, pp. 323–5). In his edition of the Practica, Mollat italicizes all the words in the Interrogation which are identical with the text in the Mazarine MS.

The formula does not bear a date in any of the three MSS. Both C. Molinier (Rapport, p. 184) and Mollat (loc. cit.) date the compilation in the Mazarine MS in the thirteenth century.

However, we do not have to rely on this alone. A comparison of the Interrogation in the Practica with that contained in Doat XXXVII reveals several differences which, I believe, point to an earlier date for the latter text:

(a) One would expect the later redaction to be the more systematic. Comparing the two recensions, we do indeed find one such feature. While all the questions in the Practica are consistently phrased in the third person, the first six questions in Doat XXXVII are addressed directly to the second person. One observes also that at times a single question in the Practica is really a synthesis of two or more scattered questions in Doat.

(b) In the evolution of inquisitorial collections and manuals there is a marked tendency at each stage to amplify the older materials which are incorporated. (See Dondaine, op. cit., p. 95). It is to be observed that the Practica contains one question (“Quis induxit eum ut redirit ad judaysmum”) which is missing entirely in Doat. The other questions are the same in both, though sometimes listed in a different order. But, significantly, the phrasing of each individual question is often more ample and precise in Bernard Gui's version. For example:

(c) Not only the mere fact that questions in the Practica are more elaborate, but the very nature of some of the elaborations, is important From the examples above, one can easily discern a major difference. While the Interrogation in Doat is content to employ the term chris-tianus to cover both the proselyte and the relapsed convert, the corresponding questions in the Practica are careful to add distinguishing phrases such as christianus baptizatus, or baptizatum apostatam or conversum. The same care is employed in the Practica to distinguish between “Judaizing” and “rejudaizing.” All this parallels the terminological development in the papal bulls themselves. In the bull Turbato corde as issued first by Clement IV in 1267, mention was made only of “Christians who pass over to Judaism.” Only in later recensions was a clause added on relapsed converts. See supra, note 55.

68 On inquisitorial interrogation in general, see Tanon, Tribunaux; pp. 347–358.

69 The reliability of a Jew's oath was under attack in two of the thirty-five articles prepared against the Talmud in Paris in 1240: Article 12— “Et quicumque iuramento aliquo vult non teneri, in anni principio protestetur quod vota et iuramenta eius non valeant que faciet illo anno.” Article 14— “Tres quoque Iudei, quicunque sint, possunt absolvere quencunque ab omni iuramento.” See REJ, II (1881), pp. 267–9.

70 That a comprehensive study of the oath more judaico is still a desideratum has been expressed repeatedly by scholars. For the available literature, see Baron, Salo W., The Jewish Community (Philadelphia, 1942), II, p. 181f.; cf. Kisch, Guido, “Studien zur Geschichte des Judeneides in Mittelalter,” HUCA, XIV (1939), pp. 431456. I know of no study of the Jewish oath in France.

71 “… accepto prius ab eo corporali iuramento super legem Moisi de veritate mere et plene dicenda, tarn de se ut principalis, quam de alüs ut testis.” (Confessio Baruc, p. 154).

72 Some indication of the form of the oath before a tribunal of the Inquisition may be inferred from the beginning of an oath preserved in a manuscript compilation of inquisitorial material (Trinity College, Dublin, MS. 268):

“Iudee tu iurabis per Patrem omnipotentem Adonay. Et ipse respondit debite ‘iuro.’ Item iurabis per Patrem omnipotentum qui dixit ego sum ille qui sum. Et ipse respondit ‘iuro.’ Item iurabis per Deum qui se manifestante Moyesi in visione… etc.” (Cited by Esposito, M., “Sur quelques écrits concernant les hérésies et les hérétiques au XIIe et XIIIe siecles,” Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique, XXXVI (1940), p. 153.) The same formula is found in Vatican MS. lat. 3978. See Dondaine, Manuel, p. 148f.

73 These are essentially the terms of Baruch's abjuration. See Confessio Baruc, p. 173: “Propter que, sponte abiuravit perfidiam iudaicam et superstitionem ac cerimonias Legis iudaice et omnem aliam heresim. Juravit etiam (quod) omnes illos qui baptismum receperunt et postmodum reversi ad iudaismum, hereticos, eorum credentes, fautores, receptores, nuncios, ac amicos eorum, ac pro heresi fugitivos, per se et per alios, persequetur et investigabit, capiet, revelabit et ad dictum dominum episcopum, vel ad inquisitores heretice pravitatis, adducet, seu adduci et reddi secundum posse suum, per se et per alium procurabit. Juravit etiam insuper, stare et parere mandatis Ecclesie et dicti domini episcopi, seu eius successorum et omnem penitentiam, penam, satisfactionem, aut honus, quas et quod ipse dominus episcopus, seu eius successor, eidem Johanni, in persona propria vel in aliena, in bonis ipsius, duxerit iniungendam, vel imponendam, faciet et complebit.” (Cf. the short form of abjuration in Practica V:vii:4).

74 Notandum autem quod in abjuratione alicujus specialis secte et heresis quedam specialia convenit exprimere sub vocabulis seu nominibus convenientibus et propriis in modo loquendi.” (ibid.).

75 The phrase “de bonorum virorum consilio” refers to a jury, on which see C. Douais, “La formule ‘communicatio bonorum virorum consilio’ des sentences inquisitoriales,” Le moyen âge (1898), pp. 157–192, 286–311.

76 There was at first considerable discussion as to whether inquisitors, recruited from the Mendicant Orders, might impose monetar y fines. In 1244 the Council of Narbonne ha d ordered inquisitors to refrain from doing so. In 1251 Innocent IV prohibited the m entirely from levying fines if any other form of penance could be employed. (See Lea, Inquisition, I, p. 4721). Eventually, however, the inquisitors won the right to impose pecuniary penances at their discretion, on the theory that the money would be used for pious purposes, which included the expenses of the Inquisition.

77 On the events in Montpellier see Graetz, Geschichte, VII, pp. 34ff., 53; Sarachek, Joseph, Faith and Reason: the Conflict over the Rationalism, of Maimonides (Williamsport, 1935), pp. 7388. Serious reservations on the reliablitiy of the reports that the anti-Maimunists had the “Guide” burned, were expressed by Baer, Sefarad ha-no⋅rit, I, pp. 761, 318f.

78 On the “Disputation of Paris” and the burning of the Talmud see Graetz, op. cit., VII, p. 94ff., and Note 5 (p. 405ff.); Grayzel, Church and the Jews, pp. 29–33, 240f. (bull of Gregory IX, June 9, 1239), 274ff. (Bull of Innocent IV, Aug. 12, 1247), and Appendix A, p. 339f. (on Nicholas Donin). For the charges brought against the Talmud see A. Kisch, “Die Anklageartikel gegen den Talmud und ihre Verteidigung durch R. Yechiel b. Joseph vor Ludwig dem Heiligen in Paris,” in Monatsschrift fur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums, XXIII (1874), and especially Isidore Loeb, “La controverse de 1240 sur le Talmud” REJ, I (1880), pp. 247–261, II (1881), pp. 248–270, IU (1881), pp. 39–57.

That the disputation of 1240 was in reality a regular inquisition of the Talmud for heresy, in which R. Jehiel of Paris was called as a witness according to the rules of inquisitorial procedure, was shown by Y. Baer in his Hebrew article “Toward a (Critical) Examination of the Disputations of R. Jehiel of Paris and R. Moses b. Nahman,” Tarbiz, II (1930–31), p. 172ff.

79 Such forms were probably created during the confiscations of the Talmud at the behest of Gregory IX in 1239 and Innocent IV in 1247, and certainly in the subsequent period.

Five forms relating to the condemnation of Jewish books were listed by Ulysse Robert in his “Catalogue d'actes relatifs au Juifs pendant le moyen age,” REJ, III (1881), p. 214 nos. 26–30. The source given is Doat XXIX, and they are all dated by Robert ca. 1250. The full texts of four of these forms were printed by Grayzel from the Doat Collection (.Church and the Jews, Appendix B pp. 341–3).

Apparently neither Robert nor Grayzel took note of the fact that vol. XXIX of Doat is not merely a collection of documents, but rather (together with vol. XXX) a copy of the Practica of Bernard Gui from the archives of the Inquisition at Carcassonne. The forms on Jewish books correspond as follows:

(The attribution by Grayzel of no. 1 to Doat vol. 20 appears to be a misprint. His citation in no. 4 of Robert no. 30 is erroneous).

Unlike the Toulousan manuscript of the Practica which Douais edited, the forms in Doat XXIX do not carry the name of Bernard Gui, or the date 1310. The question remains as to whether they were really drawn up in the thirteenth century. I do not know on what basis Robert assigned the date ca. 1250. Grayzel accepts it for all but one document (no. 2 = Robert no. 26), which he dates in 1275, apparently because mention is made of King Philip, and he assumes the reference is to Philip III. However, I believe the forms in Doat XXIX cited by Robert and Grayzel really originated in 1310, as they appear in the Douais edition, and not in 1250 or even 1275. The tenor of the documents suits the period after the expulsion of 1306. In none of the seven documents are the authorities called upon to search Jewish homes or synagogues. Two of the forms are addressed to the “superintendent]” negocio Judeorum.” Though no name is given in Doat, the office of “supervisor” was created in 1307 when Jean de Crepy was sent to Toulouse and Rodez to oversee the liquidation of confiscated Jewish property. (For the commission see Saige, Languedoc, p. 256). Finally, though other details are not given, Robert nos. 27, 28, and 29 all mention Agen. It would be too great a coincidence if Bernard Gui some sixty years after the forms were allegedly created, had directed his attention to precisely the same place.

In sum, though thirteenth-century forms undoubtedly existed, they have not come down to us directly. The forms in Doat XXIX are simply copied from the Practica.

80 in 1255 a ban of the Talmud was adopted by the Council of Beziers at Louis’ behest (Grayzel, Church and the Jews, p. 337 no. XLII). Again, in 1269 he ordered Jews to present their books for examination to the apostate Pablo Christiani. (Robert, Catalogue, no. 40). Philip III proscribed the Talmud and other books in 1283 and ordered them handed over to the inquisitors. (Saige, Languedoc, p. 213). Philip IV did the same in 1299 (ibid., p. 236).

81 “Item, in quodam libro cu.ius actor vocatur Salomon, qui intitulatui apud eos Glosa super textum Legis, quem librum omnes Judei maxime tenent et credunt et intendunt dictis ejus, continentur verba el sentpntie et opiniones false et erronee et abusive Talmuti damnnati ir pluribus locis illius libri. Et illas glosas Judei tenent et habent et docent, cum tamen sint dampnate pariter cum Talmuto et sunt expresse contra Christum quem dicunt nullo modo fuisse nee Messiam promissum in Lege…” (Gui, Manuel, p. 18).

82 Rashi's commentaries figured often in the investigation of the Talmud in 1240. In the Latin manuscript of the Extractiones de Talmud composed shortly after it was burned in Paris, there is a section entitled “De glosis Salomonis Trecensis.” See Loeb, REJ I (1880), p. 260 On anti-Christian elements in Rashi see Rosenthal, Judah, “Anti-Christian Polemic in Rashi on the Bible,” in Rashi, His Teachings and Personality, ed. Federbush, S. (New York, 1958), Hebrew Section, pp 45–54.

83 “Item, in quodam libro quem Judei vocant Glosas Moysi de Egypto et actor illius libri intitulavit Declarationem et reformationem legis, continentur abusiones et falsitates Thalmuti; item, plures errores et blasfemie contra fidem Christi et specialiter quod omnes illi qui tenent viam et fidem Christi vocant et dicunt heretiros, auod est dictum in hebreo ‘minim'. Item, Christum Jhesum liber ille dicit errasse et contra Deum fecisse et contra Legem et quod plus erravit Jhesus ausrr. Machometus et quod ipse Jhesus posuit majorem partem mundi in errore colendi alium Deum, qui non est unus Deus, et destruendi legem quam Deus dedit…” (Gui, loc. cit.).

84 The statement that Jesus caused most of the world to believe in a non-monotheistic God was made by Maimonides in Mishne Torah. Hilkhot Melakhim XII, but was later censored. See the remarks of Abraham S. Halkin in his edition of Maimonides’ Epistle to Yemen, Hebrew introduction p. xiv n. 92. For Maimonides’ views on Christianity cf. Baron, Social and Religious History V, pp. 118f., 365.

85 “Item, in alio libro quem Judei vocant Glosa David hyspani, qui glosavit psalterium, multa continentur contra Christum et christianos et tenentes fidem Christi.” (Gui, loc. cit.)

The polemical remarks in Kimchi's commentary on the Psalms were expunged from most printed editions. They can be found in those parts which have been critically edited from manuscripts. See e.g. Jacob Bosniak's edition of The Commentary of David Kimhi on the Fifth Book of the Psalms (New York, 1954), passim.

86 E.g. in the form for pronouncing sentence on the Talmud (III: 47) we read: “… de mandato regis… fecerunt omnes et singulos libros diligenter inspici et examinari pe r fideles viros ac fidei zelatores peritosque in linga ebrayca et expertos…” (Gui, Practica, p. 170f.).

87 On Dominican interest in Hebraic studies see C. Douais, Essai sur V'organisation des etudes dans I'ordre des Freres Precheurs au treizieme et au quatorzieme siecle (Paris-Toulouse, 1884), pp. 135–140. Cf. Altaner, B., “Die fremdsprachliche Ausbildung der Dominikanermissionare des 13. und 14. Jahrhunderts,” Zeitschrift jur Missionswissenschaft XXIII (1933); Browe, Peter, Die Judenmisson im Mittelalter und die Pdpste (Rome, 1942), p. 271ff.

Significantly, R. Jehiel of Paris stated in 1240 that many clerics had learned Hebrew from Jews. See Vikuah R. Yehiel mi-Paris (Thorn, 1873), p. 10.

88 Clement. Lib. V, tit. I, cap. 1. (Corpus Iuris Canonici ed. Friedberg, II, c. 1179). Cf. Altaner, B., “Raymundus Lullus und der Sprachenkanon des Konzils von Vienne,” Historisches Jahrbuch LII (1933).

89 On the efficacy of the canon on languages, see Altaner, B., “Die Durchfiihrung des Vienner Konzilsbeschlusses iiber die Errichtung von Lehrstuhlen fur orientalische Sprachen,” Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte, LII (1933).

90 On Raymund Martini see Berthier, Andre, “Un maitre orientaliste du XHIe siecle: Raymond Martin,” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum VI (1936).

While considering the reliability of Jewish information contained in Christian sources, we might well reflect on the case of the Pugio Fidei itself. The authenticity of Martini's quotations from rabbinic literature, long impugned by scholars, was vindicated by the eminent Talmudist, Saul Lieberman. Professor Lieberman demonstrated that, although the Pugio Fidei is a polemic, Martini's rabbinic quotations contain authentic passages and variant readings of great value. See his “Raymund Martini and his alleged forgeries,” Historia Judaica, V (1943), pp. 87102.

91 Browe, Judenmission, p. 274.

92 The question of anti-Christian references in Jewish prayers has never been examined systematically. Some material may be found in S. Seeligmann's brief “Anti Christelijke Gebeden,” De Vrydagavond (1924), p. 195f.; Browe, Peter, “Die religiöse Duldung der Juden im Mittelalter,” Archiv für Katholisches Kirehenrecht, CXVIII (1938), pp. 3641. (For the accusations by the Church Fathers, see ibid., p. 37).

93 The bull Dampnabili perfidia Judaeorum, in Ripoll, Bullar. Ord FF. Praed., I, p. 487f.

94 Registres d'Honorius IV, ed. Prou, M. (Paris, 1888), no. 809.

95 Maḣzor vitry, ed. Hurwitz, s. (Berlin, 1893), p. 57 has . On the benediction in general see Elbogen, Ismar, Der Jüdische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung (Leipzig, 1913), p. 90.

96 On the birkat ha-minim see Elbogen, op. cit, pp. 39ff., 51, 519.

97 “Item, in oratione quam faciunt ter in die sunt multe maledictiones et imprecationes contra christianos et contra romanam fidem quam vocant pravum regnum et dampnatum. Et orant quod Deus destruat ipsum et omnes christianos, quamvis non ponant in expresse vocabulum christianorum, set per omnia vocabula dant intelligere et sic intellegunt et intendunt, videlicet per hoc vocabulum minim quod sonat hereticos.” (Gui, Manuel, p. 16).

98 Article 30 reads: “In singulis diebus ter in oracione quam digniorem asserunt ministris ecclesie, regibus et aliis omnibus, ipsis Iudeis inimicantibus, maledicunt.” The commentary goes on to describe the Eighteen Benedictions, their importance and manner of recitation, and then gives this translation of the birkat ha-minim:

“Conversis non sit spes et omnes mynym (infldeles) in hora (repente) disperdantur, et omnes inimici gentis tue Israel discindantur, et regnum nequicie eradices et confringas et conteras et declines omnes innimicos nostros velociter in diebus nostris; benedictus tu Deus, frangens inimicos et declinans impios.” (Loeb, “La controverse de 1240,” REJ, III (1881), p. 51f.

99 For example, in several old mss. and in the Mahzor of Salonika the text reads: . see s. Baer, Abodat Yisrael, p. 93n.

In a text of the Amida found in the Cairo Geniza, and perhaps preserving an old Palestinian readng, we find Christians explicitly mentioned with heretics: . See Solomon Schechter, “Genizah Specimens,” JQR (OS.), X (1897–8), p. 657.

It is also interesting that in medieval Germany some Jews whose sons had converted to Christianity were apnarentlv reluctant to recite the birkat ha-minim: Sefer Ḣasidim, ed. J. Wistinetzky (Berlin, 1891), no. 1506, p. 363.

100 It should be noted also that in a decree of September 3, 1380 King Juan I of Castile expressly outlawed the use of the prayer:

“Primera mente por quanto nos fizieron entender que los judios en sus libros e en otras escripturas de su talamud les mandan que digan de cada día la oración de los erejes que se dize en pie, en que mal dizen a los christianos e a los clérigos e a los finados, mandamos e defendemos firme mente que ninguno dellos non las diga de aqui adelante, nin las tenga escrintas en sus libros nin en otros libros algunos. e los que las tienen escriptas que las tiren e chancellen de los dichos libros, en manera que se non puedan leer…” Fritz (Yitzhak) Baer, , Die Juden in Christlichen Spanien. Erster Teil: Urkunden und Regesten. Vol. II, Kastilien/Inquisitionsakten (Berlin, 1936), no. 227, p. 221.

The censorship called for in this decree had begun even earlier, and was, perhaps, self-imposed. It appears, moreover, that in 1336 Alfonso XI of Castile had already decreed against the birkat ha-minim. This seems to be the prayer to which the king alludes in an edict issued at the behest of the apostate Alfonso de Valladolid (Abner of Burgos). The King addressed himself to the Jews: “Volo vos scire, nobis fuisse relatum per magistrum Alfonsum conversum, sacristam maioris ecclesiae Valisoletane vos iti a magnis temporibus inter vos quotidie ab utroque sexu adulte aetatis oratione quadam, in qua maledictiones omnipotentis Dei Christianis ac omnibus ad fldem Christi conversis imprecamini, eos censendo hereticos, etiam inimicos capitales, et quod publice Deum exoratis, ut eos destruat atque perdat…” Browe, Religiöse Duldung, p. 40 n. 2, (citing Alonso de Spina, Fortalitium fidei, III. 7).

101 , On the Alenu prayer see Elbogen, Jüdische Gottesdienst, p. 80f.

102 .

103 I have been unable to find an attack against the alleged bias-phemies in the Alenu prior to Bernard Gui. Around 1400, a convert denounced the prayer in Germany, claiming that the letters of the word (“and emptiness”) have the same numerical value as , (Jesus). The Alenu was defended against such attacks by Yom-Tob Lipmann-Mulhausen in his Sefer Nisaḣon, but to no avail. (Elbogen, op. cit., p. 80).

104 “Item, in festo propitiationum in septembri, habent quamdam specialem orationem quam faciant contra omnes inimicos, quam orationem vocant “cematha” quod est dictum anathema vel separatio vel maledictio. Et in ilia oratione per circumlocutionem verborum vocant Christum spurium filium meretricis et beatam Mariam Virginem mulierem calefactionis seu luxurie, quod nephandum est loqui et etiam cogitare; et maledicunt utrique et fldem romanam et omnes ejus participes et credentes.” (Gui, Manuel, p. 16f).

105 Lévi states simply “j'ignore sur quoi se fond cette assertion.” (Les Juifs et l'Inq., p. 19 n. 2). Mollat (Manuel II, p. 17 n. 4) made the incredible equation of the word cematha to the Shema, the confession of the Unity of God (Deut. 6:4).

106 A.H. Freimann, “Titnem le-ḣerpah” (Hebrew), Tarbiz, XII (1943) pp. 70–74. The text is reproduced by A.M. Habermann in his Sefer gezerot Ashkenaz ve-Sarefat (Jerusalem, 1946), p. 105.

107 (Solomon Luria, She'elot u- teshubot (Lublin, 1574), no. 29). Habermann rejects Rashi's authorship of the poem. Baron, Soc. and Rel. Hist. VII, p. 179 attributes it to one of Rashi's disciples, but admits the possibility that Rashi himself may have written it. (ibid., p. 303 n. 59).

108 Judah, Nathan b., Sefer mahkim (Cracow, 1909), p. 42.

109 Zunz, Leopold, Die Ritus des Synagogalen Gottesdienstes (Berlin, 1859), p. 10.

110 The word “krubot” (=Heb. Krobot) was used here as a general designation for the prayer book. On the contents of this section of the manuscript of the Extractiones, see Loeb, REJ, II (1881), pp. 249–251.

111 Loeb (ibid.) descrbes it as “un passage où sont énumérés les méfaits religieux des goyim et dont chaque phrase commence par le mot goyim, Ce passage, qui paraît être composé de deux morceaux différents, est imprimé dans Eisenmenger….” In excerpting the sections of the Hebrew original, I have followed Esenmenger's text.

112 I give the opening verses:

Eisenmenger, Johann Andrea, Entdecktes Judenthum (Königsberg, 1711), I, p. 134. Cf. Davidson, Israel, Osar ha-shirah ve-ha-piyyut (Thesaurus of Medieval Hebrew Poetry), (New York, 1929), III, p. 124 no. 179.

113 Beginning:

(Entdecktes Judenthum, II, p. 142. Davidson, no. 178).

114 The first part was eliminated from printed prayer books because of the censor, though it was customary to write or print them on detached pages and insert them separately. The second is found in its entirety in the Mahzor printed in Prague in 1522 and 1533, and in the Cracow edition of 1585. See Davidson's remarks, loc. cit.

115 The Hebrew reads:

(Entdecktes Judenthum, I, p. 135).

116 On the status of the apostate Jew in the Middle Ages I follow closely the analysis of Jacob Katz in his Hebrew monograph: “Even Though he has Sinned he Remains a Jew,” Tarbiz, XXVII (1958), pp. 203–217. See also his Exclusiveness and Tolerance: Jewish-Gentile Relations in Medieval and Modern Times (Oxford, 1961; reprint, New York, 1962), Ch. VI.

117 E.g. TB Sanhedrin 27b, Aboda Zara 26b, Hullin 5a.

118 TB Yebamot 47b, Bekhorot 30b.

119 This was also the official view in Gaonic times. The apostate had to receive stripes for his transgressions (as would any Jew), but ritual immersion was not required: B.M. Lewin, O⋅ar ha-geonim (Jerusalem, 1936), VII, p. 112.

120 The original statement occurs in the Talmud. It was not offered as a juridical principle, but simply as a homiletic elaboration on the biblical story of Achan. Thus: “Israel hath sinned (Josh. 7:11). Rabbi Abba bar Zabda declared: Even though (they have) sinned, (they remain) Israel.” (Sarihedrin, 44a). In this context the term “Israel’ refers to the entire people.

Rashi used the statement as a definition of legal status in three concrete cases concerning the individual apostate and in a fourth instance it is implied. Thus: (a) The betrothal of a convert is binding (Teshubot Rashi, ed. Elfenbein, I. (New York, 1943) no. 171). (b) A Jewess must obtain ḣalisah from a levir who has been converted (ibid., no. 173). (c) Interest may not be taken on loans to an apostate (ibid., no. 175). (d) An apostate's Jewish relatives may inherit his property, and he may inherit theirs (ibid., no. 174).

121 The view that the apostate is in fact lost to Judaism, especially if baptized voluntarily, is reflected in various ways in medieval Jewish sources. For example, in Germany and elsewhere it was the custom foi the family of an apostate not to mourn his death. (See Sefer ḣasidim no. 192). The names of apostates were distorted to give them, by a play on words, a derogatory meaning. (Ibid., no. 193).

122 “Postmodum vero reversus est ad judaysmum. fuitque reiudaysatus secundum modum et ritum rejudaysacionis a Judeis in talibus fieri consuetum apud Ylerdam abraso capite et abscissis capitibus unguium manuu m et pedu m usque ad sanguinem, et facta inmersione capitis in aqua currenti…” (Lib. Sent. Inq. Thol., p. 230).

123 “Dixit tamen, quod baptizati, qui ad iudaismum revertuntur, sic revertuntur, iuxta doctrinam Calmutz (sic) quod secantur eis ungues manuu m et pedum et raduntu r pueri (sic) capitis et deinde totum corpus abluitur in aqua currenti, sicut secundum Legem puriflcabatur mulier alienigena, quando debebat duci a iudeo in uxorem; quia ipsi reputant quod baptismus polluit illos qui recipiunt ipsum.” (Confessio Baruc, n. 156).

Grayzel, (Confession, p. 101) states correctly: “If Baruc possessed any learning he would not have ascrbed it to the Talmud even while admitting the existence of the ritual. The chances are, however, that the Talmud was brought into the discussions by Baruc's examiners… and that the word Talmud was entered into the record by the scribe.”

124 Grayzel (ibid., p. 106) translates mulier alienigena as “a woman convert,” and so misses the association, which is to the law in Deut. 21:10 ff.: “When thou goest forth to battle against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God delivereth the m into thy hands, and thou carriest them away captive, and seest among the captives a woma n of goodly form, and thou hast a desire unto her, and wouldest tak e her to thee to wife; then thou shalt bring he r home to thy house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; and she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thy house, and bewail her father and mother a full month; and after that thou mayest go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.”

125 “Interrogatus si in Appamiis vel alibi fuit reiudaizatus iuxta formam et modum reiudaizationis supradictum; respondit quod non, quia secundum doctrinam Colnut (sic) [si] aliquis perfecte est baptizatus et voluntarie et vult ad iudaismum reverti, quia reputant eum pollutum, fiunt illam eius reiudaizationem que supradicta fuit; sed quando non est perfecte baptizatus, vel coactus est ad suscipiendum baptismum, non reiudaizatur modo supradicto, quia credunt quod talis baptismus nichil sit.” (Confessio Baruc, p. 162f.).

126 “… Exposuit Excellencie nostre religiosus vir frater Bartholomeus de Aquila ordinis fratrum Praedicatorum inquisitor heretice pravitatis in Regno Sicilie per Sedem Apostolicam constitutus quod cum pridem per legitimos testes sibi plene conscientie quod si sinacoga maiorj Judeorum de Salerno scientibus et consencientibus Judeis Judayce salernitane ad quos predicta sinacoga spectebat plures hereticj apostate a fide Christi receptatj faciant in ea et quidem Christianus nomine Moyses fuerat circonsisus ibid em et quidam alij Judeorum heresim profexi et in puteo vel fonte ipsius sinacoge quidam nomine Azarias a fide Christi potestate in iniuriam baptismatis per Judeos Judaice predicte fuerat ablutus.” CG. Monti, M., “Da Carlo I a Roberto di Angiò,” Archivio storico per le province Napolitane, LIX (1934), p. 175).

Joshua Starr (Speculum., XXI, p. 207) interprets the circumcision of Moses to mean a “symbolic” circumcision of a relapsed Jewish convert. If this is so, then we have here an additional and bizarre rejudaizing custom, unattested elsewhere. I am inclined to think, however, that the person in question was actually a proselyte, and that the circumcision was real.

127 Eymeric, Nicholas, Directorium Inquisitorum (Venice, 1607), Pt. II, quaest. xliv, p. 349.

128 For the events see Baer, Sefarad ha-noşrit, II, pp. 481 1, 534 ff. Extensive extracts from the record of the trial are published in his Juden im Christlichen Spanien vol. II, no. 410, pp. 484–509.

129 Baer, Christlichen Spanien, II, p. 493.

130 ibid., p. 499f.: “…e mas tiene en su ley y mandiamento el dicho judlo que apres de haver los induzidos y tornados garines, que quiere dezir de christianos judíos, los deven desbabtizar e banyar los con agua corriente y raer les la crisma y cortar las hunyas y quitar les todas aquellas cosas que tienen de ley Christiana.”

131 Ibid., p. 502: “Así que se sigue de necessario que quando nuestros drechos faulan de fazer guerin, non significan mas a aue las tales personas sean primera mente christianos o moros o gentiles o de otros linages, mas dizen, qual quiere aue se convierte como se a de regir para entrar en la ley de los judfos, y aquella ley que dan es egual a todos, y non se fallara otra cosa en ninguna manera, donde se sigue de necesidat que el banyar [e?] ninguna de las otras cosas que se t>remiter> en tal casso non son fechas por desbatiar nin tirar crisma, pues aquello mismo se faze a los que non an recebido baptismo ni crisma…”

132 “Ya puede ser lo fallo aquel doctor en alguna parte thomado de aquel acto que mandava fazer la ley en la muxer fermosa en el tienpr de la guerra, que dixo traher la a su casa y esquile se la cabeça e faga las unyas…” (ibid., p. 503).

We have seen (supra note 123) that the same law was mentioned by Baruch in his trial. It is possible that Baruch also intended to use it as part of his defense, to prove that such rites are not intended to “dechristianize,” and that the notary garbled his testimony. Yet my impression is that this was not the case, and that there was some connection between the law in Deut. 21 and the return of apostates in the minds of some medieval Jews. In the Talmud, Rabbi Akiba had already interpreted the words (v. 13) “and she shall bewail her father and mother” as a reference to her abandoning idolatry (Yebamot, 48a). Cf. Nahmanides’ comments on these verses, accepting the view of Rabbi Akiba, and explaining that the rite is imposed because she is becoming a proselyte against her will.

133 So Baer (ibid., p. 504 n. 1): “Trotz allem scheint es einem Volksbrauch des discristianar bei den mittelaterlichen Juden gegeben zu haben.” For another allegation of washing off the chrism, see the case of Maria Sanchez (ibid., no. 395 p. 447). The charge is repeated in the early sixteenth century in the Canary Islands. See Wolf, Lucien, Jews in the Canary Islands (London, 1926), p. 28.

134 See, for example, Jacob b. Asher, Tur Yoreh De'ah, no. 267:

135 Mordecai b. Hillel, Sefer Mordecai on Ketubot, Ch. 11, no. 306. The case concerns the testimony of an apostate Jew from France, about a husband who has disappeared. We are told that his testimony is unacceptable because, even though he has been ritually immersed, he has not truly repented.

Some rite of readmitting apostates may perhaps be implied even earlier, in a passage from Sefer Ḣasidim (no. 209): “ (cf. Katz, Exclusiveness and Tolerance, p. 73).

136 Joseph ibn Habib (late 14th-early 15th Century), Nimmukey Yosef (commentary on the Halakhot of Isaac Alfasi), on Yebamot Ch. 4, 47b:

137 Moses Isserles (ReMA. Poland, 16th Century), gloss to Shulkhan Arukh Yoreh De'ah, no. 268:12: Though this and the references which follow are taken from halakhists of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, there can be little doubt that the practices of which they speak did not originate then, but have their roots in the Middle Ages.

138 Solomon Luria (Poland, 16th Century), Yam Shel Shlomo on Yebamot, loc. cit.

139 Gloss to Shulkhan Arukh Oraḣ Ḣayyim, no. 531:7: .

140 Joel b. Samuel Sirkes (Poland, 1561–1640), Bayit ḣadash (commentary on 'Arba Turim of Jacob b. Asher), Yoreh Deah, no. 267:

141 Siftey Kohen on ReMA, Yoreh De'ah, no. 268:2:

142 Abraham Gombiner, Magen Abraham on ReMA, Orah Hayyim, no. 531:7: .

143 Magen David, ad loc: .

Sirkes, (Bayit ḣadash on Tur Yoreh De'ah no. 268) finds a basis for the comparison of the idolater to a corpse or a leper in Rashi's comment on Num. 8:7 (the law commanding the Levites to shave the hair from their bodies): .

(Rashi stated:

144 E.g. Tur and Shulkhan Arukh Yoreh De'ah, no. 268. The source is Yebamot 47a.

145 So Joshua Boaz b. Simon Baruch (d. 1557), Shiltey ha-gibborim on Alfasi, Yebamot 47a.

146 I believe we may safely disregard Bernard's statement that the nails must be cut so deep as to draw blood. Perhaps this really happened in one case, and in receiving the information the inquisitor thought it was a necessary part of the ritual. Except for the Practica it is mentioned only in the case of Johannes de Bretz. Eymeric merely quotes Bernard Gui's material.

147 “Item, quomodo Judei circumcident pueros christianorum aliter quam suos?” (Gui, Manuel, p. 12). In Doat XXXVII (fol. 263r) the word “pueros” does not appear.

148 “Ubi notandum est quod Judei aliter circumcidunt pueros suos et aliter christianos, sive pueros sive adultos, quia circumcidendo chris-tianos adultos seu parvos, scindunt eis pellem desuper semiplene et non totum circulum, sicut faciunt in pueris suis judeis.

Item, christianis, quando Hunt Judei vel Judee, tradunt unam cartam sue judaysationis quam debent semper portare secum, aliter Judei non biberent aut comederent cum eisdem, et debet continere nomina singulorum magistrorum qui eos debaptizaverunt.” (Gui, Manuel p. 12)

149 The passage occurs in an early inquisitorial manual entitled De inquisitione hereticorum of which two recensions have come down one shorter than the other. The short recension was published in E Martène and Durand, U., Thesaurus novus anecdotorum (Paris, 1717), V col. 17771794, and contains our passage at the end. The long recension was first published and attributed to the German Franciscan David of Augsburg (d. 1271) by Preger, Wilhelm, “Der Tractat des David von Augsburg über Waldesier,” Abhandlungen der Histor. Cl. der Kgl. Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, XIV (1879), Pt. II, pp. 183235. This version does not contain the passage on circumcision.

Preger believed the long decension to be the older, the other being an abridgement made later in France. This order has been rejected by Esposito, M. (Rev. d'hist. eccl, XXXVI (1940), p. 160ff.). That the shorter version is older is accepted, though on different grounds, by Dondaine, Manuel, pp. 180–183. Cf. also Borst, Die Katharer, p. 21f.

Esposito maintains that the paragraph on special circumcision (De circumcisione Christianorum iudaizantium) is part of the original text of the treatise. Dondaine (p. 133) asserts it is only a fragment appended in the manuscripts, which are generally eclectic compilations. (For the MSS see the list in Dondaine, p. 182). In either case, the notice on circumcision would be not later than the second half of the thirteenth century.

150 Eymeric, Directorium Inquisitorum, Pt. II, quaest. xliv, p. 349.

151 See supra, note 145.

152 “Nota quod Judaei aliter circumcidunt pueros, et aliter christianos nostros adultos quando judaizant…” (Martène-Durand, op. cit., V. col. 1794.

153 See, for example, Josephus' story of the conversion of the royal house of Adiabene (Antt. XX, 2. 4) in which Ananias is satisfied to receive a proselyte without circumcision. Even Palestinian Jewry was not unanimous on the subject. The Talmud records the view of Rabbi Joshua b. flanania (late lst-early 2nd cent.), regarding the immersion of a proselyte as being sufficient: “If he performed the immersion but had not been circumcized, R. Joshua said he is a proper proselyte… The sages, however, said,… he is not a proper proselyte unless he has been both circumcised and immersed.” (Yebamot 46a).

1 This essay was completed in 1964 for inclusion in a collaborative volume of Jewish studies which, regrettably, was never published. For technical reasons it is published now in its original form, with no attempt to bring the bibliography up to date. Some new documents and studies concerning the Papal Inquisition have, indeed, appeared since. None, so far as I know, deal with specifically Jewish aspects.

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed