Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intermarriage between Christians and Jews in medieval canon law

  • Published:
Hîstôry¯a yêhûdît = Jewish history Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. E.g., 1 Cor. 7:12–16.

  2. The standard treatments of Jewish-Christian relations during this period rely heavily on the canons, since they provide a large share of the surviving evidence. See, e.g., Salo W. Baron,A Social and Religious History of the Jews, 2nd ed., 15 vols. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1952–73), 3:26–36, 4:14–18, 51–57, 11:78–87; Bernhard Blumenkranz,Juifs et chrétiens dans le monde occidental, 430–1096 (Paris and The Hague: Mouton, 1960), 320–21; P. D. King,Law and Society in the Visigothic Kingdom (Cambridge: The University Press, 1972), 135–36; Jacob R. Marcus,The Jew in the Medieval World (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), 4–5, 101; James Parkes,The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue: A Study in the Origins of Antisemitism (New York: World Publishing Co.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1961), 250, 256, 322, 324, 351; Edward A. Synan,The Popes and the Jews in the Middle Ages (New York: Macmillan, 1965), 25–26, 61.

    Google Scholar 

  3. The standard treatment of canonical development during this period is Gabriel Le Bras, Charles Lefebvre, and Jacqueline Rambaud,L'âge classique, 1140–1378: Sources et théorie du droit (Paris: Sirey, 1965), which is vol. 7 ofHistoire du droit et des institutions de l'église en Occident.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Studies of canonical Jewry law during the classical period that have been particularly helpful in preparing this paper include Emilio Bussi, “La condizione giuridica dei musulmani nel diritto canonico,”Rivista di storia del diritto italiano 8 (1935):459–94; Francisco Cantelar Rodríguez,El matrimonio de herejes: Bifurcacion del impedimentum disparis cultus y divorcio por herejia (Salamanca: Instituto San Raimundo de Peñafort, 1972); Vittore Colorni,Legge ebraica e leggi locali: Ricerche sull'ambito d'applicazione del diritto ebraico in Italia dall'epoca Romana al secolo XIX (Milano: A. Giuffré, 1945); Henri Gilles, “Commentaires méridionaux des prescriptions canoniques sur les Juifs,” inJuifs et judaïsme de Languedoc, Cahiers de Fanjeaux, vol. 12 (Toulouse: Edouard Privat, 1977), 23–50; Solomon Grayzel,The Church and the Jews in the XIIIth Century: A Study of Their Relations During the Years 1198–1254 (Philadelphia: Dropsie College, 1933); Peter Herde, “Christians and Saracens at the Time of the Crusades: Some Comments of Contemporary Canonists,”Studia Gratiana 12 (1967):359–76; Walter Holtzmann, “Zur päpstlichen Gesetzgebung über die Juden im 12. Jahrhundert,” inFestschrift Guido Kisch: Rechtshistorische Forschungen anlässlich des 60. Gebutstags dargebracht von Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1955), 217–35; Diane Owen Hughes, “Distinguishing Signs: Ear-Rings, Jews, and Franciscan Rhetoric in the Italian Renaissance City,”Past & Present 112 (1986):3–59; Benjamin Z. Kedar,Crusade and Mission: European Approaches Toward the Muslims (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984); Guido Kisch,Jewry-Law in Medieval Germany: Laws and Court Decisions Concerning the Jews (New York: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1949; AAJR, Texts and Studies, vol. 3), andThe Jews in Medieval Germany (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949); F. Donald Logan, “Thirteen London Jews and Conversion to Christianity: Problems of Apostasy in the 1280s,”Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 45 (1972):214–29; Frederic William Maitland, “The Deacon and the Jewess: Or, Apostasy at Common Law,”Law Quarterly Review 2 (1896):153–65, reprinted in Maitland'sCollected Papers, ed. H. A. L. Fisher, 3 vols. (Cambridge: The University Press, 1911), 1:385–406; Francesco Margiotta Broglio, “Il divieto per gli ebrei de accedere alle ariche pubbliche e il problema della giurisdizione ecclesiastica sugli infedeli nel sistema canonistico fino alle Decretali di Gregorio IX: Appunti e ricerche,” inEtudes d'histoire de droit canonique dédiées à Gabriel Le Bras, 2 vols. (Paris: Sirey, 1965), 2:1071–85; Franco Molinari, “Gregorio X e gli ebrei,”Archivio storico per le provincie parmensi, 4th ser., 28 (1976), 83–91; James Muldoon,Popes, Lawyers, and Infidels: The Church and the Non-Christian World, 1250–1550 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1979); Walter Pakter, “De his qui foris sunt: The Teachings of the Medieval Canon and Civil Lawyers Concerning the Jews,” Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins University, 1974, and “Did the Canonists Prescribe a Jewry-Oath?”Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law (hereafter cited as BMCL) 6 (1976):81–87; Diego Quaglioni, “Inter Iudeos et Christianos commertia sunt permissa: ‘Questione ebraica’ e usura in Baldo degli Ubaldi (c. 1327–1400),” inAspetti e problemi della presenza ebraica nell'Italia centro-settentrionale (secoli XIV e XV) (Roma: Istituto di scienze storiche, 1983), 273–305; Antonio Domingo de Sousa Costa, “Canonistarum doctrina de Judeis et Saracenis tempore Concilii Constantiensis,”Antonianum 40 (1965):3–70; Moritz Stern,Urkundliche Beiträge über die Stellung der Päpste zu den Juden, 2 vols. in 1 (Kiel: H. Fiencke, 1893–95; reprint, Farnsborough, Hants.: Gregg, 1970); Joshua Trachtenberg,The Devil and the Jews: The Medieval Conception of the Jew and Its Relation to Modern Antisemitism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1943).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Johannes Teutonicus,Glos. ord. to C. 28 q. 1 c. 12 v.publicis: “Argumentum quod ecclesia iudicat de iis qui foris sunt, quod uerum est quantum ad corporales penas: cum enim peccant possunt uerbarari uel alio modo corporaliter mulctari de precepto episcopi uel principis, argum. 17 q. 4 Constituit [c. 31] et extra de rapt., In archiepiscopatu [X 5.17.4]; et alia etiam poena possunt puniri, ut extra de usu., Post miserabilem [X 5.19.2]. Sed quantum ad spiritualem penam ecclesia non iudicat de illis, quia non potest eos excommunicare, quia qui in ecclesia non est ab ecclesia separari non potest, ut 11 q. 4 Omnis christianus [C. 11 q. 3 c. 32].” TheGlos. ord. to theDecretum and other texts of theCopus iuris canonici cited throughout are from the Venice edition of 1605 in four volumes, while the texts of the law itself are cited from the standard two-volume edition of theCorpus by Emil Friedberg (Leipzig: B. Tauchnitz, 1879; reprint, Graz: Akademische Druck — u. Verlagsanstalt, 1959). For the conventional canonistic citation system seeTraditio 11 (1955):438–39 and “Notes for Contributers” in BMCL 11 (1981):137–39. On Johannes Teutonicus generally see Svein Stelling-Michaud, “Jean le Teutonique,” inDictionnaire de droit canonique (hereafter cited as DDC), ed. R. Naz, 7 vols. (Paris: Letouzey & Ané, 1935–65), 6:120–22, and Stephan Kuttner, “Johannes Teutonicus,” inNeue deutsche Biographie (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1953-), 10:571–73.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Innocent IV,Apparatus toto orbe celebrandus super V libris decretalium to X 3.34.8 § 3 (Frankfurt a/M.: Sigismund Feyerabendt, 1570; reprint, Frankfurt a/M.: Minerva, 1968), fol. 430ra. On Innocent IV generally see J. A. Cantini and Charles Lefebvre, “Sinibalde dei Fieschi (Innocent IV),” in DDC 7:1029–62, and Elizabeth Vodola, “Innocent IV,” inDictionary of the Middle Ages (hereafter cited as DMA), ed. Joseph R. Strayer, 13 vols. (New York: Scribner, 1982-; in progress), 6:298–99.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Innocent IV,Apparatus to X 3.34.8 § 5, ed. cit., vol. 430rb; see also Benjamin Z. Kedar's edition of this passage in “Canon Law and the Burning of the Talmud,” BMCL 9 (1979):80–81; Muldoon,Popes, Lawyers, and Infidels, 10, 31.

  8. Johannes Teutonicus,Glos. ord. to D. 2 de pen. c. 5 v.participes: “Ergo Iudei et Sarraceni proximi nostri sunt et diligendi a nobis ut nos, et uerum est; uerum tamen omnia opera dilectionis impendere debemus secundum uniuscuiusque conditionem, 86 dis. Pasce [c. 21].” Kedar,Crusade and Mission, 102, n. 17, also cites this passage from MS Can. 13 (P. I. 16), fol. 221va of the Staatsbibliothek at Bamberg, but does not identify it as part of theGlos. ord. By the early fourteenth century, however, the Inquisition took a dim view of those who taught that God loved Jews and Saracens as much as He loved Christians; Kedar,Crusade and Mission, 173.

  9. D. 45 c. 3; X 5.6.9; Rufinus,Summa decretorum to D. 45 pr., ed. Heinrich Singer (Paderborn: F. Schöningh, 1902; reprint, Aalen: Scientia, 1963), 104; Raymond of Penyafort,Summa de penitentia 1.4.2, ed. Javier Ochoa and Aloisio Diez (Roma: Commentarium pro religiosis, 1976), col. 309–10; Geoffrey of Trani,Summa super titulis decretalium (Lyon: Roman Morin, 1519; reprint, Aaeln: Scientia, 1968) to X 5.6, 411–12; see also Muldoon,Popes, Lawyers, and Infidels, 31. On most issues canon law treated Jews and Muslims in much the same way; for an analysis of the differences in treatment see Herde, “Christians and Saracens.”

  10. Bernard of Pavia,Summa decretalium 5.5.4, ed. E. A. T. Laspeyres (Regensburg: Josef Manz, 1860; reprint, Graz: Akademische Druck — u. Verlagsanstalt, 1956), 211–12; Azo,Summa Codicis 1.9 (Pavia: Per Bernardinum et Ambrosius fratres de Rouellis, 1506; reprint, Torino: Bottega d'Erasmo, 1966; Corpus glossatorum juris civilis, vol. 2), 7; Hostiensis,Summa aurea, lib. 5 tit. 10 De Iudeis § 3 (Lyon: Joannes de Lambray, 1537; reprint, Aalen, Scientia, 1962), fol. 235vb. This was a significant modification of late Imperial and early medieval law, which had mandated substantial interference in Jewish religious practices; e.g. Cod. 1.9.7., which forbade Jews to follow their customary marriage rites, and theLeges Visigothorum 12.3.8, which required Jews either to convey a dowry at the time of marriage or else to have their marriages blessed by a priest; King,Law and Society, 225, n. 2.

  11. D. 54 c. 14; X 5.6.16, 18; Bernard of Pavia,Summa decretalium 5.5.4, ed. Laspeyres, p. 211; Raymond of Penyafort,Summa de pen. 1.4.3, ed. Ochoa-Diez, col. 311.

  12. X 5.6.5, 8, 19;Summa ‘Elegantius in iure diuino’ seu Coloniensis 2.136, ed. Gerard Fransen and Stephan Kuttner, Monumenta iuris canonici [hereafter MIC], Corpus glossatorum, vol. 1 (New York: Fordham University Press; Citta del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1969-; in progress), 1:108; Geoffrey of Trani,Summa super titulis to X 5.6, ed. cit., 413; Muldoon,Popes, Lawyers, and Infidels, 31.

  13. C. 28 q. 1 c. 12; Bernard of Pavia,Summa decretalium 5.5.4, ed. Laspeyres, 211; Geoffrey of Trani,Summa super titulis to X 5.6, ed. cit., 412.

  14. X 5.6.15. Commentators on this canon seem to have felt compelled to justify its provisions and offered numerous analogies in support of the policy. See, e.g., Johannes Teutonicus,Apparatus to 4 Lateran Council c. 68 v.diuersitas; likewise Vincentius Hispanus,Apparatus to the same passage and to v.habitus, inConstitutiones concilii quarti Lateranensis una cum commentariis glossatorum, ed. António García y García, MIC, Corpus glossatorum, vol. 2 (Citta del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1981), 267–68, 378–79; Geoffrey of Trani,Summa super titulis to X 5.6, ed. cit., 412–13; Hostiensis,Summa aurea, lib. 5, tit. 10 De Iudeis § 5, ed. cit. fol. 126rb. Jewish acculturation varied considerably from one region to another. Jews in Italy, for example, were so thoroughly integrated that they were difficult to distinguish from their Christian neighbors; this state of affairs startled and shocked Jewish travellers from Germany, where differences were much more marked: Diane Owen Hughes, “Distinguishing Signs,” 16–17. In practice, local rulers often included exemption from the badge requirement among the privileges they granted to the Jews within their regions;Sulla condizione degli Ebrei in Perugia dal XIII al XVII secolo, ed. Ariodante Fabretti (Torino: privately printed, 1891), 28–32; Shlomo Simonsohn, “Alcune note sugli ebrei a Parma nel '400,” inStudi sull'ebraismo italiano in memoria di Cecil Roth, ed. Elio Toaff (Roma: Barulli, 1974), 234–35, andThe Jews in the Duchy of Milan, 3 vols. (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1982), 1:44 (No. 51), 98–99 (No. 168–69), 114–15 (No. 211), 187 (No. 402), etc. On the other hand, town councils, often under the influence of Franciscan preachers who purveyed a virulent brand of anti-Jewish propaganda, sometimes balked at allowing Jews to walk the streets unmarked; e.g., Simonsohn,Jews in Milan 1:17 (No. 19), 54 (No. 65), 57 (No. 72), 80 (No. 117), 101 (No. 175), 197–98 (No. 415), 218 (No. 415), 218 (No. 459). On Franciscan anti-Semitism see esp. Jeremy Cohen,The Friars and the Jews: The Evolution of Medieval Anti-Semitism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1982); cf. Robert I. Burns, “Anti-Semitism and Anti-Judaism in Christian History: A Revisionist Thesis,”Catholic Historical Review 70 (1984): 90–93. For illustrations of the Jewish badge see Thérèse Metzger and Mendel Metzger,Jewish Life in the Middle Ages: Illuminated Hebrew Manuscripts of the Thirteenth to the Sixteenth Centuries (New York: Alpine, 1982), pl. 195, 199.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Islamic law required Christians and adherents of other protected religions (dhimmis) to wear distinguishing badges when they lived under Muslim rule; Gustave E. von Grunebaum,Medieval Islam: A Study in Cultural Orientation, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953; reprint, 1961), 179; see also Jesus Lalinde Abadia, “La indumentaria como simbolo de la discriminacion social,”Anuario de historia del derecho espanol 53 (1983): 583–601 at 597–99. 4 Lateran c. 68 said nothing of this, although the canon referred in passing to the Mosaic regulations about clothing, which were irrelevant to the practices at issue; Lev. 19:19; Deut. 22:5, 11.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hostiensis,Summa aurea, lib. 5, tit. 10 De Iudeis § 3, ed. cit., fol. 236ra: “Licet ergo propria culpa iudeos seruituti subiecerit, ipsos tamen tolerat pietas christiana, sed ipsi ingrati pro gratia reddunt contumelia, pro familiaritate contemptum, impendentes nobis illam retributionem quam iuxta uulgare prouerbium, mus in pera, serpens in gremio, ignis in sinu suis conueuerunt hospitibus exhibere, xiii. q. ii. His ita [fortasse C. 23 q. 4 d.p.c. 16?]. Nam sunt quedam que quod nephandum est dicere nutrices christianas habentes non permittunt lactare filios cum corpus christi sumpserunt, nisi primo per triduum lac effuderint in latrinam quasi intelligunt quod corpus christi incorporetur et ad secessum descendat.” On Hostiensis see Elisabeth Vodola, “Hostiensis,” in DMA 6:298–99, and the literature cited therein.

  17. Johannes Teutonicus,Glos. ord. to C. 11 q. 3 c. 24 v.permittimus: “[T]amen iudaei quia non multum curarent, licet eos vitaremus⋯.” Thirteenth-century writers also described the relationship between Christians and Jews in harsh terms, and spoke of the subjection of Jews to Christian rule, rather than simply avoidance of contact, as the policy goal. Thus, e.g., St. Thomas Aquinas,Summa theologica 2-2.10.11 and 12. ad 3; Humbert of Romans,Opusculum tripartitum 1.15, inFasciculum rerum expetendarum et fugiendarum, ed. Edward Brown, 2 vols. (London: R. Chiswell, 1690), 2:195: “Iterum Judaei sic dejecti sunt, quod sunt in nostra potestate et servi nostri, et nos infestare non possunt, sicut faciunt Saraceni.”

  18. Raymond of Penyafort,Summa de pen. 1.4.3, ed. Ochoa-Diez, col. 311; Geoffrey of Trani,Summa super titulis to X 5.6, ed. cit. p. 412; Johannes Teutonicus,Glos. ord. to C. 28 q. 1 c. 13 v.percipiat.

  19. X 5.6.13; Bernard of Pavia,Summa decretalium 5.5.4, ed. Laspeyres, 211; Johannes Teutonicus,Apparatus to 3 Comp. 5.3.1 v.nutrices, in Kenneth J. Pennington, “A Study of Johannes Teutonicus' Theories of Church Government and of the Relationship Between Church and State, With an Edition of His Apparatus to Compilatio Tertia,” Ph.D. diss. Cornell University, 1972, 678. The first volume of Pennington's edition of theApparatus to 3 Comp. appeared as MIC, Corpus glossatorum, vol. 3, in 1981, but the section dealing with book 5 has not yet been published.

  20. C. 28 q. 1 c. 14, as well asSumma Parisiensis to C. 11 q. 3 c. 24 pr., ed. Terence P. McLaughlin (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1952), 151; Bernard of Pavia,Summa decretalium 5.5.4, ed. Laspeyres, 211; Johannes Teutonicus,Glos. ord. to C. 11 q. 3 c. 24 v.permittimus and C. 23 q. 8 c. 11 v.persequuntur; Hostiensis,Summa aurea, lib. 5 tit. 10 De Iudeis § 5, ed. cit., fol. 236rb. This prohibition seemed peculiar, since most authorities held that it was permissible to eat in the company of Saracens or pagans. Raymond of Penyafort explained that the basis for the distinction lay in Christian pride — Jews who observed the dietary laws deemed food prepared by Christians unclean; hence honor demanded that in retaliation Christians abstain from Jewish food;Summa de pen. 1.4.3, ed. Ochoa-Diez, col. 310–11; Geoffrey of Trani,Summa super titulis to X 5.6, ed. cit., 412, copies Penyafort almost verbatim.

  21. Johannes Teutonicus,Glos. ord. to C. 28 q. 1 c. 14 v.Iudeorum: “Sed quare loquimur cum eis, cum nec comedamus cum eis? Sed hec redditur ratio, quia maior familiaritas est in cibo summendo quam in colloquio; facilius quis decipitur inter epulas, ut 22 q. 4 Unusquisque [c. 8].”

  22. Thus theSumma “Prima primi” to C. 28 pr., in the British Museum, MS Royal 11.D.II, fol. 331rb: “Hic primo probat Gratianus quod inter infideles non est matrimonium, postea contrarium. Et certum est quod inter eos est matrimonium.” See also C. 28 q. 1 d.p.c. 4 and Rolandus,Summa to C. 28 q. 1 c. 1, ed. Friedrich Thaner (Innsbruck: Wagner, 1874), 134; Robert of Flamborough,Liber poenitentialis 2.36, ed. J.J. Francis Firth (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1971; Studies and Texts, vol. 18), 77. For Innocent III's view see X 4.14.4, as well as Raymond of Penyafort,Summa de matrimonio 10.1, ed. Javier Ochoa and Aloisio Diez (Roma: Commentarium pro religiosis, 1978), col. 951–52; Innocent IV,Apparatus to X 4.14.4 v.eos, fol. 475rb; Hostiensis,Summa aurea, lib. 5 tit. 10 De Iudeis § 3, ed. cit., fol. 235vb; Azo,Summa Codicis 1.9, ed. cit., 7. On Innocent III see particularly Kenneth Pennington, “The Legal Education of Pope Innocent III,”BMCL 4 (1974):70–77, as well as S. C. Ferruolo, “Innocent III,” inDMA 6:464–65.

    Google Scholar 

  23. X 4.19.8. The emperors Valentinian and Theodosius in Cod. 1.9.7 had forbidden Jews to follow the Mosaic law dealing with consanguineous marriage, or even to marry according to their own customary rites, a ruling with which medieval civilians were, of course, familiar; see Accursius,Glos. ord. to Cod. 1.9.7 v.legem. The Accursian gloss is cited throughout from theCorpus iuris civilis, 5 vols. (Lyon: Apud Iuntas, 1584).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Tancred,Apparatus to 3 Comp. 4.10.1 [= X 4.14.4] v.non separet, in Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, MS 28/17, 289a, followed closely by Johannes Teutonicus,Apparatus to 3 Comp. 4.10.1 v.non separet, ed. Pennington, 620–21, andGlos. ord. to X 4.14.4 v.esse matrimonium inter eos; Innocent IV,Apparatus to X 4.14.4 v.eos, ed. cit., fol. 475rb, said much the same thing; see also Colorni,Legge ebraica, 188. In practice, Christian authorities occasionally brought bigamy charges against Jews who divorced and subsequently remarried; Colorni,Legge ebraica, 191. On Tancred see generally L. Chevailler, “Tancredus,” inDDC 7:1146–65.

  25. Accursius,Glos. ord. to Cod. 1.9.7 v.diuersa; Colorni,Legge ebraica, 194, cites two late cases in which Christian authorities permitted Jews to practice polygyny. On Accursius see generally P. Fiorelli, “Accorso,” inDizionario biografico degli Italiani, ed. Alberto M. Ghisalberti (Roma: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 1960-), 1:116–21, and Erich Genzmer, “Zur Lebensgeschichte des Accursius,” inFestschrift für L. Wenger (München: C. H. Beck, 1944–45; Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung, vol. 34–35), 2:223–41.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Rolandus,Summa to C. 28 q. 1 c. 10, ed. Thaner, 140. On Rolandus see especially John T. Noonan, Jr., “Who Was Rolandus?” inLaw, Church, and Society: Essays in Honor of Stephan Kuttner, ed. Kenneth Pennington and Robert Somerville (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1977), 21–48, and Rudolf Weigand, “Magister Rolandus und Papst Alexander III.,”Archiv für katholisches kirchenrecht 149 (1980):3–44.

    Google Scholar 

  27. C. 28 q. 1 c. 10, 15–16; Rolandus,Summa to C. 28 q. 1 c. 15, ed. Thaner, 140; Bernard of Pavia,Summa de matrimonio, ed. Laspeyres (published as an appendix to Bernard'sSumma decretalium), 291; Robert of Flamborough,Liber poenitentialis 2.35, ed. Firth, 76–77. For Huguccio's opinion see Pakter, “De his qui foris sunt,” 526, n. 1, and 531, n. 96, as well as the general discussion of the issue, 262–65. Thirteenth-century canonists accepted without question the rule thatdisparitas cultus created what they termed an impedient impediment to marriage; Hostiensis,Summa aurea, lib. 5 tit. 10 De Iudeis § 3, ed. cit., fol. 235vb; see also the passages cited in n. 2 above. Roman law from the late fourth century forbade intermarriage between Christians and Jews under pain of death (Cod. 1.9.6), as medieval civilians noted with approval; Azo,Summa Codicis 1.9, cit., 7. But by the late twelfth century, as theSumma “Omnis qui iuste” remarked, canon law, not civil law, governed marriage; quoted in Pakter, “De his qui foris sunt,” 267 and n. 38.

  28. C. 28 q. 1 c. 17; Rufinus,Summa to C. 28 pr., ed. Singer, 452–53, followed verbatim by Joannes Faventinus, according to Cantelar Rodriguez,El matrimonio de herejes, 67; see also Rufinus to C. 28 q. 1 c. 16, ed. Singer, 458. Civilian writers likewise noted this rule; see Accursius,Glos. ord. to Cod. 1.9.5 v.Christianam. On the complex regulations concerning social segregation of excommunicates see Elisabeth Vodola,Excommunication in the Middle Ages (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1986), 44–69.

    Google Scholar 

  29. See the articles “Marriage” and “Mixed Marriage” in theEncyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem 1971), and their many references to the Talmud and Jewish Legal Codes.

  30. Thus in theRegulae iuris “Ad Decus”, J. 162, ed. Guido Kisch, inJewry-Law in Medieval Germany, 128; for a vivid discussion of an actual case see Maitland, “The Deacon and the Jewess.”

  31. Rufinus,Summa to C. 28 q. 1 c. 16, ed. Singer, 458; Raymond of Penyafort,Summa de matrimonio 10.1, ed. Ochoa-Diez, col. 951; Alanus Anglicus,Apparatus “Ius naturale” to C. 28 q. 1 c. 15, quoted in Cantelar Rodriguez,El matrimonio de herejes, 139–40.

  32. 1 Cor. 7:10–16.

  33. John T. Noonan, Jr.,Power to Dissolve: Lawyers and Marriages in the Courts of the Roman Curia (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1972), 342–43.

    Google Scholar 

  34. St. Augustine,De sermone Domini in monte 1.16.44–48, ed. A. Mutzenbecher inCorpus Christianorum, Series Latina (hereafter cited as CCL), 35:50–54.

  35. Ambrosiaster,Commentarius in epistolas paulinas to 1 Cor. 7:15, ed. Heinrich Vogels, 3 vols. (Wien: Hoeller-Pichler-Tempsky, 1966–69; Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum, vol. 81), 2:76–77.

    Google Scholar 

  36. C. 28 q. 2 d.p.c. 2.

  37. E.g., Rolandus,Summa to C. 28 q. 1 pr., ed. Thaner, 133–34; Rufinus,Summa to C. 28 q. 2, ed. Singer, 458; Stephen of Tournai,Summa to C. 28 q. 2, ed. Johann Friedrich von Schulte (Giessen: Emil Roth, 1891; reprint, Aalen: Scientia, 1965), 238–39.

  38. Robert of Flamborough,Liber penitentialis 2.36, ed. Firth, 77.

  39. Johannes Teutonicus,Glos. ord. to C.28 q. 1 c. 10 v.Iudei: “Vel dic quod aliud est si uir conuertitur ad fidem et aliud si mulier. Nam si mulier conuertitur, ipsa debet recedere a uiro, ne uir eam reuocet ad priorem errorem. Secus est si uir conuertitur, quia facilius possunt uiro reuocare mulieres, quam econuerso, nam uir caput eius est, 33 q. 5 Cum caput [c. 15].”

  40. X 4.19.7Quanto te; Noonan,Power to Dissolve, 344–46.

  41. X 3.33.1.

  42. E.g., Geoffrey of Trani,Summa super titulis to X 3.33, ed. cit., 306–307; Bernard of Parma,Glos. ord. to X 4.19.7 v.predecessor: “Scilicet Celestinus, dictum cuius habuisti supra de conuer. infid., Laudabilem [X 3.33.1], et male dixit Celestinus.” On this controversy see Rudolf Weigand, “Unauflösigkeit der Ehe und Eheauflösungen durch Päpste im 12. Jahrhundert,”Revue de droit canonique 20 (1970):44–64.

    Google Scholar 

  43. X 4.19.7. Ancient Jewish law made similar provisions;Mishnah, Ketuboth 7.6, Gittin 9.10, trans. Herbert Danby (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933; reprint, 1977), 255, 321. For a fifteenth-century case see Simonsohn,Jews in Milan 1:19 (No. 23).

  44. E.g., Geoffrey of Trani,Summa super titulis to X 4.19 §6–7, ed. cit. 385–86; Bernard of Parma,Glos. ord. to X 4.19.7 v.ratum; Raymond of Penyafort,Summa de matrimonio 10.5, 22.2 ed. Ochoa-Diez, col. 954–55, 986–87. Raymond of Penyafort noted that some older writers distinguished between converts from Judaism and those from other non-Christian groups. A Christian convert from Judaism should not remain with the unbaptized spouse, according to these writers, even if the unconverted partner wished to keep the marriage intact, but converts from other religions might remain with their unbaptized spouses if this would not jeopardize their new faith. Raymond added, however, that nowadays (hodie) converts from Judaism were treated no differently than those from other religions;Summa de matrimonio 10.1, 4 ed. Ochoa-Diez, col. 951–54.

  45. Noonan,Power to Dissolve, 354–92; Robert J. Smith, “The Status of Mixed Marriages in the Corinthian Community,” inMarriage Studies: Reflections in Canon Law and Theology, ed. Thomas P. Doyle (Washington, D.C.: Canon Law Society of America, 1980-; 3 vols. to date), 3:46–53.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Council of Elvira c. 78, inConcilios Visigóticos e Hispano-Romanos, ed. José Vives, Tomás Marín Martínez, and Gonzalo Martínez Díez (Barcelona-Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificos, 1963; Espana cristiana, vol. 1), 15. Nearly half of the Elvira canons dealt with sexual matters and a substantial number also touched upon Christian-Jewish relations; for a topical analysis of the canons, see Samuel Laeuchli,Power and Sexuality: The Emergence of Canon Law at the Synod of Elvira (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1972), 61, table 4. On the complex history of these canons see also Maurice Meigne, “Concile ou collection d'Elvire?”Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique 70 (1975): 361–87. See, in addition, Marcus,Jew in the Medieval World, 102, and Blumenkranz,Juifs et Chretiens, 322–23.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Rolandus,Summa to C. 28 q. 1 c. 15 v.Si Christiana, ed. Thaner, 141; Stephen of Tournai,Summa to D. 32 c. 15, ed. Schulte, 50; Hostiensis,Summa aurea, lib. 5, tit. 10 De Iudeis § 5, ed. cit., fol. 236rb; Robert of Flamborough,Liber poenitentialis 4.225, 5.284, ed. Firth, 197, 236. Joannes Andreae was one of the few who noticed this lacuna in the law; seeGlos. ord. to Clem. 4.1.1 v.eos qui; the civilian, Oldradus da Ponte, was another; Pakter, “De his qui foris sunt,” 275–76, 534–35 n. 106.

  48. 4 Lateran Council (1215) c. 68, ed. Garcia, 107: “In nonnullis prouinciis a christianis Iudeos seu Saracenos habitus distinguit diuersitas, set in quibusdam sic quedam inoleuit confusio ut nulla differentia discernantur. Vnde contigit interdum quod per errorem christiani Iudeorum seu Saracenorum et Iudei seu Saraceni christianorum mulieribus commiscentur. Ne igitur tam dampnate commixtionis excessus, per uelamentum erroris huiusmodi, excusationis ulterius possit habere diffugium, statuimus ut tales utriusque sexus, in omni christianorum prouincia et omni tempore, qualitate habitus publice ab aliis populis distinguantur, cum et per Moysen hoc ipsum eis legatur iniunctum.” Pakter, “De his qui foris sunt,” 271–74, rejects this rationale, however, and concludes that the purpose of the badge was not really to prevent sexual relations, but rather to isolate and humiliate Jews. Allan Cutler, “Innocent III and the Distinctive Clothing of Jews and Muslims,”Studies in Medieval Culture 3 (1970):92–116, based similar conclusions on rather less persuasive arguments.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Perugia,Statuta 3.91 [1400 C.E.] (Perugia: In aedibus H. F. Chartularii, 1523–28), vol. 3, fol. 35ra; Modena,Statuta 3.63 (Modena: Excudebat I. de Nicolis, 1547), fol 80r; Niccolo Soranzo, gloss to Hostiensis,Summa aurea, lib. 5, tit. 10 De Iudeis § 5, ed. cit., fol. 236rb;Regulae iuris “Ad Decus” J. 163, ed. Kisch, 129; Blumenkranz,Juifs et chrétiens, 323; Pakter, “De his qui foris sunt,” 274. Some authorities equated sexual relations between a Christian and a Jew with sodomy or bestiality, according to Trachtenberg,The Devil and the Jews, 187. In the Holy Land, the Council of Nablus (1120) c. 12, 17–18, decreed similar penalties for sexual contacts between Christians and Muslims;Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, ed. Giovanni Domenico Mansi, rev. ed., 53 vols. (Paris: H. Welter, 1900–27), 21:264; see also my study — “Prostitution, Miscegenation and Sexual Purity in the First Crusade,” inCrusade and Settlement, ed. Peter W. Edbury (Cardiff: University College Press, 1985), esp. 59–61.

  50. Thus, e.g., Simonsohn,Jews in Milan, 1:19–20 (No. 24), 86–87 (No. 135–36), 142 (No. 275), 229–30 (No. 486), and “Alcune note,” 235–36, as well as the case described in Maitland's “Deacon and Jewess.” Oldradus, who argued that severe penalties for this offense were unwarranted by law, added that on this point he had been overruled and had personally witnessed the castration at the papal palace in Avignon of a Jew named Pandonus for sleeping with a Christian woman; quoted in Pakter, “De his qui foris sunt,” 534–35 n. 106.

  51. See esp. the classic study by Jacob Katz,Exclusiveness and Tolerance: Jewish-Gentile Relations in Medieval and Modern Times (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961; reprint, New York: Schocken Books, 1962). In 1268 Pope Clement IV instructed inquisitors to hunt down and punish Christians who apostasized to Judaism, as well as Jewish proselytizers; Muldoon,Popes, Lawyers, and Infidels, 50.

    Google Scholar 

  52. James A. Brundage, “‘Allas! That Evere Love Was Synne’: Sex and Medieval Canon Law,”Catholic Historical Review 72 (1986):1–13, and in greater detail inLaw, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, forthcoming).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Sicard of Cremona,Summa to C. 28 pr., quoted from Cordoba, Biblioteca del Cabildo, MS 137, fol. 66ra, by Cantelar Rodriguez,El matrimonio de herejes, 79; also Stephen of Tournai,Summa to D. 32 c. 15, ed. Schulte, 50. On Sicard see Stephan Kuttner, “Zur Biographie des Sicardus von Cremona,”Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, kanonistische Abteilung 25 (1936):476–78.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Summa“Elegantius in iure diuino” seu Coloniensis 2.136, ed. Fransen-Kuttner 1:108.

  55. Hostiensis,Summa aurea, lib. 5, tit. 10 De Iudeis § 3, ed. cit., fol. 236ra.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, USA

    James A. Brundage

Authors
  1. James A. Brundage
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brundage, J.A. Intermarriage between Christians and Jews in medieval canon law. Jewish History 3, 25–40 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01667346

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01667346

Search

Navigation