Under Charles the Bald, as under his predecessor, the Jews enjoyed equal rights with the Christians. They were allowed to carry on their business unhindered, and also to possess landed property. Some of them controlled the tolls. But they had implacable enemies among the higher clergy. They had angered the dignitaries of the Church too much by their humiliation of Agobard, and the clergy, though they spoke constantly of love and kindness, would not allow the Jews to enjoy their advantages.
The bitterest enemy of the Jews was Agobard's disciple and successor, Bishop Amolo of Lyons. He had imbibed hatred of the Jews from his master; and he was not alone in this, for Hinkmar, the bishop of Rheims, a favorite of Emperor Charles, the archbishop of Sens, the archbishop of Bourges, and others of the clergy shared his anti-Jewish sentiments. At a council held by these prelates at Meaux (not far from Paris) in 845, for the purpose of exalting the spiritual power at the expense of the royal authority, and of repressing the riotous living of many clergymen, it was resolved to re-enact the old canonical laws and anti-Jewish restrictions, and to have them confirmed by Charles. The members of the council did not mark the limit of the revival of old restrictions, but on the list, similar to Agobard's, containing the spiteful ordinances from which the king was to select those to be enforced anew, were included some that dated from the time of the first Christian emperor Constantine. It also mentioned the decree of Emperor Theodosius II, according to which no Jew was allowed to occupy any office or position of honor. The decrees of the various councils and the edict of the Merovingian king Childebert, were also cited, by which the Jews were not permitted to occupy the positions of judges and farmers of taxes, nor show themselves on the streets during Easter week, and were required to pay the utmost respect to the clergy. They even cited synodal decrees which had been passed outside of France, and therefore had never been invested with the force of law, and also the inhuman Visigothic synod decrees, which had been directed more especially against baptized Jews who still clung to Judaism. The members of the council also mentioned the Visigothic synodal decrees, which prescribed that the children of converted Jews should be torn from their parents and placed amongst Christians. In conclusion, they laid stress upon the point that Jewish and Christian slave dealers should be compelled to sell heathen slaves within Christian territory, so that they might be converted to Christianity.
The prelates thought that they could cajole Charles into yielding to their wishes by representing to him that the Northmen's invasion was divine chastisement for his sinfulness. But Charles was not so humbled by state troubles as to allow laws to be dictated to him by a fanatic and ambitious clergy. Although his favorite, Hinkmar, took part in the council, he had the meeting dissolved. Later on, however, he summoned the members again for a new session, under his own supervision, at Paris (14 Feb., 846). The improvement of Church affairs was to be considered. They had to omit three quarters of the eighty decrees of the council of Meaux, amongst them the proposed anti-Jewish regulations. Thus neither under the Carlovingians nor under later rulers, was the degradation of the Jews in France decreed by law. Charles imposed upon the Jewish merchants a tax of eleven per cent. on the value of all merchandise sold, whilst the Christians had to pay only ten per cent.
Amolo and his colleagues could not forget the defeat they had suffered at the council of Meaux, where their plan to humble the Jews had been frustrated. Agobard's successor sent a letter to the spiritual authorities, reminding them that they ought to use their influence with the princes to deprive the Jews of all their privileges. Amolo's letter, full of virulence and calumny against the Jewish race, is a worthy appendix to Agobard's letter to Emperor Louis on the same subject. Much therein is borrowed from the latter. Towards the end of his letter, Amolo expresses his deep regret that the Jews in France were enjoying the rights of free speech, and that many Christians were well disposed toward them. The Jews were even allowed to have Christian servants to work in their houses and fields. He complains, too, that many Christians openly declare that the sermons of the Jewish preachers please them better than those of the Christian clergy, making it seem the fault of the Jews that the Christian clergy could not attract audiences. He also reproached the Jews with the fact that a noble Church official had gone over to Judaism, and now thoroughly hated Christianity. Amolo invited all the bishops of the country to do their utmost to re-introduce the old canonic restrictions against the Jews. He enumerated a number of anti-Jewish princes and councils that had insisted on the legal humiliation of the Jews, just as Agobard and the members of the council of Meaux had done before. Amolo, above all, reminded them of the pious Visigothic king, Sisebut, who had forced the Jews to adopt Christianity. "We dare not," ends his malignant letter, "either by our suavity, flattery, or defense, encourage the complacency of the Jews, who are accursed, and yet blind to their own damnation."
At the time, Amolo's virulent letter had as little effect as Agobard's letter and the decree of the council of Meaux. But gradually the poison spread from the clergy to the people and the princes. The division of France into small independent states, which refused allegiance to the king, was another unfavorable circumstance. Its effect was to leave the Jews at the mercy of the fanatical clergy and the tyranny of petty princes.
How malicious was the spirit animating the French clergy, can be judged from the fact that the successive bishops of Béziers were in the habit of preaching vehement sermons from Palm Sunday until Easter Monday, exhorting the Christians to avenge themselves on the Jews of the town, because they had crucified Jesus. The fanatical mob thus incited armed themselves with stones to attack the Jews. The mischief was repeated year after year for centuries. The Jews of Béziers often defended themselves, and on these occasions much damage was inflicted on both sides. The Jews of Toulouse, too, for a long time had to suffer numerous indignities. The counts of this town had the privilege of publicly giving the president of the Jewish community a box on the ears on Good Friday. This was no doubt meant as vengeance upon the Jews for Jesus' death; no doubt too in fulfilment of the precept, "Thou shalt love thine enemies." There is a story which tells of a chaplain called Hugh, who begged that he might be allowed to perform the office, and he dealt the victim so violent a blow, that he fell lifeless to the ground. Those who wished to find a justification for this barbarity alleged that the Jews on one occasion either had betrayed, or had intended to betray the town of Toulouse to the Mahometans. Later, the box on the ears was commuted to an annual money payment by the Jews. The great grandson of Louis the Pious, Louis II, son of Lothaire, was so influenced by the clergy, that as soon as he had the government of Italy in his own hands (855), he decreed that all the Italian Jews should quit the land where their ancestors had lived long before the arrival of the Germans and Longobards. No Jew should dare show himself after the 1st of October of that year. Any Jew that appeared in the street might be seized, and peremptorily handed over for punishment. Fortunately for the Jews this decree could not be carried out; for Italy was then divided into small districts, whose rulers, for the most part, refused obedience to the emperor of Italy. Mahometans made frequent irruptions into the land, and were often called in to help the Christian princes against each other, or against the king. This anarchy was the safeguard of the Jews, and the decree remained in abeyance.
Under Charles' successors, when the power of the king decreased greatly, and the bigotry of the princes increased, things came to such a pass that Charles the Simple granted all the lands and vineyards of the Jews in the Duchy of Narbonne to the Church, in order to show his great zeal for his religion (899–914). The French princes gradually accustomed themselves to think that the protection which the emperors Charles the Great and his son Louis had afforded the Jews, involved the inference that the wards and their property belonged absolutely to the guardian. This thought, at least, underlies the act by which the usurper Boso, king of Burgundy and Provence, who was greatly influenced by the clergy, presented the Jews as a gift to the Church, i. e., he considered them in every respect as his bondmen. This arbitrary treatment of the Jews came to an end only with the rule of the Capets.
Like their brethren in Western Europe, the Jews in the East, in the Byzantine dominion, had to suffer sad persecution. Despite forced baptism, and the oppression of the Emperor Leo the Isaurian, the Jews again spread over the whole Byzantine Empire, more especially over Asia Minor and Greece. Many Greek Jews occupied themselves with the cultivation of mulberry trees and with silk spinning. The Greek Jews in other respects were subject to all the restrictions imposed by the former rulers, and like the heathen and heretics, were not permitted to hold office. They were, however, granted religious freedom. Basilius, who ascended the throne in about 850, was comparatively a just and mild ruler. Yet he was resolved to bring the Jews over to Christianity. He therefore arranged that religious discussions should take place between Jewish and Christian clergymen, and decreed that the Jews should either prove by irrefutable arguments that their religion was the true one, or confess that "Jesus was the culmination of the Law and the Prophets."
Basilius, foreseeing that these discussions would probably lead to no results, promised appointments of honor to those who should prove themselves open to conversion. It is not known what punishment was inflicted on those unwilling to be converted, but they doubtless had to suffer severe persecution. Many Jews accepted or pretended to accept Christianity. Scarcely was Basilius dead (886), when they threw off the mask as they had done in Spain, France, and in other countries where they had been oppressed, and returned to the religion to which in reality they had never for a moment been unfaithful. But they had made a mistake. Basilius' son and successor, Leo the Philosopher—a title cheaply purchased in those times—excelled his father in intolerance. He decreed that those who had re-adopted the Jewish customs should be treated as apostates, that is, punished with death (about 900). Nevertheless, after the death of this emperor, the Jews returned to live in the Byzantine Empire, as they had done after the death of Leo the Isaurian.
In the lands of the Caliphate, especially in Babylonia (Irak), at that time the center of Jewish life, the Jews gradually lost the favorable position which they had hitherto enjoyed, although the intolerance of the Mahometan rulers was mild compared with that of the Christian princes. In the East, too, they were the prey of caprice, for the Caliphs resigned their power in favor of the vizirs, and thus deprived themselves of all power. The Caliphs after Al-Mamun became more and more the tools of ambitious and greedy ministers and generals, and the Oriental Jews frequently had to buy the favor of these ephemeral lords at a high price. The Caliph Al-Mutavakkil, Al-Mamun's third successor, renewed the laws of Omar against the Jews, Christians, and Magi, and compelled them to wear a characteristic dress, a yellow scarf over their dress, and a thick cord instead of a girdle. He, moreover, changed the synagogues and churches into mosques, and forbade the Mahometans to teach Jews and Christians, or to admit them to offices (849–856). A tenth part of their property had to be given to the Caliph; they were forbidden to ride upon horses, and were allowed to make use only of asses and mules (853–854). The Exilarchs had lost a part of their power, when Al-Mamun decreed that they should no longer be officially recognized and supported, and they lost still more through the fanaticism of Al-Mutavakkil. By and by they ceased to be officials of the state, invested with certain powers, and had to content themselves with the position which the Jewish communities gave them out of respect for old and dear memories.