A.D. 740-980.
THE JEWS UNDER CHARLEMAGNE.
The Mahometan invaders of Spain having accomplished the conquest of
that country, again turned their arms northwards, and passed the
Pyrenees, but only to encounter, on the plains of Tours, decisive
and disastrous defeat.[95] We learn that the Jews were suspected of
having invited, or at least encouraged, the attempt. To repeat the
remark made in a previous chapter—when we call to mind the treatment
they had received at the hands of some of the Frankish kings, and
contrast it with the toleration exhibited by the Moslem conquerors
of Spain, such an accusation does not seem to us a very improbable
one, though no certain evidence of it has been produced. Similarly,
some sixty years afterwards,[96] when the Moors again burst into
Aquitaine, and were repelled by the Count of Toulouse, the Jews
are charged with having betrayed that city into the hands of the
invaders. After the retreat of the enemy, and recapture of the town,
it is said that the emperor had resolved to punish severely the
treachery of the Jewish conspirators, but was persuaded to limit the
retribution he exacted to their leaders. Basnage disputes altogether
the accuracy of the allegation. But some truth in the story there
must be. It is an unquestioned fact that for a considerable period
after the Saracen irruption—as late indeed as the twelfth century—it
was the custom at Toulouse for a Jew, acting as the representative of
the whole of his co-religionists in the city, to appear three times
in every year at the gate of one of the churches in Toulouse, and
there receive a box (or, as some report, three boxes) on the ear,[97]
and at the same time pay over a fine in the shape of thirteen pounds
of wax. It would be difficult to understand what could have been the
origin of a custom like this,—which reminds us of the penalty imposed
on the citizens of Oxford, for their alleged participation in the
bloodshed of St. Scholastica’s day, and which was exacted up to the
commencement of the present century,—unless it was the story of their
betrayal of the city, as above related.
But if Charlemagne was cognisant of the disaffection of his Jewish
subjects, he took the wisest, and, as the sequel proved, the most
effectual mode of curing the evil. A study of this great man’s life
will convince us that he regarded his sovereignty, not merely as
a trust committed to him by the Divine Ruler of the Universe—for
that many sovereigns have done—but as a trust held on behalf of the
Catholic Church of Christ, which was, in his view, identical with
the State.[98] It followed therefore that, in his eyes, whosoever
refused obedience to the Church was a rebel to the State; and
the Jews, according to this view of the matter, must be the most
inveterate of all rebels. It is creditable to him, therefore, that
he not only abstained from religious persecution, but awarded the
most even-handed justice to his Hebrew subjects. He required of them
no more than simple obedience to the laws of the land in matters
which did not put any constraint on the conscience. Thus, in the
instance of nuptial contracts, he did not allow them to marry within
the degree prohibited to his other subjects, nor to dispose of
their property after a manner contrary to his laws. But these are
requirements to which citizens of any country might be reasonably
expected to conform. So again, the edicts which forbade them to keep
Christian slaves, or to purchase or keep in pawn the sacerdotal
vestments, or the sacred vessels used in churches, were obviously
made, not for the injury of the Jews, but for the benefit of the
Christian community. Had such practices indeed been permitted, they
could have had no other effect than that of exciting prejudice and
disgust against the Jews. But there was no restriction imposed on
their commerce, no special fines levied on their effects. They dwelt
in ease and luxury, in houses as handsome and well furnished as their
inclination prompted and their purses would allow. The most splendid
quarter in the rich town of Lyons was that inhabited by the Jews. In
Narbonne, of the two prefects of the city, one was always a Jew.
The same state of things continued through the reign of the son and
successor of Charlemagne, Louis le Debonnaire. At his court we are
told the Jews possessed so much influence, that nobles and envoys
of foreign princes paid court to them, and offered bribes to secure
their favour. An officer known as the ‘Master of the Jews,’ whose
business it was to take special care of their interests, resided in
the precincts of the palace. They were permitted to enjoy, not only
all rights possessed by their Christian fellow-subjects, but even
more. The day on which markets were wont to be held, if it chanced
to be a Saturday, was sometimes altered for their convenience.
Charters are still extant, in which special privileges, such as
exemptions from tolls and taxes, or permission to hire Christian
slaves, are granted to Jews. In criminal and civil actions, their
rights were as much respected, their evidence was accounted as good,
as that of the other citizens of the country. Their lives were
protected by a heavy penalty imposed on any one who slew them. They
were exempted from ordeal by fire or water. Their slaves could not
be baptized without their consent. They were free to build their
synagogues where they pleased, and carry on their peculiar form of
worship within them.
A condition of things like this could hardly fail, sooner or later,
to provoke the anger and jealousy of the clergy. Agobard, Bishop
of Lyons, saw with indignation the growth of their wealth and
importance. It was not only that the ports were crowded with their
merchantmen, the quays piled with their bales, the streets thronged
with their slaves; that while Christian men walked afoot, clad in
mean apparel, and lodged in humble cottages, the Jew reclined in his
chariot arrayed in gorgeous attire, or feasted in a splendid palace.
This might be borne. But their synagogues vied in magnificence with
the stateliest Christian churches, and their preachers drew away
crowds who ought to worship at Catholic altars. It was even said that
they sold Christians as slaves to the Moors. Agobard exerted his
episcopal power to remedy the mischief, so far as he was able. He
forbade under pain of spiritual censure, his flock to sell Christian
slaves to the Jews,[99] or to work for them on Sundays or holidays,
or to buy wine of them, or deal with them at all during the season of
Lent.
It is a marked sign of the times, that the Jews ventured to appeal to
the king against this exercise of the bishop’s authority. Louis sent
three commissioners to Lyons to inquire into the matter, who decided
against the bishop. Mortified and astonished, he preferred fresh
charges against the Jews, and when these also failed of their effect,
himself repaired to Paris, and demanded a personal interview with the
emperor; it was all in vain. He was refused an audience, informed
that the emperor had dismissed his appeal, and was ordered to return
to his diocese! We can hardly believe that this took place in a
country which, two centuries before, had seen Jews forcibly dragged
to the font for baptism, and, three centuries afterwards, witnessed
their forcible expulsion from the country, for no other offence than
that of their national existence.
Under Louis’s successor, Charles the Bald, the Jews still continued
to enjoy immunity from the persecution; but signs were not wanting
that this state of things was not long to endure. Remegius, Bishop
of Lyons, following up with more success the efforts of Agobard,
caused—we are not told by what means—so many Jewish boys and girls
to be brought to baptism, that the parents were fain to send their
children to be educated in Arles and other cities. Following up
his advantage, Remegius petitioned the emperor that the Bishop of
Arles might be admonished to pursue the same course as himself. It
would appear that Charles granted this request, for we are informed
that great numbers of Jewish children were now baptized. Not long
afterwards he is said to have been poisoned by his Jewish physician,
Zedekias, who was believed to have been incited to the murder by
his countrymen. Whether this is true or not must be regarded as a
doubtful matter. It was certainly a most fatal as well as a most
wicked policy, if it was really adopted. The effect of the death of
Charles was to break up the existing authority in France. The strong
hand which upheld the law was withdrawn. Disorder and anarchy ensued,
from which none suffered so much as the Jews. Popular rumours accused
them of secretly abetting the inroads of the Normans, from which the
country now began seriously to suffer. It was urged that when the
invaders overran districts and sacked cities, the Jews alone escaped
injury. This was possibly due to the same causes which had exempted
them from suffering during the incursions of the Goths and Huns and
other Northern nations, and which have been adverted to in a previous
chapter. But, however that may be, it was believed that they were
secretly in league with the Northmen, and they became in consequence
everywhere the objects of popular execration and attack. At Beziers,
in Languedoc, it became the practice every year to drive them about
with volleys of stone, from Palm Sunday to Tuesday in Easter Week.
During the feeble reigns of Louis II., III., and IV., Lothair,
Charles II., and III., scarcely any mention is made of them. But what
little is told goes to prove that their position was continually
growing worse. As the power of the kings diminished, the protection
they were able to extend to the Jews diminished also. The great
feudatories dealt with them as they pleased, disregarding the royal
authority, or employing it for the oppression of the Jews. During
the reign of Charles III., called the Simple, we find the Archbishop
of Narbonne demanding (A.D. 897) and obtaining from the king a grant
of all the landed property in the possession of the Jews throughout
his diocese. Whether this was the effect of an act forbidding the
Jews to hold landed property, or mere lawless pillage, makes little
difference. Similarly, in 889, the Archbishop of Sens, without any
cause assigned or reference to the royal authority, expels the whole
of the Jews from the bounds of his episcopate.
In Spain, however, the interval of peace and goodwill lasted long
beyond the times of which we are now writing. From the foundation of
the Moorish kingdom of Cordova by Abderachman I., A.D. 755, to the
close of the tenth century, whatever civilization and learning still
existed in Europe found its most congenial home in his dominions.
Under him and his successors, the Jews appear to have enjoyed, not
only the impartial protection of the laws, but free participation in
all public offices and distinctions. They were eminent as ministers
of state, ambassadors, and financiers. Under him and his successors,
the schools at Toledo, Granada, and Cordova became famous throughout
the world, and it was said that there was not a Jew to be found
through the whole of Spain who could not read his Bible.
Hitherto the great centres of learning had been in the East, and
the most promising scholars, even from Spain itself, had resorted
thither. But the Persian Caliphate had, for a century or two,
been undergoing a gradual but total change. The sovereigns were
enervated by ease and luxury; usurpers rent away large portions of
their dominions; and the great Emirs grew ever more independent,
grasping at last nearly the whole power of the Crown. It was probably
these new rulers who set on foot the persecution of their Jewish
fellow-subjects. Indifferent as Omar himself could have been to the
high repute which the Oriental Academies had attained, they shut
up the Jewish Colleges, exiled their learned doctors, and in fine,
A.D. 980, drove the Jews altogether from Babylon. Four of the most
renowned of the Rabbins were captured, on their outward voyage, by
one of the corsairs belonging to the Caliph of Cordova, whom he
had sent to cruise in the Greek Archipelago. These four were Rabbi
Shemariah, Rabbi Hoshiel, Rabbi Moses, and his son, Rabbi Hanoch.
The fate of these four was remarkable. Utterly ignorant of the
high value which men of culture and refinement would set upon his
prisoners, the corsair sold Shemariah at Alexandria, and the slave
rose to be the chief man among the Alexandrian Jews. Rabbi Hoshiel
he similarly disposed of to a purchaser on the coast of Africa; and
Hoshiel was thence conveyed to Alkihoran, where he attained the rank
of Chief Rabbi. Rabbi Moses and his son he conveyed to Cordova. It
chanced that the wife of the former was a beautiful woman, and the
brutal corsair, captivated by her charms, assailed her with his
importunities. Finding herself wholly in his power, she inquired
of her husband whether, at the Day of Judgment, the sea would give
up its dead. He answered her from the 68th Psalm, ‘The Lord said,
Mine own will I bring again from Bashan, I will bring again from the
depths of the sea;’ on receiving which reply, seeing no other way
of escaping violence, she plunged into the sea and was drowned. A
similar tale is told of Esther Cohen in the sixteenth century.
On the arrival of the captives at Cordova, the two Rabbins were
ransomed by their countrymen, though the latter knew nothing of
their ability and learning. Their condition was so miserable that
they had no clothes, but only some rags of sackcloth to cover their
nakedness. In this sordid guise they entered the schools, over which
Rabbi Nathan presided. The discussion in progress was on the subject
of the Day of Atonement. Rabbi Moses took part in it, and expounded
it with such learning and clearness that Rabbi Nathan rose from his
seat and said, ‘The stranger in sackcloth is my master, and I am his
pupil. Make ye him judge of the Congregation of Cordova.’ All present
assented. Riches and honours became immediately his portion, and he
allied himself with one of the wealthiest families in Cordova. The
captain of the vessel, learning the value of the captive, for whom he
asked no more than the ordinary price of a slave, wished to cancel
the sale; but when the matter was referred to the Caliph, he would
not allow it. By one of the disciples of Moses, Rabbi Joseph, the
Talmud was translated into Arabic, and gained the translator great
repute, though he was afterwards disgraced and driven into exile.
Rabbi Hanoch, the fourth of the captives, succeeded to his father’s
office at his death. By him the fame of the College of Cordova was
raised to the highest pitch it attained.
The decay of the Babylonian schools had been in progress throughout
the tenth century, learning and ability alike, as the reader has
heard, being transferred to the flourishing Rabbinical establishment
in Cordova. The quarrels between David ben Zacchai, the Prince of the
Captivity, and the celebrated Saadi ben Joseph, the Geon, did much
towards bringing this about. There was a temporary rally, when the
renowned Scherira, and after him, his scarcely less distinguished
son, Hai, held the office of Geon. But the former was deposed and
put to death by the Caliph Ahmed Kader; and though Hai escaped and
transferred his office to Hiskiah, the great-grandson of David
Zacchai, yet the respite was for two years only. At the end of that
time the Caliph Abdalla deposed Hiskiah, and finally closed the
schools. With Hiskiah, A.D. 1038, the line of the Resch Glutha is
generally considered to have become extinct.
FOOTNOTES:
[95] At the hands of Charles Martel, A.D. 732.
[96] A.D. 793. It is likely that the Jews of Beziers were charged at
the same time, or possibly a few years later, with a similar offence.
(See p. 27.)
[97] Hallam (‘Middle Ages,’ vol. ii. p. 225) quotes from a French
historian that it was the custom at Toulouse, at this time, to give
_every_ Jew a blow on the face on Easter Day, and that this was
commuted for a fine some time in the 12th century. This is plainly
the same story, with some variations.
[98] The theocracy of the Old Testament, where the religious and
civil ruler were one and the same, and which probably was the
primitive form of government (Gen. xiv. 18), was the model which
Charlemagne considered all rulers ought to follow.
[99] It would appear from this, that the law prevalent in the last
reign forbidding Jews to hold Christian slaves, had been relaxed.