Amulo
Amulo served as Archbishop of Lyon from 841 to 852 AD. As a Gallic prelate, Amulo is best known for his letters concerning two major themes: Christian–Jewish relations in the Frankish kingdom and the Carolingian controversy over predestination. He was ordained as archbishop in January 841.
Amulo was a disciple of his predecessor Agobard and inherited many of his ideas. Amulo collaborated closely with both Remigius of Lyon, who later succeeded him, and Florus of Lyon who served as scribe for Amulo; hence it is not always clear which of Amulo's letters were actually penned by him. He also worked with Hincmar Archbishop of Reims regarding anti-Jewish policies and the debate with Gottschalk of Orbais over predestination.
Like his predecessor, Amulo was unable to bring about anti-Jewish policies into the Carolingian Empire. However, he actively pursued "a policy of coercion against pro-Jewish Christians," within his diocese, and his sermons were imbued with anti-Jewish teachings. His work was influential during the mid-ninth century – most notably his Contra Judaeos and his involvement in the Council of Meaux–Paris in 845. These decrees were not ratified by Charles the Bald, since his magnates saw them as interfering with the traditional Carolingian policies regarding Jews; the Canons proposed at Paris–Meaux sought to revive earlier Visigothic laws, including Canon LXXIIII which prohibited Christians from "showing favour to Jews." Nevertheless, both Amulo and his predecessor were instrumental in spreading anti-Jewish attitudes in the Carolingean court, which eventually sparked changes in "both exegesis and canon law."
Influences
Carolingian theologians and scholars were widely influenced by Jewish texts during the ninth century. Figures such as Rabanus Maurus, Angelomus of Luxeuil, Claudius of Turin and Theodulf of Orléans demonstrate a thorough knowledge of Jewish teachings, but this generated an anti-Jewish reaction. Several contemporaries of Amulo – including Rabanus and Angelomus – held the traditional view of Jews as a people who refused to accept Christ due to their blindness.Knowledge of Hebrew and Greek was uncommon; it is likely that Jewish texts were merely cited to affirm the orthodoxy of the Church, and did not rely on accuracy. Amulo was an exception to this rule: he had at least a working knowledge of Hebrew, and his complex theological arguments affirm his knowledge of Hebrew scripture and Jewish scholarship.
Most of Amulo's works also directly refer to the Church Fathers, including Saint Augustine, Jerome, and Gregory the Great. He mostly wrote on issues concerning Jewish mysticism, predestination, and Halakha which were not known to the patristic authors. These works were often quoted to support polemical arguments. Similarly, Amulo demonstrates his knowledge of Jewish texts to strengthen his position. It is clear from his writings that Scripture was insufficient; a wide base of Church scholarship fueled debates between dioceses over Christ's nature, Jewish tradition, and superstition. Both Amulo and Agobard strove to counter Jewish influence in Francia, and worked to convince Christians that they ought to limit their interaction with the Jewish population of Lyon.
In both Agobard and Amulo's works, they express concern that Christians preferred to attend Jewish services rather than those of their own priests. Amulo objected to Jewish scholars Josephus and Philo in 844–845, and his writings were echoed by both Angelomus and Rabanus Maurus; these texts were becoming more popular amongst Christians than Scripture. There was also concern that close "friendly" contact between Jews and Christians in Lyon would lead to a widespread conversion to Judaism within their diocese.
Predestination
Amulo was included among many prelates working to oppose Gottschalk of Orbais and his teachings of two-fold predestination. By 864, Gottschalk had settled in Friuli under the patronage of Eberhard and was covertly spreading his doctrine in Italy and Noricum. He had followers in Saxony, Germany, and later in the Balkan regions. From the writings of Rabanus, it is clear that Gottschalk had gained sufficient popularity to pose a theological threat to the Church – and not merely in the Carolingian heartlands of Francia.Gottschalk challenged both the structure and doctrine of the Church. He was raised in a monastery at Fulda, which was a focus for missionaries in Germany and central to Louis the Pious' vision of a "Christian" empire. As a monk, Gottschalk twice defied the Order of Saint Benedict: first, in 847 at a council at Mainz, he nearly succeeded in freeing himself from monkhood, when by rule he was born to serve from pueritia for life. Rabanus sought to ensure that Gottschalk did not set a precedent for other monks, and called a second council at the Diet of Worms in 829. Consequentially, Gottschalk was again "forced to take the monastic vows."
Second, Gottschalk defied the Benedictine law of stabilitas loci, by leaving his monastic duties for southwest Italy. Primarily, his motivations were political. Gottschalk was a disciple of Ebbo, Archbishop of Reims, and this connection rapidly became controversial. Ebbo sided with Lothair I against Louis during the civil war of 833, and was deposed when Louis returned to power. Ebbo spent the remainder of his life attempting to replace his successor, Hincmar. Around 833–835 Gottschalk was relocated to Orbais; but he was accused of conspiring with Ebbo against Hincmar and needed to escape persecution. Rigbold of Rheims briefly served as archbishop before Hincmar was appointed, from 835 to 845. Rigbold ordained Gottschalk as a missionary without the consent of bishop Rothad of Soissons, where Orbais was located. Gottschalk's ordination disrupted both monastic law and social order; he was later prosecuted at the 849 council in Quierzy for disturbing "both ecclesiastical and civil affairs."
The case of Gottschalk is relevant to Amulo's prelature in two ways: first, Gottschalk was an erudite theologian, and his Augustinian view of predestination cited the same Church Fathers present in Amulo's works. Notably, he was also supported by Prudentius of Troyes, in opposition to Hincmar. It is clear that Hincmar also began to have doubts: he wrote to five prelates from the church in Lyon for advice, including Amalarius. Amalarius was appointed by Louis to replace Agobard as archbishop in Lyon, where he served from 833 to 838. Among other prelates, Amalarius sided with Eriugena against Gottschalk in the predestination debate. However, his liturgical reforms – emphasizing the ceremonial importance of both the Eucharist and Mass – were seen as excessive by the Church. He was deposed and accused of heresy at the same council which condemned Gottschalk in 838. Agobard actively condemned Amalarius's liturgical methods, and was able to regain imperial favour. He was restored as archbishop in Lyon, and Amulo succeeded him upon his death.
Royalty was almost always involved in matters of faith. In 849, King Charles the Bald himself began to ponder the issue of predestination. However, the draconian punishments administered by Hincmar at the council of Quierzy in 849 clearly affirm the power of Church hierarchies in ninth-century Francia. Florus of Lyon was highly critical of the verdict; it also clearly deviated from canon law.
Gottschalk remained "convinced that his ideas were orthodox," and he persisted in his controversial doctrines. There was no definitive end to the predestination debate, and the Church maintained its position. Gottschalk raised a long-dormant theological question, but the 860 synod in Tusey merely reaffirmed the Church's initial position. Hincmar and his supporters were at an impasse with Gottschalk – there was no room for dialogue, and Gottschalk was incarcerated at Hautvillers in 849 until his death. It was during this time that Amulo began to correspond with him. The tone of Amulo's letters imply that he may have viewed the stability and unity of the Church as a prerogative over the question of predestination. His Epistula ad Gothescalcum monachum or "Letter to Monk Gottschalk" is more reminiscent of paternal advice than theological attack. Similarly, his Opusculum Gratiam itaque Dei on "The Grace of God" asserts that predestination should primarily be viewed as an affirmation of Christian humility: it should not lead to "despair".
Anti-Judaic polemic
In both his anti-Judaic writings and his scholarship, it is unlikely that Amulo was motivated solely by anti-Semitism. He was mainly concerned by the power and influence held by Jews under the administration of King Charles the Bald. These tolerant policies towards Jews were a continuation of those of Emperor Louis the Pious. They allowed economic concessions and legal protection of Jews under the lex Judaica and were a sore point for some prelates in Frankish Gaul. Agobard epitomises the conflict of interest between the Church and Frankish state, and this tension carried over into Amulo's work. Agobard was known for his anti-Jewish campaigns and was involved in the revolt against Louis in 833. When Louis regained the throne in 834, Agobard was sent into exile and temporarily replaced by Amalarius of Metz, former archbishop of Trier, who was more favourably disposed towards Jews. When Amalarius was condemned for heresy in 838, Agobard was reappointed as archbishop; despite his return to imperial favour, both Agobard and Amulo persisted in their anti-Judaic polemic.Amidst the chaos preceding the 843 Treaty of Verdun, Archbishop Hincmar of Rheims drafted a proposal with three primary aims: to reinforce ecclesiastical power by preventing laymen from becoming prelates; to reclaim all property that had been previously owned by the church; to eliminate all privileges granted to Jews during Louis' reign. Amulo was instrumental in the 846 Meaux-Paris council in the Diocese of Meaux, which planned the implementation of Hincmar's anti-Jewish policies. This council was a Church attempt to exercise power independently of the royal court – but Charles formally rejected their proposal at Épernay in 846, and made it clear that he intended to uphold his father's "pro-Jewish" policies. Amulo is listed among the attendees at this council.
File:Charlemagne et Louis le Pieux.jpg|thumb|left|Louis the Pious continued Charlemagne's favourable policies regarding the Jewish population.|200x200px
Amulo experienced the same conflict of interest with Charles the Bald as his predecessor Agobard had with Louis the Pious. His treatise Liber contra Judaeos ad Carolum regem or "Letter Against Jews to King Charles" comprehensively lays out his anti-Jewish theses.
It is clear from Amulo's writings that Christian–Jewish interaction in Lyon was common. Amulo had three major concerns within his diocese: first, he was concerned with the popularity and influence of Jewish scholarship and anti-Christian texts. Jewish rabbis were also permitted to hold public services, and Amulo worried that Christians in Lyon were more interested in Jewish teachings than attending services within his diocese. Second, Jews could hold public office and encourage Christian or pagan conversion with secular incentives. This was particularly sensitive in matters of slavery or tax collection; in Contra Judaeos, Amulo asserts that "Jewish tax collectors" were converting Christians, particularly in less populated areas. Jews no longer had to pay a "religious tax", and in some cases, Jewish merchants were exempt from paying tolls or other imperial dues. Third, Jews and Christians commonly shared traditions or daily practices. Many Christians chose to "work on Sunday" and "rest on the Jewish Sabbath", in part because Louis the Pious had changed market days to accommodate Jewish merchants. It was also common for Christians to celebrate Jewish feast days and eat kosher foods. Amulo was furthermore concerned over the liturgical versus doctrinal influence of Jewish beliefs – he worried that the "mysticism" of Midrashim and "Talmudic traditions" would translate into Christian worship.