A Convenient Hatred: The History of Antisemitism (16 page)

Like William of Norwich, young Hugh became a saint, and his story, like William’s, was embellished with each telling. Eventually, one version claimed that the Jews had fattened the boy for ten days with milk and bread before murdering him. The murder itself was said to have mimicked the details of the Passion—a word that refers to the suffering of Jesus before the crucifixion. Hugh’s story was later set to music; scholars have identified more than 21 versions of a ballad about his death. In the late 1300s, decades after the expulsion of the Jews from England, Geoffrey Chaucer, one of England’s earliest poets, included Hugh’s story in his
Canterbury Tales
. The cathedral in Lincoln contained a shrine to “Little St. Hugh” that was a tourist attraction for 700 years. In 1955, ten years after the Holocaust and in response to it, the plaque was removed. In its place is one with these words:

By the remains of the shrine of “Little St. Hugh”: Trumped up stories of “ritual murders” of Christian boys by Jewish communities were common throughout Europe during the Middle Ages and even much later. These fictions cost many innocent Jews their lives. Lincoln had its own legend and the alleged victim was buried in the Cathedral in the year 1255. Such stories do not redound to the credit of Christendom, and so we pray: Lord, forgive what we have been, amend what we are, and direct what we shall be
.

Twenty years before Hugh’s death in 1255, a new element had been added to charges of ritual murder against Jews. They were now accused of murdering Christian children for their blood. This accusation has become known as the “blood libel.” Like other charges of ritual murder, the “blood libel” is a lie that has led to the death of countless Jews over the centuries.

In the thirteenth century, most people in northern Europe believed that blood had enormous power. Christians thought it was a source of strength, because it held the power of the soul. They used animal blood in medicines and in amulets, or charms, to ward off evil. Jews also thought blood had power. Because they thought that blood contained the spirit of living beings, Jews were forbidden to taste blood. Jewish dietary laws require great care in the preparation of meat to avoid the possibility of eating blood (as those who keep kosher are well aware). Animals are slaughtered in such a way that most of the blood is drained rapidly. Whatever blood remains is removed by broiling or soaking and salting the meat. Even today, observant Jews are not permitted to eat so much as an egg that contains a blood spot. Jews who come into contact with blood have to purify themselves before carrying out their religious obligations.

B
LOOD
L
IBELS
(1144–1500)

The map shows where in Europe Jews were accused of killing Christians for their blood for a period of approximately 300 years. Compare and contrast this map with the ones in
Chapters 4
and
6
. The three not only suggest the power of lies but also offer insight into the way lies spread over time and place.

Nevertheless, on Christmas Day in 1235, Jews in the town of Fulda in Germany were accused of murdering five children for their blood. The story begins when a miller and his wife, who lived just outside the town, returned from church to find their mill burned to the ground. The charred bodies of the couple’s five sons lay in the ruins. They and their neighbors immediately accused “the Jews” of the crime. According to Christian chroniclers, “the Jews” had murdered the boys and had then drawn off their blood and placed it in waxed bags. What was the motive for such a horrendous crime? Some accounts give no explanation. Others suggest that “the Jews” needed the blood for medicinal or religious purposes.

Horrified by the “crime,” townspeople placed the children’s bodies in a cart and carried them to the emperor, Frederick II, as evidence of what “the Jews” had done. At a time when few people traveled more than a few miles from home in a lifetime, they walked more than 150 miles to the emperor’s castle. At every stop along the way, they told their story.

Frederick did not know what to think; he had never heard of such a crime. So he sent messengers to other European rulers asking for advice. He also sent for recent converts to Christianity to help him determine the truth. In an edict issued in 1236, Frederick summarized what he had learned from his advisers:

[It is] clear that it was not indicated in the Old Testament or in the New that Jews lust for the drinking of human blood. Rather, precisely the opposite, they guard against the intake of all blood, as we find expressly in the biblical book, which is called [Genesis in English], in the laws given by Moses, and in the Jewish decrees, which are called in Hebrew, “Talmud.” We can surely assume that for those to whom even the blood of permitted animals is forbidden, the desire for human blood cannot exist, as a result of the horror of the matter, the prohibition of nature, and the common bond of the human species in which they also join Christians. Moreover, they would not expose to danger their substance and persons for that which they might have freely when taken from animals. By this sentence of the princes, we pronounce the Jews of the aforesaid place and the rest of the Jews of Germany completely absolved of this imputed crime. Therefore, we
decree… that no one, whether cleric or layman, proud or humble, whether under the pretext of preaching or otherwise, judges, lawyers, citizens, or others shall attack the aforesaid Jews individually or as a group a result of the aforesaid charge. Nor shall anyone cause them notoriety or harm in this regard. Let all know that, since a lord is honored through his servants, whosoever shows himself favorable and helpful to… the Jews will surely please us. However, whosoever presumes to contravene the edict of this present confirmation and of our absolution bears the offense of his majesty.
⁴

Despite the emperor’s order, the accusations continued. In March 1247, two Franciscans (members of a monastic order founded in about 1215) accused the Jews of Valréas, in France, of crucifying a Christian child and using his blood for ritual purposes. Several Jews in the town were tortured and many others were killed. The survivors appealed to Pope Innocent IV for help, and he condemned such accusations in strong language. So did his successor, Gregory X. In 1271, Gregory issued the following statement:

Since it happens occasionally that some Christians lose their Christian children, the Jews are accused by their enemies of secretly carrying off and killing these same Christian children and of making sacrifices of the heart and blood of these very children. It happens, too, that the parents of these children or some other Christian enemies of these Jews secretly hide these very children in order that they may be able to injure these Jews, and in order that they may be able to extort from them a certain amount of money by redeeming them from their straits…
.

And most falsely do these Christians claim that the Jews have secretly and furtively carried away these children and killed them, and that the Jews offer sacrifice from the heart and the blood of these children, since their law in this matter precisely and expressly forbids Jews to sacrifice, eat, or drink the blood, or to eat the flesh of animals having claws. This has been demonstrated many times at our court by Jews converted to the Christian faith: nevertheless very many Jews are often seized and detained unjustly because of this
.

We decree, therefore, that Christians need not be obeyed against Jews in a case or situation of this type, and we order that Jews seized
under such a silly pretext be freed from imprisonment, and that they shall not be arrested henceforth on such a miserable pretext, unless—which we do not believe—they be caught in the commission of the crime. We decree that no Christian shall stir up anything new against them, but that they should be maintained in that status and position in which they were in the time of our predecessors, from antiquity till now.
⁵

Gregory’s statement suggests some of the reasons the accusations were readily believed. For one thing, life was difficult and dangerous for most people, and children were particularly vulnerable to accidents and illnesses. Grief-stricken parents may have wanted to blame someone for the death of their child, and by accusing “outsiders,” they did not have to believe that God was responsible for their child’s death. In addition, blaming an “outsider” meant that they themselves did not have to take responsibility for events like the fire in Fulda.

At a time when there were no newspapers and few books, and when most people could not read in any case, news arrived by way of travelers’ stories and rumors. The more gruesome the story, the more interested people were (as they are today). And then, as now, rumors were almost always embellished in the retelling. There were generally no voices to be heard on the other side of the story. So, for example, by the time Frederick II issued his edict concerning the fire in Fulda, a year had passed, and the story was firmly embedded in people’s minds.

Gregory mentions Christian enemies of Jews who falsely claimed that their children were dead in order to have Jews arrested and executed or to demand money from them before “finding” the children safe. Perhaps some of these Christians owed money to Jews and could not repay it; this might have seemed like an easy way to erase the debt. Others, influenced by those who preached against the Jews, doubtless believed they were acting as good Christians. For most Christians, the church was the major force in their lives and the only source of instruction and stories. It was also the main source of help in times of need and of medical care for the injured or ill. For such people, anyone who did not share their respect for and love of the church was easily suspected of terrible deeds.

Near the end of the thirteenth century, a new and even stranger accusation appeared—the desecration of the host. In many Christian churches, the central worship was—and is—the celebration of the Eucharist (a word that means “thanksgiving”). As part of the Eucharistic liturgy, unleavened bread and wine are blessed in remembrance of Jesus’s words and actions at
the Last Supper. According to the New Testament, at this Passover meal, Jesus blessed unleavened bread and wine and gave them to his disciples, saying, “This is my body…. This is my blood. Do this in remembrance of me.” While there are different interpretations of what he might have meant by those words, many Christians believe they mean that Christ is truly present in the bread (the “host”) and wine.

In the thirteenth century, however, a number of Christians came to believe that the host had magical powers. By 1290, some of these Christians were accusing Jews of desecrating the host. The rumor began in Paris. People whispered that a Jew had acquired a consecrated host (by theft or as security for a loan) in order to determine whether it had magical power. According to one version of the story, he stabbed it with a knife and then threw it into boiling water. The water immediately turned red with blood. According to rumors, after witnessing this miracle, the man and his family converted to Christianity.

The story spread from city to city and was widely believed. The pope even ordered a chapel built at the spot where the Parisian Jew had supposedly desecrated the host. It became a popular pilgrimage site. Despite the excitement, no one in Paris rioted or attacked Jews because of this story, perhaps because the story ended with the Jew’s conversion. In other cities, however, particularly in what is now Germany, a charge of desecration was usually followed by riots in which many Jews were killed.

With each new rumor, each new accusation, the way Christians thought about Jews became more and more distorted. Jews were increasingly seen as a powerful threat to Christianity, mainly because until the tenth century, Judaism was a faith that encouraged outsiders to convert. Even after Jews abandoned the practice of proselytizing, some Christians became Jews. The fear that many more Christians would do so was reflected in church laws.

For centuries, the church had declared that Jews were entitled to protection of their property and their person. They could not be forced to convert to Christianity, and their religious rituals were protected. These rights were balanced by limitations on what the church defined as “harmful” Jewish behavior. For example, Jews had to be in an inferior position in relation to Christians; therefore, they could not own Christian slaves or hold political positions that gave them authority over Christians.
The fear was that if Jews had power, they would use it to lure Christians away from their faith.

Those concerns can be seen in a bull issued in 1120 by Pope Calixtus II. (A bull is a formal proclamation issued by a pope. The word comes from the leaden
bulla
, or seal, that popes placed on legal documents.) The bull issued by Calixtus was addressed “to all the Christian Faithful.” In it he declared that even though Jews remained “obstinately insistent” on keeping their beliefs, he was willing to protect their ancient rights, including the right to practice their faith, as long as they were “not guilty of plotting to subvert the Christian faith.” Thus the pope maintained that his protection of Jews and their rights was conditional—that is, he would guard their rights provided that they did not challenge Christianity in any way.