Blood libel or ritual murder libel (also blood accusation) is an antisemitic tropeTurvey, Brent E. Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis, Academic Press, 2008, p. 3. "Blood libel: An accusation of ritual murder made against one or more persons, typically of the Jewish faith".Chanes, Jerome A. Antisemitism: A Reference Handbook, ABC-CLIO, 2004, pp. 34–45. "Among the most serious of these [anti-Jewish] manifestations, which reverberate to the present day, were those of the libels: the leveling of charges against Jews, particularly the blood libel and the libel of desecrating the host."Goldish, Matt. Jewish Questions: Responsa on Sephardic Life in the Early Modern Period, Princeton University Press, 2008, p. 8. "In the period from the twelfth to the twentieth centuries, Jews were regularly charged with blood libel or ritual murder that Jews kidnapped and murdered non-Jews as part of a Jewish religious ritual." which falsely accuses Jews of murdering Christians in order to use their blood in the performance of religious rituals.Zeitlin, S "The Blood Accusation" Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 50, No. 2 (1996), pp. 117–124 Echoing ancient myths of secret cultic practices in many prehistoric societies, the claim, as it is leveled against Jews, was rarely attested to in antiquity. According to Tertullian, it originally emerged in late antiquity as an accusation made against members of the early Christian community of the Roman Empire.Emanuele D'Antonio, Jewish Self-Defense against the Blood Libel in Mid-Nineteenth Century Italy: the Badia Affair and Proceedings of the Castilliero Trial (1855–56), Quest. Issues in Contemporary Jewish History volume 14, 1 pp. 23–47 Once this accusation had been dismissed, it was revived a millennium later as a Christian slander against Jews in the medieval period.Norman Cohn, Europe's Inner Demons, (1975) Paladin Books 1976 pp. 1–8.Albert Ehrman, 'The Origins of the Ritual Murder Accusation and Blood Libel,' Tradition vol. 14, No. 4 Spring 1976 p. 83 The first examples of medieval blood libel emerged in the Kingdom of England in the 1140s, before spreading into other parts of Europe, especially France and Germany. This libel, alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration, became a major theme of the persecution of Jews in Europe from that period down to modern times.
Blood libels often claim that Jews require human blood for the baking of matzos, an unleavened flatbread which is eaten during Passover. Earlier versions of the blood libel accused Jews of ritually re-enacting the crucifixion. The accusations often assert that the blood of Christian children is especially coveted, and historically, blood libel claims have been made in order to account for the otherwise unexplained deaths of children. In some cases, the alleged victims of human sacrifice have become venerated as Christian martyrs. Many of these most prominently William of Norwich (1144), Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln (1255), and Simon of Trent (1475) became objects of local cults and veneration; the cult of Hugh of Lincoln gained the support of Henry III and his son Edward I, giving it official credibility and helping it to be particularly well remembered. Although he was never canonized, the veneration of Simon was added to the General Roman Calendar. One child who was allegedly murdered by Jews, Gabriel of Białystok, was canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church.
In Jewish lore, blood libels served as the impetus for the creation of the Golem of Prague by Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel in the 16th century. The term 'blood libel' has also been used in reference to any unpleasant or damaging false accusation, and as a result, it has acquired a broader metaphoric meaning. However, this wider usage of the term remains controversial.
History The earliest versions of the accusations involving Jews supposedly crucifying Christian children on Easter/Passover is said to be because of a prophecy. There is no reference to the use of blood in unleavened matzo bread at this time yet, which develops later as a major motivation for the crime.Paul R. Bartrop, Samuel Totten, Dictionary of Genocide, ABC-CLIO, 2007, p. 45.
Possible precursors The earliest known antecedent is from the tenth century, from Damocritus (not Democritus the philosopher), mentioned in the Suda,Blood Accusation in Jewish Encyclopedia. (Richard Gottheil, Hermann L. Strack, Joseph Jacobs). Accessed 31 October 2018. Note that the version of the Jewish Encyclopedia here quoted misspells the name Damocritus as Democritus, the name of an unrelated philosopher. who alleged that "every seven years the Jews captured a stranger, brought him to the temple in Jerusalem, and sacrificed him, cutting his flesh into bits." The Greco-Egyptian author Apion claimed that the Jews sacrificed Greek victims in their temple. Here, the writer states that when Antiochus Epiphanes entered the temple in Jerusalem, he discovered a Greek captive, who told him that he was being fattened for sacrifice. Every year, Apion claimed, the Jews would sacrifice a Greek and consume his flesh, at the same time swearing eternal hatred towards the Greeks.Louis H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1993. pp. 126–127. Apion's claim likely reflects already circulating attitudes towards Jews as similar claims are made by Posidonius and Apollonius Molon in the 1st century BCE.Feldman, Louis H. Studies in Hellenistic Judaism, Brill, 1996, p. 293. This idea is exampled later in history, when Socrates Scholasticus ( 5th century) reported that in a drunken frolic, a group of Jews bound a Christian child to a cross in mockery of the death of Christ and scourged him until he died.
Medieval context The blood libels emerged at a time when the church and particularly the Crusades were driving increasingly anti-Judaic discourses. These were later reinforced through the Church council Lateran IV which mandated the segregation of Christian and Jewish society, and built an apparatus of enforcement across Europe. At a local context, many of the English examples may have included an element of church competition for saintly cults, with the income that veneration produced.
Israel Yuval proposed that the blood libel may have originated in the 12th century due to Christian views on Jewish behavior during the First Crusade. Some Jews committed suicide and killed their own children rather than exposing them to forced conversion to Christianity. Yuval wrote that Christians may have argued that if Jews could kill their own children, they could also kill Christian children.Two Nations in Your Womb: Perceptions of Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages by Israel J. Yuval; translated by Barbara Harshav and Jonathan Chipman, University of California Press, 2006
Origins in England
In England, in 1144, the Jews of Norwich were falsely accused of ritual murder after a boy, William of Norwich, was found dead in the woods with stab wounds. William's hagiographer, Thomas of Monmouth, falsely claimed that every year there is an international council of Jews at which they choose the country in which a child will be killed during Easter, because of a Jewish prophecy that states that the killing of a Christian child each year will ensure that the Jews will be restored to the Holy Land. According to Monmouth, England was chosen in 1144, and the leaders of the Jewish community delegated the Jews of Norwich to perform the killing, after which they abducted and crucified William.; Langmuir, Gavin I (1996), Toward a Definition of Antisemitism, University of California Press, pp. 216ff. The legend was turned into a cult, with William acquiring the status of a martyr and pilgrims bringing offerings to the local church.
This was followed by similar accusations in Gloucester (1168), Bury St Edmunds (1181) and Bristol (1183). In 1189, the Jewish deputation attending the coronation of Richard the Lionheart was attacked by the crowd. Massacres of Jews at London and York soon followed. In 1190, on 16 March, 150 Jews were attacked in York and then massacred when they took refuge in the royal castle, where Clifford's Tower now stands, with some committing suicide rather than being taken by the mob. The remains of 17 bodies thrown in a well in Norwich between the 12th and 13th century (five that were shown by DNA testing to likely be members of a single Jewish family) were very possibly killed as part of one of these pogroms.
After the death of Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln, there were trials and executions of Jews."The Knight's Tale of Young Hugh of Lincoln", Gavin I. Langmuir, Speculum, Vol. 47, No. 3 (July 1972), pp. 459–482. The case was described by Matthew Paris and later by Chaucer, and formed the basis of the Sir Hugh ballads which have circulated to the present day. Its notoriety sprang from the intervention of the Crown, the first time an accusation of ritual killing had been given royal credibility.
The eight-year-old Hugh disappeared at Lincoln on 31 July 1255. His body was probably discovered on 29 August, in a well. A Jew named Copin or Koppin confessed to involvement. He confessed to John of Lexington, a servant of the crown, and relative of the Bishop of Lincoln. He confessed that the boy had been crucified by the Jews, who had assembled at Lincoln for that purpose. King Henry III, who had reached Lincoln at the beginning of October, had Copin executed and 91 of the Jews of Lincoln seized and sent up to London, where 18 of them were executed. The rest were pardoned at the intercession of the Franciscans or Dominicans.See Langmuir (1972), p. 479; Jacobs, Jewish Ideals, pp. 192–224
Within a few decades, Jews would be expelled from all of England in 1290 and not allowed to return until 1657. After the expulsion, Edward I renovated "Little Saint Hugh's" shrine and decorated it with his Royal insignia, as part of his efforts to justify his actions. As Stacey notes: "A more explicit identification of the crown with the ritual crucifixion charge can hardly be imagined."
Continental Europe
Much like the blood libel of England, the history of blood libel in continental Europe consists of unsubstantiated claims made about the corpses of Christian children. There were frequently associated supernatural events speculated about these discoveries and corpses, events which were often attributed by contemporaries to miracles. Also, just as in England, these accusations in continental Europe typically resulted in the execution of numerous Jews – sometimes even all, or close to all, the Jews in one town. These accusations and their effects also, in some cases, led to royal interference on behalf of the Jews.
Thomas of Monmouth's story of the annual Jewish meeting to decide which local community would kill a Christian child also quickly spread to the continent. An early version appears in Bonum Universale de Apibus ii. 29, § 23, by Thomas of Cantimpré (a monastery near Cambray). Thomas wrote, in around 1260, "It is quite certain that the Jews of every province annually decide by lot which congregation or city is to send Christian blood to the other congregations." Thomas of Cantimpré also believed that since the time when the Jews called out to Pontius Pilate, "His blood be on us, and on our children" (), they have been afflicted with hemorrhages, a condition equated with male menstruation:Albert Ehrman, "The Origins of the Ritual Murder Accusation and Blood Libel," Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought, Vol. 15, No. 4 (Spring 1976): 86