The first ritual murder charges were used against the Christians in the
very early "middle ages."
Against the Jews, the charges became quite common (all things
considered)--see Francis Child, among others, on this issue. The idea that
Jews killed small Christian children, usually young boys, and used their
blood for a variety of reasons--to reenact the death of Christ, to make
matzah, for other purposes--was and, to my dismay, is a common one.
"Confessions" were beaten out of men (sometimes promised immunity from
sentencing, promises broken), who would implicate large numbers of their
fellows. "Little Hugh" may have existed. Many other blood libel cases
apparently arose without bodies, only accusations.
See:
Jeremy Cohen The Friars and the Jews
Joshua Trachtenberg The Devil and the Jews: The Medieval Conception
of the Jew and Its Relation to Modern Antisemitism
Sam Waagener The Pope's Jews
Kenneth Stow Alienated Minority
Joseph Shatzmiller Shylock Revisited: Jews, Moneylending, and Medieval
Society
Alan Dundes: The Blood Libel Legend: A Casebook in Anti-Semitic Folklore
The protection of the Popes was tenuous at best, although Jews tended to
be "safer" in Rome than elsewhere. The ideas of Augustine concerning the
Jews began to waver as time went by.
Susan Jaye Dauer
University of Texas
On Mon, 14 Jul 1997, John Carmi Parsons wrote:
> Among the calendared records of the royal chancery in England, there is
> documentation for the death of a boy supposed to have been killed by Jews
> at Lincoln in 1255, the year in which "little" St Hugh was martyred--at
> least there are royal pardons granted to the alleged culprits. This does
> not, of course, prove that he was really killed by them, only that they were
> charged with culpability in the crime. These pardons were probably extended
> to those not *directly* implicated in the murder. Other than these few
> references, contemporary chronicles are our chief sources for the murder of
> 1255.
>
> John Parsons
>
>
>
> On Mon, 14 Jul 1997 [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> > In a message dated 97-07-14 04:48:06 EDT, you write:
> >
> > > I have seen
> > > > vernacular French poetry from the 13th c. on little Hugh of Lincoln and
> > > > Prof. Robert Stacey at U. Washington recently found what we both think
> > is
> > > > the MS of a play in French (from Bristol!) dealing with ritual murder by
> > > > Jews of Xian children.
> >
> > Yes. William of Norwich is about a century before Little Saint Hugh, and
> > along the same line. Chaucer mentions little Saint Hugh (Prioress' Tale). I
> > think these stories spread from England to the continent.
> >
> > There are actually two Saints Hugh of Lincoln, and little Saint Hugh has
> > virtually no documentation. The original Saint Hugh of Lincoln was a Bishop,
> > remembered for his kindness and charity, especially to the poor, to lepers,
> > and to Jews. So here's one possibility on what happened.
> >
> > Imagine just one disgruntled parishioner of Bishop Hugh who didn't care for
> > his Jew-loving ways, and who would have been gratified to discover that the
> > ingrate children of Israel had murdered Bishop Hugh. Naturally, any rumor to
> > the effect that Jews had murdered the Bishop would not have gotten too far.
> > Somebody would have pointed out, at some point, that the Bishop had <not>
> > been murdered by Jews. Maybe the whole thing got papered over by assuming
> > there must have been a second Hugh of Lincoln (who had been murdered by
> > Jews).
> >
> > This is, of course, purely speculative, and I'm not sure we can ever know
> > exactly how rumors get started. I'm just saying the circumstances are
> > unusual in this case. Two saints by the same name from the same place. One
> > has virtually no documentation (may never have existed). One is noted for
> > his kindness to Jews and the other is murdered by Jews. So I'm asking myself
> > what kind of misunderstanding about the first Hugh of Lincoln (the Bishop)
> > could have lead to the erroneous assumption that there was also a second Hugh
> > of Lincoln (whose story sounds like a recycling of the story of William of
> > Norwich).
> >
> > My understanding about Little Saint Hugh is that there is <no> documenttion
> > for him, except that his name repeatedly turns up in ballads and stories.
> > He's more or less folklore. But I'm not working with original documents, so
> > wish somebody would check the Church documentation on both Saints Hugh of
> > Lincoln.
> >
> > pat sloane
> >
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|