top of page
< Back

The ritual-child-murder accusation: its dissemination and Harold of Gloucester

Joe Hillaby

<plain_text><page sequence="1">The ritual-child-murder accusation: its dissemination and Harold of Gloucester JOE HILLABY The boundaries that have traditionally divided 'majority' from 'minority' history have begun to break down ... we need to begin to think more broadly, to tie our understanding of Anglo-Jewish history to what we know about the general medieval history of England and France.1 Most fearful of all the charges levied against the European Jewry was that of ritual child murder. Such charges antedate Christianity; they were made by Hellenistic Greeks in 167 bc and Josephus regarded them as serious enough to merit rebuttal in Against Apion. In 415 ce drunken Jews at Imestar, Syria, were accused of tying a young Christian to a cross during Purim, the festival commemorating the defeat of Haman the Agagite by Mordecai and Esther, and mocking him in such a way that he died.2 Then, for more than seven centuries, the records are, apparently, silent. The first recorded medieval accusation was made at Norwich in 1144 when members of the Jewry were accused of murdering the 12-year-old William by crucifixion, at Eastertide, 'in scorn of the Lord's passion'. For almost a quarter of a century there was no further accusation. Then in 1168 a second charge was made, at Gloucester. This alleged martyrdom of a boy called Harold, by Jews at Passiontide, is described in the History of the Monastery of St Peter's, Gloucester? The Norwich incident has excited great interest and an extensive literature, the latter neither.4 Yet the events in Gloucester are of much more than local interest. They established a pattern quickly taken up elsewhere: within three years the first ritual murder charge was made in France. It was quickly followed by another. Thus was perpetuated the myth that for eight centuries has had a profound impact on Western attitudes towards Jews. The Prototype: St William, Child Martyr of Norwich How far were events in Gloucester a reflection of those in Norwich? It was there that the ground rules of the ritual-child-murder accusation were established. If the child was to be a martyr - and England and indeed Europe had precious few * Paper presented to the Society on 8 December 1994. 69</page><page sequence="2">Joe Hillaby new martyrs in the 12th century as the extraordinary success of the cult of St Thomas of Canterbury shows - it had to be demonstrated that he had died for the faith. How, it was asked, could martyrdom take place in a Christian country, except at the hand of the infidels, the Jews? In the Western world, all Jewish history, Blumenkranz has suggested, has been dominated by Christ's passion and death, because all responsibility for the crucifixion has been imputed to the Jews and the Jews alone. Rare indeed are those who have charged the Roman officials or soldiers.5 Hence the crucial importance of the date, Eastertide, and of the manner of death, crucifixion, for it had to be cast as an act carried out in mockery of the passion and death of Christ. The only source for the events of 1144 is The Life and Miracles of St William of Norwich, written by Thomas of Monmouth, a monk of the cathedral priory in that town. It is a highly detailed but also highly tendentious source. According to Thomas it was a priest, Godwin Sturt, who first drew attention to the motives for, and methods used in, such martyrdoms. Thomas claimed that at the first enquiry into the ritual-murder allegation Sturt, 'who had (as his wife) the martyr's aunt', spoke of the facts that '[you] yourselves can judge, as well from the practices which the Jews are bound to carry out on the days specified, as from the manner of the punishment inflicted and the character of the wounds and the many con? firmations of circumstances which agree together'. Such evidence cut little ice with Everard, the second bishop of Norwich (1121 45) who presided - nor it would appear with many of the monks of the cathedral priory. Indeed Jessopp, one of the editors of Thomas's seven books of The Life and Miracles, believed that Sturt was the originator of the accusation and 'comes out of it very badly. He not only got hold of the teazle which, he affirmed, was the very instrument with which the Jews had tortured their victim but he made merchandise of it for years, playing upon the credulity of simple people to extort money from them.'6 Thomas of Monmouth entered Norwich priory about 1148, by which time 'the memory of the blessed martyr . . . had gradually been waning' until 'in the hearts of almost all it had almost entirely died out'. As custodian of the shrine, it was Thomas who was to realize its full potential. Miracles were essential prerequisi? tes for sanctity. The second major element in the promotion of any cult was the publication of a Life. When canonization was still a popular process and conferred locally, a Life was a major weapon in winning the hearts of the populace. Through sermons preached to pilgrims, in homilies as part of the Mass, and by popular song and dance, the legend reached the widest possible audience. This Thomas understood and exploited fully. In the first six years, from March 1144 to April 1150, Thomas had to search hard and, even then, could claim but five miracles - a rosebush in bloom by the child's grave in November, two wondrous 'visions', a woman miraculously delivered and an evil spirit overcome. The break? through came with William's translation in great splendour to the monastic chap 70</page><page sequence="3">The ritual-child-murder accusation terhouse on the Wednesday before Easter, 1150. This provided Thomas with enough material to add five more books of miracles.7 Suggestions there as to motive and method are elaborated with the assistance of details which Thomas says he had 'heard from the lips of Theobald, who was once a Jew, and afterwards a monk'. 'Verily he told us that in the ancient writings of his fathers it was written that the Jews, without the shedding of human blood, could neither obtain their freedom nor could they ever return to the fatherland. Hence it was laid down by them in ancient times that every year they must sacrifice a Christian in some part of the world to the most high God in scorn and contempt of Christ, so they might avenge their sufferings on Him; in as much as it was because of Christ's death that they had been shut out from their own country, and were in exile as slaves in a foreign land.'8 Thomas's role has been examined by Benedicta Ward and Gavin Langmuir who agree that the cult was Thomas's creation. The power of the young saint, Ward has shown, was turned to uses quite different from those in earlier saints' lives. As described by Thomas he seeks the glorification of his own shrine. Those who were 'hard and slow of heart.. . ungrateful for the divine benefits .. . mock? ing the miracles when made public' did so at their peril. Through his saint, Thomas offered little mercy. He even went so far as to suggest that William's vengeance was the most probable explanation for the death of his fellow monk, Richard, and for the death of the 'hardened' prior Elias who had ordered him to remove the carpet with which he had reverently covered William's tomb. William's miracles, as described by Thomas, were those of a Welsh saint.9 Gerald of Wales drew attention to the fact that Welsh saints were more vindictive than others. St David crossed the sea on a stone, turned men into wolves and banned nightin? gales; St Cadog baptized himself, brought fire in his cloak, made paths across impassable mountains, turned wolves to stone and blinded a swineherd and others. Thomas of Monmouth was, of course, well versed in this tradition. The Life and Miracles shows that his little saint was neither humble nor compassionate, but proud and vengeful.10 Ward describes Thomas as 'a sly and secret manipulator' of the emotional appeal of the crucified child, and of the latent anti-Semitism in a city where the Jewish community was rich and proud. This manipulation is analysed by Lang? muir. Thomas's description of the circumstances surrounding William's death is recounted in such a way as to show 'not so much what had happened but what he wanted us to believe had happened'. He reintroduced evidence previously rejected as too trivial for presentation to Bishop Everard's enquiry in 1144. Des? pite Thomas's efforts many, including a number of his fellow monks, continued to mock the alleged miracles, believing William to be 'of no special merit'. To counter and intimidate such sceptics Thomas wrote his books of Miracles.11 The character and motives of Thomas of Monmouth have been fully analysed. The motives of the effective decision-makers, the bishops and the abbots or priors at Norwich and elsewhere, have been considered in far less detail. By the time 71</page><page sequence="4">Joe Hillaby Book I of the Life and Miracles was published late in 1149 or early in 1150, there had been important changes at Norwich. Bishop Everard, who had been far from convinced of William's sanctity, had resigned. The new bishop, William Turbe (1146-74), formerly prior, and the new prior, Richard de Ferrariis, had very different views.12 Until 1071 or 1072 the bishop's seat had been at North Elmham. In 1086 a new monastic cathedral was established in the flourishing commercial centre at Norwich, but the foundation laboured under a number of handicaps, principally the lack of a patron saint.13 There was none to be translated from Elmham, and none locally. On the other hand there were ancient and prestigious cults at the neighbouring Benedictine monasteries: Crowland had St Guthlac and others; Thorney, St Botolf; Peterborough, Sts Hedda and Cyneburga; Ramsey, Sts Ethel bert and Ethelred, and Felix; Ely, the head of St Botolf, St Sexburga and others; and Bury had St Edmund.14 Thus both bishop and prior were firmly committed to the promotion of William's cult. Thomas's first book, the Life, was therefore dedicated to Turbe. The final book was compiled in n 73 - after the events in Gloucester. Herbert de Losinga, the first bishop of Norwich, had previously been abbot of Ramsey. As that house had a proud tradition of developing the cults of the saints, it is strange that he had not sought to promote a powerful cult for his new foundation. Florence of Worcester's brief character sketch of Losinga, indicating that he was practised in the art of flattery and had bought his advancement, may offer some explanation.15 Indeed, Herbert's publicly avowed views on the matter of cults are brought out in a vision which Thomas claimed to have had after William's translation to the chapter house in 1150. A 'man of venerable look with grey hair, clothed in episcopal robes that glistened with an incomparable white? ness' appeared before him, announced that he was Herbert and asked Thomas to tell his brethren that when he had had occasion to set out for court 'they used to pray of me that I should endeavour to obtain from the king some venerable relics of the saints . . . but I said ... I would seek nothing of this sort, only lands and rents'. So far so good, but Thomas then avers that the bishop excused his actions by suggesting that he did so because he knew that 'they would have such great and worshipful relics by then that the church of Norwich would be greatly exalted and become celebrated through the whole of England and become con? spicuous in the parts beyond the sea'. The pilgrim lists, as will be seen, show Herbert's ghost to have been grievously mistaken - William's cult was never of more than local interest.16 Losinga's successor, Bishop Everard, had been unable to accept the claims of William's martyrdom. Nevertheless, he could have had no doubt as to the rich potential of the relics, if they were confirmed by adequate miracles. The potential for a powerful cult, with all the advantages which could accrue, had been recog? nized at an early stage by Aimar, prior of St Pancras at Lewes, a visitor to the 72</page><page sequence="5">The ritual-child-murder accusation cathedral. St Pancras was the foremost Cluniac house in England, and Aimar was embarking on a building programme which ultimately led to the completion of a church 450 feet long and with monastic offices covering more than 30 acres. In this respect the Cluniac houses - and others - were inspired by the great houses of the pilgrimage routes, each with its own cult: St Martin at Tours, St Martial at Limoges, St Sernin at Toulouse, St Foi at Conques and the final goal, the shrine of St James himself at Compostella. For such centres the logic, it has been said, was inexorable: 'relics attract local pilgrimages, shrines are built from gold and silver . . . inventions and translations of relics, venerations, feast days ... a spate of saints' lives, miracle stories ... All made for bigger and better shrines and pilgrimages and a boom in church building . . . ,'17 This is merely to elaborate St Bernard of Clairvaux's condemnation of the cults of saints as practised by the Cluniacs. 'A monk myself, I do ask other monks 'Tell me, O ye professors of poverty, what does gold do in a holy place?'. To speak plainly, is it not avarice - the worship of idols - from which we do not expect spiritual fruit but worldly benefit? Money is laid out that it returns multiplied many times. By the sight of costly vanities men are prompted to give rather than to pray . . . O vanity of vanities, what has all this to do with monks, with professors of poverty, with men of spiritual minds?'18 It is incorrect, however, to place too much stress on material motives for the development of the cults of the saints, even at this late period. Other more power? ful forces were at work, some since the early years of the Christian Church. The saints were patrons and mediators between man and his divinity. A cult was one of the chief means by which a church could seek to defend its lands and interests, for the saints offered powerful protection. Indeed a church's prestige, honours and possessions were rightly not those of the institution itself but of its saint. The awe inspired by a patron became an expression of the power of the monastery or cathedral itself. Devotees of the cult would look to their saint for assistance, not only against rivals and enemies but also against the natural forces of fire, flood, plague and all other manner of misfortune. Above all a popular cult gave that strong sense of corporate identity so important for a religious community. In this context we can begin to understand the powerful forces that led to the three grand choir reconstructions undertaken for the magnification of shrines, at Ely (completed 1252), Old St Paul's (i25i-&lt;:. 1314) and Lincoln (1256-80). It also enables us to appreciate the compelling pressure on the heads of religious houses such as the cathedral priory of Norwich and the abbey at Gloucester which had, as yet, no such patron.19 At Norwich, and Gloucester, these forces can be seen at work. In 1144 Prior Aimar, 'moved by a certain inward warmth of devotion, went straight to the bishop [Everard] and earnestly begged with many prayers that he be allowed to take away ... the body of the holy boy'. Later he admitted that if he had got him 'at St Pancras no sum of money would have induced him to allow of his [St William] 73</page><page sequence="6">Joe Hillaby being taken elsewhere ... he would have kept him with the utmost diligence as a most precious treasure'. Instead Everard refused and ordered the body to be exhumed and taken to the cathedral priory for decent burial in the monks' cemet? ery. Given such an unfavourable environment, it is not surprising that Thomas could find but five such miracles for his saint.20 St Harold of Gloucester The cult of St William was very local: 'Pilgrims came from Norfolk and Suffolk. Very few came from further away.' Finucane has indicated that some 60 per cent of pilgrims to the shrine lived within 10 miles. Yet by the later 1160s Thomas's Life of St William was known in the Severn Valley. Jessopp explained this by pointing out that William, abbot of Pershore at the time, had been a monk of Eye, only 20 miles south of Norwich. It was a Pershore monk who recorded the miraculous cure of Agnes de Croome by 'a most beautiful youth stained with blood who bears a cross', whom she had recognized immediately as William of Norwich.21 At Gloucester the Life thus provided a ready-made framework in which monastic aspirations, and popular fears of the now prosperous and growing alien community in their midst, found a simple explanation for what otherwise would have been regarded as merely an unfortunate accident. Evidence of Harold's martyrdom is confined to The History of the Monastery of St Peter's. There are other references to Harold of Gloucester, but these are brief and derivative. The earliest is the Peterborough Chronicle, written probably by the sacrist of that monastery, William of Woodford, between about 1273 and 1295. Very near the beginning, under 1161, he tells us: 'At this Easter a certain boy is crucified at Gloucester'. Peterborough lay within the diocese of Lincoln. William of Woodford would therefore have taken a close interest in ritual child murder, as a consequence of that most infamous of accusations, the case of Little St Hugh at Lincoln. Whether he was prompted by the events of 1255, or by Hugh's translation just after the general expulsion is not evident; probably the latter.22 Other references, in 14th-century works, were apparently derived from the Peterborough Chronicle. In his Chronicle, written about 1390, Henry Knighton, canon of Leicester, uses the same phraseology as William Woodford, merely adding 'by Jews', but he places the entry under the year 1160, as does the brief Chronicle named after, but merely owned by, John Brompton, abbot of Jer vaulx (1436- c. 1464).23 For our knowledge of the events surrounding the death of the young Harold we are therefore wholly dependent on the History of St Peter's. This was compiled between 1382 and 1412, during the abbacy of Walter Frocester, probably by Walter himself. For the period 1072-1139 it was based on an earlier, detailed chronicle, now lost.24 For the years after n 40 it becomes less informative, but the description of the alleged martyrdom is one of the most extensive and detailed passages in the whole work. The incorporation, after more than two centuries, of 74</page><page sequence="7">The ritual-child-murder accusation extended and highly circumstantial material, such as precise dates and days of the week, indicates that the story of Harold must, ultimately, have been drawn from a contemporary Life. However, internal evidence makes it clear that by the time the History was written, the Life was available in a revised form, possibly a lectionary or legendary, similar to the brief Life of St Cyneburga in a Gloucester MS, now B. L. Lansdowne 387.25 In the History, therefore, we have two voices speaking, one a revision of the voice of 1168 or thereabouts, the other more than two centuries later. The first reflects the techniques so ably employed by Thomas of Monmouth, using assump? tions as if they were indisputable fact. The scepticism of the second voice, the author of the History, stands out unequivocally. In his introductory sentence he points out that Harold 'is said to have been' secretly enticed away by Jews on 21 February, 'in the opinion of most'. After describing what, according to his source, then happened to Harold, he hastens to add 'in fact no Christian was present or saw or heard these torments, nor have we found that anything was discovered from any Jew. What we do know . . .' - and then he provides an account of the discovery of the body. Probably wisely he made no attempt to reconcile the differ? ence in view between himself and his sources. The significance of the cult of Norwich's boy martyr would not have been lost on Abbot Hameline (1148-79), a vigorous administrator. The only matters which the compiler of the History considered worthy of record of his abbacy were the many lands, possessions, rents and churches which he had acquired. He had had a sound mentor in Abbot Gilbert Foliot (1139-48), under whom he had served as sub-prior; Foliot had commenced his career as a monk at Cluny itself and had held two important offices among the Cluniacs.26 Hameline was thus fully aware of the power, prestige and revenue conferred by a shrine, through the protection and intervention offered by its saint. As the monks of Norwich have put it, 'not the suffering but the cause of the suffering makes the martyr'.27 Harold therefore had to have died for the faith. As in the case of William, if Harold was to be a true martyr, Jewish culpability had to be established beyond doubt. The presence of a large number of Jews in the town provided a prima facie case, for the discovery of the body had indeed coin? cided with festivities being held by one of the most prominent members of the Gloucester community, to which relatives and friends have been invited from many parts of the country. Two further proofs were now required. The first related to motive and thus occasion: the crime had to have been perpetrated at Passiontide, the last two weeks in Lent. This was not the case here. However, as the body had been found a mere week before Passion Sunday it was held that this, linked to the concourse of Jews, was adequate evidence of conspiracy to commit ritual murder. The second related to confirmatory evidence: there had to be marks on the body which could in some way be argued to be consistent with the wounds of Christ on the cross. Thus Thomas of Monmouth had confidently asserted that 75</page><page sequence="8">Joe Hillaby William had been 'bound round the head with a rope from the forehead to the back', and that he had been 'stabbed with countless thorn points' before 'being fixed to a cross in mockery of the Lord's passion'. At Gloucester the author of the History, writing in the second, more objective voice, described how on Saturday 18 March 1168, about the ninth hour, fishermen on the Severn discovered a boy's corpse in the river. This they brought to the bank. A crowd was rapidly attracted. Within a short time all the monks of St Peter's and almost all the citizens - 'a numerous throng' - had come to view the spectacle. The description thus completed, the chronicler then reverted to the interpreta? tion of the first voice to tell us that 'the boy's head was encircled with thorns and his feet tied together with his own girdle'. By careful examination of his clenched hand 'it was believed - or the signs indicated it - that they had inflicted tortures like crucifixion'. They saw how 'he had been placed between two fires so that his whole body was burned; how fat had been poured over him, like roasted meat, covering his eyes, ears and face' - after which tortures, 'dying without sin, he gave up his spirit, a glorious martyr to Christ'. The condition of the boy's clothes was held to provide further confirmation. Onlookers said they 'bore the marks of presumed martyrdom': a new shirt which he wore was 'scorched off around him' and 'some 300 holes' were found in it and hardly any of the seams were intact. One witness who saw and handled both Harold's clothes and 'his sacred little body' found his tunic was in a similar state. By putting together such 'significant elements', the first voice tells us, 'the truth might be made plain'.28 The discovery of Harold's corpse must, indeed, have seemed providential to Hameline. The following day, as the sun was setting and the abbey's great bells were tolling, the body was borne aloft in solemn procession, led by the lord abbot and all his monks to their church of St Peter, accompanied by an innumerable throng of citizens and others. On its arrival it was taken to a private place where, with great care, it was washed and laid out and candles were placed around it. On the morrow Harold was buried with 'due reverence and great honour' in the northeast chapel, before the altar dedicated to the holy confessors, Edmund, the archbishop, and Edward, the king.29 There it would be clearly visible to all pilgrims passing along the great ambulatory which led behind the high altar. Abbot Hame? line had apparently found a patron. The circumstances surrounding these and other so-called child martyrs may seem strangely improbable, but in this respect they were not alone. To gain support for a building programme the monks of Rochester promoted the cult of a Scots baker, on pilgrimage to Canterbury, who had been murdered outside their town. In 1256 he was formally recognized as St William of Perth. Bishop Hugh, later St Hugh, of Lincoln had to act quickly and at considerable personal expense to suppress the growing cult of a thief. In 1190 Pope Alexander had to outlaw the cult of a drunkard. Eventually the papacy, anxious to control the potentially dangerous dynamics of local sanctification, reserved to itself in 1234 the rights of 76</page><page sequence="9">The ritual-child-murder accusation canonization. Canon law might say one thing, but strength of local feeling, spon? taneous or contrived, was another. It still proved difficult to contain informal cults born of popular zeal, such as that of Little St Hugh of Lincoln, for here one was dealing not with the rational but with the irrational.30 The Work of 'Improvement': An Amended Life? Much of Thomas of Monmouth's success in his advocacy of William's cause was the link between the occasion and what he maintained were the circumstances of the boy's death. At Norwich, William's body had been found on 25 March, Holy Saturday, and the claim was immediately made that he had been crucified. Dates are therefore of critical significance. Serious discrepancies in the chronology of this section of the History indicate that the source available to what has been described as the 'first voice' was not the original - that is mid-12th-century - text of the Life of Harold but one reworked, probably a century or more later.31 The History is categorical as to dates and days. It commences: 'In the year of Our Lord 1168', giving the date in words rather than numbers. Harold's body was found on 'the Saturday which in that year was March 18' and was taken in procession to the abbey 'on the morrow, the Lord's day, March 19'. In 1168, March 18 and 19 were not Saturday and Sunday but Monday and Tuesday. It was the preceding year, 1167, when they fell on those days.32 This could have been a simple clerical error, a misreading of Roman numerals; but analysis of the text provides a different explanation. What motives can there have been for altering the year? By moving the events to 1168 the day of the alleged crucifixion became the opening day of Passiontide, Passion Sunday (Table 1). How was it known that the Jews had abducted him on 21 February if 'none had seen the deed and no Jew had confessed'? If Harold had died in 1167 rather than 1168, this difficult problem is resolved. In 1168 the date was of no particular significance; but in 1167, 21 February was Shrove Tuesday, the day before the opening of Lent. For Hameline and his monks, familiar with the story of St William, on what day other than Shrove Tuesday could such an enticement have taken place? Thus was the day established, 'in the opinion of most'. St Peter's, Gloucester, like other Benedictine houses, had a well-established tradition of 'improving' records and even of outright forgery of charters of legal title. Its finest production was 'an original writ attributed to the Conqueror, written in an apparently 11th-century hand, with an apparently genuine seal attached to it'. With the help of this writ, and a handsome indemnity, the monks were able to retrieve three valuable manors from the archbishop of York. The monks may well have tampered with their chronicle in order to provide further support for the bogus charter.33 Why and when was the text of the mid-12th-century Life altered in this way? The most probable answer is that the extraordinary nationwide interest in the 77</page><page sequence="10">Joe Hillaby Table i. The Work of Improvement: An Amended Life Harold 1167 1168 February 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 March Carried off by Jews Shrove Tuesday Ash Wednesday S Quadragesima S Lent 2 Purim Shrove Tuesday Ash Wednesday S. Quadragesima S Lent 2/Purim (Leap year) S Lent 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 S Lent 4 Jews assemble Assumed murdered Found in Severn Body to St Peter's Buried S Lent 3 Th F Sa S Lent 4 M Sa S Passion Sunday M Tu W S Palm Sunday 78</page><page sequence="11">The ritual-child-murder accusation Table i. (continued) 7 Harold 1167 1168 February 25 Feast Day Annunciation/Crucifixion 26 S Passion Sunday Nisan 15 27 28 29 30 31 S Easter April 1 2 S Palm Sunday 3 4 5 6 Nisan 15 S Easter case of Little St Hugh of Lincoln, in 1255, persuaded Abbot John de Felda (1243-61) to authorize a revision of the Life, placing Harold more firmly into the sequence of so-called boy martyrs. In this way it was hoped to revitalize interest in Harold. The change of year, from n 67 to n 68, established Passion Sunday as the date of the alleged crucifixion. In 1168, on the other hand, 21 February was not Shrove Tuesday. Thus the reason why, 'in the opinion of most' 21 February was believed to be the day Harold had been secretly abducted, was no longer valid, a matter either overlooked or regarded as less crucial by those responsible for 'improvement'. The evidence of the first voice of 1167 had thus been modified in the form of a second Life. If the author of the History had both versions at his disposal he made little attempt to reconcile the chronological conflict between them. Whereas both Lives were written to establish the credentials of Harold as a boy martyr, Abbot Frocester or his deputy, writing at least a century after the general expulsion in 1290, viewed the episode in quite a different light. His comments are sceptical, but also there is a surprisingly modern concern to record the episode for posterity to make of it what it will. There is evidence elsewhere of the significance of chronology in relation to the pattern of alleged child martyrdoms. According to the Life and Miracles the date on which William had been murdered was 22 March, that is the Wednesday before Easter, and the body was found in Thorpe Wood on Easter Eve, 25 March. 79</page><page sequence="12">Joe Hillaby According to the Norwich calendar, the passion of St William the martyr was on 24 March. The feast of Simon of Trent was on the same day. This was the feast of the Adoration of the Cross. However the Acta Sanctorum puts William's feast day, with that of Richard of Pontoise, on 25 March. This was Lady Day, the feast of the Annunciation of the Virgin.34 But 25 March had another and more significant association, as the ancient fixed feast of the Crucifixion. It is so designated in a range of sources. It can be found in a few English post-Conquest calendars, but its great antiquity is proven by its appearance in much earlier calendars. Indeed the feast is found in the Hieronymian martyrology, a lengthy list of martyrs erroneously attributed to St Jerome, composed in Italy in the 5th century but based on an earlier Greek martyrology from Asia Minor.35 On at least one occasion the accusation was linked not only with Easter but with the Passover. At Winchester in 1192 the boy was alleged to have disappeared on Good Friday and the chronicler Richard of Devizes pointed out that the following day was the Passover. Cecil Roth suggested that at Gloucester, as in Syria in 415, the ritual-murder charge was associated with the feast of Purim, for this was the only occasion in the Jewish calendar when 'a certain degree of licensed libertinism was permitted'.36 The public ceremony had a distinctly carnival atmosphere, with exemplary punishment, usually by fire, inflicted on an effigy of Haman. Close to Easter such an occasion could be grievously mistaken by the Christian population. In 1168 Purim fell on 24 February, close enough in Roth's view to 21 February, the date of Harold's alleged disappearance, but in 1167 Purim was on 7 March.37 The gathering at Gloucester was neither for Purim nor, as Roth elsewhere suggests, for Passover, but for an eight-day circumcision festival. The History tells us that the popular view was that Harold had been hidden by the Gloucester Jews until 17 March, on which night, 'the sixth of their feast, Jews from all England came together, pretending deceitfully that they were here to celebrate a circumcision feast, as appointed by the Mosaic law'.38 Such a circumcision festival would have witnessed days of great rejoicing by the Gloucester community. The ceremonies are described in the early-12th century Mahzor Vitry of Rashi's pupil, Simhah ben Samuel of Vitry-le-Francois in Champagne. This gives details of prayers and ritual for the full cycle of holidays and Jewish customs and observances. On the seventh day the godfather provided a banquet, at which religious songs were sung and there was general celebration. 'On the eighth day they rise betimes and go to the synagogue to pray. They kindle the lights ... two thrones are set up and covered with a sheet or some other adornment. One is the Elijah ... the other for the godfather. The child is washed in warm water, robed in sumptuous garments with an ornamented hat on his head, as on his wedding day, and is borne in triumph to the synagogue. The father hands him over to the godfather who, 80</page><page sequence="13">The ritual-child-murder accusation sitting on his throne, holds him on his lap whilst the mohel performs the ceremony.' Afterwards a second banquet, as lavish as that for a wedding, was provided by the father for all his guests.39 For the people of Gloucester, who had only recently come into contact with the alien community, this ceremony and gathering must have seemed at best outlandish and puzzling; at worst, in the light of the news from Norwich, full of menace. It was a most unfortunate conjunction of events which gave rise to the second charge of ritual child murder. The arrival in Gloucester of Jews 'from all England' by the 16th and the festivities held on the seventh and eighth days - the 17th and 18th - the latter the very day that Harold's body was discovered all took place towards the end of Lent.40 It might be supposed that the events described in the Life of St William and the lost Life of Harold would have had dire consequences for the Jewish commu? nities of the two towns. There is no evidence for this at Gloucester or Norwich.41 In fact the very reverse; in both towns the Jewry flourished. Fifteen years after the St William incident, and only four years after the publication of Thomas's further books of Miracles, the Norwich community was second largest in the country. Its contribution to the 1159 Donum, 72.5 marks, was more than a third of that levied on the old-established community of the capital. The years following this witnessed the success of Jurnet the Great and his brother Benedict, challen? ging the wealthiest London and York financiers.42 At Gloucester in 1159 there were probably no more than one or two Jewish families, for their Donum payment was a mere 5 marks. Only Worcester, with 2 marks, paid less. By the end of the n 60s the Gloucester community had developed considerably. During Stephen's reign the money market of the south? west had been dominated by the wealthy Bristol merchant, Richard fitz Harding. In 1154 he was granted the lordship of Berkeley by Henry II, in recognition of his financial support in the period immediately prior to his accession. In February 1162 fitz Harding died. In that year we find Josce of Gloucester lending money to Richard fitz Gilbert, lord of Striguil, nicknamed 'Strongbow', for the expedition which led to the Anglo-Norman ascendency in Ireland.43 It may well have been the circumcision of one of Josce's sons which led to the influx of so many visitors at the time of Harold's death. In the 1180s another Gloucester Jew, Moses, was lending money to 'John the king's son'. At the time of his death Moses, well-nicknamed 'the Rich', was the third wealthiest Jew in the kingdom. His heirs paid ?58 to the Northampton Donum of 1194, while Jacob of Canterbury paid ?115, and Deulesault Episcopus of London ?97. The Gloucester Jewry had indeed prospered since 1167. The 'Great East Street' of the city had become Juene strete, and there, by the east gable of the church of St Michael, in the very heart of the town, was the synagogue. It now ranked fifth out of twenty-one, far outstripping its neighbours at Warwick (9th), Bristol (13th) and Worcester (16th).44 81</page><page sequence="14">Joe Hillaby The Search for a Patron Despite the ritual-child-murder accusations there are no signs of undue hostility towards the Jewish communities in the two towns. What, therefore, was the cause of these incidents? At both Norwich and Gloucester the leading role was taken by monks of a major Benedictine monastery, searching for a patron saint. At a time when the acquisition of relics and the building of shrines was fast becoming an obsession for many Benedictine abbeys, Hameline, abbot of St Peter's, Glou? cester, must have been only too conscious of how poorly his own house was served in this respect. St Peter's had been founded in the 7th century, yet it still lacked a patron to act as advocate and intermediary. Renowned and old-established shrines surrounded St Peter's: St Oswald at Worcester, St Aldhelm at Malmesbury, St Kenelm at Winchcombe, St Egwin, with Wistan and Odulf, at Evesham, St Edburga at Pershore and St Ethelbert at Hereford. These were the constant resort of pilgrims, and none was more than 25 miles distant. Miracles performed by Oswald of Worcester illustrate the protec? tion such patrons were expected to offer to their house - and to their town. The people of Worcester turned to Oswald in times of dire need: if the city was on fire the monks carried his shrine into the town; and when it was taken through a burning house, the flames died out. On another occasion a house given to the saint was miraculously preserved, while that of a neighbour was consumed. When a great plague raged in the city, killing young and old, the monks carried the shrine around the walls, singing litanies and imploring mercy. The pestilence departed immediately.45 With the Mercian revival in the 10th century, Gloucester became one of its principal centres, with a royal palace at Kingsholm. It was therefore a humiliation for the ancient minster of St Peter when in 909 Ethelfleda, Lady of the Mercians, translated the relics of St Oswald, the great Northumbrian king killed by the pagan Penda of Mercia at Maserfield in 642, from Bardney in Lincolnshire to the New Minster which she had founded close to the palace at Gloucester a few years previously.46 There, at Oswald's shrine, a mere 100 yards from the Great Gate of St Peter's, the translation feast was celebrated on 8 October each year. There had been a failure to establish a shrine at St Peter's on three critical occasions: at the foundation in the 7th century, during the monastic revival of the late 10th century and during the reign of the first Norman abbot, Serlo (1072 1104), former canon of Avranches, monk of Mont-Saint-Michel and subsequently chaplain to William the Conqueror. Even today, the great Romanesque church stands as a memorial to his energy, strength of purpose and good connections.47 However, what he failed to provide was the long-term sense of institutional authority and corporate identity which an outstanding cult alone could confirm. After the Conquest the Anglo-Saxon cults were in acute peril. Lanfranc, the 82</page><page sequence="15">The ritual-child-murder accusation Norman archbishop of Canterbury, had grave doubts as to 'the quality of their sanctity'; but the Anglo-Saxon saints refused to be put to flight. At Evesham another Norman abbot put St Egwin's bones to the ordeal by fire. After their triumph the monks took them on a fund-raising tour of southern England. But Serlo, like Lanfranc, viewed the cultural heritage of his adopted land with deep suspicion. Anglo-Saxon saints had place in the great abbey church which he raised at Gloucester. The nature and extent of Serlo's cultural revolution is revealed by analysis of a 12th-century St Peter's calendar, now at Jesus College, Oxford. This lists month by month the saints' days commemorated in the daily service of the abbey. The feasts of only eight Anglo-Saxon saints were observed, excluding the patrons of Worcester, Winchcombe, Pershore and Gloucester, St Oswald's. In their place Serlo introduced a large number of French saints, par? ticularly those associated with Mont-Saint-Michel and Avranches.48 Subsequent events show that Serlo's successors came to regret his lack of interest in the indigenous saints, for no enthusiasm could be raised among local people for his strange new French cults. His policy was to have profound implications for the Jews, far beyond the bounds of Gloucestershire. Abbot Hameline's efforts to resolve the crisis were of no avail. The only evid? ence brought forward to date to support the suggestion of a cult of St Harold at Gloucester relates to the iconography of the elaborate late-15th-century reredos of the Lady Chapel. This was embellished with thirty-nine painted stone statues of saints, but they were destroyed by iconoclasts after the Reformation. Neverthe? less, the identity of a number of these figures can be detected from the names which were scratched extremely crudely on the niches in front of which they were to stand. The graffito of the central niche on the right-hand side has been read as 'eerolt'. Symmetry with its counterpart on the left-hand side, where 'arild' can be read with confidence, suggested to H. H. D. Short that here stood Harold the martyr. Such a reading is highly problematic, as Plate 1 shows.49 The evidence against such a cult is overwhelming. The History makes no refer? ence to any miracles at the shrine or elsewhere, nor does it refer to Harold as 'saint', merely to his 'sacred little body' and to the marks of a 'presumed martyr? dom'. William Parker, last abbot of St Peter's, wrote a vernacular poem concerned primarily with the foundation of the house, its early history and cults. Based on a work written at the close of the 14th century, it belongs to a popular and romantic genre of the period. It has stanzas devoted to the abbey's two known cults, that of Edward II and the obscure saint Arild, whose cult was apparendy developed at a date not long after 1170: edward also second, most honoured king, whose body lyeth buryed heere in this churche and 83</page><page sequence="16">Joe Hillaby Plate i Graffito on the right-hand side of the central niche of the Lady Chapel Reredos in Gloucester Cathedral. It has been suggested that it reads 'eerolt\ and indicates the site of a statue of Harold. ... Arilde, that blessed Virgin, which marly rized at Kinton, nigh Thornebury, hither was translated, and in the monastery Comprised, and did miracles many one .. .50 There is not a word about Harold, Arild's suggested counterpart on the elaborate lady chapel reredos, although poem and reredos are of virtually the same date. The most compelling evidence lies elsewhere. The calendar in the Jesus Col? lege manuscript already referred to was completed at St Peter's 'about 1170'. 84</page><page sequence="17">The ritual-child-murder accusation Harold's name does not appear, nor was he among the saints added to the calendar 'about 1200' - but these did include 'St Arilde'.51 Her feast, but not that of Harold, was also listed in a series of later St Peter's calendars: B.L. Royal MS 2A XIII written sometime after 1220; Pierpoint Morgan, New York, Library MS 99 of 1400-50; and a Bodleian Rawlinson Liturgical MS of the 15 th century. The conclusion must be that Harold failed to provide miracles for his house in 1167, and did no better at the time of the suggested attempt to revive his cult after Little St Hugh's death in 1255. The abbey had to wait until the murder of Edward II at Berkeley in 1327 for an effective martyr when, possibly spurred on by Hameline's failure 160 years earlier, Abbot Thoky received the royal body which the neighbouring manasteries of St Augustine's in Bristol, St Mary's in Kingswood and St Aldhelm's in Malmesbury 'were afraid to accept ... for fear of Roger de Mortimer, Queen Isabella and others involved [in his murder]'.52 It was the gifts of pilgrims to Edward's shrine which financed work on the south transept and the glorious remodelling of the choir. At Worcester, on the other hand, lack of funds brought the rebuilding of the north nave to a halt. Thus, although St Harold had failed the monks of St Peter's, the architecture of the two monastic churches shows that ultimately they triumphed over their old rivals at Worcester - although this victory was more than two centuries in coming. Dissemination: England Claims of ritual child murder were raised in England on some ten further occa? sions.53 This excludes the alleged incident at Bristol in 1183, and that at Lincoln in 1202, when, on the finding of a child's body outside the city walls, the Jewish community fell under suspicion. In most cases the records are sketchy. The major exceptions were at Bury St Edmunds and Lincoln, where accusations in 1181 and 1255 led to the establishment of new, if minor, martyr cults. There, a wider range of evidence permits more thorough analysis of the factors at work. Neither of these alleged murders took place at Eastertide. The date of Robert's 'martyr? dom' was 10 June, which was, as the chronicler John de Taxter says, 'a Wednes? day'. 'Little St Hugh' died in August. Indeed, bodies were found at Easter on only two of the ten occasions when the charge was revived: at Winchester in 1192 and Northampton in 1279 (Table 2).54 Thus one of the essentials in the original accusation, that it was perpetrated at Passiontide to re-enact the crucifixion in mockery of the Christian faith, was abandoned as unduly restrictive. Given the difficulty which it had already caused at Gloucester in 1167, this is not altogether surprising. There is another significant distinction between the first two accusations and the third. At Norwich one of the principal reasons for the absence of later large-scale building activity was the failure to establish a powerful cult. The cathedral remains an almost completely Romanesque structure, apart from the addition of the lady 85</page><page sequence="18">Joe Hillaby Table 2. English Ritual-Child-Murder Accusations Year Town Name Supposed date of death Feast 1144 Norwich 1167 Gloucester 1181 Bury St Edmunds 1192 Winchester 1225 Winchester 1232 Winchester 1244 London: B B B B B B SC William Harold Robert 22 March 17 March 10 June 24 March Good Friday found alive Stephen 17 October c. 1 August Old St Paul's 1255 Lincoln 1276 London 1279 Northampton SC Little St Hugh 27 August 27 August C? 'not quite killed' Good Friday B: Benedictine; C: Cluniac; SC: Secular canons Bristol (1183) and Lincoln (1202) excluded chapel. At Gloucester the spectacular remodelling of the Romanesque choir and south transept, regarded as the dawn of the perpendicular style, came only as the result of gifts offered at the shrine of Edward II. At Bury in 1181 there was no such desperate need, for the monastic church had as its saint Edmund, the East Anglian king murdered by the Danes in 870. Under the patronage of Canute and Edward the Confessor his shrine came to be one of the most popular in England. What, then, were the motives of those who sought to promote the new cult? A Life of Robert was written by his contemporary, the Bury monk, Jocelin of Brakelond. This has been lost. In his Chronicle, rather than repeat what he wrote in the Life, Jocelin mentions him merely in passing, referring simply to 'the saintly boy martyred and buried in our church where happened many prodigious signs'.55 The only remaining clue to the Life comes from four scenes in a 15th-century illuminated Bury manuscript which formed part of the Dyson Perrins collection. The manuscript was in all probability part of a Bury lectionary, a book containing a collection of abbreviated saints' Lives for use in the Office, arranged in the order in which the feasts occurred during the year. Sold at Sotheby's in 1959, it disappeared to the United States, apparently without trace. All that we now have is the description in the catalogue of the illuminated manuscripts drawn up in 1920 by Sir George Warner and, possibly, an independent description by M. R. James.56 The manuscript seeks to encapsulate the Life in four episodes: 1 An old woman putting a boy's body into a well with a scroll bearing the text: 'The old woman wanted to hide the lamp of God but she could not.' The theme of a well was repeated at Lincoln in 1255. 86</page><page sequence="19">The ritual-child-murder accusation 2 Robert's dead, naked body lies near a tree while his soul is carried to Heaven by angelic hands. On the left a man shoots an arrow into the tree. 3 A monk in red robes kneels in prayer to the saint. A scroll reads: 'May He have mercy on me by the merits of Saint Robert, now and forever.' 4 Drapery on which is painted a charter or deed bearing a robin and from which hangs a large, red seal. For M. R. James the bird 'must be an allusion to Robert's name'. Similar brief scenes depicting the most significant aspects of a saint's life can be seen not only in other lectionaries but also in the stained glass of the period. There is further evidence that Robert's cult enjoyed a revival in the 15th cen? tury. When John Lydgate - monk, courtier, friend and disciple of Chaucer - returned to Bury in 1434 he continued his composition of devotional and hagio graphic works. These included not only verses commemorating 'Miracles wrought by St Edmund in 1441 and 1444' but also a poetic invocation of St Robert (see the Appendix). Clearly he was still a potent force. In 1275 the Bury chronicle refers specifically to St Robert's altar, and William Worcestre records in his Itinerary that Robert's shrine was still in the abbey church when he visited Bury in I479-57 While Jocelin refers but briefly to Robert in his Chronicle, his highly personal and extraordinarily frank account of life at St Edmunds has much perceptive and revealing comment on the internal politics of the community. This repays detailed examination, for it is the only English source to reveal the varied nature of the forces at work on the occasion of a ritual child-murder accusation. The Bury incident thus makes an excellent case study. During the fifteen-month vacancy, that lasted from November 1180 to Febru? ary 1182 after the death of Abbot Hugh, the chief concern of Robert the prior, possibly with an eye to the succession, was to keep the monastery 'on an even keel by not upsetting or angering anyone'. Jocelin provides valuable character sketches of two of the most powerful figures within the community. William the sacrist 'spent freely, giving away not only what should be, but also what should not be given thus, in the words of Deuteronomy 16:19, blinding "the eyes of the wise and perverting the words of the righteous" '. William is referred to as 'father and patron of the Jews, for they enjoyed his protection. They had free entrance and exit and went everywhere throughout the monastery, wandering by the altars and round the shrine [of St Edmund] while mass was being celebrated. Their money was deposited in our treasury - in [William] the sacrist's custody.'58 William was deeply suspicious of his deputy, the sub-sacrist Samson, who was indeed to be elected abbot. Samson's overriding ambition was the completion of Bury's west front, with its three towers. 'He had a great supply of stone and sand hauled up for the construction of the great western tower of the church. When questioned as to the source of the money, he replied that some of the town's people had secretly given him cash to construct and complete the tower.' Samson,</page><page sequence="20">Joe Hillaby cooperating with Warin, the custodian of St Edmund's shrine, was in fact diverting offerings made at the shrine to his ambitious building programme, and his enem? ies and opponents in the chapter outwitted him by persuading the king's custodian to prohibit any new work and order all cash to be saved for debt repayment. Only after his election as abbot in the next year did 'the Lord give Samson the power to fulfil his vow: in the course of time he built the tower and thus achieved his dearest wish'.59 There can be little doubt that here we have the motives that lay behind the Bury ritual-murder accusation. It was not merely to bring in funds for Samson's building programme as sub-sacristan in 1181. It represented a powerful blow in the political and thus leadership battle being waged. Within a community so deeply divided it was a shrewd way of turning the tables on the pro-Jewish camp of William the sacrist. Jocelin reveals that there was a long history of conflict on this issue. Abbot Hugh, he suggests, was 'a gentle and kind man, a good and devoted monk' and under his leadership, discipline and worship and everything connected with the monastic Rule flourished. That is as may be, but by the time of Jocelin's admission in 1173 he was growing old and losing his sight. He had no head for business and, relying on the opinion of others, his constant recourse was to loans. These varied between ?100 and ?200 each Easter and Michaelmas. As security for these loans, silk vestments and even ritual vessels of gold and other sacred ornaments were pawned.60 If Jocelin can be relied on, and he is very precise about the amounts to which he refers, vast sums were involved. The major creditor, William fitz Isabel, was not Jewish. He was a financier and speculator in houses and land and, as a member of one of London's governing families, he served as sheriff of the city for 1162-9, ii7?~7j 1178-87 and from 1193-4. On merely one bond he had granted a loan of ?1040. Over a number of years an even larger sum, ?1200, was due to Benedict, brother of Jurnet of Norwich. This started off as a 40-mark loan (?26 13s 4d) to William the sacrist. When it had grown through interest payments to ?100 it was renegotiated. On the basis that ?400 would be repaid four years later, a further ?100 was borrowed. At the end of this period the sum due was increased to ?880, to be redeemed at ?80 per annum over eleven years. Another creditor was Isaac, one of the sons of Rabbi Josce, the London and Rouen finan? cier who had become a legend in his own time, from whom ?400 was borrowed. Such unlimited credit facilities, coupled with limited knowledge of its operation, spelt disaster for the aged Abbot Hugh. 'Long before he died he had nothing for himself or his household to eat except what was bought on credit'. Even worse, 'on the day of his funeral there was nothing to be distributed to the poor'.61 On the other hand there was a powerful group which had a sharp appreciation of the consequences of the mounting burden of interest payments, the renegoti? ation of old debts and the contracting of new ones to meet current expenditure. 88</page><page sequence="21">The ritual-child-murder accusation In addition to Samson and Warin this included Hugh, the former prior who had been deposed by Abbot Hugh, two men who had been cellarer, Denis and Roger of Ingham, and Jocelin himself. For speaking out 'for the good of our church' they had been first thrown into the monastic gaol and then exiled among the Cluniacs of Castle Acre.62 Powerless to openly oppose their abbot, to whom absolute obedience was due, this faction was able to act against other members of the community. Like William the sacrist, Hugh the cellarer and other officials had contracted private loans for their own purposes, such as the rebuilding of the treasury. Of necessity such transactions had to be secret. Unable to use the conventual seal, they resorted to that which hung on St Edmund's shrine, a seal intended merely for the ratification of business concerning guilds and fraternities. When the cellarer's debt had mounted to ?60 Jurnet of Norwich demanded payment, thus precipitating a fin? ancial and political crisis. Hugh was deposed and replaced by Denis, a member of the opposing faction, who by careful management eventually reduced the debt to ?3o.63 Ambitious building was the expression not only of internal but of external rivalry. The west front of Bury, as completed by Samson during his abbacy (1182 1211), had his 'major tower' placed centrally and two lower octagonal 'great towers' at either end. The same three features were to be seen at the cathedral priory church of Ely where the central and southwestern towers still stand. Thus the overall design at Bury drew heavily on the west work at Ely which was virtually complete at the death of Bishop Ridel in 1189. There was one major difference: whereas the west front at Ely was about 160 feet wide, Samson's somewhat later west front at Bury was almost 250 feet across - wider than any other in the country.64 The rivalry between the two men is brought out by Jocelin in a small but revealing incident. When Bishop Ridel asked Samson for some of the finest oaks on the monastic estates, Samson, unable to refuse his bishop, straightforward felled his best oaks 'for the steeple of his own great tower', not realizing that they had already been secretly marked by Ridel.65 All this is not to suggest that it was gifts to the shrine of St Robert which funded the completion of the Bury towers. On the contrary, after his election in 1182, Samson had the full resources of one of the four most powerful English Benedictine abbeys with which to fulfil his ambitions. However, it does indicate the determination and range of ambition of the one monk of whom Abbot Hugh had said: 'he was the only man he had ever known who could not be bent to his will'. The discovery of Robert's body in June 1181 provided Samson with just the weapon needed in the contest over election for the vacant abbacy. Once in office, Samson quickly imposed financial control. All seals, thirty-three in total, had to be delivered up, and debt above 20s was no longer countenanced. The attacks on the London Jewry in September 1189, and at York and elsewhere in 1190, provided Samson with the opportunity for which he had waited. He 89</page><page sequence="22">Joe Hillaby applied to the king for permission to expel the Jews from his Liberty of Bury in 1190, but the Crown insisted they retain their moveables and the value of their lands.66 Eleven years after the Bury incident, in 1192, the charge was levelled again, this time at Winchester. Entries for the years 1190-6 are missing from the Winchester chronicle, but Richard of Devizes, monk of St Swithun's in the city, provides a detailed account. On this occasion the boy is said to have disappeared on the feast of the Adoration of the Cross, Good Friday. The next day, he tells us, was the Passover, 'a feast day of the Jews'. As at Gloucester the charge thus appears to have arisen from the convergence of Jewish celebrations with Passiontide, but no body was found. When referred to the justices the case was dismissed.67 During the traumatic years of John's reign there was a lull. Then, in 1225 the accusation was made again at Winchester, but got nowhere for the child was found alive.68 The charge was revived seven years later, when the Winchester chronicler claimed that a boy called Stephen had been crucified - but the date, 17 October, did not fit the ritual-murder charge. The mother, who confessed to the crime, took sanctuary and abjured the realm; but in February 1236 Abraham Pinch, a member of the Winchester community, was hanged and his property, including the synagogue, escheated to the Crown. There was no attempt to estab? lish a cult. The date was certainly troublesome and Winchester had no shortage of saints.69 We have to rely on Matthew Paris for the next case, at London in 1244. On 1 August the unburied body of a boy was found in the cemetery of St Benedict's 'with Hebrew characters inscribed on arms, legs and chest'. Jews from the House of Converts, in what is now Chancery Lane, were summoned to advise. 'For honour, love and fear of the king', founder of their House, they explained their meaning. Although this was not Passiontide, nor were the stigmata found, the canons of Old St Paul's hurried the body away to bury the lad 'with due solemnity not far from the high altar of their church'. But there is no record of a cult here either, for the canons had a well-established patron in Erkenwald, the late-7th century bishop of the East Saxons whose seat had been in London. His cult must have been flourishing, because between 1251 and c. 1313 the canons extended the eastern arm of their cathedral church to twelve bays to provide fitting accom? modation for his shrine.70 Very different was the most notorious of all the English accusations, that of Little St Hugh of Lincoln in 1255. There are four sources for the events at Lincoln: the Burton and Waverley annalists, Matthew Paris and the Anglo Norman ballad of Hugh of Lincoln. These have been assessed by Sir Francis Hill and Gavin Langmuir.71 The body of the nine-year-old boy was found in a well, as would seem to have been the case at Bury, on 29 August. According to the calendar of the Lincoln Use, the feast was celebrated on 27 August, the day on which the Burton annalist 90</page><page sequence="23">The ritual-child-murder accusation tells us the body was found. As at Bury in 1181, Winchester in 1232 and London in 1244, the occasion of the alleged crime was a significant factor no longer. Once again marks on the body were declared to be consistent with a mock crucifixion. As at Gloucester in n 67 and at Winchester in 1192, the presence of a large number of Jews, assembled on this occasion for a wedding, gave verisimilitude to the charge, although Eastertide was long past. The performance of a miracle - a blind girl of fifteen recovered her sight after she had rubbed her eyes with water from the body - confirmed that this must indeed have been a martyrdom. The ecclesiastical authorities then assumed control. Overriding the claims of the parish, Dean Richard Gravesend and his canons carried the boy's body off in solemn procession to their cathedral, where it was buried next to the newly erected tomb of Bishop Robert Grosseteste (1235-53) in what is now the western transept.72 Until 1200 the canons who served the cathedral church of Lincoln had suffered the same affliction as the Benedictine monks of Norwich and Gloucester: they lacked a patron saint. Even during his lifetime miracles had been attributed to Bishop Hugh of Avalon. After his death in 1200 a succession of further miracles was reported at the tomb. An investigating papal commission accepted this evid? ence, and in 1220 Hugh was duly canonized by Pope Honorius III. Although Lincoln had no pressing need for a further saint, there may have been some financial incentive for the establishment of another cult, especially as the young martyr bore the name Hugh. At the time of his discovery the dean and canons, with their newly elected bishop, Henry Lexington, were about to embark on what was to be one of the architectural wonders of the period, the Angel Choir (1256 80). This was designed to be the permanent resting place for the relics of their patron, Bishop Hugh. Such work, they must have anticipated, would stretch their financial resources to the limit.73 It is ironic that Lexington and the canons should have buried the child martyr in the western transept not merely next to Bishop Grosseteste but opposite the shrine of the great St Hugh, a man held in the highest regard by the local Jewish community. The author of his Life describes how at the funeral they paid tribute to the bishop, their defender, by running alongside his bier, weeping and wailing, thus enabling his coreligionists to recognize that through him were fulfilled the words of God: 'the Lord gave unto him the blessing of all the peoples'. Despite his proselytizing role, Grosseteste had also commanded the respect of the com? munity, due in part, no doubt, to his moral authority, high scholarship and reputa? tion as an Hebraist, but pre-eminently for his concern for the proper treatment of their fellow Jews. In his last year, stung by the cupidity of the pope's Italian agents, Grosseteste had declared publicly that Jewish methods of charging interest were more equitable than those of Christian moneylenders.74 There had been high expectations in Lincoln at Grossteste's death in 1253. Legends and miracles followed. Bells were heard in the sky on the night he died. 9i</page><page sequence="24">Joe Hillaby Miraculous oil issued from his tomb. A canon was promptly appointed custodian, as if it were already a 'shrine'. Certainly local people flocked to it in just that spirit. The Tewkesbury abbey annalist went so far as to record, in 1257, that on account of his many and proven miracles Grosseteste had been canonized by Rome. The canons were, however, disappointed. His irreconcilable hostility to the papacy ensured that he would never be canonized. In Lincoln it was believed that the pope had dreamed that Grossteste had come to him and wounded him in the side, a wound from which he was not to recover.75 Under such circum? stances the discovery of the body of a 'child martyr' two years later must indeed have seemed providential, not only to dean and canons but also to Grosseteste's successor, Henry Lexington, who was consecrated bishop on 17 May 1254. The Dictionary of National Biography shows that Bishop Henry belonged to a remarkable local family whose members, while highly ambitious, do not appear to have been unduly concerned by scruples. The background and relationships of the bishop and his three brothers have been closely scrutinized by Langmuir.76 Robert, of whom there is evidence that he had a sideline as a moneylender, was a senior judge of the King's Bench and a canon of both Southwell and Salisbury. His candidature for the see of Lichfield and Coventry in 1249 was rejected. Stephen, also a canon of Southwell, became a Cistercian monk, quickly securing election as abbot of Stanley, Wiltshire, then of the great French house of Savigny and finally, in 1243, of Clairvaux itself. The General Chapter of his order deposed him in 1255 for obtaining a papal privilege that he should never be deposed, probably as a reward for conducting 'some secular business of importance' for Alexander IV. John, the fourth brother, was the decisive actor in the tragedy that unfolded at Lincoln. A close and influential adviser of the king, he was an expert in civil and ecclesiastical law. In the last week of August he had accompanied Henry III to Newcastle to meet the young Scots king, Alexander. On their return they arrived at Lincoln on 4 October. Henry III had wished to promote Bishop Peter de Aquablanca, his Savoyard favourite, from poverty-stricken Hereford to wealthy Lincoln, but was forestalled in December 1253 by the prompt action of the Lincoln canons in electing Henry, their dean, as Grosseteste's successor. In both capacities Henry was therefore working closely with the canons in preparing for the building of the Angel Choir. Plans must have been well advanced in 1255, for the king was petitioned for permission to demolish part of the city wall to accommodate the eastward exten? sion of the cathedral.77 A close working alliance between the bishop and Richard Gravesend, the new dean, resulted in a tight oligarchy in the cathedral chapter. In or shortly after 1256 three of the bishop's relatives, William Lexington and Oliver and Richard Sutton, became members of the chapter. This was not altogether surprising, for the Lincoln cathedral Customs of 1214 state that the bishop could appoint canons without asking consent of his chapter.78 The oligarchy was not only tight-knit but 92</page><page sequence="25">The ritual-child-murder accusation also self-perpetuating. On Lexington's death in 1258 Dean Gravesend was elected bishop, and William Lexington became dean in 1261, to be succeeded by Oliver Sutton in 1275. On Gravesend's death in 1279 Oliver Sutton was elected bishop by the canons. A year later the ambitions of the oligarchy had been achieved when Sutton welcomed Edward I and Queen Eleanor to the cathedral to attend the ceremonial translation of the relics of St Hugh to their new shrines in the completed Angel Choir. Given the relationship of Bishop Lexington and Dean Gravesend and their failure to capitalize fully on the death of Grosseteste, the role of John Lexington, the bishop's brother, becomes clearer. There is no evidence that any action had been taken by the civil authorities to prosecute murder charges in the five weeks since the discovery of the body. John's arrival from the north with the king on 4 October transformed the situation. Within a few hours 'the discreet and prudent Lexington' had arrested one member of the community, Copin or Jacob, 'interro? gated' him and offered a pardon in return for a full confession. But 'stone dead hath no fellow'. If Copin were to be executed there could be no going back on the confession. Martyrdom would be proven beyond question. Lexington knew his master's character well. Henry III was not only outstandingly pious, he was also impulsive and hot-tempered. Poor in judgement, he was easily led by others. Sometimes referred to as simplex, this quality has been better described as 'a kind of innocence'. The confession having been written down, Lexington then had it read out before king and court. Copin's immediate execution was ordered - and the arrest of 91 other members of the community.79 Although the evidence suggests that these proceedings had been carefully manipulated, Henry must carry responsibility for what occurred. Copin's death was on his orders, as was the dispatch of the Lincoln Jews to the Tower. There, eighteen who refused to plead except before a joint jury of Christians and Jews were hanged, on the basis that their refusal to plead was an admission of guilt. The others were found guilty but were saved only by the intervention of Richard of Cornwall. All financial interest had been forgotten by Henry III, but not by that acute man of business, his brother, who had accepted the whole English Jewry as security for a loan to the Crown of 5000 marks (?3333 6s 8d).80 Lincoln marked a turning point in the history of the ritual-child-murder accusation in England. It was the first case in which the Crown had intervened, and this was to be seen again in London at the end of Henry Ill's reign and once again, but much more disastrously, at Northampton in 1279. However, unlike the intervention of Philip Augustus of France in 1182 when all Jews were expelled from the royal domain, Henry Ill's motives in 1255 had been anything but mercenary. A hundred years ago the authors of the Lincoln Diocesan History had no doubt in their assessment of the bishop's role. 'This foul tragedy disgraced the episco? pate of Henry de Lexington ... How differently would St Hugh or Robert Gros 93</page><page sequence="26">Joe Hillaby seteste have acted.'81 Even if one were to accept Langmuir's more generous interpretations of John Lexington's motives, his extraordinarily prompt action on 4 August set the seal on his brother's attempts to establish the cult of a second St Hugh and gave a welcome further impetus to his campaign for the reconstruc? tion of the Lincoln choir as a setting suitable for the relics of the first St Hugh. The shadow of Ely loomed over both Bury and Lincoln. Whereas its west front had inspired Samson, it was the newly completed choir of Ely, built especially to receive the relics of St Etheldreda, which inspired the Lincoln chapter.82 The motives of bishop, dean and canons were quite different from those of the Benedictine monks of Norwich and Gloucester. Where these latter were earnestly seeking a patron, at Lincoln the concern was the magnification of a securely established cult. In consequence, 1255 was not the end of the story. London provided a confusing case in 1276, which began with a boy's death at the hythe of Dowgate, where the Walbrook flowed into the Thames by the Steel? yard. The strength of the current here was notorious. Stow tells how, after a 'strong shower' in 1574, an eighteen-year-old tried to leap across but was 'taken by the feet and borne down with the violence of the stream', and being carried with such swiftness into the Thames 'none could rescue him'. In 1276 this quickly became a matter of crucifixion 'in offence of the name of Jesus', but nothing further was heard of the case after Edward I 'adjourned the Jews before him in his parliament a month from Easter'.83 The last recorded occasion on which the charge was brought in England was at Northampton in 1279. The chronicle of Bury St Edmunds describes how 'a boy was crucified by the Jews on the Day of the Adoration of the Holy Cross (Good Friday), but was not quite killed. Notwithstanding, numbers of the Jews were torn to pieces by horses in London and hung, immediately after Easter, under this pretext.' The chronicle of the Cluniac priory of St Andrew in North? ampton makes no reference to this event. This is noteworthy for the chronicle shows considerable interest in Jewish affairs. It records, for example, the impris? onment of Jews in the search for coin-clipping evidence in 1278. The Charter rolls of 1280-2 record grants by the Crown of houses in the town which had formerly belonged to three members of the community (Manser son of David, Elias son of Ister and Isaac son of Vives) and the Close Rolls for 12 June 1280 refer to 'Agnes and Barnabas of Northampton, now converted to the faith of Christ'. Whether they were victims of the ritual-murder accusation or of the coin-clipping charges is not evident, but certainly there is not the usual reference to 'trespassers of the money' etc.84 Even after the general expulsion in 1290, life was breathed once more into the myth of ritual child murder. The ghost of Little St Hugh was not allowed to rest. In the 1290s the boy was translated to a new shrine in the south aisle of the cathedral church, apparently between the second and third piers east of the cross? ing. Here the choir wall is decorated with a fine gabled and crocketed blind 94</page><page sequence="27">The ritual-child-murder accusation Plate 2 Lincoln Cathedral, south aisle: gabled and crocketed blind arcade of the choir wall with the shrine chest of Little St Hugh projecting from the central bay. Compare the tracery at the head of the central arcade with that at the back of the shrine as depicted in Plate 3. Reproduced by permission. Copyright: City of Lincoln Archaeology Unit. arcade of five bays, from the central bay of which projected the shrine chest, with its canopy some 12 feet in height. The Purbeck marble base of the chest is still in situ (see Plate 2). It stands some 2 feet out from the screen and is nearly 5 feet long. When Dean Kaye and Sir Joseph Banks opened the tomb in 1791 they found a boy's skeleton 39 inches long. Architectural and other evidence indicates that Edward I played a prominent part in the translation. Stocker has shown that 'this type of structure does not really belong to a sepulchral tradition at all; rather it seems to derive from architectural tabernacles such as those provided for the principal statues on the [Queen] Eleanor crosses'. What is known of the heraldic decoration suggests that two of the four shields displayed on the monument bore 95</page><page sequence="28">Joe Hillaby Edward I's coat of arms, and Edward is certainly recorded as making a gift of alms to the shrine as late as 1299-1300.85 (See Plate 3.) Queen Eleanor had died only a few miles from Lincoln, at Harby, just in Nottinghamshire. Her body was taken to Lincoln to be embalmed and the entrails were buried in the cathedral. They were placed in a marble tomb with a gilded bronze effigy, similar to that erected at Westminster, at the east end. Twelve Eleanor crosses marked the twelve places where the bier rested overnight on its journey to Westminster, where the funeral service was conducted by Bishop Oliver Sutton. All this, Colvin has pointed out, must be seen not merely as evidence of Edward's devotion to Eleanor but 'also of his desire to enhance the prestige of the English monarchy by creating visible symbols of its piety and power'. In this, as well as the creation of a royal mausoleum in St Stephen's chapel, Westminster, Edward was reacting to 'the weakness in prestige of the English monarchy com? pared with its French rival ... so skilfully exploiting the sanctity of St Louis'. Thus, 'the evidence for a consciously imitative policy is overwhelming'.86 The translation of Little St Hugh and his new shrine in the Angel Choir must be viewed in the same light - as political propaganda - in this case directed wholly at the internal market. A visitor to Lincoln in 1736 described a statue of a boy, prominently displaying the stigmata. The verger of the cathedral 'showed me a statue of a boy, made of free-stone, painted, about twenty inches high, which they affirm was removed from the shrine [of Little St Hugh]'. Although 'the head is broken off, probably at the time when all the statues in this church underwent that fate', one can still 'observe the marks of the crucifixion in the hands and feet and the wound made on the right side from whence blood is painted on the original as issuing; the left hand is on the breast but the right held up with the two fingers extended in the usual posture of benediction; which attitude, I apprehend, denotes his being a saint, as the wounds do his being a martyr'87 (see Plate 4). In 1280 the body of St Hugh was translated to a new and magnificent shrine behind the high altar of the Angel Choir. This became the most popular of all the English pilgrimage sites of its day, after that of Becket at Canterbury. In the 1290s the procession of pilgrims would marvel not only at the Angel Choir and Hugh's shrine but also at the tomb of Queen Eleanor at the east end of the cathedral, and on their passage along the south choir aisle the statue of Little St Hugh, with the tabernacle work of its shrine recapturing the essence of the Eleanor crosses.88 This was a further example of Edward's attempt, through Eleanor, to portray himself as the Christian ruler; but it also had a more specific purpose. In the period prior to the general expulsion of the English Jewry in 1290 there had been Plate 3 Drawing of the Shrine of Little St Hugh, Lincoln Cathedral, from the so-called 'Dugdale's Book of Monuments', 1641, now BL Add MS 71474 fio8, incorrectly described in the text as 'feretory of St Hugh, one-time bishop of Lincoln'. Reproduced by permission. Copyright: British Library. 96</page><page sequence="29">IK^^^^&gt;^^^2i^9^p%BS5?i^2SKS9ft9 It i^^^l 97</page><page sequence="30">Joe Hillaby Plate 4 Drawing by Mr Smart Lethieullier of the headless statue of a boy at Lincoln Cathedral, supposedly of Little St Hugh, from the niche at the head of the shrine in the south choir aisle (see Plate 3). Not published in Archaeologia 1 (1770); reproduced in Sir Charles Anderson's Lincoln Pocket Guide (1892) 96. deep and widespread hostility to both king and queen as a consequence of their 'large-scale trafficking in Jewish debts and encumbered estates'.89 The statue of the child martyr on its shrine was indeed a potent symbol in Edward's campaign to deflect that hostility back to the now departed Jewry. As a propaganda coup and exercise in self-presentation it was, in the long term, highly successful in fabricating the image of Edward as the Christian champion thwarting the mach? inations of the English Jewry. In consequence, more than any of the other child martyrs, it was Little St Hugh who became engraved on the folk memory. This was due in no small part to the final lines of Chaucer's Prioress's Tale and the ballad Sir Hugh or The Jew's Daughter. The image has only been fully challenged in our own day. In 1911 a pamphlet entitled Jew's Court and the Legend of Little St Hugh of Lincoln claimed that the well in which he had been found had been 'uncovered and restored' and a notice outside the 'Jew's Court' invited public inspection - at 3d per head. In 1928 the workman who had dug the well revealed on its secret. Dissemination: France and Beyond Only in 1170-1, more than a quarter of a century after the Norwich incident but only three years after that at Gloucester, do references to child ritual murder appear in French monastic chronicles: the Annals of the abbey of St Sepulchre 98</page><page sequence="31">The ritual-child-murder accusation at Cambrai and the Chronicle of Robert of Torigni, abbot of Mont-Saint-Michel.91 All four were Benedictine houses, and at this time communication between such monasteries on either side of the channel was strong. There have been suggestions of earlier murders of Christian children in France, but such evidence as there is has been described as 'remote and obscure'. Certainly no evidence has yet been brought forward that these were ritual-child-murder charges of the same charac? ter as those at Norwich and Gloucester - that they were carried out at Eastertide and that there were indications of other ritual elements, that is of crucifixion. There are no records of 'martyrs', merely of malicious murder, as at Loches-sur Indre.92 It was therefore the Gloucester accusation of 1167, linked to that of Norwich of 1144, which led to the succession of similar charges in France. The cult of St William was very local. Initially it attracted the burghers of Norwich; when they lost interest pilgrims were drawn from the country folk of the nearby villages of south Norfolk and north Suffolk which looked to Norwich, with its markets and fairs, as their religious and commercial centre.93 Harold has no record of devotees. How was it, then, that two minor cults had such a dramatic impact in northern France? Transmission must have taken place within that small group of Benedictine monks with special interest in such matters. It was then seized on by powerful lay figures who realized that allegations of child martyrdom could be a useful tool in promoting their political and economic objectives. To the French king it provided ample justification for his attack on the French Jewry. Herein lay the difference between the impact of the accusation in England and the French realm - until 1255. The first such charge, if we accept the evidence of the well-informed Robert of Torigni and of the Cambrai annalist, was made at Pontoise about 1170. William le Breton seems to place the event later, in 1179. The Jews at Pontoise were held to have crucified a youth, Richard, whose body was taken to the church of the Holy Innocents in Paris where 'many miracles were wrought'. However, during the English occupation of Paris Richard's relics were transferred across the Chan? nel (where, it is not known) but his head remained in Paris.94 The Pontoise accusation apparently provided elements within the ruling group at Blois with the excuse needed to launch an attack on the Jews of that town in 1171. Chazan has shown how anti-Jewish feeling arose within the Court as a result of the liaison between Theobald, count of Chartres, and a local Jewess, Polcelina. When the relationship cooled, the countess and members of the nobil? ity, including the master of the witness to the alleged murder, persuaded the count to bring the full weight of judicial authority against the community on a charge of ritual murder. More than thirty Jews were burned at the stake 'for crucifying a young Christian', even though a corpse was never produced.95 It was Robert of Torigni, 'a factual and on the whole accurate historian', who brought together the first two English and the first two French accusations under one entry. Under the year 1171 he records that Theobald of Chartres 'burned 99</page><page sequence="32">Joe Hillaby many Jews who, to show their contempt of Christians, had crucified a child at Easter'. Here he indicates, concisely, the essential elements of the myth in relation to victim, method, occasion and motive. He continues: 'afterwards they put him into a sack and threw him into the River Loire. During the reign of King Stephen, at Norwich in England, they did the same thing to St William: he was buried in the cathedral there and many miracles are performed at his shrine. The same thing happened to another [child] at Gloucester in the time of King Henry II.' It should be noted that while Robert refers to William as a saint and performer of miracles he makes no such claims for Harold. Robert then concludes that 'at Pontoise the impious Jews did the same thing to St Richard who, after the body was taken to Paris, became illustrious by many miracles'. Under the year 1177 he draws attention to a further 'martyrdom': 'St William was killed by the Jews of Paris' on 21 April, but the body was 'entirely burnt up by fire'.96 By the reign of Philip Augustus (1180-1223) the myth had become received truth. Rigord, a monk of St Denis who was the principal orchestrator of the growing anti-Semitism in the French royal domain, claimed that the young Philip Augustus, who was born in 1165, 'had heard many times from children who had been raised with him in the palace . . . that the Paris Jews were wont every year on Easter Sunday or during the week of Our Lord's Passion to go secretly down into underground vaults and kill a Christian as a sort of sacrifice, in contempt of the Christian religion'. Such accusations provided a convenient excuse for Philip's expulsion of all Jews from the royal domain in 1182. It has been suggested that the allegation of the crucifixion of a child at Orleans in 1181 led to the general expulsion. This is not so, for the allegation is based 'ultimately on a misreading' of a late tradition.97 Philip's motives, unlike those of Henry III at Lincoln in 1255, were 'quite clearly more economic than religious'. Evidence in support of this view given by Hallam, the most recent historian of Capetian France, and others, is very strong. When he came to the throne in n 80 the fifteen-year-old king was extremely short of money. Whereas, it is said, his father left him but 19,000 livres a year, Philip left his son a revenue of 1200 livres parisis a day. The rapidly growing wealth of the Paris Jews made them an obvious target. It was even suggested that they owned half the houses in the city.98 In response to this financial crisis in 1180 Philip imposed heavy fines on the Paris community and, probably a year later, the Jews were seized in their syn? agogues and the ritual vessels confiscated. Later the royal guards broke into their homes to take their valuables. The ransom eventually paid has been calculated as 'one and one-half times what Philip's government might expect in normal predict? able revenue in an entire year'. While cancelling all outstanding Jewish debts, Philip Augustus retained one fifth for his own use. As earnest of his true faith, the young king did hand over synagogues for conversion to Christian worship.99 In July 1198 he allowed the Jews to return 'against his own edict' as Rigord 100</page><page sequence="33">The ritual-child-murder accusation records. Here again his motives were self-evident; only a few months later he regulated taxes to be levied on their moneylending. To Payen Gatineau, canon of Troyes, the king was 'a lover of wine, women, good cheer - and money'. For Giles of Paris he was 'an evil man . . . both intolerant and covetous'.100 The economic causes of the expulsion have to be stressed, as old myths die hard. As recently as 1992 K. R. Stow wrote that Philip Augustus expelled the Jews 'ostensibly to punish the offence to Christianity created by Jewish lending, but even more because he believed that the Jews were guilty of ritually murdering a Christian boy'.101 What were the lines of transmission of the ritual-child-murder accusation from England to France? Robert had been a monk of Bee, and became prior in 1149 of that house which had provided Canterbury with three of her greatest archbishops: Lanfranc (1070-89), Anselm (1093-1109) and Theobald (1139-61). He was elected abbot of Mont-Saint-Michel in 1154 and ruled the house to his death in 1186. Before beginning his Chronicle in 1150 he had produced a number of other historical works. The chronicler Henry of Huntingdon had visited Robert while accompanying Archbishop Theobald on a visit to Bee in 1147. While Robert relied on Henry's Historia for English events to 1147 when his own Chronicle becomes original, it is indicative of his command of English sources that it was he who introduced Henry to Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Brittaniae, written only three years previously.102 Robert's position at Mont-Saint-Michel gave him the opportunity to provide a unique commentary on the actions and policy of the Angevin kings in France, for his relations with England were close. Hospitality was one of the major responsib? ilities of an abbot. Among his guests in 1158 were two of the most powerful men in Europe, Henry II of England and Louis VII of France. Henry II, who held Mont-Saint-Michel in special regard and was one of its benefactors, made a further visit in 1166. It has been noted that Serlo, first Norman abbot of St Peter's, had been a monk at Mont-Saint-Michel, and it was that monastery which provided inspiration for the design of his new abbey church at Gloucester. The strength of this cultural affiliation is reflected in the continuing loyalty of the monks of St Peter's to the Mont-Saint-Michel cults introduced by Serlo prior to 1100. Calendar evidence shows that these saints continued to be venerated well into the 13th century and probably later. The apparent route for transmission of the ritual-child-murder accusation would seem to be this Gloucester-Mont-Saint-Michel axis.103 From France the myth passed to the German-speaking lands of the Empire, to Spain and Italy.104 In 1187 tne archbishop of Mainz accepted the oath of the Jews of his town that they had not killed a Christian at Passover. After listening to the evidence of a specially convened commission composed of Jewish converts and Christians, the emperor Frederick II also rejected a similar charge, made at Hagenau in 1236. In 1247 Pope Innocent IV, in confirming the Bull Sicut Judeis 101</page><page sequence="34">Joe Hillaby first issued by Calixtus II c. 1120, added a section specifically directed at the protection of Jews from the ritual-murder charge. Sicut Judeis was issued again in 1272 by Gregory X, affording further protection. The evidence of Christians was not to be admitted against Jews accused of ritual murder, and in the event of such a murder a Jew could be arrested only if caught in the act.105 Nevertheless the accusation was made with increasing violence throughout the empire, and spread beyond. The first instance of the blood libel in Spain was in 1250: the case of the child Dominic of Saragossa. The sole victim of such alleged child murders to be recognized in the Roman Martyrology was St Simon of Trent, 1475 - only in 1965 was his name removed.106 Ultimately the myth passed into Eastern Europe and Bernard Malamud has shown in The Fixer how it was still alive there in our own century. Abbreviations AASS ChR CR HBS Historia Trans JHSE Jocelin Life and Miracles PR PpR RS J. Bollandus and G. Henschenius (eds) Acta Sanctorum 66 vols (new ed. Paris 1863-1940) Calendar of Charter Rolls, 1226-1300 2 vols (PRO 1903-6) Close Rolls: 1204-27. Rotuli Literarum Clausarum 2 vols (Record Commission, 1833-4) Close Rolls: 1227-96. Close Rolls of the reign of Henry III etc. 17 vols (PRO 1902-38) Henry Bradshaw Society W.H. Hart (ed.) Historia et Cartularium Monasterii Sancti Petri Gloucesteriae 3 vols (Rolls Series 33, 1863) Jewish Historical Studies: Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society of England H. E. Butler (ed. and trans.) Jocelin of Brakelond: Chronicle (Edinburgh 1949) A. Jessopp and M. R. James (eds) Thomas of Monmouth: The Life and Miracles of St William of Norwich (Cambridge 1896) Calendars of the Patent Rolls, 1216-92 8 vols (PRO 1893 1913) Pipe Rolls: Great Roll of the Pipe, 1167-1194/5 Pipe Roll Soc. (1884-1987) Rolls Series NOTES 1 R. Stacey, 'Recent Work on Medieval English Jewish History' Jewish History (University of Haifa Press) II:ii (Fall 1987) 61. 2 Emilio Gabba, 'The Growth of Anti Judaism or the Greek Attitude towards the Jews' in W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein (eds) The Cambridge History of Judaism II: The Hellenistic Age (Cambridge 1989) 643-6; G. Langmuir, 102</page><page sequence="35">The ritual-child-murder accusation 'Thomas of Monmouth: Detector of Ritual Murder' Speculum LIX (1984) 822-6; R. de Vaux, Studies in Old Testament Sacrifice (Cardiff 1964) 52-90; Esther chaps 3-9. 3 Historia I, 20-1. A translation by William Barber from Gloucester cathedral MS 34 forms Appendix XV in Canon David Welander's The History, Art and Architecture of Gloucester Cathedral (Stroud 1991) 597-639. The title is misleading. For the major part of its long history Gloucester was a house of Black Monks, only becoming a cathedral at the dissolution of the monasteries. 4 Life and Miracles 19-23. This is the basic text. It provides not only a translation but a wide-ranging introduction. G. Langmuir (see n. 2) shows how Thomas 'manipulated religious symbols and his perception of events to . . . turn murder into a miraculous cure for disease and mould religiosity of others to support his own'. Miracles wrought at the shrine are discussed by Benedicta Ward in Miracles and the Medieval Mind: Theory, Record and Event 1000-1215 (rev. ed., Aldershot 1987) 67-76. The story of St William is also examined by M. D. Anderson, A Saint at Stake: The Strange Death of William of Norwich, 1144 (London 1964); V. D. Lipman, The Jews of Medieval Norwich (JHSE 1967) and R. C. Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims: Popular Beliefs in Medieval England (London 1977) 118? 21, 161-2. The only reference of any length to the Gloucester episode, and that merely a half page, is by J. Trachtenberg in The Devil and the Jews (New Haven and London 1943) 130, who provides a concise version of the text from the Historia. 5 B. Blumenkranz, Juifs et Chretiens dans le monde occidentale, 430-1296 (Paris i960) 267-72. 6 Life and Miracles 38, 44, xiii. 7 Life and Miracles 66-85. 8 Life and Miracles 93-4. 9 G. Langmuir (see n. 2) and B. Ward (see n. 4); Life and Miracles 85-7, 136-45, 127-8, 165-6. 10 E. R. Henken, Traditions of the Welsh Saints (Woodbridge 1987) 327-31, 337~4i 11 B. Ward (see n. 4) 70-1; G. Langmuir (see n. 2) 829; Life and Miracles 85-8. 12 Life and Miracles xix-xxv. 13 M. D. Lobel (ed.) Historic Town Atlas II (London 1975) 'Norwich', 8, map 2. 14 D. Rollason, 'Lists of Saints' resting places in Anglo-Saxon England' Anglo-Saxon England VII (1978) 61-93. 15 B. Thorpe (ed.) Florence of Worcester: Chronicon ex Chronicis II Eng. Hist. Soc. (London 1849) 33 16 Life and Miracles 116-17. 17 Plan in Victoria County History Sussex VII (Oxford 1940) 47, based on Harold Brakspear's plan in W. H. St John Hope, 'The Cluniac Priory of St Pancras at Lewes' Sussex Archaeological Collections XLIX (1906) 88; K. J. Conant, Carolingian and Romanesque Architecture, 800 1200 (2nd integrated ed., Harmondsworth 1978) ch. 8, 'The Great Churches of the Pilgrimage Route'; N. Hunt, 'Cluniac Monasticism' in N. Hunt, Cluniac Monasticism in the Central Middle Ages (London 1971) 5-10, discusses the conclusions of B. T?pfer, 'Reliquienkult und Pilgerbewegung zur Zeit der Klosterreform . . .' in H. Sproemberg and H. Kretzschmar (eds) Von Mittelalter zur Neuzeit (Berlin 1956) 420-39. 18 Apologia to Abbot William' in Bernard of Clairvaux: Treatises I trans. M. Casey (Kalamazoo 1970). 19 P. Brown, The Cult of the Saints: Its rise and function in Latin Christianity (Chicago 1981); S. Wilson, 'Introduction' in idem (ed.) Saints and their Cults: Studies in Religion, Sociology, Folklore and History (Cambridge 1983) 1-53. 20 Life and Miracles 49-50. 21 B. Ward (see n. 4) 73; R. C. Finucane (see n. 4) 161-2; Life and Miracles lxxvi, 283-9. 22 T. Stapleton (ed.) Chronicon Petroburgense Camden Soc. OS 47 (1849) 35 A. Gransden, Historical Writing in England I: C.550-C.1307 (London 1974) 440; D. Stocker, 'The Shrine of Little St Hugh' in Medieval Art and Architecture at Lincoln Cathedral Brit. Archaeol. Ass. Conf. Trans. (1982) 109-17. 23 J. R. Lumby (ed.) Henry Knighton: Chronicon I, RS 92 (1889) sa 1160; 'Joh. Brompton Jornall' in R. Twysdem, Historiae Anglicanae Scriptores Decem (London 1652) col. 2394; A. Gransden, Historical Writing in England II: 130J to the Early Sixteenth Century (London 1982) 43-56, 159-60 and n- 9&gt; 56-7, n. 78, 359, n. 103. 24 The sources for the history of St Peter's in the nth and 12th centuries are discussed in detail by C. N. L. Brooke in 'St Peter of Gloucester and St Cadog of Llancarfan' in C. N. L. Brooke, The Church and the Welsh Border in the Central Middle Ages (Woodbridge 1986) 51-66. 25 Historia I, 20-1, lxv-lxviii. 26 Historia I, 18-20. For the early career of Abbot Gilbert Foliot see Dom Adrian Morey and C. N. L. Brooke, Gilbert Foliot and his Letters (Cambridge 1965) 32-65. 27 Life and Miracles 96. 28 Life and Miracles 21; Historia I, 20-1. 29 Historia I, 21. 30 J. S. Richardson, 'St William of Perth and 103</page><page sequence="36">Joe Hillaby his Memorials in England' Trans. Scottish Ecclesiological Soc. II (1906-7) 122-6; S. Wilson (ed.) (see n. 19) 199. 31 See p. 75 above. 32 Historia I, 20; C. R. Cheney (ed.) Handbook of Dates Royal Hist. Soc. (London 1970) 120, 102. 33 C. N. L. Brooke (see n. 24) 60-4; A. Morey and C. N. L. Brooke (see n. 26) ch. viii 'The Gloucester Forgeries'; T. A. M. Bishop and P. Chaplais (eds) Facsimiles of English Royal Writs to AD 1100 (Oxford 1957) xxi-xxiii; P. Chaplais, 'The Original Charters of Herbert and Gervase, Abbots of Westminster' in P. M. Barnes and C. F. Slade (eds) A Medieval Miscellany for Doris Mary Stenton Pipe Roll Soc. NS 36 (i960) 89 110. 34 Life and Miracles lxxxv, 19-26; AASS March III, 588-91, 591-4, 494-502. 35 The four post-Conquest entries are in: Cambridge, St John's College MS 262, of the early 14th century, from St Augustine's, Canterbury; BL Cotton MS Tiberius Bill, before 1220, from Christ Church cathedral priory, Canterbury; Oxford, Bodley, Barlow MS 41, 3rd quarter 14th century, from Evesham abbey; Oxford, Brasenose College MS 2, 15th century, from the abbey of St Neots, Cambs. published in F. Wormald (ed.) English Benedictine Kalendars after 1100 I and II HBS LXXVII and LXXXI (1939 and 1946) I, 53, 70; II, 29, 109. The three earlier entries are: 'Crucifixio dominf in Salisbury cathedral library MS 150 of 969-78 and West Country origin, published in F. Wormald (ed.) English Kalendars before AD 1100 HBS 72 (1934) 18; 'Dominus crucifixus est in Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale MS Latin 10837 of the 8th century in H. A. Wilson (ed.) The Kalendar of St Willibrod HBS 55 (1919) 5; 'Hierosolyma. Dominus noster Jesus Christus crucifixus est, viii kal. april\ the Hieronymian martyrology entry, in J-P, Migne (ed.) Patrologia Latina XXX (Paris 1865) 463. 36 See below, p. 90 and n. 67. C. Roth, 'The Feast of Purim and the Origins of the Blood Accusation' Speculum VIII (1933) 520-6. In his History of the Jews in England (2nd ed. Oxford 1949) 13, Roth refers to a number of Jews at Gloucester in 1168 'at Passover-time'. 37 S. M. Burnaby, Elements of the Jewish and Muhammadan Calendars (London 1901). 38 Historia I, 20-1. 39 For details of the festival see L. Rabinowitz, The Social Life of the Jews of Northern France in XII-XIV Centuries (London 1938) 190-2. 40 Historia I, 20. 41 At Norwich one of the community leaders, Eleazar, was murdered, but this was at the instigation of one of his clients, 'the fierce and truculent knight' Simon de Nevers, for which the latter was put on trial. Life and Miracles xi, xxxv, 97-104, 258. 42 PpR 5 Henry II 12. For the Norwich community see V. D. Lipman, The Jews of Medieval Norwich (JHSE 1967). Here the sheriff did take the precaution of lodging members of the community, temporarily, in the castle. 43 PpR 5 Henry II 28; 1170, 333; M. T. Flanagan, Irish Society, Anglo-Norman Settlers, Angevin Kingship: Interactions in Ireland in the Late Twelfth Century (Oxford 1989) 116-17. 44 PpR 5 Henry II 28; j2 Henry II 118; 6 Richard I 236; 7 Richard I 176. For details of the Donum of 1159 and Moses le Riche's contribution to the Donum of 1194 see J. Hillaby, 'The London Jewry: William I to John' Trans. JHSE XXXIII (1992-4) 15, 30-1; for Worcester and the contributions of individual communities to the 1194 Donum see J. Hillaby, 'The Worcester Jewry 1158-1290' Trans. Worcestershire Archaeol. Soc. 38, 12 (1990) 73-5. For Juene strete and the synagogue at Gloucester idem, 'Beth Migdash Me'at\ The Synagogues of Medieval England'jfa/ Ecclesiastical Hist. XLIV (2) (April 1993) 187. 45 D. Rollason, 'The Shrines of Saints in later Anglo-Saxon England: distribution and significance' in L. A. S. Butler (ed.) The Anglo-Saxon Church CBA Research Report 60 (1986) 188-95; J- Raine (ed.) 'Eadmer: Vita Sancti Oswaldf in Historians of the Church of York and its Archbishops II RS 71 (1886) 55-7. 46 C. Heighway et al, 'Excavations at Gloucester. Fourth Interim Report: St Oswald's Priory, 1975-6' Antiq. Jnl LVIII (1978) 103-32; idem, 'Excavations at Gloucester. Fifth Interim Report: St Oswald's Priory, 1977-8' Antiq. Jnl LX (1980) 207-26; C. Heighway and R. Bryant, 'A Reconstruction of the 10th century Church of St Oswald, Gloucester' in L. A. S. Butler (ed.) (see n. 45) 188-95; A. Thacker, 'Chester and Gloucester: Early Ecclesiastical Organisation in Two Mercian Boroughs' Northern History XVIII (1982) 207-9. 47 For the significance of the building see C. Wilson, 'Abbot Serb's Church at Gloucester (1089-1100): Its Place in Romanesque Architecture' in T. A. Heslop and V. A. Sekules 104</page><page sequence="37">The ritual-child-murder accusation (eds) Medieval Art and Architecture at Gloucester and Tewkesbury Br. Archaeol. Ass. Conf. Trans, for 1981 (1985) 52-83. 48 D. Knowles, The Monastic Order in England 940-1216 (2nd ed., Cambridge 1963) 118-9 and n. 6. Knowles's views were examined by S. Ridyard in 'Condigna Veneratio: Post-Conquest Attitudes to the Saints of the Anglo-Saxons' in R. Allen Brown (ed.) Anglo-Norman Studies IX, Proceedings of the Battle Conference 1986 (Woodbridge 1987) 179-206. By way of conclusion she writes that Norman scepticism 'on examination, dissolves into a myth'. The evidence of Jesus College Oxford MS ffi-6 printed in F. Wormald (1946) (see n. 35) II, 39-55 indicates that, whatever the case elsewhere, at St Peter's Serlo clung firmly to his scepticism concerning the Anglo-Saxon saints. In terms of liturgy 'it is certain that Lanfranc intended to abolish the Anglo-Saxon traditions'. A. W. Klukas, 'The Architectural implications of the Decreta Langfranci\ R. Allen Brown (ed.) Anglo-Norman Studies VI: Proceedings of the Battle Conference 1983 (Woodbridge 1984) 136-74. 49 H. H. D. Short, 'Graffiti on the Reredos of the Lady Chapel of Gloucester Cathedral' Trans Bristol &amp; Gloucestershire Archaeol. Soc. LXVII (1946-8) 21-36. 50 Historia I, 20-21; 'The Foundation of the Abbey of Gloucester . ..' in Records of Gloucester Cathedral I (Gloucester 1882-3) 148-56; A. Gransden, 'Antiquarian Studies in fifteenth-century England' Antiq. Jnl LX (1980) 75-84. 51 F. Wormald (see n. 35) II, 46, 50. 52 Historia I, 44-5. 53 M. Adler Jews of Medieval England (London 1939) 185-6; D. M. Stenton (ed.) The earliest Lincolnshire assize rolls, 1202?1209 Lincolnshire Record Soc. XXII (1926) no. 996. 54 See below pp. 90-4. 55 For the lost life of St Robert by Jocelin see Annales Sancti Edmundi in F. Liebermann, Ungedruckte Anglo-Normannische Geschichtsquellen (Strasburg 1879) l3S\Joce^n T55 T. Arnold (ed.) Memorials of St Edmund's Abbey RS 96, 3 vols (1890-96) I, 223; III, 6; J. Hay and A. Pringle (eds) Chronica de Mailros Bannatyne Club XLIX (1835) ?i. 56 Sir George Warner, Descriptive catalogue of illuminated manuscripts in the library of C. W. Dyson Perrins I, Text (Oxford 1920) 6. I am obliged to Mr Edgar Samuel for this reference. M. R.James Suffolk and Norfolk (London 1930) 19. 57 M. R. James, 'The Abbey of St Edmund at Bury' Cambridgeshire Antiq. Soc. XXVIII (1895); H. N. MacCracken John Lydgate: The Minor Poems I Religious, Early English Text Soc. Extra Series CVII (1910 repr. 1961) 138-9; W. F. Schirmer, John Lydgate: A Study in the Culture of the Fifleenth Century trans. A. E. Keep (London 1961) 187-90, 270; A. Gransden (ed.) Chronicle of Bury St. Edmunds (London 1964) 60; J. H. Harvey (ed. and trans.) William Worcestre: Itineraries (Oxford 1969) 163. 58 Jocelin 9-10. 59 Jocelin 10-11. 60 Jocelin 3-4. 61 Jocelin 3-4, 38. For William fitz Isabel: S. Reynolds, 'The Rulers of London in the Twelfth Century' History LVII (Oct 1972) Table 2. Sheriffs of London and Middlesex, 1154-1216. For Jurnet and Benedict: V. Lipman (see n. 42). For Isaac son of the rabbi: J. Hillaby (1992-4) (see n. 44) 12-13, ll~2l-&gt; 3?-8; H. E. Butler gives Isaac's loan as ?40; this should read ?400. This is confirmed by T. Arnold (ed.) (see n. 55), J. G. Rokewood (ed.) Jocelin of Brakelond: Chronicle Camden Soc. Old Series XIII (1840) and Sir Ernest Clarke, The Chronicle of Jocelin of Brakelond The King's Classics (London 1903). 62 Jocelin 5-7. 63 Jocelin 6. 64 A. B. Whittingham, 'Bury St Edmunds Abbey' Archaeol Jnl CVIII (1951) 169-72. 65 Jocelin 63-4. 66 Jocelin 35, 41-2. 67 J. Appleby (ed.) The Chronicle of Richard of Devizes (London 1963) 64-9; P. Allin, 'Richard of Devizes and the Alleged Martyrdom of a Boy at Winchester' Trans JHSE XXVII (1978-80) 32 9 should now be read in conjunction with N. F. Partner, Serious Entertainments: Writing in Twelflh Century England (Chicago 1977) 175-9 m&amp; Levine, 'Why praise Jews: satire and history in the middle ages' Journal of Mod. Hist. XII (1986) 291-6. 68 CR 1225, 53. 69 'Annals of Winchester' in H. R. Luard (ed.) Annales Monastaci II, RS 36? (1865) 86; CR 1234-7, 239, 271, 341; ChR 1226-57, 2J8; J. Hillaby (1993) (see n. 44) 194; Z. E. Rokeah, 'Crime and Jews in Late Thirteenth Century England: Some Cases and Comments' Hebrew Union College Annual LV (1984) 100, n. 13 quoting PRO Just. 1/775/20. 70 H. R. Luard (ed.) Matthew Paris: Chronica Majora RS 57 (1877) IV, 377-8; R. K. Morris, 'The New Work at Old St Paul's Cathedral' in L. Grant (ed.) Medieval Art, Architecture and Archaeology in London Brit. Archaeol. Ass. Conf. Trans, for 1984 (1990) 74-100. io5</page><page sequence="38">Joe Hillaby 71 'Annals of Burton' in H. R. Luard (ed.) Annales Monastici IV, RS 36iv (1869) 340-8; 'Annals of Waverley' in idem, Annales Monastaci I, RS 36! (1864) 346-8; Matthew Paris: Chronica Majora (see n. 70) V, 516-9. The incident and the sources are discussed by: J. Jacobs, 'Little St Hugh of Lincoln' in Jewish Ideals and Other Essays (New York 1896) 192-224; G. Langmuir, 'The Knight's Tale of Young Hugh of Lincoln' Speculum XLVII (1972) 459-82; and Sir Francis Hill, Medieval Lincoln (Cambridge 1948) 224-32 who provides a full translation of Paris's text. 72 H. R. Luard (ed.) 'Annals of Burton' (see n. 71) 343 73 J. F. Dimock (ed.) Magna Vita S. Hugonis Episcopi Lincolniensis RS 37 (1864) 237-44, 267 73, 275-6; 365-9, 373-6; J. F. Dimock (ed.) Metrical Life of St Hugh, Bishop of Lincoln (Lincoln i860) lines 1064-78, 1088 et seq; D. H. Farmer, 'The Cult and Canonisation of St Hugh' in H. Mayr-Harting (ed.) St Hugh of Lincoln (Oxford 1987) 75-87; T. A. Heslop, 'The Iconography of the Angel Choir at Lincoln Cathedral' in E. Fernie and P. Crossley (eds) Medieval Architecture and its Intellectual Context (London 1990) 151-8. 74 J. F. Dimock (1864) (see n. 73) 373-6; H. R. Luard (ed.) Matthew Paris: Chronica Majora (see n. 70) V, 404-5; F. S. Stevenson, Robert Grosseteste: Bishop of Lincoln (London 1899) 97 105; A. D. Callus (ed.) Robert Grosseteste: Scholar and Bishop (Oxford 1955) 34-7; B. Smalley, Hebrew Scholarship among Christians in Fourteenth Century England, as illustrated by some Hebrew-Latin Psalters (London 1939); idem, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (2nd edn Oxford 1952); R. Loewe, 'The Medieval Christian Hebraists of England: The Superscriptio Lincolniensis' Hebrew Union College Annual XXVIII (1957) 205-52. 75 F. S. Stevenson (see n. 74); 'Robert Grosseteste' in Diet. Nat. Biog. (Compact ed., Oxford 1975) 851; E. Venables and G. G. Perry, Lincoln Diocesan Histories (London 1897) 144 5; 'Annals of Tewkesbury' in H. R. Luard (ed.) Annales Monastici I (see n. 71) 159. 76 'John, Henry, Robert and Stephen Lexington' and 'Oliver Sutton' in Diet. Nat. Biog. (see n. 75) 1212-13, 2031; G. Langmuir (see n. 71) 469-82. 77 C. W. Foster (ed.) The Registrum Antiquissimum of the Cathedral Church of Lincoln Lincoln Ree. Soc. XXVII (1931) 184-5; E Venables and G. G. Perry (see n. 75) 145. 78 H. Bradshaw and C. Wordsworth (eds) Statutes of Lincoln Cathedral 2 vols in 3 (Cambridge 1892-7) II, 137. 79 F. M. Powicke, The Thirteenth Century, 1216-1307 (Oxford 1953) 18-19, 59; M. T. Clanchy, 'Did Henry III have a policy?' History LIII (June 1968) 203-16; H. R. Luard (ed.) 'Annals of Burton' (see n. 71) 344-6. 80 PR 1255, 439-40, 464 81 E. Venables and G. G. Perry (see n. 75) 148. 82 P. Draper, 'Bishop Northwood and the cult of St. Etheldreda' in N. Coldstream and P. Draper (eds) Medieval Art and Architecture at Ely Cathedral Brit. Archaeol. Ass. Conf. Trans, for 1976 (1979) 8-27; P. Kidson, 'St. Hugh's choir' and M. Dean, 'The Angel Choir and its local influences' in T. A. Heslop and V. A. Sekules (eds) Medieval Art and Architecture at Lincoln Cathedral Brit. Archaeol. Ass. Conf. Trans, for 1982 (1986) 29-42, 90-101. 83 CR 1276, 271-4; M. Weinbaum (ed.) The London Eyre of I2j6 London Record Soc. XII (1976) xxi, nos 86, 308; John Stow: Survey of London Everyman Ed. (London 1912) 39, 206. For medieval Dowgate see H. T. R. Riley (ed.) Liber Albus: The White Book of the City of London (London 1861) 211, 498. 84 A. Gransden (ed.) (see n. 57) 69, xvii-xviii. This was copied into the Chronicle of Benet of Hulme, the Historia Anglicana of Bartholomew Cotton and the Peterborough copy of Florence of Worcester's Chronicle, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS 92 from which it was included by Thorpe in his edition of Florence. Thus, the Northampton incident of 1279 appears in three other sources. The unpublished Northampton chronicle is Cambridge Corpus Christi College MS 281; H. M. Cam and E. F. Jacob, 'Notes on an English Cluniac Chronicle' Eng. Hist. Rev. XLIV (Jan. 1929) 94-104. The imprisonment entry is made in the same hand as that for 1278, but placed under the year 1277. ChR 1280-2, 233, 255, 261; CR 1280, 25. 85 D. Stocker (see n. 22) 110-15; Sir Charles Anderson, Lincoln Pocket Guide 3rd ed. (Lincoln 1892) 116-17. 86 H. M. Colvin, 'Royal Tombs and Monuments' in H. M. Colvin (ed.) History of the Kings Works: The Middle Ages I (London 1963) 479-86; L. Stone, Sculpture in Britain: The Middle Ages, Pelican History of Art (Harmondsworth 1955) 142-3 and n. 40; M. Prestwich, 'The Piety of Edward I' in W. M. Ormrod (ed.) England in the Thirteenth Century (Harlaxton 1985) 120-8. 87 'A letter from Mr Smart Lethieullier . . . relating to the Shrine of St Hugh, the Crucified Child at Lincoln' Archaeologia I (1770) 28-9. Stocker is not convinced by this attribution, io6</page><page sequence="39">The ritual-child-murder accusation believing rather that it 'must surely repesent a better known victim', but puts forward no alternative child martyr. 88 J. S. Alexander, 'The Angel Choir of Lincoln Cathedral and the Shrines of St Hugh' Jnl Brit. Archaeol Ass. CXLVIII (1995) 137-47; D. Stocker (see n. 22) 110-13. 89 J. Hillaby, 'London: the 13th-century Jewry revisited' Trans JHSE XXXII (1990-2) 142-3, 151-2. 90 T. R. Howitt, Jew 's Court and the Legend of Little St Hugh of Lincoln (Lincoln 1911); Lincolnshire Echo 15 June 1928; F. Hill (see n. 71) 231-2. 91 I. M. Lappenberg (ed.) 'Lambert of Waterloo: Annales Cameracenses' in Monumenta Germaniae Historica SS XVI (xxvii) (repr. New York 1963) 536;(Robert of Torigni: Chronicle' in R. Howlett (ed.) Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I RS 82, IV (1889) 250-1, 273. 92 R. Chazan, 'The Blois Incident of 1171: A Study in Jewish Intercommunal Organization' Proc. Am. Acad. for Jewish Research XXXVI (1968) 16 n. 6; idem, Medieval Jewry in Northern France: a Political and Social History (Baltimore 1973) 48; W. Jordan, The French Monarchy and the Jews: from Philip Augustus to the last Capetians (Philadelphia 1989) 18-19, n. 80; K. R. Stow, The '1007 Anonymous' and Papal Sovereignty (Cincinnati 1984) 27-33. 93 R. Finucane (see n. 4) 161-2; B. Ward (see n. 4) 72-3. 94 H. F. Delaborde (ed.) Oeuvres de Rigord et de Guillaume leBreton Societe de l'histoire de France, 2 vols (Paris 1882) 1,179-80. Richard and William are mentioned in 'Robert of Torigni: Chronicles'' (see n. 91)250-1,273. The only detailed account is the late Lifeby Robert Gaguin included in his Epistolae, Orationes, etc. (Paris 1498) and reproduced in AASS March 111, 591-4. 95 R.Chazan(1968)(seen.92) 14-21 includes a useful analysis of the 'unusual wealth of Hebrew source materials including four separate letters written immediately after the event'. A translation from Ephraim ben Jacob's Book of Historical Records is provided byj. R. Marcus, The Jew in the Medieval World: A Source Book 315-1791 (New York 1975) 127-30. There are brief contemporary references by Rigord in H. F. Delaborde (see n. 94) 15-16. A later occasion when 'powerful governmental figures intervened and as a result large numbers of Jews perished' is analysed by R. Chazan in 'The Bray Incident of 1192: Realpolitik and Folk Slander' Proc. Am. Acad. for Jewish Research XXXVII (1969) 1-19, but here neither a child nor crucifixion were involved. Strangely, Chazan omits discussion of the case of Richard of Pontoise. For the theft of Richard's relics see R. Anchel, 'The Early History of the Jewish Quarters in Paris' Jewish Social Studiies II (1940) 50, n. 9, quoting A. Cartellieri, Philipp August: K?nig von Frankreich I (Leipzig 1899) 124. 96 'Robert of Torigni: Chronicle* (see n. 91) 250-1. 97 H. F. Delaborde (see n. 94) I, 15-16, 24 31, 180-1 with translation inj. Marcus (see n. 95) 24-7 from Rigord's Gesta PhilippiAugusti. On the 'Orleans incident' see WJordan (see n. 92) 31, n. 43 following T. Cochard, La Juiverie d'Orleans (Orleans 1895) 40. 98 E. Hallam, Capetian France, 987-1328 (London 1980) 178,164,166-7; R- Anchel (see n. 95) 124. 99 H. F. Delaborde (see n. 94) I, 15-16, 30-1. For discussion of the sequence of events W.Jordan (see n. 92) 30-3, n. 32-42. 100 H. F. Delaborde (see n. 94) I, 141-2; W. Jordan (see n. 92) 38-42; E. Hallam (see n. 98) 126-7. 101 K. R. Stow, Alienated Minority (Harvard 1992)112. 102 For Robert's life see L. Delisle (ed.) Chronique de Robert de Torigni II, Societe de PHistoire de Normandie (Rouen 1873) i-xiii and A. Gransden (see n. 22) I, 261-3. 103 See p. 83 and n. 48 above; C. Wilson (see n. 47) 53?4; J- G. Alexander, Norman Illumination of Mont St Michel, 966-1000 (Oxford 1970) 206, n. 1 draws links between illumination of MSS at Mont St Michel and St Peter's Gloucester; F. Wormald (1946) (see n. 35) II, 39-55. 104 H. L. Strack, The Jew and Human Sacrifice trans. H. Blanchamp (New York 1909). 105 Shlomo Simonsohn (ed.) The Apostolic See and the Jews: Documents 492-1404 (Toronto 1988) 44, 193-4, 242-3; S. Grayzel, The Church and the Jews (rev. ed. New York 1966) 76-82; idem, 'the Papal Bull Sicut Judeus' in Meir ben Horin et al. (eds) Studies in Honor of Abraham A. Neuman (Leiden 1962). 106 Passion of Simon of Trent by J. M. Tiberinus in AASS March III, 494-502; G. Divina, Storia del beato Simone de Trento 2 vols (Trent 1902) reviewed in Analecta Bollandiana xxiii (1904) 122-4; R- P? Chia Hsia, The Myth of Ritual Murder: Jews and Magic in Reformation Germany (New Haven 1988) 43-50; Roman Martyrology in accordance with the reforms of Pius X (London 1923) 64; H. Thurston and N. Leeson (eds) Butler's Lives of the Saints (London 1931) 388-90. 107</page><page sequence="40">Joe Hillaby Appendix To St Robert of Bury MS Laud 683, leaves 22, back-23] Here beginneth a priaier to Seynt Robert (1) O blyssid Robert, Innocent and Virgyne, Glorious marter, gracious &amp; riht good, To our prayer thyn eris doum Enclyne, Wich on-to Crist offredyst thy chast blood, Ageyns the the Iewys were so wood, Lyk as thy story makyth mencyoun, Pray for alle tho, to Crist that starff on rood, That do reuerence on-to thy passioun. (2) Slayn in childhood by mortal violence, Alias! it was a pitous thing to see A sowkyng child, tendre of Innocence, So to be scourged, and naylled to a tre; Thou myghtyst crie, thou spak no wo?rd, parde, W/tA-oute langage makyng a pitous souw, Pray for alle tho, knelyng on thy kne, That do reuerence on-to thy passioun. (3) Fostrid with mylk and tendre pap pi foode Was it nat routhe to se pi veynes bleede? Only for Crist, crucyfied for our goode, In whos despit al sangweyn was thy weede, Slayn in erthe, in hevene is now thy meede, Among marteris, vp-on thyn hed a crown, O gracyous Robert! to pray for hem tak heede That do reuerence on-to thy passioun. (4) Suffredist deth or thou koudist pleyne, Thy purpil blood allayed with mylk whiht, Oppressid with turment koudest no woord seyne, Fer fro they norice, fouwde no respight; Be grace enspired, lesu was thy delight, Thy sowie vpborn to the hevenly mansiou?, 108</page><page sequence="41">The ritual-child-murder accusation Pray for alle folk that haue an apetyght To do reuerence on-to thy passioun. (5) Haue vpon Bury pi gracious remembrauwce That hast among hem a chapel &amp; a shryne, With helpe of Edmu/zd, preserve hew fro grevauwce, Kyng of Estynglond, martir and virgyne, With whos briht sonne lat thy sterre shyne, Strecchyng your stremys thoruA al pis regiouw, Pray for alle tho, and kepe hem fro ruyne, That do reuerence to both your passioun. Early English Text Society ES CVII (1911 for 1910), 138-9. 109</page></plain_text>

bottom of page