Jewish Ritual Murder: The Winchester Case (1190-1192 A.D.)

Some forty years before the jewish ritual case in the English city of Winchester in 1232 where a local jew named Abraham Pinche was convicted in a jury trial of having ritually murdered a one-year-old male baby. (1) There occurred yet another jewish ritual murder with similar overtones which gives further credence to what happened with Pinche in that the chances of two similar such crimes occurring in Winchester only circa forty years apart while being ‘made-up fantasies’ is extremely low without direct evidence.

Our principal source for this case is the English monastic writer Richard of Devizes – who was resident in Winchester at the time – in the contemporary chronicle ‘Chronicon de rebus gestis Ricardi Primi’ where he states as follows:

‘Because Winchester should not be deprived of its just praise for having kept peace with the Jews, as is told at the beginning of this book, the Jews of Winchester, zealous, after the Jewish fashion, for the honour of their city (although what was done greatly lessened it), brought upon themselves, according to the testimony of many people, the widely known reputation of having made a martyr of a boy in Winchester. The case was thus. A certain Jew took into the bosom of his family as a helper a certain lad who was an apprentice to the cobbler’s art. He did not work there continuously, nor was he allowed to finish anything big at one time, lest his dwelling there should later point to his murder, which was already planned. Since he was better paid there for a little work than for a great of work elsewhere, he freely frequented the devil’s house, seduced by his gifts and his wiles. He was French by race, a minor and an orphan, of low condition and of extreme poverty. When he had bitterly bewailed these miseries in France, a certain French Jew persuaded him by frequent exhortations to go to England, a land flowing with milk and honey. He declared that the English were generous and had an abundance of all good things; there no-one who strove to make an honest living would die poor. The lad, prompt, as is natural to Frenchmen, to try anything you please, took with him a companion of his own age and country. He girded himself to set forth on his journey with nothing in hands but a staff and nothing in his scrip but an awl. He said farewell to his Jewish friend, who said to him: ‘Go forth manfully. May the God of my fathers lead you as I desire) He put his hands on his head, as if he were a scapegoat, and, after several deep groans and silent prayers, certain already of the victim, he said: 'Be of stout heart; forget your people and your native land, for every country “is a fatherland to the strong man, as the sea is to fishes and as whatever appears in the empty sky is to the bird."!: When you reach England, if you come to London, pass through it quickly, for I do not at all like that city. All sorts of men crowd together there from every country under the heavens. Each race brings its own vices and its own customs to the city. No-one lives in it without falling into some sort of crime. Every quarter of it abounds in grave obscenities. The greater a rascal a man is, the better a man he is accounted. I know whom I am instructing. You have a warmth of character beyond your years, and a coolness of memory; and from these contrary qualities arises a temperateness of reasoning. I fear nothing for you, unless you live with evil companions, for manners are formed by association. Well, be that as it may! You will arrive in London. Behold, I prophesy to you: whatever evil or malicious thing that can be found in any part of the world, you will find in that one city. Do not associate with the crowds of pimps; do not mingle with the throngs in eating houses; avoid dice and gambling, the theatre and the tavern. You will meet with more braggarts there than in all France; the number of parasites is infinite. Actors, jesters, smooth-skinned lads, Moors, flatterers, pretty boys, effeminates, pederasts, singing and dancing girls, quacks, belly-dancers, sorceresses, extortioners, night wanderers, magicians, mimes, beggars, buffoons: all this tribe fill all the houses. "Therefore, if you do not want to dwell with evildoers, do not live in London.! I do not speak against learned or religious men, or against Jews: however, because of their living amidst evil people, I believe they are less perfect there than elsewhere. I do not go to the extent of saying that you should not go to any city whatever, since in my opinion there is nowhere for you to live except in a city; I refer only to which city.’ (2)

Now there’s a couple of key details to note here in that the victim is a young French orphan who has been lured to Winchester from France along with a friend to be apprenticed to a jew in Winchester by a jew in France; who then gives the French orphan boy very specific instructions to only go to the city of Winchester and nowhere else because anywhere else is ‘immoral’.

Now this might seem fantastic to modern readers, but we know from the converted jew Brother Theobald circa 1144 in regard to the Norwich jewish ritual murder case of that year as follows:

‘We also interpose as an argument of faith and truth what we have heard told by Theobald, a person who was once a Jew and later one of our monks. He told us that in the ancient writings of their ancestors it was written that Jews could not achieve their freedom or ever return to the lands of their fathers without the shedding of human blood. Hence it was decided by them a long time ago that every year, to the shame and affront of Christ, a Christian somewhere on earth be sacrificed to the highest God, and so they take revenge for the injuries of Him, whose death is the reason for their exclusion for their fatherland and their exile as slaves in foreign lands.

Therefore, the leaders and rabbis of the Jews who dwell in Spain, at Narbonne, where the seed of kings and their glory, flourishes greatly, meet together, and cast lots of all the regions where Jews live. Whichever region was chosen by lot, its capital city had to apply that lot to the other cities and towns, and the one whose name comes up will carry out that business, as decreed. In that year, however, when William, the glorious martyr of God, was killed, it so happened that the lot fell on the men of Norwich, and all the communities of the Jews of England offered their consent by letters or by messengers for the crime to be performed at Norwich. ‘I was at the time in Cambridge, a Jew among Jews, and the crime of the action performed was not hidden from me. With the passage of time, when I learned of the glorious miracles which by divine virtue happened through the merits of the blessed martyr William, I was greatly afraid and, consulting my conscience and left Judaism and converted to the faith of Christ.’ These words, indeed, of the Jewish convert we believe to be all the truer for having learned them from a converted enemy, revealed by someone privy to the secrets of the enemies.’ (3)

Now contrary to academic received wisdom (4) Brother Theobald certainly existed and displays significant jewish learning so we may assume that he was a converted jew (5) and while his tale might seem outlandish. The Winchester case of 1190-1192 bears significant similarities to what Brother Theobald alleged circa 1144 in that jews ‘somewhere on earth’ must sacrifice a Christian – read gentile – child and that this is an international effort.

This both jives strongly with Richard of Devizes tale of ‘the French jew’ who lured the French orphan boy to go to Winchester in England and only Winchester – as well as deliberately tried to make out that to go to any other place is going to end very badly for him and his soul – where said French orphan boy was then ritually sacrificed by a local jew in Winchester.

How are we to suppose that Richard of Devizes tale mirrors so closely with Brother Theobald’s testimony – which did not achieve a wide circulation – when they are circa half a century apart and significantly geographically disparate?

We can’t reasonably so without admitting that Richard of Devizes is probably telling the truth!

He continues after warning the French orphan boy about the perils of going anywhere else but the city of Winchester:

‘In other respects, that country is most blessed with the dews of heaven and with richness of soil. In each locality there are some good men, but there are fewer by far in all of them put together than in one city, Winchester. That city is in those parts the Jerusalem of the Jews; in that city alone do they enjoy perpetual peace. That city is a school for those who want to live and fare well. There they breed men; there you can have plenty of bread and wine for nothing. Monks are there of such mercifulness and gentleness, clerks of such wisdom and frankness, citizens of such courteousness and good faith, women of such beauty and modesty, that for a little I would go there myself and be a Christian among such Christians. I send you to that city, the city of cities, the mother of all and better than all others. There is one vice there and one alone, which is by custom greatly indulged in. I would say, with all due respect to the learned men and to the Jews, that the people of Winchester lie like sentries. Indeed, nowhere else under heaven are so many false rumours made up so easily as there; otherwise they are truthful in all things. I had many other things to tell you concerning my affairs, too, but lest perhaps you might not understand, or forget, I put this letter to a Jewish friend of mine into your hands, for I believe that some time you will be rewarded by him. The short letter was in Hebrew.

The Jew finished his advice, and the lad, who took everything in a good sense, arrived at Winchester. Their awls were sufficient to secure the necessities of life for him and his companion, and, thanks to the Jew's letter, horrible sweetness and lisping kindness were their comfort. Wherever these poor lads worked or ate away from each other by day, every night they slept together in the same bed in the same old hut of a poor old woman. Day followed day and month followed month; and for our lad, whom we have so carefully brought thus far, time hastened on, whether he was present or absent. The day of the Adored Cross! came, and the lad, working that day at his Jew's shop, did not appear [that night], however he had been kept out of the way. It was, to be sure, near the Pasch, a holy day of the Jews. His companion, wondering at his absence when he did not return to his bedroom that evening, was terrified that same night by many dreams. When he did not find him after having looked for several days in every corner of the town, in his simplicity he went to the Jew [to ask him] if he had sent his friend anywhere. He was greeted with extraordinary harshness in place of yesterday's kindness. Noticing the change in the Jew's words and looks, he became inflamed against him. Since he was of a sharp voice and wonderful eloquence, he burst into a quarrel, accusing him with loud cries of having done away with his companion. ‘You son of a dirty whore,’ he said, ‘you thief, you traitor, you devil, you have crucified my friend! Alas, why haven't I the strength of a man? I would tear you to pieces with my hands!’ The cries of the lad shouting in the room were heard in the streets, and Jews and Christians ran up from all directions. The lad insisted, and, already surer of himself because of the crowd, he addressed those present and began to plead for his companion. ‘O you men who gather together,’ he said, ‘see if there is a grief like unto my grief.’ This Jew is a devil; this man has torn the heart out of my breast; this man has cut the throat of my only friend, and I presume he has eaten him, too. A certain son of the devil, a French Jew - I do not understand or know what it is all about - that Jew gave my companion a fatal letter to this man. He came to this city, led or, rather, misled by him. He often worked for this Jew here, and he was last seen in his house. He had a witness to some of this, for a Christian woman who, contrary to the canons, took care of some Jewish children in that same house, steadfastly swore that she had seen the lad go down into the Jew's storeroom without returning. The Jew denied the story, and the matter was referred to the judges. The accusers failed: the boy because he was underage; the woman because her being employed by Jews made her infamous. The Jew offered to clear his conscience by oath concerning the infamy. Gold won the judge’s favour. Phineas gave it and pleased them, and the matter was dropped.’ (6)

Now basically the extra bit of the story here is that the two French boys were taken into the local jew in Winchester’s house but then on Pesach (i.e., Passover) – which has long been a known as a hot spot for anti-Christian/anti-gentile violence among the jews – (7) and was then brutally slain and/or sacrificed which was then discovered by the French orphan boy’s friend from France and fellow apprentice to the jew, because his friend had disappeared and there was no trace of him.

Now this would be hearsay apart from there was a witness to some of what the unnamed jew of Winchester did:

‘He had a witness to some of this, for a Christian woman who, contrary to the canons, took care of some Jewish children in that same house, steadfastly swore that she had seen the lad go down into the Jew's storeroom without returning.’

So, in essence we have a non-jewish boy whose friend has disappeared on Pesach after being deliberately sent by a jew in France to a jew in Winchester, who won’t be missed because he is an orphan from a distant place with little to no record of his existence. Whose disappearance the unnamed jew of Winchester cannot account for and a local Christian woman who was employed by jews to look after jewish children in said unnamed jew’s house saw the jew take the French orphan boy down into the cellar/storeroom but the boy never emerged while the jew did.

This is good circumstantial evidence that at least the unnamed jew of Winchester was likely directly involved in the French orphan boy’s disappearance and certainly he would have had to properly account for and explain himself if this occurred today, but what makes it suggestive of the reality of a jewish ritual murder how the jew in France sent a non-jewish orphan to a jew in Winchester for no reason whatsoever – it isn’t like there weren’t plenty of options for apprenticeships in France – and then said French orphan boy promptly disappears on Pesach of all days after being seen being lead down to the cellar/storeroom by the unnamed jew of Winchester.

Indeed, the ending to Richard of Devizes account is even more telling because he records:

‘The Jew denied the story, and the matter was referred to the judges. The accusers failed: the boy because he was underage; the woman because her being employed by Jews made her infamous. The Jew offered to clear his conscience by oath concerning the infamy. Gold won the judge’s favour. Phineas gave it and pleased them, and the matter was dropped.’

In essence the reasons the case were dropped were superficial – the other French boy was too young to give an oath as to what he had seen in court – and the woman was considered unreliable because of her close association with the local jewish population.

Then Richard of Devizes records that the judge was successfully bribed by ‘Phineas’ – meaning ‘High Priest’ referencing Numbers 25 (8) and likely referencing the Winchester’s jewish community’s rabbi or senior rabbi if there were more than one – to let the matter drop which is known in multiple instances of jewish ritual murder charges as a common jewish tactic to ‘hush up’ the matter and make it go away. (9)

So put another way: we have good albeit circumstantial evidence that the jewish ritual murder case at Winchester between 1190-1192 – occurring as it did a time of high tensions between jews and non-jews (10) surrounding Richard I of England’s depredations on his English subjects via the jewish community and the rise of the jewish community to one of the heights of its power in medieval England - (11) was a genuine one and cannot be dismissed – as many have tried to – as Richard of Devizes engaging in ‘parody’ as some academic historians have desperately tried to claim. (12)

References

(1) See my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/jewish-ritual-murder-the-winchester

(2) John Appleby, 1963, ‘The Chronicle of Richard of Devizes of the Time of King Richard the First’, 1st Edition, Thomas Nelson: Edinburgh, pp. 63-64

(3) Thomas of Monmouth, ‘The Life and Passion of William of Norwich’, 2:11 (Rubin translation)

(4) For example: Gavin Langmuir, 1984, ‘Thomas of Monmouth: Detector of Ritual Murder’, pp. 22-24 in Alan Dundes (Ed.), 1991, ‘The Blood Libel Legend: A Casebook in Anti-Semitic Folklore’, 1st Edition, The University of Wisconsin Press: Madison

(5) E. M. Rose, 2015, ‘The Murder of William of Norwich: The Origins of the Blood Libel in Medieval Europe’, 1st Edition, Oxford University Press: New York, pp. 82-83

(6) Appleby, Op. Cit., pp. 67-69

(7) Cf. Elliot Horowitz, 2007, ‘Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence’, 1st Edition, Princeton University Press: Princeton, pp. 149-185

(8) Appleby, Op. Cit., p. 69, n. 2

(9) For example: https://www.camera.org/article/blood-libels-conspiracy-theories-and-coronaviruses/ and https://jewishcurrents.org/february-13-a-blood-libel-in-germany-1195

(10) For example: Robert Chazan, 2006, ‘The Jews of Medieval Western Christendom, 1000-1500’, 1st Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York, pp. 160-161

(11) See my articles: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/richard-the-lionheart-and-the-jews and https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-the-1190-massacre

(12) Darren O’Brien, 2011, ‘The Pinnacle of Hatred: The Blood Libel and the Jews’, 1st Edition, The Hebrew University Magnes Press: Jerusalem, p. 135