The 20th Century, now drawing to its close, must surely rank among the most violent in history. The number of people who lost their lives through aggressive acts on the part of their fellow man must be staggering. The brotherhood of man is sadly balanced by man's inhumanity to man. The specter of new bloodletting on a massive scale hangs over mankind, it seems, forever, as part of an ever-recurring cycle of struggle for possession of some life-sustaining sector of the good earth and an intolerance for one's neighbor. As the world of failed socialism disintegrates, ethnic rivalries and hatreds have begun to tear apart the Soviet Union and its satellite states. Totalitarian solidarity gives way to distinctions based on language and ethnic descent. People once united in common purpose now feel like strangers and enemies to each other. The Arabs, who consider themselves brothers, have been warring with each other for quite some time.
Against this background, a violent recrudescence of anti-Semitism is taking place. Although the circumstances are quite different from what they were earlier in this century, the accusations put forward against the few remaining Jews of Europe echo and re-echo themes well known to all. In effect, they say, “The Jews are strangers. They do not belong here. They have no right to be here. They should go back to where they came from. We were doing all right before they came. They are the cause of all our troubles. Get rid of them, and things will be all right again. The ways of the Jews are strange and their customs are different from ours. They don't speak our language and, when they do acquire it, they debase it or pervert it for their own purposes. They do no useful work. They live on the efforts of others. They are greedy and acquisitive. They are lascivious and try to win over our women. In their vulgar ostentation, they want to be admired by all. The Jews are pushy. They want to get into places where they are unwanted and unwelcome.”
I do not pretend in this presentation to advance a comprehensive theory of the psychodynamics of anti-Semitism. The issue is much too complex, involving, as it does, such additional factors as historical, economic, political and cultural forces. Our Study Group on Anti-Semitism, under the auspices of the Psychoanalytic Research and Development Fund, under the chairmanship of Dr. Mortimer Ostow, struggled valiantly for years at the interface between these many complex factors and psychodynamics. What I do propose to do is to examine a possible psychodynamic constellation that may account for the appeal of anti-Semitism to some people, a psychological predisposition associated with persistent unconscious fantasies, fantasy reactions to primitive, irrational, childhood wishes.
As a psychoanalyst, I find it appropriate to approach this undertaking with a study of a widespread, historically persistent, irrational myth concerning the Jews, namely, the so-called blood libel.
According to the Encyclopedia Judaica, blood libel consists of the accusation that Jews murder non-Jews, especially Christians and usually a young boy, in order to obtain blood for the making of matzos for Passover and for other rituals. It is a complex of deliberate lies, trumped-up accusations, and popular beliefs about the murder-lust of Jews and their bloodthirstiness. It is based on the notion that Jews hate Christianity and mankind in general, and it is combined with the idea that Jews are in some way not human and must have recourse to special remedies and subterfuges in order to appear at least outwardly like other men.
That the Jews, especially religious Jews, should engage in such practices runs counter to what anyone, even with only a minimal knowledge of the religion, knows. While blood sacrifices were practiced by many pagan religions, they were expressly forbidden by the Torah. In fact the law of meat salting is designed to prevent the least drop of avoidable blood remaining in the food to be eaten. It is further noted in the Encyclopedia Judaica that, “It is striking that in the early history of Christianity there were times when the blood libel was directed against them. Tertulian complained, ‘We are said to be the most criminal of men on the score of our sacramental baby-killing and the baby-eating that goes with it’” (page 1119). Christians sometimes directed such accusations against heretical Christian sects. It is especially noteworthy that, in earlier times, there were Christians who believed that, in some form, a baby was
mysteriously hidden in the bread used for communion. “Thus it was necessary for a popular teacher, Father Berthold of Regensburg, in the13th Century, to explain to his communicants why they actually do not see a holy child in communion by asking a rhetorical question, ‘who would like to bit off a baby's head or hand or foot?’” (p. 1122).
The theme of cannibalizing a child is the dominant feature the blood libel. In what was supposed to be the first case of blood libel against the Jews in the Middle Ages, that of Norwich in 1144, it was claimed that the Jews had “bought a Christian child … before Easter and tortured him with all the tortures wherewith our Lord was tortured and, on Long Friday, hanged him on the rood in honor of our Lord.” This theme was repeated, with slight variations, throughout the 12th Century in England, France, and in Spain. In the 13th Century, in the case of Little St. Hugh of Lincoln, it was recorded that “that the child was first fattened for ten days with white bread and milk and then almost all the Jews of England were invited to the crucifixion.” While it is understandable that “the crucifixion motif explains why the blood libels occurred at the time of Passover,” one must also bear in mind that the holiday of Passover also concerns the slaying of the first born child (Hillel ben-Sasson 1972, Encyclopedia Judaica).
It is a fact that the heads of state, and of the church, regularly opposed the circulation of such libel. The Emperor Frederick II decided to conduct an investigation of the libel in order to clear up the matter definitively. He convened a synod which used the testimony of Jewish converts to Christianity. The synod concluded that “there is nothing to be found either in the Old or the New Testament that the Jews are desirous of human blood. On the contrary, they avoid contamination of any kind of blood.” Pope Innocent IV, in the 13th Century, stated “Christians charge falsely that the Jews hold a communion rite with the heart of a murdered child; should the cadaver of a dead man happen to be found anywhere, they maliciously lay it to their charge.” The eminent Jewish historian, Cecil Roth (1935) states; “To its lasting credit, the Catholic Church (even when the night of medievalism was at its darkest) never gave the slightest confidence to the calumny. Immediately the Holy See first became cognizant of it in the 13th Century, its remonstrances began, and they continued afterwards in unbroken sequence. It is noteworthy that some of the most vehement protests emanated from the pontiffs who
otherwise showed themselves least sympathetic toward the Jews, their objectivity thus being all the more obvious” (p. 20). Particular credit goes to Cardinal Lorenzo Ganganelli, later Pope Clement XIV, who, having been charged by the Pope to investigate accusations of blood libel against Polish Jews, issued a thorough and comprehensive study, concluding that such accusations were malicious calumnies, immoral and un-Christian, and should be opposed by the full authority of the Church. His memorandum, promulgated in 1759, remains the official view of the Holy See. Roth also notes, “Later in the same year, Frederick Augustus Ill, penultimate king of Poland, in ratifying the charters of his predecessors, promised the Jews the protection of the law against any accusations of ritual murder which might henceforth arise” (p. 30).
In spite of these efforts, neither Emperor nor Pope was heeded, generations after generations of Jews in Europe were tortured and Jewish communities were massacred or dispersed and broken up because of this libel. It was spread by various agents. Popular preachers engrained it into the minds of the people. Jewish scholars in the Middle Ages bitterly rejected this accusation and quoted the law and examples from the Jewish way of life in order to refute it. In a psychologically perceptive statement, expressing the general opinion of the Jews, one authority summed up Jewish response to the blood libels as follows: “You are libeling us for you want to find a reason to permit the shedding of our blood.” (12th, 13th Century, Sefer Nizzahon Yashan—Lieber Nizzahon Detus, p. 159 in Tela Iganea Satanae, edited by J.C.H. Wagenseil, 1681. This material is on p. 1123 of Volume 4 of the Encyclopedia Judaica).
All of the Jewish denials, like the opinion of enlightened Christian leaders, did not succeed in preventing the blood libels from shaping, to a large extent, the image of the Jew transmitted from the Middle Ages to modern times. In the 19th Century, anti-Semitism made conspicuous use of blood libel for incitement against Jews in various countries. It was also used as a weapon to arouse the uneducated masses for specific political purposes. Blood libel trials were held in the second half of the 19th Century and the early 20th Century. The Nazis used the blood libel in full force in anti-Jewish propaganda. They revived old allegations and instituted reinvestigations and trials jn territories under their rule or influence… . On May l, 1934 the Stuermer devoted a special, horrifying,
illustrated number to the blood libel, in which German scientists openly served the Nazi aims (Hillel ben-Sasson, Encyclopedia Judaica, 1972).
Thus the 20th Century began with blood libel accusations against the Jews, and by mid-century such libels could be presented as truth to the educated masses of Germany, and to much of Europe. Such a combination of human credulity and cruelty is hard to fathom. How is it possible to deny in others the essential humanity we perceive in ourselves? How can one abrogate that compassionate identification upon which all morality is founded? For so fantastic an idea to take hold in the human mind, it must resonate some deep primitive, unconscious wish, a kind of unconscious fantasy easily shared in common, based upon common need.
Trying to fathom this phenomenon, we must first underline the essential features of the myth. Its main outline follows. The hateful, unwelcome alien, the Jew, the stranger in our midst, kills a young child, usually a boy, and devours him or his blood in order to develop and prosper—a combination of infanticide, cannibalism and growth. In an earlier study (1961), I was struck by a trans-cultural theme in mythology, one that for some reason combined the motif of welcoming strangers with that of childlessness. In such stories, a childless couple, generously and without question, welcomes strangers to their home and gives them food and lodging. As it turns out, the strangers are gods in disguise. In various ways, they reward the couple for the hospitality, as described in my paper, “Ego Psychology and the Study of Mythology” (1961). The story of Abraham and Sarah in the Bible is particularly apposite in this connection. The three strangers, angels in disguise, had first appeared at the home of Abraham's nephew, Lot, in Sodom. The inhabitants of that city were far from hospitable. They wished Lot to turn the strangers over to them so that they might assault the newcomers sexually (hence, the term sodomy). Lot protects them. Later, Abraham and Sarah receive the same three strangers with notable hospitality. They feed them and give them lodging for the night and they are rewarded, in time, with a son, Isaac.
A similar theme occurs in the Greek myth of Baucis and Philemon.
I could not, at the time, fathom the connection between childlessness and hospitality to strangers, until I came upon an unfinished novella by
Heinrich Heine, entitled “The Rabbi of Bacherach.”1 This is a mid-19th-Century retelling of the theme of Abraham and Sarah by Heine, who, with penetrating poetic intuition, placed the story in the context of the blood libel. Interestingly, Heine never could finish the novel. He kept returning to it but did not seem to be able to master the conflicts it evoked in him.
The essential features of the novel are as follows: Abraham is the rabbi of Bacherach, revered for his dedication the community, and respected for his learning. He and his wife Sarah love each other dearly, but their union is unfulfilled. They have no child. It is Passover and at the seder, Sarah muses that they have no son to ask the traditional four questions. She thinks of a younger brother of hers who had died as a child. The members of their large extended family have assembled for the Passover feast at their home. There are many relatives because the rabbi and Sarah are first cousins. Whether as a literary device or out of ignorance on his part, Heine distorts the order of the seder.
After the second cup of wine has been consumed, and while the rabbi is reading “Lo, this is the bread of affliction” (a statement that one reads at the beginning of the seder) there is a knock at the door. Two strangers are admitted. They say they are fellow Jews on a journey who wish to be taken in for the seder. The hospitality of the rabbi of Bacherach is extended to them, and they are seated at the table with the rest of the family. The rabbi turns to his wife, Sarah, and says, “Be happy, my queen,” but she smiles sadly and replies, “We have no Prince.”
The rabbi says nothing but he points his finger at an illustration in the Haggadah showing the appearance of the three angels to Abraham to announce to him that he would have a son by his wife Sarah. In the middle of the celebration, the rabbi turns deathly pale and discreetly leaves the room. His wife, Sarah, noticing the change in him, follows him out the door, where the rabbi, in terror, explains that they must leave immediately. He had looked under the table and had noticed the corpse of a young, presumably Christian, boy. The rabbi fears that the strangers were not Jews and that they had introduced the corpse in order to implicate him in a blood libel accusation. The rabbi says that Sarah and
I am indebted to Mr. Gerald Meyer for bringing it to my attention.
he must flee instantly to save themselves from slaughter. They leave secretly, abandoning their relatives to their fate.
The rabbi notices that Sarah still holds in her hand the silver ewer with which she had been serving the guests. He seizes it and throws it, the last of his possessions, as he says, into Rhine as a peace offering, and they engage Silent William (a deaf-mute who supports an old foster mother), to take them his Frankfurt up the river. In her troubled sleep or reveries on the Ferry up the Rhine, Sarah “suddenly . thought she saw . her friends and relatives rushing past in terror, with dead faces Iarah friends and white flowing shrouds, along the Rhine.” (p. 22), apparently slaughtered because of the blood libel.
What Heine did in this story was to transform a seemingly innocuous parable of the desirability of being friendly and welcoming to strangers into a nightmare. The guests at the family banquet are not friendly gods in disguise, but mortal enemies. More than that, they appear as Jews, co-religionists and, as it were, part of the family. In the Biblical story, there are three strangers seeking hospitality. In Heine's version, there are only two. Where is the third? He, I suggest, is represented by the corpse of the young child under the table. Thus, Heine brings the themes of infanticide and cannibalism to the tale of the Rabbi of Bacherach. This version of the story brings with it a moral quite the opposite from that espoused in the Biblical tale or the Greek myth. The guests so recently welcomed into the family bring with them discord, disruption and even death.
In the lives of most people, the primordial, disruptive, unwelcome guest is the newborn younger sibling. He is the stranger the child has to be taught to accept. The hoped for acceptance is never completely successful or free from conflict. We are fully aware of the terrible violence expressed in the so-called “crimes of passion.” How much more violent and primitive are the fantasies of the immature older sibling, now displaced and fallen from grace? To him, the younger sibling is a stranger who does not belong and who has no right to be here. He feels that the newborn should go back where he came from. Things were fine before the baby came. He is the cause of all our troubles. Get rid of him and things will be all right again. The new baby doesn't behave right. He doesn't speak our language and, when he begins to do so, he talks nonsense. He doesn't do anything. He just lies there and gets fed and cared for. He does nothing
for himself. Everything has to be done for him. He is greedy and wants everything, including mother's undivided attention. He just lies there, waiting for everyone to come, to admire him, and to worship him.
Such sentiments coincide almost exactly with the familiar anti-Semitic complaints lodged against the Jews, as quoted in the early part of this paper. Historically, as aliens and strangers, Jews evoke in their neighbors deep-seated, primitive, unresolved hostilities directed originally against younger sibling figures, and against any other whom they might regard as encroaching upon what they consider their rightful, proprietary domain. The typical fantasy of older siblings consists of destroying the newborn child by eating and incorporating it.2 This vision of infanticide and cannibalism not only gets rid of the younger sibling; it also satisfies a fantasy wish of taking the baby's place by incorporating it, and thus becoming identified with it. The blood libel accusation, I would suggest, originates from the projection of these infanticidal and cannibalistic wishes from the Christian upon the Jew. The interpretation of the blood libel accusation as a projection on the part of the accusers was apparently made originally by Manassah ben Israel (Roth, 1935). Cardinal Ganganelli stated quite clearly in his memorandum that, all too frequently, the motive behind the blood libel accusation was to enable the accusers to seize the money, the property, and the real estate of the Jews and, finally, to expel them from their town.
Hunger and envy are important motivating forces. The older sibling usually conceptualizes the threat posed by the newborn in terms of an assault upon his food supply. In the child's mind, there is just so much food available from the mother, and anything given to the newborn, perforce, represents something taken away from him. When people experience real privation and hunger, as was frequent in the Middle Ages, it is very easy to turn upon the outsider, especially if he is better off economically, and accuse him of feeding on the riches of a land to which he has no rightful claim. In this connection, several of the details in Heine's novella are most illuminating. When Rabbi Abraham and his wife arrive
Ostow , in a personal communication, noted that the theme of brothers orally destroying an unwelcome younger sibling is implicit in the story of Joseph and his brethren. The envious brothers present their father, Jacob, with the bloodstained clothes of Joseph, suggesting that some beast of prey may have killed him.
as refugees in the city of Frankfurt, Heine reminds us that the Jews of Frankfurt were supposed to turn in 5,000 rats' tails each year to the City Council. It was their job to exterminate the dangerous nuisance that constituted a threat to the granaries and storehouses of the city. In his paper, “Day Residue in Dream and Myth” Wangh (1954), demonstrated the connection between rats, dwarfs and little people, i.e., the younger generation, as threats to one's food supply. He notes that, in times of hunger and famine, ambivalent feelings towards children evoke intense oral conflicts, frequently finding expression in myths that equate rats and children. “In the myths of the little people, the oral aspect is stressed over and over again. Most often elves, gnomes and the rest have to be appeased with food. Oft times they steal it” (pp. 450-451).
In any event the myths of the dwarfs, the little people, Wangh asserts, become connected with the fear of rodents menacing stores of food. In Heine's novella “The Rabbi of Bacherach,” while Sarah is in the boat being ferried up the Rhine by Silent William, in her reveries she looks at the mountains and they appear “as if up there a damsel stood with anxiously outstretched arms, as if quick dwarfs were swarming out of their rock fissures.”
Almost immediately she begins to think of the stories that her aunt from Lorch told her, of the bold knight who freed the poor damsel the dwarfs had kidnapped, and also of “the Gingerbread Land, where good, obedient children go” (p. 19). Also, after Sarah learns about the responsibility of the Jews of Frankfurt to combat the threat of rodents as evidenced by their handing in a specified number of rats' tails, Sarah turns to her husband and says, “Silent William does bear a great likeness to my late brother” (p. 25). In dreams, Freud (1913) noted, dumbness signifies death. In general, in dream psychology and symbolism, younger siblings are often represented by small animals, and this equation is clearly illustrated by the story of the Pied Piper of Hamelin, who first gets rid of the rats, and then, when he is not appropriately compensated, gets rid of the children.3
Marcuse (, personal communication) has suggested that childlessness in myth, or self-imposed in reality, may also represent a form of punishment for murderous wishes against the newborn sibling. This, then, would represent a special type of self-punishment as described by Loewenstein (1945), in which the punishment consists of the actualization of the hostile wish.
It is discouraging to conjecture that the peace within the family that comes from accepting the unwelcome newborn may come at the expense of distrust and rivalry of those outside of the family. One could extend this process on the national level. Xenophobia seems always to be stronger than compassion and hospitality, I have often pondered why it is so difficult to motivate people to act together for peace, as compared to organizing them for war. It is easier to teach one to hate his enemy than to love his neighbor (Arlow, 1973). The dynamics of the blood-libel accusation against Jews, and the typical anti-Semitic ideology, have at least one root in universally shared, unconscious fantasies occasioned by primitive childhood conflicts over having to share food, security, and the mother's love.
I wish to stress that I do not consider the construction I have just offered as a definitive or comprehensive explanation of anti-Semitism or of particular anti-Semitic attitudes. My aim was to elucidate just one of the dynamics that make it possible to mobilize forces of violent aggression against one's fellow man. Social institutions, it would seem, have a greater power to mobilize forces of aggression than to give license to erotic wishes. Political, economic, historical, and cultural factors serve as the setting facilitating both individual and group violence by their power to evoke and reactivate latent unconscious fantasies expressing primitive murderous impulses common to all. Mankind. The blood libel accusation of anti-Semitism is just one such example.