No Russian newspaper of any influence, with the exception of the Novoye Vremya, has attempted to palliate the massacre, or to lay the blame for it on the Jews.
Appendix V
Simon of Trent, from an article of Dr. Bloch in the Oesterreichische Wochenschrift, No. 42, October the 20th, 1899. (Freely translated.)
SIMON OF TRENT
The case of the alleged ritual murder of the child Simon of Trent is the most important example of its kind, and is therefore frequently quoted by anti-Semites. I have given the history of the case in the Oesterreichische Wochenschrift. The Vienna Vaterland of the 17th October, and Pastor Deckert in the Deutsches Volksblatt discuss my articles, but carefully avoid mentioning the Oesterreichische Wochenschrift. In May, 1893, the Vienna Vaterland was obliged to publish several articles from my pen, contradicting the statements made by Pastor Deckert. In an article of May the 30th, 1893, I called attention to a fact which throws a glaring light upon the history of the case: Some days before the murder of the child, during the Easter week of 1475, Bernardinus de Feltre, whilst preaching in Trent against the Jews, expressed himself to the following effect: “And with these cursed Jews you are on a friendly footing? You say, although without the true faith, they are good people? But I tell you that even before the Easter will have come to an end they will have given you a proof of their kindness.” (Cf. Wadding, “Annales Minorum,” XIV. p. 132). Bernardinus thus predicted the murder days before it happened. His prophecy was naturally fulfilled. On Thursday in Passion Week, March the 23d, Simon, the 28-months’-old son of the tanner Andreas, disappeared. Bernardinus accused the Jews, and on Saturday the body of a child was discovered in the house of Samuel. The Jews themselves informed the Bishop Hinderbach, in consequence of which information all of them, including women and children, were imprisoned.
In his article of the 17th of October, Pastor Deckert maintains that: “It is not true that the confessions made by the Jews were obtained by means of torture, and that they had been tortured whilst there were absolutely no indications of their guilt.” Pastor Deckert is right. There were proofs against them, proofs of a very extraordinary nature. As soon as the bishop saw the body of the child he exclaimed: “This is the work of the Jews!” (Acta Sanc., II., March 24, p. 497), and swore to have revenge. He entrusted the prefect of the town, Johann de Salis, with the conduct of the action. The latter put the richest Jews to (an ordeal?) trial, and the wounds having begun to bleed as soon as the Jews approached the body, which is always the case, as experience teaches (experientia compertum est), when a murderer approaches his victim, this fact was a convincing proof of the guilt of the Jews. There was also another “proof” against the Jews. In the prison of Trent a converted Jewish criminal, Johann de Feltre, was detained. By accusing his former coreligionists he could hope for freedom; and he became a witness, ready to say anything and everything against the Jews. Pastor Deckert maintains that “it is not true that the confessions of the Jews were obtained in consequence of tortures only.”
I have refuted his statement with his own words. On p. 21 of his article he himself states: “only torture could make them confess; without tortures they would have confessed nothing.” The Jews were submitted for several days to the most inhuman tortures, and only then confessed. This is proved by the contents of the letters of the Bishop addressed to the Pope: “The accused Jews have been tortured for several days (per pluries dies torti et interrogati), but have confessed nothing”; and in another place the Bishop writes: “Although much has been done against the Jews, a fortnight has passed without any result.”
Had the prisoners confessed at the first, second, or third application, the official would not have employed so many variations of torture. All the alleged confessions had therefore been obtained by means of terror and tortures of the most cruel character.
The sufferings of the martyrs are related in the letters of the Bishop addressed to the Pope:
“On the 30th day of March (Vienna Acts, fol. 51) Samuel was ‘examined’ for the first time; he was, however, sent back to prison to ‘recover’ (animum repetendi), which term means in judicial language that he had fainted. On the following day (March 31st) he was undressed, and with his feet and hands tied, hoisted up on a rope and kept suspended in the air, his limbs being thus turned out of their joints. As, however, he still persisted in maintaining his innocence, he received ‘una cavaletta’ (a leap), in other words, he was quickly lowered and pulled up again; then the cord on which he was suspended was ‘touched,’ i. e., beaten, and he was made to ‘leap’ several times. The victim having swooned, the torture ceased. It was continued, with several variations of exquisite cruelty, on the 3d of April.