Weinberg, Robert. Blood Libel in Late Imperial Russia: The Ritual Murder Trial of Mendel Beilis (review)

Abstract

REVIEWS 567 amongstothers.Thebookwillbeofgreatinteresttoabroadspectrumofreaders from Russian intellectual, cultural, legal and scientific historical backgrounds, and rewards thorough and careful reading. UCL SSEES Jennifer Keating Weinberg, Robert. Blood Libel in Late Imperial Russia: The Ritual Murder Trial of Mendel Beilis. Indiana-Michigan Series in Russian and East European Studies. Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis, IN, 2014. xii + 188 pp. Illustrations. Notes. Bibliography. Index. $24.00 (paperback). In this examination of the Beilis Affair, Robert Weinberg reconstructs one of the most notorious — and publicized — trials in history, a story that gripped contemporary Russia and attracted global interest. Its basis was the accusation that the killing of Andrei Iushinskii in Kiev was a ritual murder committed by a Jewish manager from a nearby brick factory, Mendel Beilis. What followed was a trial that became an international cause, with a variety of right-wing groups and nationalists supporting the assertions of blood libel and many others in society opposing them as entirely fictitious, and the promulgation of the case as representing a travesty of justice. This work, which will contribute particularly to our understanding of antisemitism in late imperial Russia, is split into two parts. The first is a balanced, measured and fair-minded reconstruction of the events surrounding the ritual murder claim, particularly focusing on the trial held in Kiev in 1913. The second part consists of a series of sixty-four documents, many of which have been culled from the official records of the trial, and also a variety of newspaper reports and memoirs. Weinberg’s detailed account adds new material to a story that has already been retold in some detail; here, one thinks of Maurice Samuel’s Blood Accusation (New York, 1966), or Aleksandr Tager’s Tsarskaia Rossiia i delo Beilisa. K istorii antisemitizma (Tsarist Russia and the Beilis Affair: Towards a History of Antisemitism, Moscow, 1995), both of which Weinberg credits in the introduction. In addition to these sources, Weinberg makes considerable use of primary documents in constructing his own interpretation — particularly, the court records of the trial. Though the retelling of the narrative of the trial is interesting, even gripping, the most valuable contribution of the work is how it skillfully places the trial in its wider social and political context whilst making a thorough and detailed use of key primary sources. Kiev had a history of antisemitism long before this period, and after 1905 the rise of mass politics combined with an illiberal SEER, 93, 3, JULY 2015 568 agenda served to increase long-standing tensions between Jews and non-Jews (p. 19). As the author notes, it is only in a society where deep social and political tensions existed that such a trial could be constructed and widely supported, particularly given that it was an obvious fabrication even to those who backed it at key stages (p. 35). However, the significance of the trial goes beyond personal agendas and even animosity in wider society. Figures such as the Minister of Justice, Ivan Shcheglovitov, brought the ritual murder claim to prominence and then supported it not merely because they believed it expressed civic and political tensions that they could exploit for their own self-interest, but because ‘it would aid the survival of autocratic Russia’ (p. 37). As the author demonstrates, there is an interesting comparative angle to these events. Though the Beilis trial has been explored before in comparison with the Dreyfus and the Leo Frank Affairs, Weinberg claims the Beilis Affair has a wider significance given the recurring use of ritual murder imagery and myth throughout history. This is particularly obvious from the wide-ranging introduction, assessing the use of the ritual murder myth throughout Europe, and how such incidences compare with the Beilis Affair in late imperial Russia. As Weinberg notes, the trial ultimately proved counter-productive to those who pushed it the most, including both the radical right and sympathizers within the imperial regime. It caused tensions amongst Russian nationalists, with Vasili Shul´gin being one particularly prominent critic, and also attracted international attention and criticism (pp. 61–62). However the open-ended nature of the verdict, which acquitted Beilis but confirmed that a ritual murder had taken place, led to many supporters...