Chronicon de rebus gestis Ricardi Primi

Chronicon de rebus gestis Ricardi Primi
By Richard of Devizes
Published in 1198
82 Pages
Thibault’s Score: 3/5

Usually, modern people over-estimate how bloodthirsty and savage medieval writers are. If you want to find an example of a medieval author who conforms to all of the worst modern stereotypes about the Middle Ages, read Richard of Devizes.

This is actually the second time that I’ve read Richard of Devizes - last time was a couple years ago when my knowledge of the period was less advanced.

Richard of Devizes was a monk and political pundit who wrote texts to defend the regime of Richard Lionheart and Aliénor of Aquitaine.

What is striking about Devizes' account is how bloodthirsty he is. He is constantly calling for and celebrating violence against Lionheart’s political enemies in England; against Muslims; against Italians; against Greeks; and most importantly, against Jews.

His style of writing (or my early 19th century translation) makes him very hard to read. The book is also disorganized, with different pages jumping around at random times. This is a far cry from other more rational medieval authors.

Two passages struck me in particular.

The first is how he describes Lionheart’s arrival in the Norman kingdom of Sicily. Instead of respecting his Sicilian Norman allies, Lionheart starts ravaging the countryside and extorts his Norman cousins for money and supplies. Instead of condemning this attack against a fellow Christian, Richard of Devizes enthusiastically praises Lionheart.

When I first read this chronicle, I just assumed that medieval people were savages. Having read more primary source materials, I now understand that Devizes’ endorsement of bloodshed against fellow Christians was not mainstream.

The other notable passage is his description of the mass murder of Jews in celebration of Lionheart’s coronation. He is the first author to use the word “holocaust” to describe the murder of Jews. This passage is well known, and I noticed it last time. What I didn’t remember or notice was another passage later in the book where he describes a Jewish pedophile who lures a French boy to England to molest and kill him. The story is lurid and very detailed. This is the first primary source example of what historians assume is “blood libel” that I have come across.

Historiographically, it is hard for me to judge whether or not Richard of Devizes is lying about his description of the Jews. At first, when I came across the passage about the boy killed by Jews, I assumed it was blood libel. The main reason behind my assumption was that the chronicler seems like he is writing specifically for the purpose of justifying atrocities in Greece and elsewhere. It wouldn’t be out of character to take an isolated incident out of context, and amplify it to justify his “holocaust.” However, there could be more to it. In the middle ages Jews were a “ghetto minority.” Low trust ethnic minorities in high crime areas often have this kind of social problem. Nearly a thousand years later, in the very same city of Winchester, there are Pakistani Muslim grooming gangs that rape and traffic young British girls. Similar conditions could lead to similar circumstances. The story could be completely real.

I don’t recommend reading Richard of Devizes for the average reader. It is difficult material. It also makes for somewhat dull reading. But if you are serious about studying history, you need to read primary sources. Devizes isn’t the first source I would recommend, but for more advanced readers or for those interested in Jewish history, his chronicle might be of interest.