Talk:William of Norwich

Untitled

Have removed the text "during the English Civil War ". This is generally accepted as being the war between the Royalists and Parliamentarians in the mid Seventeenth century... -- Graham  :) | Talk 16:15, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous user, please explain your objection to including the fact that William's "murder" was a manifestation of post-Conquest urban anti-Semitism in the intro. Everyking 17:10, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Watch this page, folks

Somebody should watch this page more closely--an assertion that the "blood libel" story is true stood unchallenged here for more than 24 hours. I've put it on my watchlist and I hope some others will do the same... --Dvyost 03:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I changed the first sentence to make it clear that the Jewish community of Norwich did not, in point of fact, murder William--the opening sentence had read "...boy who was supposedly murdered by the Jews." Given the all-too-prevelant use of blood libel even today, it should be explicitly clear from the get-go that no Jew had anything to do with Wm's death... Makrina 02:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

(Very late to the discussion, but thought I'd comment just the same.) I don't think the point it to categorically deny that a Jew had anything to do with William's death. We don't know, and almost certainly never will know, who killed him. In fact, I think it's counter-productive to get drawn into that debate. That's taking the role of either Thomas of Monmouth or his adversaries. It's enough to say that Jews were accused of ritual murder, but no one was convicted of the crime. By the way, no one at the time accused Jews of blood libel, that is, of using Williams blood for a religious purpose. The only accusation was of ritual murder, crucifying the boy in the same manner as Jesus was killed. We should maintain a distinction there. The blood libel charge didn't surface until much later in history. Btrem (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Distinguishing fact from propoganda

I agree with above, there's a strong slant occurring upon this page without even mentioning the source of the events written in 1173 some 40 years after events! Namely the tract written by the norwich monk Thomas of Monmouth the main culprit for the anti-semitic accussations. Have added source link of his writings. This article's original author also has a slant in antithesis to Monmouth, both are culpable.Norwikian 12:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess one can say that about many historic "facts". Take the Holocaust, shall we call that "gas libel". --41.151.21.228 (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

No we shan't. Because it's well documented fact. Paul B (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually there is debate about the details of the holocaust, such as the number killed, how deliberate the death toll was (many were deaths due to starvation and disease, rather than deliberate killing) and whether Hitler actually ordered the killing of all European jews (there is no evidence that he did). Or rather there would be debate if it were not for the fact that any attempt to discuss these matters is closed down by the Establishment with cries of "Holocaust Denier".122.59.167.152 (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Repercussions

I read recently that the William of Norwich "blood libel" had a major imapct on Anti-Semetism across Europe at the time and the eventual expulsion of Jews in the UK and elsewhere. And centuries later, the same myth was dredged up by the Nazis in anti-Jewish propaganda. The article from the Independent newspaper is reproduced here: http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=891600

(please note that the section relating to the "anti-semetic" Labour Party posters was not in the original article)

The relevant paragraphs:

"Clerics and Popes routinely stirred up ill-feeling against the Jews as the "killers of Christ". Ill will was fed by the Crusades, in which the Jews were as much a target of the righteous sword-wielders as were the infidel Saracens. One of the most popular - and heinous - myths was that known by Jews as "the blood libel", which appears to have originated in England in an accusation against one William of Norwich in 1144.

"It suggested that he and other Jews killed a young Christian boy to use his blood in the ritual preparation of unleavened bread for the Passover ritual - a claim which spread from England to France and Spain and throughout Europe in medieval times and which resurfaced in Nazi propaganda in the 20th century."

I realise that the story seems to be confused somewhat, or perhaps a lazy composite by the author, but certainly the Nazi reference might be relevant to establishing the longevity of the myth... 69.140.65.251 01:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Murder - but for what reason?

So it is true that William did exist and was not a myth? He was murdered after last being seen entering a Jewish household. What remains unclear is the REASON for his murder. A subsequent investigation was blocked by the authorities for reasons unknown, and officially the case was never solved?
While William of Norwich may not have been killed as part of a ritual, he was indeed murdered, and the subsequent blocking of an investigation and failure to identify those responsible for the crime lead to discontent amongst the local population.

Dean Armond 02:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Any chance of a reference to back up that statement? Catsmeat (talk) 08:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Reading the account, it seems clear to me the cook was a paedophile and this was, as mentioned, a sex crime murder. The cook is the obvious suspect, it's evidence of the blatant prejudice of the mediaeval mindset that people immediately tried to blame Jews rather than looking into the more logical answer. The cook taking the boy into a "Jewish house" is hearsay evidence - and even if true it proves nothing about the householder being to blame. And even if one Jew, or one Jewish household was to blame, why harass the whole community?! This is ignorant prejudice, plain and simple. Gymnophoria (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic Language

I'm researching the case of William for a piece I intend to add to my personal blog. I came here looking for more information. All I can say is that the introduction is truly terrible, with some completely unencyclopedic language. It's best to maintain a sense of scholarly detachment over such matters. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too active right now, but I'll see what I can do. There are certainly some issues to sort out. --Dweller (talk) 13:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The "Conclusion" is terrible as well and does not follow from William of Norwich. RPSM (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Blatant Lie?

This article seems biased. Accusations were made against the Jewish population. No one was convicted. How does that automatically mean that the accusations were a "blatant lie"? Shouldn't the author have to prove that the accusations were false and purposely fabricated? A person could murder another person without it ever being proven that they committed the crime. That does not mean that they did not in fact kill the other person. It only means that it was never proven. Stating their innocence as a fact beyond any reasonable doubt is just as biased as stating their guilt beyond any reasonable doubt without any evidence that they were actually guilty. Shouldn't an encyclopedic article discuss the topic in an entirely neutral manner? Discuss the accusation(s). Discuss the lack of a conviction. Do not impugn either side unless it is a verifiable fact that they purposely lied. 98.239.7.135 (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

See above. This article has serious issues that need resolving - I'm trying to find some time to do it myself, but in the meantime, feel free to try and help! --Dweller (talk) 10:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There are any number of reasons for murder: robbery, jealousy over his position or a "woman" (since people married early in those days), bad company, etc. It is reasonable to entertain the possibility that the crime could have been done by a Jew, the one he was visiting or another, for any of those reasons, although there is no more evidence for them than for any other culprit. But that is not what the accusation stated. The accusation was that, for no personal reason related to William himself, he was tortured and crucified for some Jewish ritual purpose, prsumably related to Passover, which came exactly one week after his death. There is no evidence or precedent in all of Jewish history to give that theory any credence, and reasonable people have as much right to dismiss it out of hand every bit as much as they would the theory that he was abducted by aliens in a flying saucer and subjected to physiological experimentation. Come to think of it, I actually like that theory. It fits the facts very well :) Pedantrician (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

unfocussed article, unsubstantiated claims

I've tried to improve this article. I've removed any reference to "blood libel". The charge that Jews killed Christians for their blood was not part of this case. I added a reference to Gavin I. Langmuir's excellent article on William and Thomas of Monmouth (see references). I'm surprised this was not already listed. Langmuir's article is thorough and informative. I've corrected the date of Thomas's Life. Thomas wrote volume 1 in 1149/50, and volume 1 is where he lays out his reconstruction of the crime. So it is misleading to say his account came a generation later. At the same time, it is misleading to call Thomas a contemporary of the events. Thomas was alive in 1144, of course, but he did not arrive in Norwich until 1148/49, several years after the body was found.

Unfortunately, there are still several problems:

• The second paragraph of the section The Jews of medieval Norwich makes a reference to skeletons found down a well. What has this got to do with William of Norwich? The BBC report referenced in this section is badly misinformed. If the BBC is talking about William on its news page, it got the date of his murder wrong by over 80 years. I think the entire paragraph should be deleted, but I'd like to get feedback first.
• There are unsubstantiated claims about the case.

• "the local community of Norwich attributed the boy's death to the Jews...." It's not accurate to say the charge stemmed from the "local community"; the charge appears to have originated with Thomas, or perhaps William's mother.
• "the local court would not convict the Jews for lack of proof." Was there ever a trial? Accusations were made, five or more years after William's body was discovered in the woods. It seems that few people took the charges seriously. The Jews of Norwich were briefly moved into the castle as a precaution, but I'm not aware of any riot against them arising from the case of William.
• "Court records suggest that the boy was tortured before his murder". What court records?

Admittedly, I'm going from memory. I have not read Langmuir's article for some time, and I cannot locate it now. I've done what I could, but much more remains. Btrem (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No mention of a court case or evidence of a servant in the Catholic Encyclopedia

The source for this article is the Caatholic Encyclopedia: [[1]] Where does all the unsourced material in the article come from? RPSM (talk) 09:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC) The article in the Catholic Encyclopedia says that there is only one medieval primary source. So what is all this invention about court records? I will erase the relevant passages. RPSM (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

In King Stephen's time, the Jews of Norwich bought a Christian child before Easter and tortured him with all the torture that our Lord was tortured with; and on Good Friday hanged him on a cross on account of our Lord, and then buried him. They expected it would be concealed, but our Lord made it plain that he was a holy martyr, and the monks took him and buried him with ceremony in the monastery, and through our Lord he works wonderful and varied miracles, and he is called Saint William.The Anglo Saxon Chronicles (1155) NOT court records, the source is Thomas of Monmouth[[2]] RPSM (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Story "created" by Thomas

I doubt it is correct to say that it is "difficult to distinguish the facts of the case from the story of martyrdom created around it by Thomas". Thomas recorded the story - there is no evidence that he created it.122.59.167.152 (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Scholarship, including the sources cited at footnote 1, describe Monmouth's work a "hagiography." It notably includes anecdotes about William raising people from the dead and curing incurable diseases. Thus, anything written therein must be taken with a grain of salt, and cannot be regarded as historically accurate. BCJD (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William of Norwich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6GHvF8hYr?url=http://www.jhse.org/node/44?page=0,0 to http://www.jhse.org/node/44?page=0%2C0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that this is a false accusation please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:6582:8580:C00:D16B:270C:1B28:6683 (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Contrast with Anglo-Saxon Chronicle?

This public domain translation of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle sets the date of William's death in 1137, not 1144:

In his reign the Jews of Norwich bought a Christian child before Easter, and tortured him after the same manner as our Lord was tortured; and on Long-Friday (164) hanged him on a rood, in mockery of our Lord, and afterwards buried him. They supposed that it would be concealed, but our Lord showed that he was a holy martyr. And the monks took him, and buried him with high honour in the minster. And through our Lord he worketh wonderful and manifold miracles, and is called St. William.

As the Chronicle is closer in time to the events than Monmouth's hagiography, shouldn't the difference be noted? BCJD (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Credulity issues

I'm a bit worried about the current edits which are explaining Thomas of Monmouth's lurid account verbatim. While these are a potentially useful addition, care needs to be made that they are not set out in a way which appears to give them credibility (they are not, after all, credible). I will take a closer look at this later, but wanted to note this early on, in case the editor's working on this can take this concern into account as they work on it. Jim Killock (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I've restored some of the details about William in the infobox for similar reasons. It must at the very least be made plain that this was a pseudo-Saint, whose cult was later ended, with good reason. Jim Killock (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Amitchell125, quick note to please be extra careful, and make sure there is no ambiguity in what is recorded here. I've restored a long quote at the end, hopefully out of copyright, which gives a good sense of the issues here. A few other places I've restored some cuts which seem important. Jim Killock (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@JimKillock: Above points noted (especially regarding the dubious nature of Thomas of Monmouth's work). Thanks for the above and your edits, the pseudo saint idea will be expanded (it was common in eastern England, as with other areas). To keep the article encyclopedic and focused on the topic, there will need to be some copy editing, and some use of more recent sources). Amitchell125 (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The article is certainly in terrible shape, or has been, and pruning is welcome from me. On more recent sources, there are plenty, and if I have time I may have a go with it, or I can point to where to look, if you're interested in working on it. I've been working on Edict of Expulsion the last few weeks, and previously did a lot on Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln but not so much on this article. Jim Killock (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)