General Forum Discussion

he readings this week and next week center on how Jews were portrayed and treated in
Christian Europe in the central Middle Ages (12th, 13th and 14th centuries). There are three
important themes: 1) stories and rumors that Jews kidnaped, tortured, and killed Christian
children, even using their blood in their own religious rituals (the “blood libel”); 2) stories and
accusations that Jews stole and desecrated Christian “hosts”, the wafers of bread that Catholics
believed became the body of Jesus in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist; 3) the “special”
status that Jews held in Christian kingdoms as the “property” of the king and as moneylenders
whose profits could be taxed or confiscated by the royal authorities (medieval Christians were, in
theory at least, prohibited from lending money at interest [“usury”]).
I must emphasize what I hope is obvious: these are unsubstantiated allegations, rumors,
and slanders. The mass hysteria that surrounded some of these charges may be compared with
the panic and popular violence that surrounded witchcraft accusations in early modern times, or
that led to lynchings in modern America. We are not analyzing child murder or host
desecration: we are analyzing accusations, the stories that perpetuated these accusations, and
the very real historical consequences for Jews who were persecuted and massacred as a result.
By analyzing the stories, we may understand how and why Christians constructed a hostile
portrait of the Jews, and why these particular stories were so potent.
THOMAS OF MONMOUTH, THE LIFE AND PASSION OF WILLIAM OF NORWICH
About the text…Thomas of Monmouth and the murder and cult of William of Norwich
This is a story about a twelve-year-old boy, William of Norwich, who was murdered in
Norwich, England in 1144. It is written by a monk, Thomas of Monmouth. Thomas was probably
from Wales, but he wrote this as a member of the clergy attached to Norwich Cathedral in
England. This work is particularly important as the earliest example of what is known as the
“blood libel”, the charge that Jews murdered Christian children and even used their blood in
their religious rituals.
The case revolves around the discovery of William’s dead body in a forest outside
Norwich. His family claimed he had been killed by the Jews. The case was brought to the bishop.
The Jews were under the king’s protection—a typical arrangement in the medieval
kingdoms—and the sheriff, a royal official, protected them from the charges. William was buried
in the cemetery of the community of monks who served the cathedral, and a local cult developed
around the tomb of the slain boy.
Thomas began to write his work when he settled in Norwich several years after the boy’s
death. The Life and Passion is divided into seven sections or books. It was composed in stages
between 1150 and 1173. The first book describes the life, murder, and burial. In Thomas’
account, these events are accompanied by miraculous signs. Thomas includes a graphic
description of the boy’s abduction, torture, and murder, and the disposal of William’s corpse in
the forest by the Jews. He reports on the signs that led to the finding of the boy’s body and the
accusations made by the boy’s family against the Jews. The boy’s uncle, Godwin, was a priest
and he accused the Jews of the murder at a synod (a meeting of clergy) held by the bishop. The
sheriff protected the Jews and delayed the proceedings. The bishop did not pursue the case,
according to Thomas, for fear of offending the king. The first book concludes with the burial of
William in the monks’ cemetery at the cathedral.
The second book provides the core of Thomas’ twofold argument: he seeks to
demonstrate William’s sanctity as a martyr and the Jews’ guilt as his murderers. This is a very
polemical or argumentative chapter in which Thomas plainly anticipates that many will doubt
and challenge his claims. First, he describes a series of miracles which he attributes to William
because of their association with visions or dreams about the boy or with objects linked with his
tomb. Then, he addresses those who would doubt the miracles, claim that the boy was too young
or poor to be a saint, or question whether he was murdered by the Jews and therefore a martyr.
To show that William was a martyr, Thomas offers seven “proofs” that he was killed by the
Jews.
The remainder of book two is dedicated to the fate of the Jew (Eleazar) accused of the
murder and of the king’s sheriff (John) who had protected the Jews. The Jew was a
moneylender and he was murdered by the men of a knight who owed him a large debt that had
come due. The Jews of Norwich complained to the king, and Thomas describes the arguments on
both sides. What begins as an investigation of the murder of the Jew ends with the tables turned
and the bishop of Norwich defending the knight by accusing the Jews of the murder of William
of Norwich. The proceedings were delayed and no decision was reached by the king: Thomas
suggests that the Jews had bribed the king to ensure that he would protect them. Finally, book
two concludes with the horrible death from disease of Sheriff John which Thomas regards as
divine vengeance for his protection of the Jews.
I did not assign any sections from books three to seven of the Life and Passion. These
center on the religious cult that developed around the tomb and shrine built for William at
Norwich. There are numerous stories of miracles for those who venerated the boy as a saint, and
Thomas describes the development of the cult as the tomb was moved to a more prominent place
in Norwich Cathedral. Although we are not reading these sections, it is important to remember
that most of Thomas’ work is dedicated to promoting the cult of William as a martyr’s cult which
brought prestige and revenue to Norwich Cathedral.
Context
The story of William of Norwich proved to be the first of many such stories that spread in
Christian Europe in the Middle Ages. Earlier stories had portrayed Jews who killed their own
children, because they had participated in the Christian rite of the Holy Eucharist. That story
pattern originated in the sixth century, but was adapted and included in many collections of tales
in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Thomas of Monmouth’s account, however, launched the
series of accusations against the Jews for supposedly killing Christian children, often in
gruesome, ritualistic ways, and sometimes using their blood. There were several more examples
in England, including cases at Gloucester in 1168 and Bury St Edmunds in 1181. The most
celebrated English case was that of Little St Hugh of Lincoln in 1255. Both sets of stories
contributed to the later charges of host desecration, which we will discuss next week, and the
close relationship between those allegations and Christian fears that the Jews posed a danger to
Christian children.
In medieval Europe, Christian kings were, paradoxically, protectors of the Jews and
turned to the Jews for government financing and administrative tasks, as the short sections from
David Nirenberg’s Anti-Judaism explain. Struggles between monarchs and the nobility could
lead to attacks on the Jews, and the role of some Jews as moneylenders could be a source of
conflict. This particular story takes place during the reign of King Stephen of England (1135-
1154) when the monarchy was weakened by civil war and conflicts with the nobles. In difficult
circumstances, Stephen sometimes had to depend on the income he could raise from the Jews.
General Issues for Discussion Forums
I suggest two broad ways of reading the Life and Passion. First, you can consider this as
a historical source. By that, I am not saying that Thomas’ accusations against the Jews have
any basis at all. Thomas must, however, write a story that contemporaries would find
believable. While we may question all of his “facts” about the case, we can learn a lot about
relations between Christians and Jews, and how different sectors of Christian society (the king,
his officials, nobles, clergy, townspeople) viewed the Jews and interacted with them by “reading
between the lines”. It also provides us with a source through which we can see more closely
some of the social and political conflicts and ideas that were important in later allegations of host
desecration which we will discuss next week.
Second, the chapters I assigned can be read as a combination of a detective story and
courtroom drama. Like a crafty lawyer, Thomas of Monmouth sets out to prove two things:
William of Norwich was a saintly martyr and his murder was the result of a conspiracy among
the Jews of Norwich. Pay special attention to the typical elements of a legal inquiry: evidence,
witnesses, arguments. What are the strengths and weaknesses of each? How do they compare
with modern inquiries or trials? How do the Jews or their supporters present their case? How and
why do different authorities (civil and religious) line up against or in support of the Jews? What
role is played in this case by the specific ideas (or prejudices) about the Jews that we have seen in
other readings? Finally, we shouldn’t forget that an unsolved crime lies at the heart of this story.
If you were watching this as a television show, you might be thinking about where the “twist”
will take place: some small detail or seemingly innocent character which proves to be the key to
what really happened. Does Thomas’ account include information you can use to determine who
killed William? Are there elements of the story that raise questions about other characters?
Outline and Study Questions
Prologue: This is a very formal and rhetorical address to the reader, but pay particular attention to
how Thomas summarizes and outlines the structure of his book on pp. 6-7.
Book One
1.1-2: Thomas’ account of William’s birth and childhood is designed to support his argument
that the boy should be considered a saint, and it includes stock descriptions of miracles and pious
practices.
1.3-8: Read closely Thomas’ account of the murder and disposal of the body. What are his
sources? What could he plausibly have found out? What are the Jews’ motives? Are their actions
plausible? Remember that Thomas is not only trying to prove the Jews’ guilt; he is also
demonstrating William’s sanctity. What elements of the story seem crafted to achieve that?
1.9-15: The description of the finding, burial, and identification of William’s body combines
supernatural events with plausible accounts. What do you consider believable? What leads to the
accusation that the Jews killed William?
1.16-19: The final section includes Godwin’s accusations against the Jews at the bishop’s synod
and the reburial of William in the monks’ cemetery. How does Thomas relate the claims that the
boy was killed by Jews (martyred) with the effort to give him a burial worthy of a holy person?
The charges against the Jews were not pursued and Thomas attributes this to the role of the
sheriff and the power of the king. Can you find other reasons to explain why the effort to
prosecute the Jews failed?
Book Two
2.1-2: Thomas begins book two by defending the sanctity of William against critics and sceptics.
Clearly, Thomas has an interest in promoting the cult and veneration of William. How do his
arguments here (and in 2.8) in favor of William’s sanctity help you understand how he is shaping
the overall story to make the same points?
2.3-7: The later books of the Life include the many, many “posthumous” miracles attributed to
William and credited to the devotion of those who venerated him as a saint. Here, Thomas
describes a first set of miracles, laying a foundation for the cult. Are the miracles related in any
ways to the specific accusations against the Jews?
2.8-12: Here, Thomas makes his most explicit arguments for William’s sanctity and the Jews’
guilt. How are the two sets of arguments related? Play the role of cross-examiner. What are the
strengths and weaknesses of Thomas’ “proofs” of the Jews’ guilt? To what extent do they rest
upon prejudices and preconceptions about the Jews? What do you think would have made these
“proofs” more or less convincing for a Christian audience of Thomas’ own time?
2.13-15: The trial that is described in greatest detail is not the original inquiry (1.16) into
William’s death, but the trial of the alleged murderers of the Jew, Eleazar, who had been accused
of killing William. Do the arguments at this trial shed any new light on the killing of William and
the accusations against the Jews? Why or why not?