St. William of Norwich

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

Born 1132; died 22 March, 1144. OnHoly Saturday, 25 March, 1144, a boy's corpse showing signs of a violent death was found in Thorpe Wood near Norwich. It was not touched untilEaster Monday, where it was buried without anyceremony where it lay. In the meantime a number of young men and boys had visited the spot and theJews were suspected of themurder on account of the nature of the wounds ["Ex ipso penarum modo" (Thomas of Monmouth, op. cit. below, [p. 35); "non nisi judeos co maxime tempore talia gessisse asseritur" (op. cit., p. 36)]. The body was recognized as that of William, a tanner's apprentice, who with his master had been in the habit of frequenting the houses of certainJews. The grave was opened by William's uncle, thepriest Godwin Stuart, the body recognized, the burial Office read, and the grave recovered. A few days later thediocesan synod met under the presidence of Bishop Eborard, and Stuart accused theJews of themurder, and offered to prove his accusation by ordeal. But theJews of the NorwichJewry were the king's men and under the protection of the sheriff, who pointed out that thebishop had nojurisdiction in the case. The failure to secure a condemnation against theJews seems to have been largely due to the presence of this strong official who held the castle ofNorwich. The only result of Sturt's action at this time was to secure the translation of the body from Thorpe Wood to themonks' cemetery on 24 April. But the cultus of St. William did not become popular, and though one or twomiracles are reported during this period (1144-49) it is quite possible that the story of themurder of theJews might have been forgotten but for themurder of theJew Eleazer by the followers of Sir Simon de Novers in 1149. TheJews demanded the murderer's punishment, and Bishop Turbe, acting for the accused, who was his own mesne tenant, brought up themurder of the boy William five years earlier as a countercharge. The case was tried before the king atNorwich, but postponed owing, according to Thomas of Monmouth, to the payment by theJews of much money to the king and his councillors.

For the whole story of William of Norwich our only authority is Thomas of Monmouth, amonk of thecathedralpriory ofNorwich, and it is only at this point, i.e. at the end of the second book of his "Vita et Passio", that he himself came upon the scene in person. He gives the story of the events related in his first two books on hearsay as it was current in themonastery. He seems to have been a man of unlimited credulity even beyond his contemporaries, but probably more deceived, though perhaps by himself, than a deceiver. The ultimate popularity of the cultus which dates from this time seems to have been due to threepersons, Bishop Turbe, who succeeded to theSee of Norwich in 1146, Richard de Ferraiis, who became prior in 1150 after the translation to thechapter-house, and Thomas of Monmouth himself, thesaint'ssacrist. These men were all anxious for reasons of their own to establish the new cultus. InLent, 1150, Thomas had three visions in which Herbert of Losinga (d. 1119), the founder of thecathedral, appeared and ordered the translation of the body from themonks' cemetery to thechapter-house. At this point the prior Elias died and was succeeded by Richard de Ferrariis, "a staunch supporter of thebishop and of Thomas". The body was translated from thechapter-house to thecathedral in July 1151, and again moved on 5 April, 1154, to theapsidal chapel of the Holy Martyrs to the north of thehigh altar, now known as the Jesus Chapel. The real spread of the cultus dates from the translation to thecathedral when there was a great burst of enthusiasm accompanied by visions andmiracles.

We may now consider the story of themartyrdom as given by Thomas and the evidence adduced by him. William had been in the habit of frequenting the houses of theJews and was forbidden by his friends to have anything to do with them. On the Monday inHoly Week, 1144, he was decoyed away from his mother by the offer of a place in thearchdeacon's kitchen. Next day the messenger and William were seen to enter aJew's house and from that time William was never again seen alive. On the Wednesday, after a service in thesynagogue, theJews lacerated his head with thorns, crucified him, and pierced his side. For this last scene Thomas produces the evidence of a Christian-servingwoman, who, with one eye only, caught sight through a crack in a door of a boy fastened to a post, as she was bringing some hot water at her master's order, presumably to cleanse the body. She afterwards found a boy's belt in the room and in after years pointed out to Thomas the marks of themartyrdom in the room. When, a month after themartyrdom, the body was washed in thecathedral, thorn points were found in the head and traces ofmartyrdom in the hands, feet, and sides. The servant's evidence was apparently not produced till Thomas was preparing to write his book. On Thursday theJews take counsel about the disposal of the body, a fact which suggests that, if there is anytruth in the story at all, the death of the boy was due to accident, perhaps some rough pranks, as at Inmestar (see below), for if it had been premeditated they would have made allnecessary preparations. OnGood Friday theJew Eleazar and another carried the corpse in a sack to Thorpe Wood and were met by a certain Aelward Ded, who discovered the contents of the sack. TheJews bribed the sheriff (always abête noire to Thomas) to extract anoath of secrecy from Aelward and it is only five years later, three years after the formidable sheriff's death, when on his own death-bed, that Aelward tells his tale. In addition to all this Thomas tells us that when theJews were being charged with themurder they sought tobribe William's brother to hush up the charge and that they tried tobribe Bishop Turbe to drop his counter-charge in the matter of Eleazar'smurder. These attempts at bribery, iftrue, might well be the natural and guiltless acts of frightened men. But the most telling piece of evidence and the most disastrous in its consequences was that of Theobald, a convertedJew and amonk probably ofNorwich Priory. This man told Thomas that "in the ancient writings of his Fathers it was written that theJews, without the shedding of human blood, could neither obtain their freedom, nor could they ever return to their fatherland. Hence it was laid down by them in ancient times that every year they must sacrifice aChristian in some part of the world" (Vita, II, 2), and that in 1144 it had been the lot of theJews ofNorwich.

This has been well named "one of the most notable and disastrous lies of history". The story is the foundation of the blood accusation or accusation of ritualmurder against theJews, which has found currency and gained popular credence from thatdate to the present day. In the "Jewish Encyclopedia", III, 266, may be found a list of the cases of this ritualmurder, beginning with William of Norwich. There are 5 other cases given for the twelfth century, 15 for the thirteenth, 10 for the fourteenth, 16 for the fifteenth, 13 for the sixteenth, 8 for the seventeenth, 15 for the eighteenth, and 39 for the nineteenth, going right up to the year 1900. There have been more recent cases still in EasternEurope. Ritualmurder as a Jewish institution has been learnedly and conclusively disproved, e.g. by Strack, op. cit. below, and in the case of St. William the evidence is totally insufficient. It seems, however, quite possible that in some cases at least the deaths of these victims were due to rough usage or even deliberatemurder on the part ofJews and that some may actually have been slain inodium fidei. In this connection we may notice the first case of all, and the only one before St. William, in whichJews are known to have been accused of murdering aChristian child. In 415 at Inmestar inSyria someJews in a drunken frolic killed aChristian child in mockery of the death of Christ (Socrates, VII, xvi). Manypopes have either directly or indirectly condemned the blood accusation, and nopope has ever sanctioned it (Strack, op. cit., 177 and v).

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT