Commenting on “Thomas of Monmouth: Detector of Ritual Murder” Gavin I. Langmuir wrote “Thomas of Monmouth: Detector of Ritual Murder”

Commenting on doubting Thomas of Monmouth Detector of Ritual Murder Gavin I. Langmuir wrote Thomas of Monmouth Detector of Ritual Murder, which was published in Speculums October 1984 issue. In this article Langmuir addresses Thomas of Monmouths investigation of St. William of Norwichs conclusion, and accusations of ritual murder brought against Jews. Langmuir starts the article with well-nigh background information on The Life and Passion of Saint William the Martyr of Norwich, written by Thomas of Monmouth.He then makes his thesis statement Williamss death had occasioned the first of the committed series of accusations from the twelfth to twentieth century that Jews committed ritual murder. (Langmuir, Thomas of Monmouth Detector of Ritual Murder, 821) Langmuirs argument is that Thomas of Monmouths book is the modern inception of the myth that Jews commit ritual murder to reenact the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Since the accusation of ritual murder was too prove in antiquity, Langmuir attempts to prove disconnect amidst Norwich and those prior myths.He also goes into detail about Williams murder, then Monmouths investigation and writings. He convincingly argues that Monmouth had look at to gain both in this world and the next by reporting Williams killing as a ritual murder preformed by Jews. entirely when stated, Monmouth saw what he wanted to while investigating the crime. Langmuir uses a broad range of sources in his attempt to prove that the accusation at Norwich was not connected to the two accusations in antiquity. In this attempt he most frequently cites two models by Heinz Schreckenberg. He also cites over ten another(prenominal) authors while bringing this point home.On the other hand Langmuirs argument of Monmouths motivation for creating the myth burrows deeply into a limited body of material, broadly speaking Monmouths book itself. He also uses two other sources when discussing Theobald, and besides cites Miracles and Pilgrims by Fi nucane other than that. In the middle ages people saw Satan as an active force in the world. St. Gregory of Nyssa said when speaking of the Jews, that they were confederates of the devil. (Perry & Schweitzer, Antisemitism, 75) Chrysostom called Jews inveterate murders, destroyers, men possessed by the devil. (Perry & Schweitzer, Antisemitism, 75) John (844) states in regard to Jews You are of your flummox the devil, and your will is to do your fathers desires. (Perry & Schweitzer, Antisemitism, 75)Not only were the people of the middle ages on the lookout for the devil, but their church was telling them that Jews were acting as his agents. This preen up Jews as an easy scapegoat, and allowed for the creation of the ritual murder myth. In the case of William, Monmouth who was a monk had been predisposed to the notion that Jews were evil. In the gospels rendition as interpreted for centuries, the Jews are perceived as the Christ killers, a people condemned for ever to suffer exil e and degradation. This arch crime of decide, of murdering God, turned the Jews into the material body of evil, a criminal people. (Perry & Schweitzer, Antisemitism, 18)With this view it only makes sense that Monmouth would look to blame Jews for the boys murder, when murdering a boy is exactly something an evil criminal would do. It also makes sense that at the first sign of anything pull down resembling a crucifixion he would point to Jews, because according to the gospels they had done it before.In 1095 Pope Urban II began the first crusade when he called for a religious military crusade to liberate the holiest places in Christendom. (Laquer, The Changing Face of Antisemitism, 52) Many Jews were slaughtered during this crusade for various reasons. 1 reason was that the crusaders were told anyone who killed a single Jew would subscribe to all his sins absolved. (Laquer, The Changing Face of Antisemitism, 52) Authority figures were telling people that Jews are so evil that n ot only is murdering them OK, but it will even make up for anything wrong they had ever done.This was only fifty years before the incident at Norwich. With that mentality is only serves to reason that when the ordinary unnamed people were presented with Jews as ritual murders, it would be believable to them. In the Article on the top of page 822 Langmuir asks who first incriminate Jews of crucifying a Christian child out of religious hatred? Langmuir argues that thither is not enough evidence to prove who killed William, or why. He does think there is enough evidence to establish that the enduring accusation of ritual murder began with Williams death. We know for certain that Monmouth accused Jews of ritual murder.Langmuir then works backwards from that point to prove that it was the first modern accusation of its kind. Langmuir starts with the first known accusation of ritual murder in recorded history. He discusses how in ancient Greece a story circulated that said every seven y ears the Jews captured a Greek, fattened him up, killed him, and ate parts of him. (Langmuir, Thomas of Monmouth Detector of Ritual Murder, 823) He goes on to say that while the story did wait in Against Apion, the book was rare. He details why the book was rare, and does his best to prove a complete discontinuity between this accusation and Monmouths.Langmuir then writes about The second and only other relevant accusation against Jews in antiquity. (Langmuir, Thomas of Monmouth Detector of Ritual Murder, 825) He tells the story of how in approximately the year 415, in the city of Imestar, Jews were accused of taking a Christian boy, tying him to a cross, and beating him until he died. Langmuir argues that while the story did appear in Historia Tripartita only two copies were available in England, and that those copies date from the late twelfth or early thirteenth century, after the incident at Norwich.He also argues that those who borrowed from Historia Tripartia did so sparing ly and most selectively, and the Imestar incident did not interest them. Again Langmuir proves disconnect between the two incidents. Assuming that these are the only two accusations ever made prior to Norwich, then yes Langmuir answers the Question from the top of page 822. In this article Langmuirs argument is persuasively supported, but he does not discuss the possibility of ritual murder stories being passed down orally. He also did not look at the possibility of books containing ritual murder accusations that may have been lost to history.For all we know Monmouth may have had a book that no longer exists detailing the accusations from antiquity or accusations we dont even know about. He is probably right in his conclusion that the incident at Norwich is the first modern accusation brought against Jews, but we cannot be sure. At clock Langmuir calls into question other historians work, and makes convincing arguments as to why he thinks there wrong. He wrote referring to M. R. J ames belief that Monmouths book was written in 1172 or 1173 there are several indications that the work was not all written at one time. (Langmuir, Thomas of Monmouth Detector of Ritual Murder, 838) Langmuir did address other historians work on the subject, but sense he was the first person to propose that this was the first modern accusation of ritual murder, there were no other competing theories. I found this article to be very well organized, it laid out information in way that made it easy to understand. I really view it was a good read, and enjoyed reading it. Langmuir was both interesting and informative. I would recommend this article to anyone interested in this period in history.