Jump to content

Talk:Simon of Trent

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vwlam.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The first external link, http://www.israelshamir.net/english/blood.htm, is now 404. 207.93.211.184 21:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


you need to add more sources; having only Jewish links is making this article very biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.67.62 (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No longer a saint

[edit]

The article says: "Saint Simon was disbanded by Pope Paul VI and the shrine erected to him was dismantled. He was removed from the calendar, and his future veneration was forbidden." - But our template doesn't make it clear that he is no longer a saint. ←Humus sapiens ну? 19:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've added "No longer a saint" to the headline and removed the portal link. ←Humus sapiens ну? 19:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a saint? Since when can somebody be made 'no longer a saint'?

"The actual cause remains a mystery" is unnecessarily mysterious. Why not "is unknown", or "was never found out"? -—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.90.167.52 (talk • contribs)

Murder?

[edit]

"The actual cause of Simon's disappearance and murder remains a mystery." The article does not mention evidence he was actually murdered. Tim Long 01:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Why is the article so skeptical against the fact that it was members of the Jewsish community responsible for Simon's death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.67.62 (talk) 07:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't make sense. So Jewish communities are exempt from any sort of crime? because of the fear it gets connected to blood libel? 

There's no evidence to suggest the Jews family was framed, nor is their any evidence to suggest it wasn't a murder. No one is saying it's the whole community, but it was in fact certain members who were involved.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.67.62 (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is ample evidence that the Trentine Jews were framed (as they were in all these sad cases) which the anonymous correspondents can find themselves, if they choose to do so, as this is one of the best documented and studied cases of alleged ritual murder. The foremost authority in the field - who considers the Trentine Jews innocent - is a Chinese professor from Taiwan.--Fuxmann (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Chinese prof. from Taiwan? The article is biased, inconsistent and demonstrates a perfect example of propaganada. Thank you folks, I'll use this as example for my class regarding "controlling information on the internet". Your agenda has become to obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.186.130.4 (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

++You got that right! It IS useless to argue against prejudice and bigotry. And that is the very reason why Wikipedia is so widely known as a poor source for honest information regarding subjects such as these.70.184.166.35 (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one is arguing that no Jewish person or persons could possibly have killed the boy, it's that the murder was immediately blamed on "the Jews" as a people and the motive for the murder was "explained" in terms of blood libel. Imagine if in a modern neighborhood a non-Jew was killed, one of the suspects was a Jew, all the non-Jewish suspects and/or leads were ignored, and the Jewish suspect was accused of acting on behalf of the Jewish community in order to ritually sacrifice Christians simply because non-Jews thought this is something Jews actually do. It would be a travesty of justice. --Ismail (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Po-chia Hsia

[edit]

Ronnie Po-chia Hsia is mentioned twice in the article; his mention does not seem to be warranted except as an external source. Who added his name, R. P.-C. Hsia himself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kejo13 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A Chinese prof. from Taiwan? The article is biased" <- The reasoning here is unclear. It sounds like the commenter asserts bias because the professor cited is Chinese? Anyway, Professor Ronnie Po-chia Hsia's credentials with respect to the Catholic world of the subject's period are easily validated. He's an American historian and an Edwin Erle Sparks Professor at Pennsylvania State University. Professor Po-chia Hsia authored "Trent 1475. Stories of a ritual murder trial" (Yale University Press, 1996). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory.george.lewis (talk • contribs) 13:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simon of Trent was from the ethnic German community living in Trent

[edit]

His real name was 'Simon Unverdorben'. This detail was omitted from the original entry, so I added it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt that the name Unverdorben (=untainted) is a surname. It looks so much like a honorific that arose during the cult--2001:4CA0:2FFF:1:0:0:0:6F (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality/bias/citation

[edit]

Article is almost completely incoherent, without citation, and reports the description of one man, Vitale, as though it were objective fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alberrosidus (talk • contribs) 07:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

[edit]

@יניב הורון: ‎ @Historiograf: Just look at the state of the article history. Edit warring like this is not acceptable. Discuss the two images here, on the article talk page. Further edit-warring on the article, reverting one another incessantly, will result in blocks. Fish+Karate 12:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They only did it because they had to?

[edit]

Is there any evidence for the claim the Jewish leaders only reported to body because they had to?Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the location being a synagogue

[edit]

The line added in regards to this is based on this source, [1] page 37. The line reads "It did not play in favor of the Jews that the place where the body was discovered also served also served as the community's synagogue." Edit5001 (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your point is?Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm clarifying where this comes from as you said in one of your edit summaries that you didn't see mention of this in the source. Edit5001 (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And then undid it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=dAldDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA40#v=onepage&q&f=false
[edit]

The sources make it clear there was a second search made my the Jews themselves (of their homes) as a response to the rumours. Why should we not mention this?Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that'd be fair to include. The page can mention that during the town-wide search for Simon there was an initial search of the Jewish homes by town authorities in which nothing was found, and it was a later search by the Jews themselves which produced the body. Edit5001 (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So its OK to reinstate it?Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I made an edit to include these facts that I think has better wording than the previous one that was added. Edit5001 (talk) 15:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well apart form the fact that Easter Sunday was the day after the second search, and that the body was not found as part of the second search but by accident.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Getty Research Journal source indicates that the Jews reported searching their premises on Easter Sunday (with the report itself being given to authorities that same Sunday night), where they reported the body was found during that search. If they were searching for the body that day then the body being found would be the result of said search, not an accident. Edit5001 (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another Source contradicts this, and says it Easter Sunday was the day after the second search (and that is was found whilst fetching water for a meal).Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show the exact lines in the source you're referring to? The GRJ source says (on page 37) specifically "the Jews themselves" reported conducting their own search "On the night of Easter Sunday", later reporting finding the body "that same night". Edit5001 (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Trent 1475: Stories of a Ritual Murder Trial page 26 says it was the cook fetching water that found the body. But as it is a preview bit I can no longer access the page about the second search being the day before.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That puts us in a tough spot then since the exact wording of the source isn't available. If it indeed said the cook wasn't part of the search happening that same night then we'd have two contradicting sources, but since it isn't available I'd prefer to leave the wording as is. I'd be open to seeing what other reliable historical sources report in regards to this though. Edit5001 (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well I did not add that sources, so lets see what those who did have to say.Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Found part of it Trent 1475: Stories of a Ritual Murder Trial page 27 they searched the cellar on Friday 24th, but this only adds the the confusion, as that means that Sunday was two (not one) days latter.Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit5001, are you willing to assume the good faith of those who can read the modern study of the trial documents? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Getty Research Journal source is an art history article that relies entirely on Hsia's study in its brief coverage of the facts that the art is intended to represent. Its only footnote references for what it says about the facts of the case are to Hsia's study. To prefer that somewhat elided summary to the study that it relies upon is ludicrous. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have now figured out which source contains a reference to the following day, [[1]], abut I agree it may not be a great source.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Philopater I'm willing to assume good faith in regards to sources but I don't want to rely on good faith alone for sources you're trying to assert as absolutely authoritative (that conflict with other sources here) that I can't myself confirm. Edit5001 (talk) 03:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And what conflict do you perceive between the sources? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More importantly, has your topic ban for "race" actually been lifted? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following the sources

[edit]

There is an exhaustive study of the trial documents by a modern historian but we can't edit the article in line with it because some people can "only see it in preview". This is a new and interesting take on WP:RS. Also, information that is sourced in the text of the article has been removed from the infobox because somebody regards including it as a "sweeping change". An explanation of that would be welcome. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See wp:v, I cannot provide the quite so I cannot support it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It can easily be verified by anybody with access to the book. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True, thus it would be down to them to add back that material.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V literally says "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." --Andreas Philopater (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not rejecting the source, I am saying I cannot verify what it says. As such I (that is me) cannot add back what I cannot (that is me) provide a proper (as in page number) cite for. I am not saying the source is not reliable, or even that the source doers not say it, someone with full access to the source can add it (and I am asking them to).Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently we need "consensus" to do that though? Because people who can't read don't necessarily trust those who can, it seems. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No they have a valid point, I can recall reading all kinds of things. But wp:cite means I have to provide any reader with the ability to check it. Stop this now, policy says if it is challenged we much provide a cite, AGF does not mean we can ignore that.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stop what? Insisting we actually apply policy? There is already a citation: Hsia, pp. 26-27. And according to WP:V that shouldn't be rejected even if it were "difficult or costly to access", which it isn't. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of being accused of copyright infringement, here is my transcription of the relevant passages. But if good faith cannot be assumed, how will anybody know that this transcription is accurate? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Used for multiple functions, the house consisted of three spatial divisions: private quarters for household members; public space where Samuel talked business, loaned money, and redeemed pledges; and areas for the Jewish community including a hall that served as the synagogue and a water cellar that served as the ritual bath for the women. The trial record gives us a detailed description of the synagogue. (Hsia, p. 18)

on 26 March 1475 (Easter Sunday) [...] Brünnlein sent the cook, Seligman, down to the cellar to fetch water. Connected to an outside ditch, the cellar, where water was stored, also served as the monthly ritual bath for the women. As recently as the previous Thursday, Passover, Sara had taken a ritual bath, with her with Brünnlein and a Christian woman, Anna, the wife of Bertold. In the cellar, Seligman saw something in the water. To his horror, he recognized the body of a small boy. (Hsia, p. 26)

For a couple of days, rumor had been circulating around Trent suggesting that the Jews were responsible for Simon's disappearance. After the podestà had searched Samuel's house on Friday, the Jews discussed ways to avoid the evil that might befall them if someone threw a dead child into one of their houses. [...] Engel ordered Isaac to check his cellar; still anxious the next day, he told Isaac to close the windows there so that no one could throw a dead child into the cellar. […] They [the Jews] thought some Christians must have killed the boy, thrown his body into the ditch, and let the water carry it into Samuel's cellar. Tobias' advice was that they report the dead child to the authorities. Perhaps trying to reassure everyone, Samuel said he was glad the body was found; now, the matter would come to a close. It was resolved that the three householders would go to the podestà to report the discovery. Tobias first went home to tell Sara the bad news. She had just finished cooking and asked him whether he wanted dinner. Tobias said he would first go to the podestà and report on the missing child. Together the three men set out for the Buonconsiglio, only a short walk away. The Jews had little choice. Living under official toleration, they were completely dependent on the good will of the authorities for their livelihood and legal status. (Hsia, p. 27)

The authorities arrived at Samuel's house between eight and nine in the evening – the podestà, Giovanni de Salis; the captain, Jakob von Sporo; and their men, bearing torches. The podestà ordered his servant, Ulrich, a big man, to carry the body to St. Peter's Hospital. The Jews present – Samuel, Israel, Tobias, Engel, Isaac son of Moses of Bamberg, Joaff, and Seligman the cook – were placed under arrest. (Hsia, p. 29)

By checking the source themselves, that is what verification means.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And you typo demonstrates why this is important. A typo, a mis reading a...whatever may mean what you think you read and what was said may not always be the same.Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, quite, transposing two letters in a transcription means that none of the above has any probative value. After all, it's only my transcription of an expert's study of a source that is hard and expensive to access. The only way to verify it is for you to buy the book and check yourself. Except when you've done that, Edit5001 will have to do it too, to perform his own verification of your verification. Or we could just apply WP:AGF. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not in this case, but it can and does happen that a simple transposition can alter a meaning. I have said I am now unable to verify the text, and I might have misread it. AGF is not a suicide pact and I suggest you stop trying to invoke it in order to ignore a core policy.Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is AGF not a core policy? Until you have grounds to think that my transcription is wrong (that is to say, after it fails verification, or at the very least after another user makes a plausible claim that the book says something different) you should be willing to accept it. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NO its a guideline. Your text is clearly edited, so I can say it does not wholly reflect the source. This is my last word on this, here.Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fact remains that the claim is verifiable whether you personally have verified it or not. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Andreas Philopater: I apologize for inadvertently directing Slatersteven here, given his basic lack of understanding of WP:V in this context. Is there an appropriate active Wikiproject (history? Catholicism? Judiasm?) where additional input could be requested? --JBL (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Joel B. Lewis: No need to apologise. I see from the exchange you link to that Slatersteven was advocating reliance on modern scholarship, and I agree with him entirely that that is the way to go. Any of the projects you mention would presumably be appropriate. I'm not going to get involved in an edit war over this and have provided everything necessary to resolve the issue here on the talk page. I would point out that the art history essay that cites Hsia for its details of the case but summarises his nuanced account rather clumsily (recently added back to the article as a source), is not actually by Gail Feigenbaum but by Jeanette Kohl. --23:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I said I could not re add material as I could not verify it personally that lacks understanding of our polices?Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And guess what, it was not in the source I had thought it was. So yes it did fail wp:v.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What "it" are you talking about? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Trent 1475: Stories of a Ritual Murder Trial, the source I thought I has read it in.Slatersteven (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and chronology

[edit]

According to Hsia's study, the chronology is as follows:

  • A man approached the bishop after Good Friday service to say that his son, aged not quite 2 and a half, had been missing since about 5 p.m. the previous (Thursday) evening; the bishop promised to help and the podestà had his men spread the boy's description through the city (p. 1)
  • a justificatory narrative of the trial was compiled three years after the events, in 1478-79 (pp. 1-2)
  • this account contains a number of internal inconsistencies and discrepancies, particularly with regard to the chronology of searches and who made the discovery (p. 2)
  • on Saturday, 25 March, the boy's father complained to the podestà that his child was still missing, and said that "someone also advised him to ask the podestà to search the Jewish houses" (p. 2)
  • on Easter Sunday, March 26, Simon's body was found in Samuel's house (p. 3)
  • the official summary of the trial, drawn up in 1478-1479, states that the body was discovered by a servant of the podestà, in a ditch outside Samuel's house (p. 3)
  • the transcripts of the original interrogations, included in the dossier but not in the narrative summary, show that the child was found in Samuel's water cellar and the discovery was reported to the podestà by Samuel himself (p. 3)
  • the later pages (26-27) indicate that according to the initial interrogations the Jews were concerned about the possibility of the child being found on their property, and had made their own searches, besides the searches made by the boy's family and neighbours and the podestà's men (the exact chronology of these searches is not clear in these pages)
  • the official narrative was drafted to exculpate the bishop of Trent after the pope ordered inquiry into his actions (and inactions) during the events in 1475 (pp. 124-129)

Hopefully this clarifies things.-- Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It might be best if we change the basic narrative to "There are conflicting accounts of what happened" and then just least each version in this way (at least for now). I get the impression part of the problem is an attempt to create (in this article) a single authoritative accont.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except there is only really one account of what happened (the trial record), but that one account shows internal inconsistencies between the full record it contains and its redaction in the summary. And an academic historian has gone through that account with a fine-tooth comb, laying bare its inconsistencies and elisions, thereby providing the secondary source we should be relying on. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a primary source, and we use secondary sources.Slatersteven (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OMG. Quoting WP:SECONDARY: A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. Historians writing about primary source documents are writing secondary sources. --JBL (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say OMG but I doubt that the 'G' in that would be impressed with this thread. When the edit warring has run its course, can someone replace the really solid info on the body's discovery, et al? It was well-written, seemed well-cited and was, best of all, readable. Having survived The Jesus Wars, the Battle of the Foreskin, the Myanmar/Burma fiasco and innumerable other discussions, I'm not touching that paragraph with a ten-foot keyboard. Last1in (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Cleanup (I Hope)

[edit]

Without overlapping the above discussions, I made what I feel are some grammar and clarity changes. Since it looks like this is a pretty contentious article right now, let me explain before the flames descend:

  • During the reign of Prince-Bishop Johannes IV Hinderbach, an Austrian noble, under the jurisdiction of Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III, an itinerant Franciscan preacher, had delivered a series of sermons in Trent in which he vilified the local Jewish community. -- This is really hard to read, largely due to the excess of interlocution. I removed only one piece, "Austrian noble," which isn't really helpful since anyone curious would hover over the link and see that, yes, PBJ-4H was an Austrian noble stated in the first sentence.
  • Prince-Bishop Hinderbach has granted the Jewish community... I think PBJ-4H died a while back, so I changed the tense.
  • ...not died of natural causes but had been bleed to death. -- If you don't like 'exsanguinated', please feel free to find another wording, but had been bleed does not work in English.
  • On 3 August, Pope Sixtus IV commanded Bishop Hinderbach... Since the previous three dates mentioned in the article are 1478, 1479 and 1486, this is really hard to process without a year. I've added 1475, as it matches the rest of the article, but I could be wrong. Please feel free to correct the year (not revert the whole edit) if I got it wrong.

Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting sources

[edit]

Due to the two main sources we've been using for the timeline of events being in conflict, I'd like to see exact quotations from Hsia's book in question (in particular, claims in regards to the cook). I'd be fine with some type of compromise in which both sources' accounts are given mention, but I disagree with the edit that attempted to give Hsia's source the only weight. I prefer the current wording of the page. Edit5001 (talk) 03:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to have "the exact sequence of events is contested" and this list both.Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Its still a valid point (IN have made it myself).Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That the timeline is unclear? The article already reflects that. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree, see above about when the second search was made (do we mention this discrepancy?) or that the body was either found during the second search or when a meal was being prepared (and thus found by accidentally), or that (according to at least one source) only one Jewish house was searched the second time?Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you draft an alternative paragraph on the talkpage here so that we can pick over the points that you think need correcting or improving. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The events themselves have been the subject of some debate f Ronnie Hsia has constructed one timeline from the trial records. Simon, aged almost two and a half, went missing about 5 p.m. on the evening of Thursday, 23 March 1475. The following day, Good Friday, Simon's father approached the prince-bishop to ask for help in finding his missing child.[5] The podestà, Giovanni de Salis, had his men spread a description of Simon through city. Over the following couple of days, searches were carried out by Simon's family and neighbours, by the servants of the podestà, and also by the Jewish community, who had been alerted to a rumour that they had taken the child and were concerned about the possibility of being framed.[5][4] On Saturday, 25 March, Simon's father appealed to the podestà specifically to search the houses of the Jews, saying he had been advised they might have taken his child.[5] Despite these searches, no sign of the child was found. The property of Samuel was large, including a hall that functioned as a synagogue, and a water cellar that was also used for ritual bathing and was supplied with water from a channel that ran beneath the property.[6] According to the trial record, on Easter Sunday, 26 March, a cook named Seligman went to Samuel's cellar to fetch water to prepare the evening meal and found Simon's body in the water. Samuel himself, accompanied by two other Jews, went to the podestà to report the discovery.[4] Later that evening, the podestà and some of his men retrieved the body, with his servant Ulrich being ordered to carry it to the hospital.[7] The narrative summary based on the trial documents, drafted in 1478-1479, omitted the fact that the Jews had themselves reported finding the body, stating only that Ulrich had found Simon's body in a ditch next to Samuel's house.[5] However Jeanette Kohl claims that the body was found during a second search of Jewish homes, on the Sunday, in a sewer that ran under their houses."

There may be other versions, but these are the only tow I have seen.Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kohl is not studying the event, but summarizing it as a preliminary to talking about artwork inspired by it. Furthermore, the footnote she gives to support her summary references Hsia as her source. There is therefore no reason to regard what Kohl writes as an independent, conflicting account (and certainly not on the same footing as a study of the event itself). She does provide a reference to another publication, Wolfgang Treue, Der Trienter Judenprozess: Voraussetzungen – Abläufe – Auswirkungen (1475–1588) (Hannover, Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 1996). If that gives a discrepant account of events then it will be worth discussing. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where?

[edit]

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) 04:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article. Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Simon_of_Trent&oldid=1210383463"