The representation of reality in the narratives of 1096

Jewish History

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 37-48

  Marcus, Ivan G ^a  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 1842421177     PISSN: 0334701X     EISSN: 15728579     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF02336579     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. See Natalie Z. Davis, Fiction in the Archives: Pardon Tales and Their Tellers in Sixteenth-Century France (Stanford, 1987), 3: "By 'fictional' I do not mean their feigned elements, but rather, using the other and broader sense of the root word fingere, their forming, shaping, and molding elements: the crafting of a narrative."
2. The three Hebrew narratives were published with a German translation by A[dolph] Neubaner and M[oritz] Stern, Hebräische Berichle über die Judenverfolgungen während der Kreuzzüge (Berlin, 1892; hereafter, NS)
3. and the Hebrew texts alone were published in an unreliable transcription by A. M. Habermann, Sefer Gezeirot Ashkenaz ve-Zarfat (1945; reprint; Jerusalem, 1971; hereafter, Habermann).
4. A complete, unexpurgated English translation of all three is available in Shlomo Eidelberg, The Yews and the Crusaders (1977; reprint; Hoboken, N. J., 1996; hereafter, Eidelberg)
5. and two were translated by Robert Chazan, European Jewry and the First Crusade (Berkeley, 1987]; hereafter, Chazan).
6. The issue of the historical credibility of the narratives and their literary character has been the subject of debate for over a century. The most probing discussion to date is Anna Sapir Abulafia, "The Interrelationship between the Hebrew Chronicles on the First Crusade," Journal of Semitic Studies 27 (1982): 221-39.
7. Other discussions are found in Ivan G. Marcus, "From Polities to Martyrdom: Shifting Paradigms in the Hebrew Narratives of the 1096 Crusade Riots," Prooftexts 2 (1982), 40-52;
8. Robert Chazan, "The Deeds of the Jewish Community of Cologne," Journal of Jewish Studies 35 (1984): 185-95;
9. Chazan, European Jewry, and notes for his earlier studies, especially 308-9, n.21;
10. Ivan G. Marcus, Review of Chazan, European Jewry, Speculum 64/3 (July 1989): 685-8;
11. Jeremy Cohen, Review of Chazan, European Jewry, American Historical Review 93/4 (October, 1988): 1031-2;
12. Ivan G. Marcus, "History, Story and Collective Memory," Prooftexts 10 (1990): 365-88;
13. Robert Chazan, "The Facticity of Medieval Narrative: A Case Study of the Hebrew First Crusade Narratives," AJSReview 16/1-2 (Spring & Fall, 1991): 31-56;
14. Robert Chazan, idem, In the Year 1096 (Philadelphia, 1996), especially 171-3;
15. Robert Chazan, idem, "The Mainz Anonymous: Historiographic Perspectives," in Elisheva Carlebach, John M. Ephron, and David N. Meyers (eds.), Jewish History and Jewish Memory: Essays in Honor of Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi (Hanover, N. H., 1998), 54-69, especially n. 1. In many respects, the disagreement between Robert Chazan and myself turns on different emphases, mine on the narrative quality of the sources and the implications of that genre, and his on the events behind the narratives. I also have concluded from a systematic comparison of the parallels in the three texts and that each of them made independent use of many small and medium written or oral reports, and that none is directly dependent on any of the others, a position that is close to that of Harry Bresslau's in his introduction to the Neubauer and Stem edition of the texts published in 1892. Robert Chazan continues to maintain that the Eliezer bar Nathan account is merely an epitome of the Solomon bar Samson text, but that is not possible, since the former contains significant elements not found in the latter and therefore cannot be derived from it alone. If his argument is that Eliezer bar Nathan digested parts of the Solomon bar Samson account and added to it, that has to be proven by showing that at least some parts in common are so similar that assuming a direct dependency of one on the other, rather than independent adaptations by both editors of common smaller sources, is the better explanation. Until more detailed textual work is done on these three texts, the explanatory model that assumes the least and explains the most is that of each editor having common and unique smaller sources and adapting what they had in unique ways. Harry Bresslau, in 1892, basically got it right.
16. One looks forward to the publication of a comprehensive listing by Dr. Avraham David of these various substantial and fragmentary sources in a conference volume being published by Merkaz Dinur of the Hebrew University.
17. Note that the name Samson is sometimes still rendered "Simson," which is German, not English.
18. See Abulafia, "Interrelationship," 231-6, 239;
19. Isaiah Sonne, "Nouvel examen des trois relations hébraïques sur les persëcutions de 1096. Suivi d'un fragment de version judéo-allemande inédite de la première relation," Revue des études juives 96 (1933): 137-52;
20. Isaiah Sonne, idem, "Which is the Earliest Narrative about the 1096 Persecutions?" (Hebrew) Zion 12 (1946): 74-82;
21. Isaiah Sonne, idem, "On the Analysis of Solomon bar Samson's Narrative about the 1096 Persecution, Together with a Yiddish Fragment from this Narrative" (Hebrew), The Abraham Weiss Jubilee Volume (New York, 1964), 385-405.
22. Jeremy Cohen, "The 'Persecutions of 1096' - From Martyrdom to Martyrology: the Sociocultural Context of the Hebrew Crusade Chronicles," (Hebrew) Zion 59/2-3 (1994): 195-205;
23. Israel Yuval, "Vengeance and Damnation, Blood and Defamation: From Jewish Martyrdom to Blood Libel Accusation," (Hebrew) Zion 59/2-3 (1993): 70-3.
24. In a compelling study, Eva Haverkamp has demonstrated that the section of the Solomon bar Samson text that deals with the events that took place in Trier include accurate realia. This need not mean, however, that any particular episode represented in narrative form is also per se accurately described. It may be, but it need not be inferred that it is from the reliability of the realia in those stories. See her "'Persecutio' und 'Gezerah' in Trier während des Ersten Kreuzztiges," in Juden und Christen zur Zeit der Kreuzzüge (Sigmaringen, 1999, 35-71). I am grateful to Eva Haverkamp for letting me read her excellent article before publication, and we look forward to the publication soon of her Ph.D. dissertation on the 1096 texts. I also thank Israel Yuval for stimulating conversations about these and other related matters.
25. The text is found in NS, 54-5; Habermann, 101-2; Eidelberg, 111-2; Chazan, 238-9.
26. Compare the dual meanings of ante, vor, devant, etc.
27. NS, 9; Habermann, 34; Eidelberg, 35-6; Chazan, 258-60.
28. Sonne, "Which is the Earliest Narrative," 74-6, citing the text of the piyyut from Shimon Bernfeld, Sefer ha-Dema'ot (3 vols.; Berlin, 1923-1936), vol. 3, 305-10.
29. It was also published in Daniel Goldschmidt (ed.), Seder ha-Qinnot le-Tish'a be-Av (Jerusalem, 1972), #30, 106-9, esp. lines 21 and 25.
30. See Abulafia, "Interrelationship," especially 236 and 239.
31. Baer's study appeared as "The Persecutions of 1096," (Hebrew) Sefer Assaf(Jerusalem, 1953), 126-40
32. and in an Introduction (Hebrew) to the reprint edition of Habermann, Sefer Gezeirot, 1-7, especially, 3.
33. See Joseph Hacker, "On the Persecutions of 1096" (Hebrew), Zion 31 (1966): 227-9.
34. Hacker, "On the Persecuations," 129.
35. Chazan, European Jewry, 337-8, n. 36.
36. See Darmstadt, Hessische Landes- und Hochschulebibliothek, Hebrew MS 25, f. 18v, column b, five lines from the bottom.
37. Versions of the goose episode appear in Latin in Albert of Aix, Historia Hierosolymitana, cap. 30, in Recueil des historiens des croisades, historiens occidentaux, (5 vols. 1841-1895; hereafter RHC, Occ.), Vol. 4, 295
38. and Guibert de Nogent, Gesta Dei per Francos, cap. 32, in RHC, Occ., Vol. 4, 251 and it is mentioned in the Solomon bar Samson (NS, 4; Habermann, 28; Eidelberg, 27; Chazan, 249)
39. and Mainz Anonymous (NS, 51; Habermann, 98; Eidelberg, 106; Chazan, 233) narratives as well.
40. Siegmund Salfed (ed.), Das Martyrologium des Nürnberger Memorbuches (Bedin, 1898), 12.