Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 October 2009
In a previous article, I studied the short and anonymous Hebrew First Crusade chronicle. The choice of text S as the starting point for an investigation of the three surviving records of Jewish suffering and heroism in 1096 was a natural one. The text, as it now stands, constitutes a wellorganized and coherent unit, broken off suddenly during the depiction of the destruction of Mayence Jewry. While it is certain that the chronicler did not witness personally all the events which he described, he did integrate his written and oral sources into an account which exhibits a broad and consistent grasp of the unfolding of the First Crusade and the related violence which inundated Rhineland Jewry.
L, the longest of the Hebrew First Crusade chronicles, is more difficult to analyze, partly because of the length of the text, partly because of its poor state of preservation, and partly because the awkwardness of the chronicler has left tantalizing hints regarding the process of editing. Like S, L is based on a series of written and oral sources. The editor of L, however, was less adroit than the editor of S in fusing his sources into a satisfying unit. Because of this lack of grace, the hand of the editor is more apparent in L, although the precise dimensions of his role cannot be fully clarified on the basis of the texts currently available. While the problems associated with L are vexing, its richness of detail and its power necessitate an effort to clarify some of these problems and to suggest tentative solutions. Many of our conclusions will be speculative; the state of the text and its sister texts will allow no more.
1. Chazan, Robert, “The Hebrew First-Crusade Chronicles,” Revue des études juives 133 (1974): 235–54. The three Hebrew chronicles were first published by Adolf Neubauer and Moritz Stern (hereafter N & S), Hebrahche Berichte über die Judenverfolgungen während der Kreuzzüge (Berlin, 1892), and were reprinted by Abraham Habermann (hereafter Habermann), Sefer gezerot Ashkenaz ve-$arefat (Jerusalem, 1945). We shall utilize in the present study the same designations used in the earlier one. S refers to the short chronicle (N –57; Habermann, pp. 93–104); L refers to the long chronicle (N –30; Habermann, pp. 24–60); P refers to the chronicle with poetic embellishments (N –46; Habermann, pp. 72–82). For the literature on these texts, see the references cited in the aforesaid article, n. 3.Google Scholar
2. Chazan, “The Hebrew First-Crusade Chronicles,” pp. 244–48.
3. Note, e.g., the account of a tenth century incident in Le Mans—Habermann, pp. 11–15; the records of the Blois incident of 1171–N –35: Habermann, pp. 142–46; and the description of the fate of Mayence Jewry in 1187–88—N –78; Habermann, pp. 161–64.
4. N –75; Habermann, pp. 124–32.
5. N –66; Habermann, pp. 115–23. On this chronicle, seeChazan, Robert, “R. Ephraim of Bonn's Sejer Zechirah.” Revue des études juives 132 (1973):, 119–26.Google Scholar
6. N –17; Habermann pp. 24–43.
7. N –25; Habermann pp. 43–52
8. N –29; Habermann, pp. 52–57.
9. N & S, p. 29; Habermann, p. 57.
10. N & S, pp. 29–31; Habermann, pp. 57–60.
11. N & S, p. 25; Habermann, p. 52.
12. N & S, p. 17; Habermann, p. 43.
13. Ibid
14. N & S, p. 24; Habermann, p. 52.
15. The following analysis of the dating of L represents, it will be clear, a repudiation of the suggestion of early dating for L made in my previous study. The issue of the dating of S remains problematic. There is nothing in S to necessitate a late date of composition.
16. In the closing paragraph of his narrative, the chronicler notes an eclipse of the sun and a concomitant slaughter of Crusaders. He adds: “But the enemy have still not desisted from their evil designs. Every day they set forth for Jerusalem.” This hardly sounds like the onset of the Second Crusade. For evidence in R. Ephraim's chronicle of the rumblings of the Third Crusade, see Chazan, “R. Ephraim of Bon's Sefer Zechirah,” pp. 120–23.
17. N & S, p. 21; Habermann, p. 48. In view of our analysis of this segment of the chronicle, it is possible: (1) that Solomon bar Samson is the person responsible for the entire chronicle; (2) that Solomon bar Samson is responsible for the Cologne unit; (3) that he is responsible for the account of alone.
18. Elbogen, Ismar, “Zu den hebralschen Berichten über die Judenverfolgungen im Jahre 1096,” Festschrift zum siebzigslen Geburtstage Martin Philippsons (Leipzig, 1916), pp. 6–9.Google Scholar
19. N & S, p. 21; Habermann, p. 48.
20. Baer, Yitzhak, “The Persecution of 1096” [Hebrew], Sefer Assaf (Jerusalem, 1953), pp. 128–30.Google Scholar
21. Chazan, “The Hebrew First-Crusade Chronicles,” pp. 242–44.
22. N & S, p. 30; Habermann, p. 58.
23. N & S, p. 1; Habermann, p. 24.
24. N & S, p. 2; Habermann, p. 25.
25. N & S, p. 21; Habermann, p. 48.
26. N & S, p. 22; Habermann, p. 49.
27. N & S, p. 30; Habermann, p. 59.
28. von Oppolzer, Theodor Ritter, Canon of Eclipses, trans. Owen Gingerich (New York, 1962), charts 110–12. The next eclipse visible in areas of Germany was in 1133.Google Scholar
29. Recall that S is incomplete. We do not know how S chose to end his work.
30. N & S, p. 30; Habermann, p. 58.
31. N & S, p. 30; Habermann, p. 59.
32. Psalms 79:12. The translation has been taken from the New English Bible, but has been adapted slightly. Note the following verse which speaks of the joyful praise to be offered by redeemed Israel.
33. Lamentations 3:64–66.
34. Isaiah 34:8. Again the translation has been adapted slightly.
35. Isaiah 45:17, adapted slightly. The entire passage can be found in N “R. Ephraim of Bonn's Sefer Zechirah,” pp. 123–25.
37. N & S, p. 1; Habermann, p. 24.
38. N & S, p. 4; Habermann, p. 27.
39. N & S, p. I; Habermann, p. 24.
40. N –7; Habermann, pp. 30–31
41. Chazan, “The Hebrew First-Crusade Chronicles,” pp. 236–41.
42. N –34 and pp. 66–69; Habermann, pp. 142–44 and pp. 124–26.
43. N & S, p. 68; Habermann, p. 125.