[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
75
It is extremely difficult to know how much of this might have been found in the original Mainz
Anonymous. I will venture just a few observations. It is inconceivable to me that the entire four-part
conglomeration that I have just described was originally found in the Mainz Anonymous. The lack of
organizational sophistication reflected in this supplementary material simply does not square with the
careful sense of structure exhibited in the Mainz Anonymous as we now have it. The same historical
imagination that so carefully plotted the story line from France in late 1095 to Mainz in mid 1096 could
not have been responsible for the loosely constructed, often chaotic jumble of materials that closes the
Mainz unit of the Solomon bar Simson Chronicle.
What then of the individual elements that have been identified? On stylistic grounds, the story of
Isaac ben David ha-parnas might well have belonged to the original Mainz Anonymous. It is a taut and
riveting tale. There is, however, one characteristic of the closing portion of the story that does not
accord well with the style of the Mainz Anonymous. Toward the end of the tale, our present version
expresses some interesting uncertainty:
There are those who say that the converts heard that they [the Christians] wanted to make of the synagogue a mint and
that for this reason the pious one burned it. He himself was burned in the synagogue. Then there are those who say that
they heard that the enemy wanted to make of the synagogue a church, and therefore they burned it.[19]
Such a report of alternative versions of a story appears nowhere in the present Mainz Anonymous;
it does appear yet again in the Solomon bar Simson Chronicle, in the account of Kalonymous and his
followers.[20] On stylistic grounds, this technique might well indicate a different hand from that
responsible for the Mainz Anonymous.
The second added element, a miscellany that is actually a hodgepodge, hardly squares with the
brevity, accuracy, and organizational excellence of the Mainz Anonymous. The unit on Kalonymous and
his followers is by and large well written, although again it shows the unusual technique of expressed
uncertainty. The coda shows all the characteristics of the closing section of the prologue, which we
have already analyzed. In sum, it is very hard to know how much of this additional material can be
traced back to the original Mainz Anonymous; it would hardly be surprising if little or none of it had its
origin there.
Thus, the beginning of the Mainz unit shows compression of his source by the editor, and the
ending shows considerable addition, the
76
scope of which is not easy to establish. There is one further set of additional materials, this time
introduced into the body of the extant Mainz Anonymous account, additions that are interesting for
both their content and the light they shed on our editor and his sense of narrative style (or lack
thereof).
To recapitulate one more time, the Mainz Anonymous depicts the French crusaders as they move
from France into the Rhineland, the arousal of crusading ardor among the Rhinelanders, and then the
assaults on the Jews at Speyer, Worms, and Mainz. The Solomon bar Simson Chronicle begins its story
with a brief resume of events in Speyer and Worms and then focuses on Mainz. For Mainz, it initially
follows the excellent organizational pattern of its source, opening with the fright of the Mainz Jews
over the reports from Speyer and Worms and their appeal to the archbishop. At this point, the Mainz
Anonymous relates that there were in fact developments in Mainz itself, independent of the reports of
violence in Speyer and Worms, that served to alert these Jews. The author cites two incidents, one
involving the passage of a popular crusading band seemingly led by an inspired goose and the second
involving voices in the abandoned and locked synagogue of Mainz. In the Mainz Anonymous, these
episodes are effectively placed to heighten the sense of a thoroughly frightened Jewish community.
The Solomon bar Simson Chronicle, by contrast, breaks the tight story line by introducing two new
items that are not present in the Mainz Anonymous.
The first digressive addition involves a major baronial figure, Duke Godfrey, seemingly Godfrey of
Bouillon, who eventually emerged as a major figure among the victorious armies that conquered
Jerusalem.[21] According to our narrator the editor of the Solomon bar Simson Chronicle this
Godfrey swore that he would not depart without avenging the blood of Jesus upon his crucifiers. This
threat aroused the leader of Mainz Jewry, Kalonymous ben Meshullam ha-parnas, to undertake
negotiations with the absent emperor, negotiations that turned out to be highly successful. The vigilant
parnas elicited an imperial edict to the authorities in Germany, ordering that they protect their Jewish
subjects zealously. As a result of this imperial order, "the wicked duke swore that it had never
41 of 142 7/9/2006 10:34 AM
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]