Download The Sefer Yuhasin

HISPANIA JUDAICA BULLETIN
Articles, Reviews, Bibliography and Manuscripts on Sefarad
Editors: Yom Tov Assis and Raquel Ibáñez-Sperber
Volume 6 5769/2008
Hispania Judaica
The Mandel Institute of Jewish Studies
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Contents
Editorial
1
English and Spanish Section
Articles
Mª FUENCISLA GARCÍA CASAR, Cielos y aguas bíblicos a la medida del
hombre medieval y mediterráneo
CYRIL ASLANOV, Yosef Caspi entre Provenza y Sefarad
5
33
DALIA-RUTH HALPERIN, !Mira un poko de maraviyas de el ke no tenesh visto" 43
ELEAZAR GUTWIRTH, The Historian#s Origins and Genealogies: The Sefer
Yuhasin
57
SUSANA BASTOS MATEUS AND JAMES W. NELSON NOVOA, The Case of the
New Christians of Lamego as an Example of Resistance against the
Portuguese Inquisition in Sixteenth Century Portugal
83
ENRIQUE RODRIGUES-MOURA, El abogado y poeta Manoel Botelho de Oliveira
(1636-1711): !infamado de cristão novo"
105
Research Project: The Expulsion of the Jews from Spain and its
Aftermath in the Life of the Refugees and their Children
HANNAH DAVIDSON, Exile, Apostasy and Jewish Women in the Early 16th
Century Mediterranean Basin
133
JAMES W. NELSON NOVOA, Documents Regarding the Settlement of
Portuguese New Christians in Tuscany (Part 2)
163
JAMES W. NELSON NOVOA, Documents from the Secret Vatican Archives
Regarding the History of the New Christians in the Low Countries
(1536-1542)
173
ALDINA QUINTANA, From the Master#s Voice to the Disciple#s Script:
Genizah Fragments of a Bible Glossary in Ladino
187
NADIA ZELDES, Sefardi and Sicilian Exiles in the Kingdom of Naples:
Settlement, Community Formation and Crisis
237
DORA ZSOM, Converts in the Responsa of R. David ibn Avi Zimra:
An Analysis of the Texts
267
Book Reviews
295
Bibliography and Manuscripts
313
Author•s Guidelines and Transliteration
359
Contributors
361
Hebrew Section
SHULAMIT ELIZUR, Praise of the Creator in a Seliha of Rabbi Yehudah Ha-Levi 
REVITAL YEFFET-REFAEL, !Beware of Hypocrites": Religious Hypocrisy in
Medieval Hebrew Rhymed Prose in Spain
‡
SHALEM YAHALOM, De•orayta and De•rabanan: The Standing of the Creative
Personality in Nahmanides" Jurisprudence
YONATAN KEDEM, R. Yosef Albo: A Biographical Study

‘
NITAI SHINAN, On Religious Fanaticism and its Consequences: A Spanish
Liberal Approach of the Expulsion of the Jews
•
The Historian’s Origins and Genealogies:
The Sefer Yuhasin
Eleazar Gutwirth
Since at least Graetz, Abraham b. Shemuel Zacut has been seen as the very antithesis
of the modern historian. This to such an extent that there developed an apologetic
strand to excuse the scholar’s “failings”. A sharp division between the highly
regarded peninsular phase and the Tunisian period – when he wrote his Book of
Genealogies – is related to this. In this study the following themes are addressed:
1. The continuities between the peninsular and Tunisian works in the deÞned Þeld
of the representation of the author and authorship. 2. The Iberian intellectual
traditions and the Book of Genealogies’ relation to them. 3. The difference between
authorial “intentions’ and statements of intentionality, particularly in the various
prologues of the Book of Genealogies.
It was in Tunis, around 1504,1 that Abraham Zacut2 Þnished his Sefer Yuhasin, a
chronicle from the Creation to the aftermath of the Iberian expulsions. This location
is by no means inconsequential. Contrary to usual critical practice, writers have
emphasized the lack of coherence and unity3 in the Tunisian oeuvre of the scholar
from Salamanca. A Þrst reading of the various studies on Yuhasin may almost give
the impression of two Zacuts: that Zacut’s work moves between two poles which
might be identiÞed with Iberia on the one hand and North Africa on the other.4
1
2
3
4
See Abraham Zacut, Sefer Yuhasin, H. Filipowski ed., second edition with an
Introduction by Abraham H. Freimann, Frankfurt 1924, “Introduction”. The discussion
on the period of composition [p. x] is based on assumptions about the direct use of
certain texts and its relation to a geographic area. It needs a critical reexamination.
On Zacut see amongst other works by him, Bernard R. Goldstein, ‘Abraham Zacut
and the Medieval Hebrew Astronomical Tradition’ JHA XXIX (1998), pp. 177-186.
José Chabás and Bernard R. Goldstein, Astronomy in the Iberian Peninsula: Abraham
Zacut and the Transition from Manuscript to Print, Philadelphia 2000.
Freimann, Sefer Yuhasin, p. IX. H. Graetz, History of the Jews from the Earliest Times
to the Present Day, Bella Lowy ed. and tr., London 1892, IV, p.419. For a different
view of the “lack of unity” in sixteenth century historiography see E. Gutwirth, ‘Italy
or Spain?: The Theme of Jewish Eloquence in the Shevet Judah’, Daniel Carpi Jubilee
Volume, M. Rozen, ed., Tel Aviv 1996, pp. 35-67.
C. Roth, ‘The Last Years of Abraham Zacut’, Sefarad IX (1949), pp. 445-454. A.A.
Neuman, ‘Abraham Zacut Historiographer’, Baron Jubilee Volume, Jerusalem 1975,
pp. 597-629.
[Hispania Judaica 6 5769/2008]
Eleazar Gutwirth
In contrast, here an attempt will be made to point, not to these discontinuities
emphasized by previous historians, but to the continuities in Zacut’s writing and
to some of the methods by which the Yuhasin could be read within the framework
of the author’s cultural and historical background and Zacut’s contribution be
understood. To this effect we may examine the construction of the authorial
persona, his concept of history and Þnally the perceptions of the difference
between Jewish and other historical writings.
First it may be necessary to point out, as has not been done by students of
Zacut, that Tunis was by no means as alien or as completely divorced from Spanish
and Hispano-Jewish history as might be thought. In the fourteenth and Þfteenth
centuries Jews were ambassadors, they were involved in drafting treatises, they
lodged the Tunisian diplomats who came to the peninsula and took care of them.5
We are now beginning to understand something of the intensity of the ties of
commerce and travel which united Jews from Iberia and Tunis.6
In Tunis, rather than an alien environment, Zacut could therefore encounter
other Iberian Jews, exiles like himself, or Iberian Jews who had arrived before the
expulsions. Abraham ben Shelomo ha-Levi Buqrat is a case in point.7 Both Zacut
and Buqrat shared a number of traits. The case of Buqrat’s Romance terms (le‘azim)
would be one example. Zacut’s commitment to this Romance is well attested. The
example of his collaboration with Salaya8 achieved around December 1481 in
Spain – where he interpreted the Hibur or parts of it into the Romance – is clear
appart from the Treatises in the Romance which Zacut himself composed.9 Another
shared feature is that both seem to have had a consciousness of the neighbouring
French cultural factor. Some of this may be revealed by paying attention to Buqrat’s
phrase la‘az Tsarfat lehud ve-la‘az Sefarad lehud. Zacut’s intense awareness of his
and other Iberian Jewish families’ origins in France10 are equally attested. The
5
E. Gutwirth, ‘The Sefer Yuhasin and Zacut’s Tunisian Phase’ in Judaísmo Hispano:
Estudios en memoria de J.L. Lacave, E.Romero ed., Madrid 2002, pp. 765-777.
6 Ibidem and J. Hinojosa Montalvo The Jews of the Kingdom of Valencia, Jerusalem
1993; M.A. Motis, La expulsion de los judíos de Zaragoza, Zaragoza 1985.
7 For Buqrat see H.H. Ben Sasson ‘Qinah al gerush Sefarad’, Tarbiz 31 (1962) pp.
59-71; at p. 59. I have used the edition of M. Phillips. See Abraham ben Shelomo haLevi Buqrat, Sefer Zikaron ‘al Perush Rashi, Petah Tiqvah 1985 and the Introduction
there.
8 See the materials in F. Cantera Burgos, Abraham Zacut, Madrid 1935 and idem, ‘El
judío salmantino Abraham Zacut’ RACM XXVII (1931), pp. 63-398. References to the
Hibur are from this last work.
9 Joaquim de Carvalho, ‘Dois ineditos de Abraham Zacuto’, Revista de Estudos
Hebraicos 1 (1928), pp. 9-56.
10 For the signiÞcance of the subject see, amongst other works by him, Yom Tov Assis,
‘Juifs de France réfugiés en Aragon (XIII–XIV siècles)’, Revue des Études Juives 142
(1983), pp. 285-322.
[58]
The Historian’s Origins and Genealogies: The Sefer Yuhasin
sharp differentiation between Salamanca and Tunis begins to dissolve as research
and analysis replace rhetoric. It is possible to trace such myths as Salamancan
tranquility, lack of pestilence, Iberian availability of books and lack of unity in
the Tunisian chronicle to the unfamiliarity of some twentieth century writers with
the Iberian context of an author, who like Zacut, was so intimately involved with
and so closely dependent on the courts of Iberian patrons and magnates. But in the
Þnal analysis the failure to Þnd a unity in the oeuvre is related to certain modern
expectations and notions about the very idea of authorship. Such expectations may
be related to notions of copyright and property of the intellectual work. They bring
into question the history of the idea of authorship and of the representation of
authorship in the written text.
II
In recent years attempts have been made to uncover the textual strategies employed
in the construction of the authorial self in Hispano-Jewish texts from the thirteenth
to the Þfteenth centuries.11 These recent studies may be used as parameters for an
analysis of this aspect of self representation in Zacut’s prose both in Hebrew and
in the Romance. This focus on Zacut’s representation of the authorial self may be
one of the answers to that long quest for coherence and search for a unity of sorts
which has characterized the twentieth century approaches to his Tunisian work.
Sometimes the authorial persona is constructed by – and related to – the
concept of novelty or invention. The author stands deÞned by – and in relation
to – his intellectual forebears, his antecedents, that is, the previous scholars who
tackled similar issues. Zacut’s asides to this effect frequently interrupt the text of
his early astronomical composition, the Hibur Þnished around 1478 in Salamanca,
at a time when he was part of the circle of scholars who were patronized by Bishop
Vivero. If Cantera is right, we would have a notable example of the introduction
of the self into a technical astronomical discussion. Cantera surmised that the
Hibur included Zacut’s own birth date when discussing the table for “la hora de
la reuolucion de cualquier natiuidad” (p.12): “An example so that you should
understand: someone was born in the year 1452 on the twelfth of August three
hours after noon and twenty Þve years have elapsed since then”.12
In his Introduction to the Hibur, Zacut writes: “as you shall see we have written
many new things which are very useful”. After pointing to his sources for chapter
11 E. Gutwirth, ‘Entendudos: Translation and Representation in the Castile of Alfonso the
Learned’, Modern Language Review 93, 2 (Apr 1998), pp. 384-399; idem, ‘Don Ishaq
Abravanel: Exegesis and Self Fashioning’, Trumah 9 (2000), pp. 35-42.
12 Cantera, Abraham Zacut, p.12.
[59]
Eleazar Gutwirth
18 he writes “and part of it was invented by me, Abraam Çecuth”. Elsewhere
(fol. 40v) he says that although he follows Maimonides in the question of the
sighting of the moon, a comparison will show that Zacut had written it more
succintly and clearly. That is to say, that the rivalry with the intellectual father
Þgure is present as early as the 1470’s. In the Yuhasin it would become much
more frequent and insistent. Other asides where he manifests this anxiety of
inßuence and attitude to predecessors could be assertions such as (fol 43r ) “of
all my predecesors no one has discerned this” or (on fol 44v) “and from this point
onwards we shall talk about [...] Venus and Mercury with great esteem the which
has not been understood by those who preceeded us [...]” In chapters 18 and 19
he alludes to the Tables which he had innovated and their superiority and utility
which overshadows those composed by Alfonso and by Yehudah ben Asher. At
the beginning of his chapter 9, he writes that the errors in his calculations are very
few and at least he opens up a great door to the scholars who wish to order a table,
although in his heart he knows that he reached the truth. The persona of the author
is constructed again and again, by explicit or implicit criticism of his predecesors
and assertions of innovation.
By the 1480’s, Zacut had left Salamanca for Extremadura and the patronage
of Vivero for that of Zúñiga. In Gata he composed at least two astronomical or
astrological treatises. But the treatises are not entirely technical. There are certain
elements of what may be termed a rhetoric of patronage addressed to the Master
of the Order of Alcántara. These may be seen within a tradition of such rhetorical
prose pieces written by Jews and addressed to Christian nobles and monarchs, a
tradition which I studied elsewhere.13 What is of interest here is the question of
the construction of the authorial persona within these rhetorical passages in the
treatise addressed to a non astronomer.
He prefaces the astrological treatise by praise of his patron but also by obliquely
alluding to himself:
and certainly all the scholars may say what the Queen of Saba said about
King Solomon: you have increased your fame blessed are your servants
those who listen to your words. He [Zúñiga] thought it well to order me, R.
Abraham Zacut from Salamanca, astrologer, his servant, to compose a brief
treatise on the inßuences of the heavens so that his lordship’s physicians
should be helped by it if they were astrologers and so that everything should
13 E. Gutwirth, ‘Consolatio: Don Isaac Abravanel and the Classical Tradition’, Medievalia
et Humanistica ns 27 (2000), pp. 79-98; idem, ‘Medieval Romance Epistolography:
The Case of the Iberian Jews’, Neophilologus LXXXIV/2 (April 2000), pp. 207-224.
[60]
The Historian’s Origins and Genealogies: The Sefer Yuhasin
be perfect in the house of your lordship because when you are healthy you
are better served [...] as was said by King David and King Hezekiah.14
Within the rhetorical logic of the passage, Zúñiga is like King Solomon, Zacut is
the one who has the authority to construct this analogy and Zacut is also analogous
to the servants of King Solomon, who were blessed or praised by the Queen
of Saba. The toponym “de Salamanca” begins to appear more pointedly in his
writings at this point.
In the Prologue to another work composed for Zúñiga in the 1480’s in Gata, De
los eclipses del sol y la luna, Zacut writes:
as I composed a very brief treatise on the Judgements [judicial astrology]
[...] which was made for the very illustrious and most magniÞcent lord,
illuminator and sustainer of all the sciences don Ihohan de Cunyga Maestre
de Alcántara, my Lord, I Rabbi Abraham, astrologer of Salamanca, servant
of his lordship [...] because the Sun is like the king and the planets are like
the knights therefore they have signiÞcances [...]15
The theme of his treatise is the stars and the stars are analogous to the context
of the writing, that is, the court of the Master of the Order of Alcántara, one of
the members of about Þfteen noble families that practically owned Castile in the
Þfteenth century. The rhetoric of the prologue claims that Zúñiga is somehow
related to the theme of astronomy by his nobility. As usual, Zacut introduces
his own name into the composition accompanied by the modiÞers of place and
profession.
In the peninsular writings, then, it is clear that there is a continuity of strategies
of presentation of the authorial persona. At a time when the University of Salamanca
was emerging from its obscurity, something of the excitement of these momentous
changes in the fame and status of the institution resonates in the toponymic “de
Salamanca”. The question of whether Zacut actually had occupied the Chair of
astrology at Salamanca has for so long dominated discussions of his Iberian phase
that we are apt to loose a sense of proportion. Far more profound than the anecdotic,
internal, administrative issues is the image of the place of the scholar over the
centuries.16 Pedro Sánchez Ciruelo from Daroca in the Þrst half of the sixteenth
century had studied in Salamanca and taught in Paris and returned as canon to his
14 Carvalho, ‘Dois ineditos’ p.9 ff.
15 Ibidem.
16 Cirilo Flórez Miguel, ‘Los caminos de la ciencia. Los siglos XV-XVII’, La
Universidad de Salamanca II, Manuel Fernandez Alvarez et al. eds., Salamanca 1990,
pp. 119-136.
[61]
Eleazar Gutwirth
alma mater. On his return he addressed himself in an oration to “the Rector, the
Chancellor, the Masters and other scholars” of his home university. The oration is
a panegyric to his alma mater. As we may read in the Apotelesmata Astrologiae
Christianae published in Alcalá in 1521, in order to praise his university he refers
to the great tradition of writers on astrology and astronomy, such as the King
Alfonso X, “Azarquielo” “Blanquino” – none of whom had taught at Salamanca –
and then he adds: “Indeed these matters elaborated with divine ingeniousness were
transmitted to posterity by your own Zacut of Salamanca, John of Nuremberg and
other more recent writers [...] [p.130]”.
Zacut’s continuous reference to himself as Zacut of Salamanca has, therefore,
a certain resonance which may be reconstructed by attention to the developments
in the history of that place and period. There may also be some reasons for not
ignoring entirely his references to himself as astronomer. Needless to say there
was an old, well established and illustrious tradition of Jewish involvement with
the sciences of the stars, a tradition which Zacut frequently alludes to.
Zacut in his astrological treatise of c.1498, written in Tlemcen after his stay
in Fez,17 cites TB Sanh. 97b about the war of Gog and Magog and he glosses:
“and it is not improbable that this text was by a great scholar or great astronomer
and because of his great science it was not rejected in the chapter Heleq [i.e. TB,
Sanh. chapter 11]”. Having mentioned a possible “great astronomer” of antiquity,
he continues to digress: “And because the wise and happy Nagid R. Abraham who
lives in the city of Tlemcen asked of me, Abraham Zacut, the expelled and the one
who was captive twice between the two nations for the service of the Lord blessed
be He, to explain that which was said by some of the scholars of astronomy and
astrology concerning salvation although my views are different for I believe that
only repentance and good deeds are like a shield before catastrophe [pur’anut].
The ellipsis from the “great astronomer” mentioned in Sanhedrin to himself, the
astronomer, is almost natural. Zacut, it may be argued, is constructing a genealogy
for his writings and for his own discipline. These fundamental strategies of self
representation, therefore, do not seem to have changed radically after the expulsion
and his exile in North Africa.
In Tunis, in the Yuhasin, he refers to his authorial role and the book may be
searched for such references. Thus, for example, he writes in an aside at the
beginning of the work: “In this small book I will incidentally bring the commentary
on a law or a useful matter which I think is a novelty” (3b). Here again, we
encounter the notion of novelty in statements of intentionality. After speaking
about R Meir AbulaÞa and the King Alfonso X the Wise, that is, his “predecessor”
in astronomical matters, he writes: “I, the writer Abraham Zacut, have composed
17 M. Beth Arieh and M. Idel, ‘Treatise on Eschatology and Astrology by R. Abraham
Zacut’, Kiryat Sefer 54 , 1/2, (1979), pp. 174-194 (Hebrew).
[62]
The Historian’s Origins and Genealogies: The Sefer Yuhasin
all the books of tables which I wrote and they are disseminated throughout the
lands of the Christians and also the Muslims” (221b). Elsewhere we notice the
continuity in the criticisms of predecessors (51): “And the Mordekhai wrote
[...] but I the writer have stronger evidence about this” or (88a): “and I saw in
Salamanca many of these things but the voice that he said is heard before him this
is a trick” or (166b): “and the author of Dorot ha-’Olam said that is the son of Rav
Ashi and it doesn’t seem so” or (167b): “Rav Hayim the pupil of Adret explained
[...] and it doesn’t seem so”. At the end of the Fifth Treatise he asserts:
And what I said about Abraham ha-Levi, that “he wrote”, that was concerning
the chronology and the Saborites and the Gaonate but what I wrote at the
beginning and the [section on] the scholars of the Mishnah and the Talmud
this I extracted with great effort and my desire is not yet achieved concerning
matters which are not yet certain but I could not do more and if God gives us
life we might yet revise everything and now I begin to write according to the
books which are available and when with the help of God [more books] will
come into our hands, we will add more [216 b].
The “great effort” of the author in Tunis echoes the great efforts mentioned in the
work written in Salamanca.
There is a certain privatization of general events in the sense that the private
is added to the general and at times foregrounded by relation to it. The history
of Zacut is the history of his lineage and that is also the history of the Jews in
Spain:
and thus by our sins we saw with our own eyes the likes of this [the expulsion
from France] the expulsion from Spain Sicily Sardinia in 1492 and in 1497
the expulsion from Portugal for from there and from France came our
enemies to Spain from one side and the sea from the other. But from France
there was a remnant for my ancestor came from there for the name of his son
was Abraham Zacut the elder and my ancestor Abraham Zacut and myself
are named that good name of theirs and they all resisted the persecutions of
Castile [...] I too the Lord gave me the merit to sanctify the Name with my
son Shemuel and we came to Africa and we were prisioners twice may the
Lord in his mercy reward me so that my seed will be devoted to the service
of God and his Torah [ 223a].
His own experience is thus related to the general theme of the book.
[63]
Eleazar Gutwirth
III
Related to these is the question of statements of intentionality. Indeed, if we are
right in showing the continuities in the construction of the authorial persona
before the expulsions, can we also show some degree of continuity between
the astronomical and the historiographic work? His statements of intentionality
appear to be the clearest evidence in favour of the critiques from Graetz and
onwards. As mentioned, in the passage cited above, he writes: “this I extracted
with great effort and my desire is not yet achieved concerning matters which are
not yet certain but I could not do more and if God gives us life we might yet revise
everything and now I begin to write according to the books which are available
and when with the help of God [more books] will come into our hands we will add
more” (216 b).
But this passage is not the only one where we can Þnd statements of
intentionality. He begins the Introduction to the Yuhasin with images of stars, as he
did in his pre-expulsion work, Inßuencias del cielo. The difference is that, rather
than the patron, it is all the Jews who are now his public. If, in the former, the
analogy was between the ideal court and the stars, in this Introduction he creates
an analogy between history and astronomy: “this book is similar to the sciences of
mathematics or arithmetic and astronomy and one good deed brings another”. Or
again in the Introduction:
in order to achieve merits for myself and for others I awoke to create this
little book to tell the story by name and number, the yahas of the scholars
of the Mishnah and the Babylonian Talmud which we have apart from most
of the scholars of the Beraitha who are unknown to me and whose dates
are unknown to me. And also the Geonim and the authors of books and
their dates as far as I can Þnd them; and I will not pretend to assert that
this is a profound science for, by my sins, because of the persecutions and
prision and the need for sustenance I have no strength left nor wisdom nor
knowledge and have lost my taste or discernment and my sense of smell has
vanished; but in order to good qualities [which they showed by] their deeds
I composed this book and it is worth doing for it is a historical account from
the beginning of creation which is a general principle of the Torah for all the
miracles which show the creation [hiddush] of the world [...] (Introduction)
Zacut gives a variety of reasons for his writing. His statements of intentionality
deserve attention, but not because they are the only basis for understanding his
work. It may be argued that statements of intentionality are intended to be read as
enhancements of the discipline or branch of knowledge.
[64]
The Historian’s Origins and Genealogies: The Sefer Yuhasin
He begins with the assertion that the subject of history is like mathematics or
astronomy. For Zacut and the Hebrew tradition of astronomy and mathematics
within which he was writing, this meant that history is analogous to an exact
science. That is to say that it differed from metaphysics or theology in that its
statements were not subject to constant debate or argument, but amenable to
proof.18
Occasionally he carries this through. It is arguable that this may explain part
of the structure of the Introduction: A. The inescapable impression is that he
attempts to associate yihus (lineage) and yahas (ratio). That is to say, that the
epistemological certainties of the study of the ratio between numbers are in some
way analogous to the results of the study of history (Yuhasin). B. A number of
statements in the Introduction are followed immediately by a list of authorities
and cases which show his statement to be true. C. His singling out of “name” and
“number” as concepts for development in this Introduction may be one example.
One of the aims of history would be to state the exact name and the dates of the
halakhic authorities. D. Another feature is what may be termed the qualiÞcation,
that is to say, the explicit assertion of lack of knowledge or of other exceptions to
whatever the general statement asserts. Statements must be followed by proofs;
unbased statements must not be made; the historian should concentrate on names
and numbers.
When he states that history “is not a profound science”, he is not refering to
the possibilities of history in general, but in the spirit of petitio benevolentiae of
introductions, he is refering to himself, in his condition, at the time of writing
the Introduction. In fact, the extremely erudite Introduction belies any belief in
the “superÞciality” of historical writing. It is as demanding as “halakhah”. His
Introduction could be read as other units of juridical or legal discourse, novellae
on the Talmud or responsa. His appeal to Rashi, Tosafot, Pisqe ha- Rosh, the
Jerusalem Talmud occasionally, and more frequently, the Babylonian Talmud
amongst many other sources; his constant mastery of parallel passages is not all
that different from the arguments of a rabbinic jurist (poseq).
It is signiÞcant in this context that he attacks or criticizes Maimonides’ view
that halakhah need not repeat every polemical statement or, in other words, allude
to sources or authorities. Similarly important is his criticism of the Maimonidean
view that history is a waste of time.
[p.2a] and you see how they [the Talmud and Midrash] magniÞed this subject
even though Maimonides mentioned in the Mafteah ha-Mishnah that there
is no great utility in it namely to mention the the names of the [Talmudic]
18 E. Gutwirth, ‘History and Jewish ScientiÞc Study in Mediaeval Spain’ in La ciencia en
la España medieval, Lola Ferre ed., Granada 1992, pp.163-174.
[65]
Eleazar Gutwirth
scholars and their lineage. This is not so but it has great utility to strengthen
and maintain our hands in the Oral Law [...]
This brings us to another point. Generally, Zacut may be viewed as continuing in a
long tradition of history of scholarship which harks back to very old sources. That
is to say, that his work, rather than representing a new approach, or showing any
novelty of approach is, in fact, a very belated example of ancient genres which
dealt with the chains of transmission. Some justiÞcation for this may come from
Zacut’s own explicit allusions to sources such as the Epistle of Sherira, the Megilat
Ta’anit, etc., and there is no doubt that, like everybody else, he used these ancient
sources. In fact, one of the achievements of the scholarship of the 19th century was
to list the sources explicitly named by Zacut and point some of the way for further
research by acknowledging the lack of success in identifying others, in fact, the
more novel ones.
Initial impressions could lead to the view that the Introduction is subordinating
history to halakhah. But a different reading would be that what Zacut is doing
is to enhance the value of history by a practice of example, citation and proof
which shows (or recalls) that legal decision is impossible without precision in
chronology: “another [utility] is that we can decide how to arrive at a Þnal decision
amongst differing authorities [...] for the law is according to the later authorities
[...]” (Introduction). There is legal value in the study of onomastics: “moreover
there is a utility in knowing who the scholars are to Þnd the inconsistencies in
their words [...]”
The value of Zacut’s concerns – that is, the value of the study of history –
is enhanced by appeal to the Bible which shares Zacut’s concerns: “for a great
principle was the Þrst book namely Genesis which contains all the order of the
generations and their names and also the fourth book [...]” (Introduction). The
“name” question is related to the identity and identiÞcation of the individual
scholars of the past. He adduces a recent Castilian authority [3b]: “The Þrst “path”
[section] in the Darke Ha-Talmud of R Yitshaq Campanton [advises] to know who
is the Tana [Mishnaic authority]”.
There is value in geography (2b): “[...] similarly there is a utility in knowing the
place of the [Talmudic authorities]”. Chronology, and, to some extent, language is
also relevant to halakhah: (3a) “[...] and they were rigurous in reporting the laws in
the formulation of their teacher [...] the teachings of the people of [the region of]
Judah were maintained because they were precise [diqdequ] in their formulations
but [the teachings of] the people of Galilee [were] not [accepted because they were
not precise in their language]”.
The study of the sources, the practice of adducing and explicitly naming the
source is seen as important: “and you already know how they magniÞed the one
who says something and acknowledges his source [...] and I am surprised who
[66]
The Historian’s Origins and Genealogies: The Sefer Yuhasin
permitted to the authors to write without mentioning the names of their sources
[lit. the names of who said them] why did they not act as did R. Yitshaq Alfasi and
R. Asher ben Yehiel? [...] and Maimonides was questioned [i.e. criticized] because
of this [...]”
Related to this is the concept of novelty: (3b) “In this small book I will
incidentally bring the commentary on a law or a useful matter which I think is a
novelty”.
Halakhic decisions depend, then, on precision, and that depends on history. So
that the highest or, according to some views, most “central” intellectual endeavour
of the Jews is itself dependent on history. What appears as a homily based mostly
on Talmudic sources may turn out to be a plea for the shift of history towards
the center of Jewish thinking. In the same Introduction, Zacut could be seen as
devoting space and effort to a discussion of the title of the work: why it was called
Sefer Yuhasin and not Sefer Hasidim or Sefer Tsadiqim. The discussion of the title
of the work as part of the presentation and introduction of historical compositions
is a type of discourse which belongs in a historical context; that of Iberian Jewish
culture. It has been noted in the case of Abravanel or the Toledot Adam. It has been
related to similar concerns with 1. the titles and 2. nomenclature of works and
3. adscription of works to genres in Þfteenth century Iberian texts written in the
vernacular. It is a concern which belongs with the interest in generic classiÞcation
and in literary history. Examples may be found in the discussions of the title
“Tragedia” or “Tragicomedia” or in the trend towards creation of a vernacular
nomenclature of poetic genres which we Þnd in such Þfteenth century Iberian
writers as Villena, the Marquis of Santillana or Pedro, Constable of Castile.19
IV
The constantly repeated accusations of “disorder”, lack of “unity”, lack of artistry,
in this Book of Lineages, however derivative, are by no means imaginary. On the
19 The words “Sefer Yuhasin” – it hardly needs to be pointed out – were not invented
by Zacut. Needless to say, there is also an old tradition of precedents such as Rashi’s
eleventh century discussions in his talmudic exegesis of the titles of different
tractates. Nevertheless, no one would minimize the novelty in Zacut’s contemporaries
attention to, say, biblical propadeutics and prologues which included discussions of
nomenclature such as those relating to the Book of Kings. Abravanel’s Commentaries
could be an example. For Abravanel see, for example Gutwirth,‘Don Ishaq Abravanel
and Vernacular Humanism in Fifteenth Century Iberia’, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme
et Renaissance LX (1998), pp. 641-671; for Toldot Adam see idem, ‘Continuity and
Change after 1492’, Jews and Conversos at the Time of the Expulsion, Jerusalem,
1999, pp. 93-108.
[67]
Eleazar Gutwirth
contrary, they strike the reader at every step. In an alphabetical list of Mishnaic
authorities we Þnd that (80 b) Zacut Þnishes the section on Tanaim with Shemuel
ha-Qatan who is not the last authority (alphabetically). He decides to Þnish with
him because he was a “Tsadiq and pious and humble” because “humility is the
quality which crowned the lord of the prophets [i.e. Moses]”. The phenomenon
could be seen as proof of the unÞnished character of the work. Viewed from such
a perspective, one would conclude that Zacut was unable to integrate his material
into a coherent long narrative. This is one approach, the most likely to be taken
by those who, like Neubauer, Freimann and others see the historiography as thin
and poor.
And yet, some acquaintance with the research on perceptions of history and
historical practice in Zacut’s age and cultural context would bring into question
such improvised or initial reactions. Rather than confront Zacut with a putative
“general culture” or “general Christian historiography”, a number of components
of Zacut’s own historical context need to be noted.
Thus, for example the age of Zacut is a period in which historical practice tends
to choose also as vehicle for writing the smaller, independent prose unit: units such
as the letter, the introduction, etc. This has been realized in the case of works by
Profayt Duran and by Abravanel and further examples could be adduced. Secondly,
this is a period in which the trend in historical practice is to be understood partly by
the connections between legal, notarial and historical or chronistic activity. It can
be shown that this is the case in Zacut’s own Kingdom of Castile. The Crónica del
halconero de Juan II may be aduced here as an example. Written by Pedro Carrillo
de Albornoz (Carrillo de Huete) it is highly concerned with the knightly stratum
and its customs. But appart from the narratives and descriptions there are also
other elements: it contains c. 200 documents. It is documents such as these which
furnished various Þfteenth century Iberian chronicles with the material for their
reconstructions. They attest to the relations between the world of the chroniclers
and the legal world of the notaries and archives.20
This is not only relevant to the section located in Zacut’s book between the
chapter on Tannaitic and that on Amoraitic authorities. It is quite noticeable that
different sections (so called chapters or maamarim) have different sources. One
section could be described as a very close elaboration of the Sefer ha-Qabalah.
But the section known as the Fifth Chapter contains material and methods which
20 For the nomenclature issue and the trend towards smaller units – well evinced in other
types of creativity in Castile e.g. in the Þeld of the epic – see for example Gutwirth,
‘Don Ishaq Abravanel’; Rafael Beltrán Llavador, ‘De la crónica oÞcial a la biografía
heroica: algunos episodios de López de Ayala y Alvar García de Santa María y su
versión en El Victorial’, Actas I A.H.L.M (1988), pp. 177-185; idem, ‘Convergencias y
divergencias en la narrativa cronística de la Guerra de Granada: la campaña de Setenil
(1407)’, B.B.M.P. XLVI (1990), pp. 5-45.
[68]
The Historian’s Origins and Genealogies: The Sefer Yuhasin
have little to do with Sefer ha-Qabalah or with ibn Daud’s methods, sources,
etc. One of the oldest realizations concerning the Yuhasin is that although in
one place he writes that he did not have certain sources (e.g. certain treatises of
the Jerusalem Talmud) these sources abound in other sections of the work. The
Sixth Chapter is evidently so different from its preceeding ones that it was not
even included in the Constantinople printed edition. That is to say that, under the
general umbrella of one title (Sefer Yuhasin) there are, in fact, different types of
compositions which are sometimes only loosely related to each other and in which
repetitions, contradictions, and apparently different aims coexist. Such methods
have evidently bafßed Zacut’s modern readers. The results of recent research
on the contacts between the Iberian Christian vernacular chronistic and notarial
or archival realms mentioned above may help to reassess Þrst impressions. The
intrusion of evidence always breaks the narrative unity.
Thirdly, there is also another genre which does have some afÞnities with
these characteristics. Indeed, in Zacut’s age there exists a view of history which
perceives it as a Þeld which is by no means restricted to the narrative of one
type of events. This view is that it is rather a freer type of writing in which
acquaintance and familiarity with the sources and the method of analysis and
combination and amalgammation of them may count for more than the artiÞces
of unity and concealment of sources. It is, possibly, this view of writing which
partly underlies and possibly explains the interest, by Zacut’s contemporaries, in
such works as Macrobius’ Commentary; Valerius Maximus’ Dicta et facta or the
fortuna of Pliny’s Natural History. By 1504 such an interest had taken a particular
course with the printing of Aulius Gellius’ Attic Nights. The road to works such
as Mexia’s Silva is marked and its success is irreversible. The sensibility which
delights in books about the past despite their lack of “unity” leads to the revival of
the ancient genre of the polyanthea or miscellany, the investment of resources in
this genre by publishers, and the creation of a reading public for these works – all
of them lacking “unity”.
Eventually this leads to the creative recycling (cf. their inßuence on Lope de
Vega’s dramatic works) or recreation of such readings (cf the Silva and its parallels,
translations and their success).21
21 The relevance of the miscellanies to later, sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, nonIberian, Jewish historiography has been recognised a long time ago. But in Zacut’s age
there is already a similar interest which seems to have gone unnoticed. The polyantheas
in Zacut’s age have been studied particularly with reference to the antecedents and
sources of Mexia’s Silva. For the Silva see I. Lerner ‘Poética de la cita en la Silva de Pero
Mexia: Las fuentes clásicas’ in Actas del X Congreso de la Asociación Internacional
de Hispanistas, Antonio Villanova ed., Barcelona 1992, I, pp 49-99; idem, ‘Autores y
citas españoles en la Silva de Mexía’, Filología 26 (1993) pp.107-120; idem, ‘Textos
[69]
Eleazar Gutwirth
V
And yet there is a genre which is even closer to the Yuhasin.
“Yuhasin” for Zacut, as for other Jewish contemporaries, represents the Þlial
relation between master and disiple; it is a matter of scholarship and its transmission.
But it also seems to mean family lineage, thus: “Joshua had no children therefore
his yahas Þnished with him”. As mentioned above, Zacut himself begins the whole
work by expressing the signiÞcance that this act of naming and bestowing a title
upon the work had for him. Indeed, he mentions explicitly the agonizing about
various different titles. He chose after all this soul searching, the title “Book of
Lineages”.
Books of Lineages or Livros de linhagens is the designation of a type of
medieval historiography from Portugal. Only later, in the sixteenth century did
these books began to be called Nobiliarios. There are four Livros de linhagens.
The Þrst one, also known as Livro velho and the fourth (Livro do conde don Pedro
de Barcelos) are complete works. The second and third have been preserved in a
fragmentary state.22 The Þrst Livro de linhagens begins with an Introduction.
Our focus here begins with the utilitas section of this Introduction. A brief
analysis of the utilitas problem may be opportune here. Thanks to the work of Ben
Shalom it is by now recognized that discussions of the utilitas are not irrelevant
to the understanding of the Introduction to the Yuhasin.23 My Þrst point has to
do with the European Christian practice of the utilitas motif in the Middle Ages.
Guenée.24 in his well known study of history and historical culture in the medieval
West of Europe, asserts that for the medieval writers, history was useful and that
assertions to this effect are to be found in the historical writings of the medieval
“West”. John of Salisbury, in his Historia pontiÞcalis says that history is useful.
It gives examples of reward and punishment; it establishes or abolishes customs
and privileges. For others, it is a solace, as Robert Manning afÞrms in 133825 or
delectationem according to a 12th century source from Ardres. What is interesting
in Guenée’s work on this particular point is the absence of sources or evidence
from Portugal and Spain. Does this absence reßect Guenée’s and his readers’
22
23
24
25
canónicos, textos apócrifos y textos patrísticos en la Silva de Pero Mexía’, Edad de
Oro 8 (1989), pp. 143-54.
The study of the medieval Christian Iberian “Books of lineages” is not a new Þeld;
see A. Herculano, Memoria sobre a origem provavel dos livros de linhagens, Lisboa
1854.
See (amongst other studies by him) Ram Ben-Shalom ‘Polemic Historiografy in
Sefer Yuhasin’ Proceedings of the Eleventh World Congress on Jewish Studies, II, 1,
Jerusalem 1994, pp.121-128
B. Guennée, Histoire et culture historique, Paris 1980, p. 26-27.
Ibidem, p. 26.
[70]
The Historian’s Origins and Genealogies: The Sefer Yuhasin
unfamiliarity or lack of access to Iberian texts? Or does this absence reßect a lack
of Iberian writings on utilitas?
It would seem that this is not the case. For various reasons the custom of
adducing non Iberian sources as a means of reconstructing the background to
Iberian Jewish phenomena is proving to be less than satisfying. A number of
utilities are adduced by the Introduction of the Livro velho. The Þrst is directly
relevant: it is useful to the Þdalgos to know what their lineage is; what are the
lands, honours, monasteries and churches natural to them and to know how they
are related by family to each other.26
Knowledge of history, i.e. lineage, is useful because noble lineage brings
favours from kings. It is useful because it distinguishes between legal and illegal
marriages. It is also useful for posessions of land. And, Þnally, geographic origins
are also useful because they help to ascertain whether the nobles are “natural” of
a place or not. The view of history, of course, is exclusive and limited to a group.
The utilities of history are related to canon law and civil law. It is a view of history
which would be inßuential for a long time.
Closer to Zacut is the great Þfteenth century chronicler of Portugal who was
not immune to this view of history. Fernão Lopes writes in the Þrst half of the
Þfteenth century for a noble public of readers. He excuses himself for his prolixity
in writing about the exploits of the nobles. He does it in order to illuminate the
great nobles who give lustre to their families. As Luis de Sousa Rebelo remarked:
“Les estorias que Fernão Lopes raconte prennent dans ce microtexte le sens de
gestes de famille qui est aussi le sens sémantique du mot estoire au XIVème siècle
en France où il apparaît comme synonyme de lignage”.27
26 “Por saberem os homens Þdalgos de Portugal de qual linhagem uem, e de quaes coutos,
honras mosteiros e igreias som naturaes, e per saberem como som parentes, fazemos
escreuer este liuro uerdadeiramente dos linhagens daqueles que som naturaes e
moradores no reino de Portugal estremadamente”, Portugaliae Monumenta Historica.
Scriptores, Lisboa 1856-1897, p.143; M. Rodrigues Lapa, Crestomatia Arcaica, Lisboa
1960; J. Matoso ed., Livro Velho de Linhagem, Lisboa 1980.
27 The economic utilities of history for the nobility concerned with possessions is clearly
expressed in the Books of Lineages: “E deste liuro se pode seguir muita prol e arredar
muito danno: muitos uem de bom linhagem e nom o sabem ells, nem o sabem os reis,
nem o sabem os grandes homens: ca se o soubessem em alguma maneira lhes uiria
ende bem em alguna maneira dos senhores. E os outros nom casam como deuem e
casam me pecado porque nom sabem o linhagem. E muitos som naturaes e padroeiros
de muitos mosteiros e de muitas igreias e de muitos coutos e de muitas honras e de
muitas terras que o perdem a mingoa de sa saber de que linhagem uem e outros se
fazem naturaes de muitos lugares onde o nom som”.
For the Þfteenth century chronicler see Luis de Sousa Rebelo, ‘Millenarisme et
historiographie dans les chroniques de Fernao Lopes’, Arquivos do Centro cultural
portugues XXVI (1989) pp. 97-120 p. 99; R. Howard Bloch, Etymologies and
[71]
Eleazar Gutwirth
Sousa Rebelo’s emphasis on the French connection is perfectly justiÞed. Zacut’s
consciousness of his family origins in France has been alluded to above. Zacut’s
presence in Portugal (more precisely the royal court of Portugal), is well known.
What may need recalling is the proximity of his other residences, Salamanca
and Extremadura, to Portugal. But it is not only Zacut’s connection to GalicianPortuguese geography and culture which makes attention to Livros de linhagens
relevant to his “Book of Lineages”. Diego Catalán has shown some of the main
trends of vernacular historiography in medieval Castile and the close relations
between Castilian and Portuguese vernacular historiography. A common source is
the Liber regum c.1200. Amongst other things it is iconic of the transmission of
French notions through the Pyrennean kingdom of Navarre.28
The vernacular historiography of the so called Þve kingdoms of Spain begins
with this Liber Regum, that is, with a work of a primarily genealogical character.
It was disseminated in various versions in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.
Some manuscripts are of the Þfteenth century, a fact which shows that in Zacut’s
age this textual tradition was still alive. The genealogies which occupy such a
central position in this book are those that go from Adam to Jesus; the kings of
the empires of the Persians, Greeks and Romans till Eraclius and Mohammed,
the genealogies of the Gothic and Asturian monarchs till Alfonso II; those of the
judges, counts and kings of Castile, the kings of Aragon, those of France and the
genealogy of the Cid. The earliest version of the book is preserved in a manuscript
(known as Códice Villarense) which consists of works of regional “foral” law,
rhetoric and canon law.29 That is to say that it attests to the connections between
lineages, law and history.
Another point of relevance for the research on Zacut’s Book of Lineages is that
provided by two other versions of the Liber Regum: the version of the monk of
Arlanza and the version of the Þfteenth century copy made by Martín de Larraya.
The Þrst is interpolated with legends such as that of Rodrigo, Bernardo del Carpio,
the legend of the election of Bamba or the legend of the tribute of the hundred
young maidens. The second incorporates a genealogy of the kings of Troy and
Brittany. The source is the Roman de Brut by Wace (1155). An additional source
is provided by the English stanzaic poem Le Morte d’Arthur. The Crónica de
1344, a major effort of vernacular historiography, ordered by don Pedro, Count of
Barcelos, is highly dependant on these genealogical works of historiography.30
Genealogies: A Literary Anthropology of the French Middle Ages, Chicago 1983, pp.
97-98.
28 See the introduction to Crónica general de España de 1344, D. Catalán and M.S. de
Andrés, eds., Madrid 1970, p. Liii ff.
29 Catalán, Crónica general, ‘Introduction’.
30 Ibidem.
[72]
The Historian’s Origins and Genealogies: The Sefer Yuhasin
In brief, the search for unity and artistry, which underlies the various approaches
to the Yuhasin from Graetz and onwards departs from a conception of history
which is not that of such Iberian historiographic genres as the Livros de linhagens.
The connection between law and history, the focus on genealogy, the lack of unity,
the collection of differing materials, the decision to include interesting stories or
legends which appear to break the narrative unity, the accumulation of particular
utilities and various other features are common to Zacut’s Book of Lineages and
to the Livros de linhagens. The Livros de linhagens, as well as their Castilian and
Navarre counterparts may lack unity but this can hardly be attributed to “trembling
hands” or to minds “which lost their bearings”.
Here an attempt has been made to approach the work of the Iberian author
from a medieval Iberian perspective rather than from that of nineteenth century
Romanticism. Various possibilities of analysis open up when the text is read in
this fashion: the new parameters could be the rise of the discrete unit; the archival
approach; the rise of the miscellanies and Þnally the centrality of the Livros de
linhagens; all are relevant to a recontextualization of Zacut’s Book of Lineages.
VI
The fundamental anachronisms in the approach to Zacut’s Book of Lineages are
apparent in yet another area. As is well known, in 1924 Freimann advanced the
idea that, appart from its traditional function as a tool for yeshiva students, the
Book of Lineages had another character. This was not restricted to a line or a
passage or chapter, but concerned the identiÞcation of the tendency of the work as
a whole. The purpose of the work was deÞned as: lehilahem neged ha-notsrim (“to
wage war against the Christians”).31
This emphasis on the polemical passages as providing a “unity” or a meaning
for apparently disparate texts has had too large and prolonged a following to
need rehearsal here. What may need recalling is that Freimann does not engage
in research on Iberian culture as a precise context of Zacut’s work and mind
set, relying, instead, on Kayserling. He is right, needless to say, in that in the
Yuhasin, as in so many other Hebrew works, there is no justiÞcation for or defense
of Christian dogma. The question is whether this discovery of c.1924 must be
the only approach to the Yuhasin or whether it is possible to move beyond such
conclusions.
At a Þrst glance, no stronger particularist text can be found than that at the
beginning of the Sixth Treatise or Maamar. The location is noteworthy because
31 Freimann, Sefer Yuhasin, ‘Introduction’.
[73]
Eleazar Gutwirth
this Sixth Treatise is precisely the most “Gentile” in its interests. This Introduction
may be worth reading somewhat more closely:
Since the knowledge of what happened in every period to every nation,
such as the generation of the ßood and similar matters such as earthquakes
and Þre [...] especially everything that happened to the nation of Israel [...]
strengthens our faith in the power of God and in his Providence over the
lowly and reward and punishment and many other similar principles of
the Torah as it is said in the Torah remember the days of the world [...] [
Introduction to the Sixth Treatise, 231 a and b].
On an initial encounter with such a text one would assume that Zacut seems to be
saying that the purpose of studying not only Jewish but universal, indeed cosmic,
events (“earthquakes”), is to strengthen belief in Providence. That is to say that
Providence is the objective and not cosmic, universal history. “Earthquakes” are
of no particular signiÞcance per se. It is the belief in Providence which is the
objective of study.
Such assumptions about Zacut’s transparency are somewhat problematic. The
“novelty” that Zacut is introducing is not Providence – one of the oldest most
common topics of philosophical, homiletic and other Þelds of discourse present
in Þfteenth century Hebrew writings. His Sixth Treatise however, does not consist
of old and common material in Hebrew historiography. The suspicion develops
that Zacut, whose topic here, as in other writings, is indeed “earthquakes”,
is legitimizing rhetorically his project (i.e. his concern with universal, non
particularist themes) by appeal to the concept of Providence. This suspicion grows
stronger if we note that Zacut himself is aware that “Providence” by itself is by no
means sufÞciently convincing to justify the practice of inordinate attention to the
non-particularist “earthquakes” or history. That is why he needs to offer additional
reasons, because “Providence” will simply not – by itself – justify the considerable
novelty of introducing into Hebrew historiography many recent materials which
are not particularistic. Zacut continues:
and it is also very useful for the Jews who live among the Christians to
polemize with them about their faith and that is why I mentioned sometimes
a few people from outside our faith who were not Þt to be mentioned such as
the people they turned into saints [...] because it was necessary to teach us a
great utility [Introduction to the Sixth Treatise].
Behind Zacut’s assertions about the polemical utility of historiography based
on Christian sources there is, of course, nothing more personal than the old
Talmudic maxim “know what to reply to the Epicurean” (BT Sanh. 38 b). Even
[74]
The Historian’s Origins and Genealogies: The Sefer Yuhasin
more relevant in reading the Introduction to a treatise is the awareness of how
conventional a practice this is – as can be seen from the long line of prologues
to treatises in Hebrew from Medieval Spain which justify concern with clearly
“alien” wisdom by developing the notion that it is useful in polemics. It could
be argued that such notions become more widespread in Þfteenth century Spain.
Thus, for example, Abraham Bibago writes in the prologue to his Hebrew work
on the Middle Commentary of Averroes to Aristotle’s Metaphysics that his work is
justiÞed because it will remedy the situation in which the Jews cannot answer the
polemics of the Christians. After reading the texts of the Judeo-Christian polemic
of Þfteenth century Spain, however, it is by no means clear that Averroes’ Middle
Commentary on the Metaphysics is their central concern.
Also of the second half of the Þfteenth century Crown of Aragon is the Catalan
scholar, philosopher and physician Abraham Shalom. His Sheelot are similarly
relevant. They are a Hebrew version of the questions on the Organon by Marsilius
ab Inghen. In his Introduction, Shalom aims to forestall and disarm critics of a
work so clearly concerned with “alien wisdom”. This is justiÞed by polemics. His
contemporaries who oppose philosophy are engaged in polemics by the Christians.
They are like silent dogs (Is. 56:10). Books on logic such as this allow one to
see both sides of any question, that is why they are useful in the Judeo-Christian
polemic. Hai Gaon is adduced as an example of how logic leads to victory in
disputations.32
Zacut returns to the polemic sphere in the following paragraph:
and similarly do not think that everything that is written in their history books
which I cited is true like our Holy Torah, God forbid, for from them you will
learn vain things and their right hands are lies. For myself I have seen with
my eyes things that happened in my time and after they happened they wrote
the same thing in their history books and it was not so and of course they lie
about things that happened in antiquity [...] for according to our chronology
we are in the 5264 to Creation and they claim 6703 to Creation [Introduction
to the Sixth Treatise].
He makes a number of points here. The more obvious ones are that the Torah is
true while the “history books” are different. But he publicizes the fact that he has
32 E. Gutwirth, ‘Hispano-Jewish Attitudes to the Moors in the Fifteenth Century’, Sefarad
XLIX (1989), pp. 237-262, at p. 245. Idem, ‘Actitudes judías hacia el cristianismo:
Ideario de los traductores hispano-judios del latín’, Actas II Congreso Internacional
Encuentro de las Tres Culturas, C. Carrete Parrondo ed., Toledo 1985, pp. 189-196.
M. Steinschneider, Die Hebraeische Uebersetzungen des Mittelalters und die Juden
als Dolmetscher, Berlin 1893; reprinted in Graz 1956.
[75]
Eleazar Gutwirth
read these history books. He is creating a model for his readers: that of the learned
scholar interested in chronology who does not abstain from reading “their history
books”.
Another point is that the chronology of the Christians differs from that of the
Jews which is true. And yet he has managed to inform his Hebrew readers in Tunis
about the chronology of the Christians. In some ways he follows a well established
Iberian Jewish practice of introducing Christian chronology into Hebrew texts and
of coordinating Jewish and Christian calendars including calendars of Christian
Saints. He has also introduced the study of chronology into the center of the
Jewish historiographic project by placing the issue in a strategic location of the
text, the prologue to the Sixth Treatise. While chronology was an old theme of
the Judeo-Christian debate, Zacut is not writing a gloss on a Bible verse alongside
hundreds of other glosses on different topics. More relevant would be the case of
the Yesod ‘Olam with its chronological dispute against Alfonso de Valladolid in
early fourteenth century Castile. But, unlike Zacut, Yitshaq b. Yosef Israeli does not
seem to be including it into a kind of manifesto of Jewish historiography. Indeed a
history of Jewish engagement with the question of chronology which takes account
of the available evidence is yet to be written. It would follow that we are not yet in
a position to determine exactly the turning points, the “fallow” periods and those
which contrast with them in the interest in and study of chronology.33
Nevertheless, considering the context of Zacut’s intellectual development
it may not be particularly necessary to continue to ignore the attention to the
chronological question in late medieval Castile and Aragon. Leaving aside the
inclusion of dates from the Creation in Ayala’s Crónica and its signiÞcance, we
may note the attitudes to the subject amongst contemporaries of Zacut. Thus, the
Christian chronicler and confessor of Queen Isabel, Andres Bernáldez, is usually
seen as a characteristic practitioner of the craft in Zacut’s area and period. His
image as a somewhat “folksy” southerner, more at home in a rural environement
than at court may have been overstated. In any case it is clear that – rather than
purely “witnessing” or “observing” surrounding reality – he had recourse to written
33 E. Gutwirth, ‘Fechas judías y fechas cristianas’, El Olivo VIII 19 (1984), pp. 21-30;
Idem, ’sephardi Culture of the Genizah People’ Michael XIV (1997), pp. 9-34; Sylvie
Anne Goldberg, La clepsydre, Paris 2000. Andres de Li’s Repertorio de todos los
tiempos (ed. and introduced by Laura Delbrugge, London 1999) is a chronology or
almanac which went through about ninety editions. Conceived by Bernat de Granollachs
in Catalonia in 1485, it was published as a Lunari for 1485-1550. It was translated into
Castilian by Li in the early 1490’s and includes sections on history of the physical
divisions of time, the Zodiac, bloodletting and phlebotomies. For the importance of
chronology in the non-Iberian, subsequent, later and modern period of the history of
scholarship see J. Weinberg ‘Introduction’ in Light of the Eyes by Azariah de’ Rossi
(translated and annotated by J Weinberg), New Haven 2001, pp.xxvii.
[76]
The Historian’s Origins and Genealogies: The Sefer Yuhasin
sources including books written outside Spain. Indeed it has been emphasized that
the passages on Jews and conversos in Bernáldez’ Memorias del reinado de los
Reyes Católicos are strongly indebted to one such source in Latin. This is Werner
Rolewinck’s Fasciculus Temporum which had been printed in Sevile in 1480. One
of its most visible features is the chronological tables which aim, amongst other
things, to coordinate Biblical and Greco-Roman chronologies. This could be seen
as a basic step in the Þeld. The attention to chronology and to confrontation of
different chronologies as components of the historian’s craft was being reconÞrmed
by the printing press in both Christian and Jewish practice.34
By this point in the Introduction, Zacut has already managed to convince his
readers that his own attention to and investments in reading “alien” non Jewish
sources and histories is not forbidden. Furthermore he has argued that it is desirable.
Zacut can now go even further:
nevertheless because sometimes in the Talmud – Babylonian and
Hyerosolimite – and the Midrash there are matters which they [the non
Jewish historians] narrate and inform us in more detail such as the occurrence
of Koziba the king and the abreviation of the years from the time of the evil
Titus; and all the matters concerning Hadrian the persecutor in whose time
was the matter of Beitar and the martyrs [lit. “those who were killed by the
Crown”] and afterwards about Antoninous the Good and in what year he
and his good brother lived and many other things [Introduction to the Sixth
Treatise].
That is to say, argues Zacut, that in order to understand the main texts of Jewish
scholarship, Talmud and Midrash, the texts of the Gentiles are necessary. They
“inform us in more detail”. It may be signiÞcant that he does not list examples
from the Biblical period nor the middle ages. The area which is illuminated by
non-Jewish sources is clearly circumscribed in this paragraph. The four or Þve
examples are drawn from Roman history. The main thrust is that in order to
reconstruct the past it is incumbent upon the Jewish historian to be aware of the
sources of information on the history of the Romans.
34 For Rolewinck and Bernáldez see E. Gutwirth, ‘The Jews in 15th century Castilian
Chronicles’, Jewish Quarterly Review LXXXIV, 4 (April 1984), pp. 379-396. It hardly
needs to be pointed out that neither Rolewinck, Bernáldez nor Zacut can always be
taken seriously as faithful, direct, unmediated “sources” for the realities of the past.
Amongst the numerous scholars who have dealt with this problematic character of
medieval chronicles in general, and Bernáldez in particular, one may recall Tarsicio de
Azcona who compared Bernáldez’ narrative to a Hollywood set.
[77]
Eleazar Gutwirth
Also they all rely on Yosef ben Gurion the Priest. Although I also [do not ?]
rely upon him and he also speaks through exaggerations [guzmot] and
grandiloquence and his chronology is not according to the Torah [his sums
are not according to the judgement of the Torah] all the same, despite all this,
since the sons of our people want to know everything [...] [Introduction to
the Sixth Treatise].
Zacut’s attack on Josephus may seem perfectly conventional. The rejection
of Josephus by medieval Jewry is well known. On the whole it is a matter of
consensus, even if we accept the view that Yosippon is somehow Josephus, and
even if we take into account the problem of the Latin versions. The “return to
Josephus” in Hebrew texts is associated to some degree with modernity despite
all the problematics of the rejection of Yosippon. But even if we do not agree
with such associations, it is clear that the decision to include Josephus, to mention
him explictly in a Hebrew text and the discussion on the historiographic merits or
otherwise of his works is a signiÞcant step. Similarly the question of guzmot as a
factor in the approach to ancient sources cannot be dismissed as trivial.35
That is to say, that Zacut is introducing c.1504 a number of concepts into
discussions of the theory and practice of Jewish historiography. These concepts go
far beyond the old conventional Þeld of polemics. The idea of Zacut that “the sons
of Israel want to know everything” does not come from the Þeld of Judeao-Christian
polemics. It asserts the notion that curiosity is a real factor which explains the
attraction of the endeavours known as history. The author has to take into account
the reading public and its “curiosity”. To be sure, consciousness of curiositas as
35 The nachleben of Josephus is a rather large Þeld and the return to Josephus as well
as the identiÞcation of Josephus as source when he is not explicitly mentioned as
such deserve separate treatement. My emphasis here is on the two notions: 1. guzmot
and 2. chronology. Although our concern here is with Zacut, it may be recalled that
according to Eric Lawee (‘Isaac Abarbanel’s Intellectual Achievement and Literary
Legacy in Modern Scholarship: A Retrospective and Opportunity’, I. Twersky
and J. M. Harris, eds., Cambridge, Mass 2000, pp. 213-247 at 227) Zacut’s Iberian
contemporary, don Yitshaq Abravanel adduces Josephus in his writings far more than
his Jewish contemporaries or predecessors and he was also the Þrst among high and
late medieval Hebrew writers to utilize authentic writings of Josephus. The three
texts cited are Ma‘ayene ha-yeshu‘a 375; Kings, Early Prophets 478 and 519. The
question was mentioned by Baer and also by Gregorio Ruiz, Don Isaac Abrabanel y
su comentario al libro de Amós, Madrid 1984. For the problematics of Josephus in the
subsequent history of scholarship see J. Weinberg Light of the Eyes, passim. Meyer
Waxman claimed that Abravanel was the Þrst exegete to invest so much attention in the
chronology of the Bible; see M. Waxman, A History of Jewish Literature, New York
1933, pp. 45-51. The relation between Abravanel and Zacut might deserve separate
treatement. For guzmot see Weinberg, Ibidem, passim.
[78]
The Historian’s Origins and Genealogies: The Sefer Yuhasin
a factor in other cultures and areas of Þfteenth and sixteenth century European
creativity is not entirely new. Nevertheleess there has been a renewed and intense
attention to Þfteenth and sixteenth century curiositas and its relation to writings
in that period. We can no longer dismiss Zacut’s proclaimed objective – satisfying
Jewish curiosity – as a cause or factor in the composition of the Yuhasin.36
At this point, Zacut moves on to develop a concept which, as has been shown,
had already been raised in the Introduction to the whole work, namely the role of
geography in historical works. Zacut speaks of
[...] [a] more extensive [history] as happened in the Land of Israel, Italy and
Greece and Egypt and Babylon and Turkey places where most Jews live and
are mentioned in the Torah such as Tsur [...] which is Tiro in the language
of the Christians [...] and they erred [in their identiÞcation of the ancient
place names] as they did in the case of Tunis which is Tarshish which is
called Tarsos [...] and because of all these details about Spain and France and
Germany, we have left out all of them because they make no difference [...]
Writing in Tunis c.1504, Zacut is (or believes he is) in a privileged position to discuss
the identiÞcation (or misidentiÞcation) of Tarshish and other toponyms related to
the past such as the history of the Karaites.37 Jewish sources alone are insufÞcient
to deal with the geographic aspect of Jewish history. Personal inquiries, research
or experience as well as attention to non-Jewish, Christian sources are required.
This is the practical message behind the surface rhetoric of legitimization. The
constant and strenuous efforts which he invests in the identiÞcation of toponyms
in the Þrst pages of the Sixth Treatise should alert us to the signiÞcance of his
enunciation of the principle that geographic research is necessary in the work of
the Jewish historian.
Finally, Zacut proposes an argument which completely shatters the illusion of
transparency and naive simplicity produced by the surface appeal to lehilahem – to
wage war against the Christians. Indeed the primal and necessary step for such a
36 Neil Kenny, Curiosity in Early Modern Europe: Word Histories (=Wolfenbüteler
Forschungen 81), Wiesbaden 1998; B.M. Benedict. Curiosity: A Cultural History
of Early Modern Inquiry, Chicago 2001; Peter Harrison, ‘Curiosity, Forbidden
Knowledge, and the Reformation of Natural Philosophy in Early Modern England’, Isis
92 (2001), pp. 265-90; Richard Neuhauser, ‘Towards a History of Human Curiosity:
A Prolegomenon to its Medieval Phase’, Deutsche Vierteljahrschrift 56 (1982), pp.
562-78; A. Labhardt, ‘Curiositas: Notes sur l histoire d’un mot et d’une notion’,
Museum Helveticum 17 (1960); Hans Blumenberg, ‘Curiositas und Veritas’, Studia
Patristica 81 (1962), pp. 294-302.
37 E. Gutwirth, ‘The Sefer Yuhasin’, loc. cit.
[79]
Eleazar Gutwirth
“war” would be to distinguish clearly between two sides, one consisting of purely
Christian ideas and the other consisting of purely Jewish ideas:
and also many things are useful as the Gentiles admit that they may have
found them in the ancient literature of the Jewish scholars and because of our
sins in this long Diaspora and because of the persecutions we have lost [the
ancient literature] such as the astronomical books of the sons of Isaschar or
the medical books and books of natural science composed by Solomon the
King about trees and stones and herbs and the faculties of the stars and also
the narrrative of the events of the ancient times [232 a].
The notion of translatio studii is common to a number of medieval texts. It is
expressed in different languages, occurs in different genres and different cultures. It
could also have different objectives. Zacut is heir to Iberian Jewish traditions. These
include variations on translatio studii. The version of Yehudah ha-Levi’s Kuzari
current in medieval communities has the haver, i.e. the philosopher, manifest that
in King Solomon’s time they used to “come to translate his wisdom from afar even
from India”. Maimonides’ Guide in the Hebrew translation current in the middle
ages refers in negative terms to the Jews of the past as “translating” the words of
the Gentile philosophers. Qalonimos ben Qalonimos’ Igeret Ba’ale Hayim argues
that in the days of Ptolemy the Greek, philosophers transfered Jewish wisdom into
their land. In the same text it is afÞrmed that “Solomon translated into Hebrew [lit.
our language] the books which he took from the nations on mechanics, witchcraft,
conjurations, talismans”.38
In Zacut’s Castile, Abraham ibn Nahmias of Ocaña, in the late Þfteenth century
translates into Hebrew Thomas Aquinas’ Commentary on the Metaphysics and
justiÞes this by, amongst other things, the argument that the true tradition comes
from Moses; it was lost because of the calamities and therefore it is simply being
recovered and here he adds a variant: one must grasp the gold in their pockets. Eli
Habilio, another Þgure whose work consisted of attention to non particularistic,
Christian and pagan texts, translates Thomas Aquinas’ Quaestiones disputatae De
anima. He justiÞes this because they were treasures stolen from the Hebrews and
one must return the lost object to its rightful owners.39
The notion then, had a number of uses. It could reassert particularism by a
genealogical claim to “priorities” and “origins”. On the other hand it could produce
38 See the discussion in Gutwirth, ‘Entendudos’.
39 The connection between translatio imperii and translatio studii may be richly
documented in Hispano-Jewish writings. Some of the evidence is discussed in E.
Gutwirth, ‘Oro de Ophir: el árabe y Don Shem Tov de Carrion’, Bulletin of Hispanic
Studies LXVII (2000), pp. 275-286.
[80]
The Historian’s Origins and Genealogies: The Sefer Yuhasin
different results. Thus, the thrust of Zacut’s employment of this old motif (in the
new context of historiography) is that since the origins of alien (Christian, GrecoRoman) wisdom (in the Þeld of history) are Jewish, the wisdom is Jewish and
therefore the Jew can legitimately engage in the reading and discussing of this
(only apparently) alien but really and originally Jewish historical wisdom. The
culmination of his justiÞcations of the pursuit of history by the Jews is that:
the true prophets were intensively occupied in this and it was very useful [...]
for these stories console the heart and instill the fear of God in the heart of the
[audience] [...] on the eve of the Day of Atonement they used to read before
the High Priest the Chronicles, Job, Daniel and Ezra. Rashi commented:
things that attract the heart and please it and all those who hear them and
thus he does not fall asleep. Maimonides commented that there are stories
and chronologies [lit. sums of times gone by] which please the heart and he
does not slumber. So all the Gentile kings learnt from this to write such as
Ahasuerus’ chronicle which saved Mordecai [...] that is why I composed
this book Yuhasin to inform about the saintly Jewish scholars because one
must tell the story of all the matters that happened since the Creation and the
differences between us and the histories of the Gentiles and the difference
between the corn and the chaff I mentioned here [Introduction to the Sixth
Treatise].
The practice of history, Þnally, is justiÞed as consolation, pleasure and identity.
The practices of consolation in Zacut’s age had a long history behind them. The
discrete Þeld of consolatory practices developed by the Greco-Roman authors had
marked clearly the lines along which consolation had to proceed. Not only the
general area but also the particular arguments and motifs and even the contiguity
of the motifs had been charted by them. Subsequent critical historical work has
shown his inßuence on vernacular literary practices in Zacut’s own context, that of
late medieval Iberia and particularly in Castile. More recently it has been argued
that Iberian Jews were perfectly well aware of the practices and conventions of this
literature down to its minute details. One of these details was the list of monarchs
and emperors and events from the past which (like the ubi sunt motif) showed that
death and misfortune was inevitable and that it spared no one and struck even the
highest in the land. These practices became part and parcel of European culture in
general and of literature in the modern languages of Europe in particular.40
Zacut’s notion that history’s function is consolation is, thus, comprehensible
within the cultural context where it is enunciated.
40 See Gutwirth, ‘Consolatio’.
[81]
Eleazar Gutwirth
The notion of the pleasure of the historical text or narrative is another utility
adduced by Zacut. As has been shown elsewhere, this was a notion current in
Hebrew texts of historiography printed in the sixteenth century written from an
Iberian Jewish context and directed at an Iberian Jewish audience. Ultimately,
it could be traced to medieval thought, that is, to – amongst others – medical
ideas of certain types of pleasure (music, for example) as part of the remedial and
healing process. Zacut’s arguments in favour of the Þeld of historiography reject
the commonly cited Maimonidean prooftext against history and, instead, invoke
another Maimonidean prooftext to sanction the study of history.
The notion of translatio studii in its version of “Spoils of the Egyptians” is, as
has been seen, a recurring motif or topos of numerous Introductions to medieval
Hebrew texts of “alien wisdom”.41 Individual authors could produce variations on
this theme. Zacut argues that Jewish engagement in matters historical precedes
that of the “Gentile kings”. They are derivative, belated imitations. That is to say,
implies Zacut, that history writing is not an “alien” activity, although he knows
that the “Gentile Kings” engage in history. This realization, acording to his
Introduction, justiÞes his own activity of searching for, reading and rewriting in
Hebrew the matters which he found in the non-Hebraic, “Gentile” books.
41 It may be recalled that there is an Iberian Christian context or tradition. The Topografía
e historia general de Argel, Madrid 1929, written by Fr. Diego de Haedo reßects the
period of the 1580’s and end of the sixteenth century. Its third volume is devoted to
dialogues held in the Argel prision between a Spanish Christian and a descendant of
Spanish renegados. After an encomium of books, the conversation moves on to the
discernment between different kinds of books and from there to the difference between
“alien wisdom” i.e. pagan books and Christian ones. The simile of the Egyptians is
repeatedly used here. Certain readers of the philosophers “ni gustan ni pueden gustar
sino de aguas corruptas de los charcos de Egipto” [p.7]. Books of philosophy should
be left to the initiate only: “para los que ya tienen [...] los sentidos exercitados y son
suÞcientes con maña y artiÞcio hurtar a los egipcios las riquezas y las joyas preciosas
que tienen”. In the late sixteenth century the idea was still being articulated in a Spanish
context that alien wisdom should be appropriated. The notion comes from Augustin’s
Christian Doctrine (c. 397 c.e.), Book 2, chap. 40 is devoted to arguing that whatever
has been rightly said by the heathen must be appropriated. The main subject of the
argument is Platonic philosophy. In the Middle Ages, Peter the Venerable commends
Eloise for her appropriation of the spoils of the Egyptians; she is a woman of wisdom
who chose the Gospel instead of Logic, the apostle instead of physics, Christ instead
of Plato, the Cloister instead of the Academy, “you snatched the spoils of the enemy”.
Julia Bolton Holloway has argued that a basic metaphor of Dante’s Divine Comedy is
that poetry itself is Egyptian and that, like the spoils of the Egyptians, it can be used to
fashion the Golden Calf or used to adorn God’s Holy Ark. See Julia Bolton Holloway,
‘Egyptian Spoils, Roman Jubilee, Florence’s Patron’, Studies in Medieval Culture 12
(1978), pp. 97-104.
[82]